Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 09-03• MERIDIAN CITY COUN IL SEPTEMBER 3. 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, Charlie Rountree, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Chief Gordon, Richard Tomlinson, Tracey Persons, Rod Keller, Mike Ballantyne, Becky Bowcutt, Rod Linja: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 20, 1996: Corrie: Any corrections or alterations to those minutes? Entertain a motion fpr the approval of the minutes. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that the minutes of August 20 be approved as printed, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD AUGUST 26, 1996: Corrie: Any alterations or corrections to those? Entertain a motion for those. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the Special meeting minutes held August 26, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED AUGUST 6, 1996: FINAL PLAT: FIELDSTONE MEADOWS NO. 5 SUBDIVISION BY GARY VOIGT: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I believe that has been on the table waiting a presentation from a representative from Fieldstone Meadows. Is somebody here tonight representing that, so we can have a presentation? If not can we table and move on. • • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 2 Corrie: Is there anybody here?. Tomlinson: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Council members, my name is Richard Tomlinson, I work with Hubble Engineering. I don't have much of a presentation aside from the fact that I did receive, my office received on Friday and I was able to look at this morning the staff comments and I have prepared a little response letter that I didn't get back until later this afternoon (inaudible) I brought some copies. Corrie: (Inaudible) Tomlinson: If you would like I could go through each one of these items or I can just, (inaudible) look at this we have basically answered anything on there (inaudible). Corrie: Okay, I guess we will let you off easy then tonight, ,right now they probably have some questions for staff. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would like to ask Gary and Shari, are you satisfied with the responses from the letter that was sent out today concerning their comments with both your general comments and the site specific comments? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I guess the only question that I would have for Rich would be concerning the drainage ponds. We have recently had some problems in other subdivisions with ponds that have for one reason or another retained water. Whether it is ground water we are not sure. But the one thing that we did find is that it creates a terrible nuisance for the adjacent property owners. And particularly in the form of odor and mosquitoes, I am not sure that mosquitoes was a big issue but the odor certainly was. This particular pond although it was located next #o a drainage did not have a overflow pipe into the drainage. The resulting solution was to dig away one side of the bank of the pond so that it would drain into the drainage along side of it to get rid of the water because it wouldn't seep out, it just stayed there. So a basin that is a true retention basin can create some problems unless there is a way for the water to either percolate out or an overflow so that it can drain out. The Highway District has taken an attitude for maintenance of these ponds and limited it to heavy maintenance. By that they mean correct me if I am wrong Richard, but I think it means they will come in with their (inaudible) equipment and they will muck it out if it fills up with sand and silt. Other than that they are leaving the maintenance of the pond surface up to the homeowners association. That would be if it is grassed the homeowners would be responsible to maintain it by mowing it. If it is not grassed I guess they would be responsible to keep the weeds down and so forth. One of these ponds on these subdivisions is kind of tucked around a residential lot. I think it is lot 23 in block 5. We were a little bit concerned about its general location with regard to access for maintenance. If the Highway District sign off • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 3 on it as far as maintaining it from a heavy maintenance standpoint but I just didn't want to get involved in something that was going to create a problem for the homeowners living next to it. If we don't, if we have a retention basin and not just detention. Unless there is someway to drain it sub-surface wise into a subsurface drainage field perhaps. I have seen that done before as long as there is not a problem with ground water. Richard has indicated that will be part, they will be digging holes if they haven't already to monitor the ground water and come up with that level, that historic high water level. I just don't want to get into another situation, Los Alamitos is the subdivision that we are having problems with right now. If you go out there, at least I was out there about 2 weeks ago and it was just a gaping hole through the bank of the pond drain it out into Nine Mile Creek. Shari has just said that Whitestone has a similar problem with their basin. So, just wanted to make sure that we didn't have another problem come up because first place that the property owners call is City Hall and they want to talk to Shari because that is where I send the phone call. It does cause lots of phone calls and I know that Shari got more than she wanted to get from the lady that lives next to the one in Los Alamitos. I guess that is the only concern that I had with Richard's comments, his response to our comments or my assistant's comments. Tomlinson: As Gary indicated we will be doing some (inaudible) test pits out there to establish where ground water, the seasonal high ground water is and do some swale logs. So, the possibility that we would be able to put a percolation area in the bottom of the trench (inaudible) so that anything that is retained from the 100 year storm which is what we are designed for would in a sense be able to percolate into the subsurface ground water within the 24 hour period following the storm. Also, the reason we didn't show an overflow right now on the ponds is we don't have any access right now to that drain right now, it is on another person's property that is adjacent to us. Just preliminary indications are that they don't want to have an easement across there for any time in the future. That would be our first wish is that we could do that instead of building a subsurface trench. We will probably end up doing something subsurface for percolation instead of (inaudible). Corrie: Council any questions on that? Any further questions from Council? Morrow: My only question would be Shari you are satisfied then with the responses to the general comments and the site specific comments? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I guess provided if you make the condition that they meet all staff and agency conditions I have no problem with that. Corrie: As written you mean Shari? Stiles: Not necessarily as responded to by the applicant but that they meet staff and Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 4 agency conditions. Tomlinson: The conditions that we have (Inaudible) ~J Stiles: That all of these things be done before the final plat is done from the staff report. Tomlinson: (Inaudible) Stiles: You will provide the plat with the setback lines and all of the changes that are required prior to submitting your mylar or simultaneously with your mylar for signature right? Tomlinson: Right Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Fieldstone Meadows No. 5 subject to all staff and ACRD, Nampa Meridian conditions. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we approve the final plat with the conditions, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED AUGUST 20, 1996: FINAL PLAT: CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY KEVIN HOWELL: Persons: Last time this final plat was before you it was tabled for redesign issues. I have addressed Shari Stiles' comments and the City Engineer's comments. Unfortunately I did it late and so I wasn't able to get it to Will to hand out to you. Would you like them now? I guess we addressed all of the comments previously and basically I have just gone back through and readdressed them. We have made changes to the final plat as you can see in front of you. There is just a few items in particular that I would like to go over. One is the concern over the lot size that we had in the subdivision. We have redesigned and we have an average lot size of 7,042 square feet per lot. We have an average frontage of 74.11 feet which exceeds the R-8 standard. The Finch Lateral was previously shown as 80 feet we have reduced that to 77 feet and we have worked with John Anderson of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. He has agreed to this, it is an actual reduction not an encroachment and we will do that through a license agreement that is before the board on the 17 of this month. You can see that from the back lot line in there is a 12 foot portion of that 77 foot easement and it was originally 15 feet and that is where we have reduced Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 5 it. Also, Shari had commented on landscaping common lot along Locust Grove. We have added a common lot to the frontage on Locust Grove there it is lot 23 of Block 2. We are having prepared a landscape plan profile at this time and we should have it submitted to Shari for her review some time hopefully next week. We have also submitted a development agreement, unfortunately that was also this morning so I am sure that Wayne hasn't had a chance to review it yet. But, we submitted that this morning and hopefully that should be approved and recorded sometime within the next few weeks. Do you have any questions about the comments? Rountree: I just have one, you indicated a lot average size but what is the minimum lot size? Persons: The minimum for the R-8 zoning or on our plat? Rountree: On your plat? Persons: It looks like the minimum would be around 65.12 Rountree: Do you know which lot that would be? Persons: Lots 25, and 26. I actually had a sheet of paper where I figured it all up but I didn't bring that with me. Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Questions of Council for the staff? Morrow: Yes Mr. Mayor, Gary and Shari, you have a comment or copy of the general comments and site specific comment responses as provided. I would like to have your comments concerning those proposed solutions or answers to the issues with respect to the square footage and the lots, the frontages. The other things that were in the site specific comments (inaudible). Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I have just skimmed through these comments, I don't know that I am prepared to address them as they have been submitted at this time. I think by ordinance the lots are required to be 6500 square feet and if there are any questions as to the size of the lots the engineer would supply us with a lot closure for it. That 6500 square feet would be lot area not including easements for open ditches. Same thing with the street frontage, we need to have 65 feet of frontage and we have taken that as being along the lot front from corner to corner. So I don't quite know what Tracey means on item 4 under site specific but culdesac lots or lots on 90 degree angles, we need to have the 40 foot frontage on the chord. If we have some corner lots and one side doesn't meet 65 feet then and the other side does then we require that the lot show which Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 6 way the lot will be facing if that becomes a problem anywhere. Persons: So Shari, on those lots is that right on those corner lots, the ones we are talking about? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I think that site specific comment #4 was on these corner lot$ and they have adjusted those. Bruce and I took a few minutes, we didn't have time to get completely through these comments. But, we did at least get to that one and they have at least adjusted those lots so they meet that 65 foot frontage on both sides. The main item that was of concern before was that the difference in the easement that they showed in the preliminary plat and what they had shown on the final plat. The applicant is aware that unless they get approval from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District actually relinquishing 3 feet of their easement which is not 80 feet they have to have 3 feet in addition to that to even meet the square footage requirements on these lots. That can be a condition of the final approval, they also have a development agreement that has not yet been before Council that will require approval before we can sign the final plat. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think from my perspective having reviewed the information and just seeing the responses to the site specific comments, we don't have, the development agreement apparently has just been submitted and the same with the CC&R's and there is a forthcoming agreement with Nampa Meridian concerning the 3 feet Shari is alluding to. Gary is .somewhat hesitant to commit I sense because of lack pf time to review. It seems to me it would be appropriate for us to put this on the table for two weeks to allow our staff to do the job they are supposed in terms of reviewing this application and then being able to tell us if it works as per the conditions or it doesn't work and make those necessary adjustments if it doesn't work. Corrie: Any further comments from Council? Rountree: I think that is appropriate that we consider tabling it until the September 17 meeting. Morrow: Second Rountree: I will make that motion then. Morrow: I will make that second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we table the final plat for Chamberlain Estates No. 2 subdivision until September 17 until we have further staff comments, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 7 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED AUGUST 20, 1996: AMENDED ORDINANCE #3-101 -GENERAL LICENSE CONDITIONS: Corrie: We have had a request from the Chief of Police to table that until September 17 the next meeting. Morrow: So moved Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to table item #3 until September 17, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION N0. 5 BY GEM PARK II DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: Council you have the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve and adopt these findings of fact and conclusions. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as printed, any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it is decided the variance from 11-9-604 11 is hereby granted and that the plat must be recorded on or before April 4, 1997 and is then (inaudible) approximately 1 year of the time requirements (inaudible) • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 8 Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion and seconded to approve the decision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #739 - BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER ANNEXATION: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 13, T.3N, R.1 W., B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #739 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #739. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move we approve Ordinance #739 with the suspension of rules. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we approve Ordinance #739 with the suspension of rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: TABLED AUGUST 6, 1996: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, as a refresher, the reason for table on August 6 was, we had to do the annexation, was there any other outstanding reason other than that? Corrie: No, we needed to get the proper order. Gary do you have any problem with it at all? Smith: No I don't. Rountree: I have a question for staff that the responses received from Keller and Associates July 9, in response to staff's comment letter, have they addressed the issues • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 9 that you have raised Gary and or Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I believe that they have or that they will prior to getting their final plat approval. Corrie: I see Jim out there going yes. Morrow: I have a question for Gary in terms of that same Keller letter, I had tagged here that under response to site specific comment #3 they are requesting that the sanitary sewer extension along the Fuller access easement be omitted. What is the status of that now? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Morrow, the sewer line extension in that easement would be required if property adjacent to that easement needs sewer service. There is a sewer line that is being constructed in Meridian Road by Rick Thomas and part of his development would build that sewer. It is at a fair depth that sewer line could be extended to the west. So we just need to work out the details of how far west that sewer line could be extended. A similar issue I guess would be the disposition of that easement road and what its surfacing is going to be. I think that one of the reasons .for my comment was to get if it is going to be paved for example that we need to get the sewer line installed under the pavement, ahead of the pavement so that we don't have a five year moratorium to deal with. I suspect that I have talked to Rod about this but I can't remember what we discussed. He is here this evening and maybe he can help us out a little bit. Linja: My name is Rod Linja with Keller Associates, I have talked about this with Gary and one of the ideas or thoughts was that this access across that easement if built if needed so forth to give that second access depending on how the Meridian Road is actually improved or what year that is improved. The requirement by ACRD requires a 29 foot road and all roads within the plat are 41 feet. What our comment is it really doesn't provide any benefit to the Troutner Business Park and if indeed it was needed at a later time it could be built outside an existing paved 29 foot access. So it wouldn't really have an effect on any five year moratorium because it could be built outside the 29 foot width. That was our comment on it. Along with the thought of not knowing how best the property that it is actually going through would be served by sanitary sewer whether it would be directly to Meridian Road or to the sewer line that is in this easement so our concern was one it doesn't have any benefit to the park and second it may not serve any use at all in the future. If it was needed at some time in the future it could be built without going through and cutting the paved surtace. That was our request. Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, did you indicate, I thought I heard you say when that access • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 10 road was built, it appears to me that if I am understanding the concept right here that it is built right upfront, is it, because it is the second access into the property. Linja: The way that it is set up right now is it is phased, there are two phases, two primary phases. The first phase abuts Franklin Road and goes South to Eight Mile Lateral so that is a very short segment of it. Any, the second phase would be the remaining part of the subdivision that would require the secondary access. I can grab one of the plats if you want me to explain that a little bit better. The first phase would be the lots that abut the road way through here and so the comment from your Fire Chief and (inaudible) thought it was appropriate that one access be allowed until just time that there would be any cross over of the Eight Mile Lateral and this would essentially be phase 2 and at that time this road would be constructed across that access easement to Meridian Road. Morrow: Phase 2 obviously includes a portion of block 2 where it comes back across the Eight Mile Lateral, block 3 I am sorry. Linja: Yes it does, essentially with the concerns of the Fire Chief and having the two accesses it really restricts this to really a 2 phase development. One being this here (inaudible) punch this through pretty much the remaining part of the subdivision turns out to be phase 2 automatically. Corrie: Any further questions? Rountree: From what you just said then I am to understand that the treatments on I believe it is Pennwood and the street to the north as far as the turn around section would be part of phase 2 or would that be done initially? I am talking about those two treatments there which are fairly significant issues with the adjacent owners. Ballantyne: Mayor Corrie members of the City Council, I believe we are required by the City to put in the landscape buffer, at that time we would take care of those two hammer heads. Rountree: That would be at phase 2? Ballantyne: Phase 1, we would have to do that initially. Rountree: That was my understanding but I wanted to make sure. Ballantyne: That is initial and that is no problem, it makes the most sense, that is where we are putting that landscaping in and we have the trucks and they are paving the first phase will pave out those culdesacs. Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 11 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a little confusion here. You are talking to Mr. Rountree about the black with the white marks there, based on that plat it doesn't appear to me that there are any culdesacs. Originally the contention was that we are not going to hook those up to Pennwood and the other street and keep them out of the residential area. Rountree: Right, what they are proposing to do in their lots is to provide for a hammer head type turn around at the end of those streets instead of just having the barricade at the end of those streets (inaudible) from the back side they would not go into the subdivision and then they would be incorporated with that planting strip along the entire border with the adjacent residential. Ballantyne: There is more than enough room in that planting strip to place those two hammer heads that keeps people off those residential lots and there is still I believe 11 feet at the end of the hammer heads that will be continued to be a landscape buffer. That of course will all be fenced as part of the perimeter fencing and all paved out with no parking signs to make sure Morrow: The point is that your users will have no access to those hammer heads? Ballantyne: Correct Crookston: I just have one question, what you have shown is a landscape plan, is your plat the same thing? Ballantyne: Yes, this is the exact same plat it just shows the landscaping, it is made nice and pretty so that we can get approval tonight. A blatant attempt to win approval. Corrie: Any other questions? Morrow: I have questions of staff, a couple questions, I have notes here that talked about variance for a culdesac length, is that still applicable here and also a variance for the Eight Mile Lateral tiling? Are those issues still applicable Gary and Shari? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members Shari said you approved that at the last meeting. Morrow: Okay, in terms of the site specific comments and their responses. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members I guess I need to go back and revisit the sanitary sewer thing. I don't think there is enough room to build a sewer line after the pavement is in. I think the sewer line needs to be resolved ahead of the pavement. If we are building a 29 foot section and that is a paved section and we are looking at a 41 foot ultimately • i Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 12 section and we are dealing with the difference between 14.5 feet from centerline and 18.5 feet from centerline that is 4 feet. We are outside the utility corridor for sewer I think if I remember correctly. I think it would be very difficult to dig a trench to this depth without disturbing or destroying the edge of that pavement that has been built. I think that sewer line needs to be decided ahead of this pavement. If the Highway District is going to require the pavement on phase 2 of the project I think we need to resolve the sewer line installation at that time at the very latest. There is a vehicle for the developer to recover some funds, the late comer agreement. If that property develops adjacent to this or when the property develops adjacent to this access way the developer could simply because they are the only people using this sewer line they could simply reimburse the developer for his cost. But the sewer line is installed and the pavement the roadway section is not destroyed in the process or the time the 5 year moratorium isn't needed to be addressed. Ballantyne: Can I speak to that? Our understanding Gary from ACHD is that they wanted us to put the asphalt strip on one side. So the 29 feet, are you envisioning the 29 foot asphalt strip being 14.5 from the centerline going down the center? Smith: Yes Ballantyne: Okay, they had explained it to us that they wanted it to one side and that would give 12 feet on the other side. Our concern was just that with the size of those remaining properties or the remaining property that has been split that and the fact that it fronts on Meridian Road most likely that is going to be a single use development and office building and they would pull their sewer off of Meridian Road. So we are putting a sewer line in that may never be used. Our feeling was that because we moved it to one side there is enough room that if at some point we do need to put that sewer line in there is plenty of room before we pave it. That is how we understood it. Smith: That would make sense if the pavement is on the north side because the sewer needs to be on the south side of centerline. If that is the case then I believe there would be room to build a sewer at a later date. I hope I haven't confused you too much. Corrie: Any further questions from staff or Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Ballantyne Troutner Business Park by Jim Ballantyne subject to all staff and ACHD and Nampa Meridian conditions. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made that we accept the preliminary plat for Ballantyne Troutner Business Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 13 park with conditions, Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: One final comment for our staff, Gary and Shari this is between now and the final plat time then we will be covering the development agreement and the CC&R's and those kinds of things. So some of the issues that you are concerned about with respect to this sewer access or sewer alignment on the easement road will be well covered within those two documents. Is that fair enough? (End of Tape) ITEM #7: REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT EXTENSION OF CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO.6 (FORMERLY NO. 5) BY RON NAHAS: Morrow: Do we have the exact due date of that, is the due date, I don't see it on this document, am I overlooking it? Rountree: It is not on there. Corrie: Shari do you know? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I do not know the date on this one, if you could make it contingent or to the date the plat was approved. I did get a call from the applicant's representative today and they are proceeding. If you have noticed, they are landscaping along the Interstate there, they are proceeding to put in some pressurized irrigation and hoping that it will make it a little more attractive to people that want to come in and buy some lots. That is where they are at right now and they are still vigorously marketing but have not plans to plat at this time. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant the request for a final plat extension of Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5 formerly No. 6 for a one year period from the anniversary date of the expiration of their final plat. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Rountree for the approval of the final plat extension one year from the period. Any further discussion? Tolsma: Mr. Morrow got his No. 5 and No. 6 inverted. • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 14 Morrow: Please amend the motion to reflect so. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion as amended? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION OF LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: Corrie: This is again a request for one year. Rountree: I have a question for staff, is this the first request? Stiles: Yes Morrow: I guess the theoretical question for staff is that this is not the phase with which you are having trouble with in terms of the retention pond is that correct? Corrie: Is that correct? Smith: That is correct. Morrow: Let me ask you this are you experiencing any success in getting that problem solved other than just cutting out the side of the bank? Bowcutt: I thought I was going to get away without having to say anything. We did not design the retention pond in that Los Alamitos No. 2, there are two ponds the problem they are is the ground water has risen and it is seeping up through the bottom therefore filling the ponds. The water since it just keeps seeping up obviously doesn't percolate therefore it ,becomes stagnate, there are odors, mosquitoes and so forth. I have been in contact with the Highway District, I have talked to Shari and I have talked to Gary's staff. We got permission from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to make an emergency cut into the bank of the Nine Mile Drain to alleviate the problem. We have plans at Nampa Meridian right now being reviewed. I have been in contact with them, Bill Henson indicates that their engineer Mr. Sharp is looking at those plans presently. So we are waiting to hear back from him. I talked with Dorel Hanson and Steve (inaudible) at Ada County Highway District 1 informed them of what we were doing to remedy the situation. One of the complaints is obviously the aesthetics of the ponds and then the situation of this nuisance water. We feel that the overflow outlet to the Nine Mile Drain will take care of the nuisance problem. We have done a drawing which was taken by the clients to the homeowners association meeting about 2 weeks ago which showed some landscaping. We showed now that we • • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 15 have an overflow that we can kind of cut the banks down so we don't have such a, just a big hole, it is more manicured look. The neighbors, my understanding is they are still upset, they want a remedy to this as soon as possible. My answer to them, I sent them a letter that we sent the Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dis#rict is I can't do anything without proper agency approvals. Until such time as we get approval for this overflow then we can pursue other remedies for the aesthetics for the situation. One thing that has been talked about is just fencing the facility so that it is not visible nor does it create a hazard if a child were to fall in. That was one of their other concerns because of the standing water and I think the slopes on it are 2 to 1 they thought it created a hazard. So we are doing everything we can to try and remedy this situation. Any other questions? Rountree: I have a question Becky, does ACRD have any design standards or criteria for these detention ponds? Bowcutt: Yes Rountree: And this particular one even though the problems it has meets those standards? Bowcutt: I was told that Ada County Highway District approved this design, obviously in order to get their approval on their street plans they would have had to have their drainage approved. The only thing that I don't believe was in compliance is they indicated that if something has a 3 to 1 slope it needs to be fenced, it is mandatory, this facility is not fenced. Rountree: That may be something that we want to talk to ACHD about the next time we meet. (Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that based on Ms. Bowcutt's presentation that we approve the preliminary plat extension for Los Alamitos No. 3 to November 8, 1997. Rountree: Second Come: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the request for a preliminary plat extension to November 8, 1997, any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION OF SALMON RAPIDS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: • • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 16 Corrie: This one is October 17. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant the one year extension to October 17, 1997 for the preliminary plat of Salmon Rapids No. 3. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the preliminary plat extension of Salmon Rapids No. 3 to October 17, 1997, any further discussion? Rountree: I just have a question for staff, again, is this the first application for extension Gary or Shari? Morrow: If I might answer that, we went through a lot with Mr. Goldsmith on Salmon Rapids and the Los Alamitos, I think we are dealing now with the first of the extensions because we had substantial time with him on these projects trying to get them squared away. As I recall we were working on these this time last year were we not? Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT EXTENSION OF SALMON RAPIDS N0. 2 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: Corrie: This would be an extension of final plat date to January 18, 1997 am I correct? Shari has a letter. Morrow: I guess I am a little confused by this letter, it says the Council approved the extension of the final plat of Salmon Rapids No. 2 on May 21, 1996. This would extend the final plat date to January 18, 1997 if we approved it. May 21, 1996 would that not run fo May 21, 1997? Rountree: Not if went back to the original plat approval. Morrow: (Inaudible) Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, I did write the applicant a letter that indicated Salmon Rapids No. 2 was not eligible for another extension that they would have to go through the variance process. • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 17 Corrie: So this was a second request for an extension? Stiles: Yes Rountree: An extension of an extension. Morrow: Are you indicating then Shari that the original extension that we did the one year extension expired on May 21 of this year? Stiles: They would have until May 21, 1997 with the extension of Salmon Rapids No. 2 to plat. No I am sorry the extension was to May 21, (Inaudible) Rountree: It is either a typo or it is overdue. Stiles: He was requesting an extension beyond the January 18, 1997 date to plat Salmon Rapids No. 2. That was what his request was for. He wanted an additional 6 months beyond the January 18, 1997 date. Morrow: So I am still confused here. The original final plat was due to expire on May 21, 1996 or it expired May 21, 1995 we granted a one year extension to May 21, 1996 and now 3 or 4 months that it has been expired and he is asking fora 6 month extension to January 18, 1997. Rountree: Mr. Morrow, we granted an extension May 21 far 6 months to November 5 of 1997 at the or 1996 at the request of Mr. Goldsmith. That was six months. Morrow: And that was his request, what we are saying then is that his letter here based on that is not correct. He gets one extension even though it is only for six months. Rountree: He has had one extension for six months at his request. Morrow: My question to the Counselor would be is does one extension for a period of time (inaudible) encompass a year. Obviously here (inaudible) could have asked for a year. So by virtue of what Shari is indicating is if (inaudible) second extension that is not (inaudible). Crookston: The extension is for the period of time that the Council granted, it doesn't matter if it is for a year or six months or 3 months or whatever. The extension only lasts as long as the Council granted that previous extension to. There is no right in our ordinance for an extension, that is up to the Council. Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 18 Morrow: So the answer is basically he is asking for a second extension in order to do that he would have to have a variance. Crookston: That is correct. Corrie: Is that what, yours is a little different than that but I think it is the same thing as that is that correct? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council the ordinance reads that the Council can grant a single extension of up to one year. Morrow: And he has already had his first extension and now he is asking for a second one. So now we need to instruct him that he has to apply for a variance. Corrie: That is correct Morrow: Either that or file his plat prior to the November 5, 1996 date. Stiles: Correct Bentley: Mr. Mayor I would move that we deny Mr. Goldsmith's request for extension of Salmon Rapids No. 2 and inform him he would either have to file for a variance or complete the obligation to submit the plat before the closing date. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree in reference of the request fpr final plat extension, discussion. Morrow: I have just a (inaudible) it seems it doesn't expire until November 5, 1996 do we take this action now or November 5? Crookston: I don't think you take any action tonight other than deny the request. Corrie: I think that was the motion to deny the request. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: REQUEST FOR BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ALBERTSONS: Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 19 Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Gary, did the sewer and water issues get settled out there? Smith: Kind of, I think we have an item on the agenda for tonight under Wayne's agenda to talk about those. Rountree: I have a question, it is my unfamiliarity with the ordinances. Is there a prohibition about selling alcoholic beverages that close to a religious institution in the City of Meridian or is it hard liquor? Gordon: It is by the drink. Crookston: There will however be a school, I am not sure if it is 300 feet or not. Rountree: It is considerably further than that unless they are building right on the front edge of that property. (Inaudible) Corrie: Any further questions of staff? Rountree: I just have a further question of the chief if he sees any reason to, we always ask for your advice on these? Gordon: (Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, given the Chief's approval ~ would move we approve the beer and wine license for Albertson's Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that the beer and wine license for Albertson's be approved, discussion? Berg: As far as part of the application is to give us a copy of the County and the State license for this and we have not received that. So I would like a condition on that motion if you see feet. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would subject the motion to include the receipt of the County and State documentation that Mr. Berg needs. • • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 20 Crookston: You would need to withdraw the initial motion and second. Corrie: I will entertain a motion to withdraw. Morrow: I will withdraw the motion. Tolsma: I will withdraw the second. Corrie: You may now do the motion Mr. Morrow. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that approve the beer and wine license for Albertson's subject to the receipt of the necessary documentation from the County and the State. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the beer and wine license subject to receipt of County and State licenses, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING AND HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER BY ROBERT HALE: Corrie: Is Mr. Hale here tonight? Smith: Mr. Mayor, that name is Flaten, it looks like Hale on his letter. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I don't know that he has requested an annexation and zoning at all, at least it has not been heard by Planning and Zoning. Smith: Mr. Mayor, may I comment, I talked to Mr. Flaten on the phone, from his letter his predicament is that the drain field for the home that is existing out there in which I believe he said his parents live is within the developed area or to be developed are for Danbury No. 7 I think the number is. Apparently they didn't realize it until they started doing some improvement work over there and got into it. So that is the reason for his request is to connec# to the City sewer and water or at the very lust the City sewer because of this septic tank drain field problem. He doesn't want to pay the double connection fee since he is in the County and the double connection is assessable to him by ordinance because he is in the County. He needs a quick fix I guess you would say for a sewer problem that exists. I don't know apparently they didn't know the location of the drain field, I can't be Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 21 certain of that but I would assume that if they had they would have made provisions for this. Shari indicates that she thinks he was the owner of the property that is being developed and so I guess the question is why wasn't this piece annexed because it is just a single lot dimensioned 125 feet wide by 165 feet deep. Well it is a little bit bigger than a single lot but it is a one dwelling parcel. They did stub out to the property when they built the sewer line in front of it in Adkins Lane. So his request for an immediate annexation is for relief from the double connection fee assessment. Shari indicates that you have stated that he has not gone through the proper channels for annexation as far as filing an application. Tolsma: He said that he needs to hook up to it immediately? Smith: Yes that is my understanding. Tolsma: But according to the letter here he would like to be annexed (inaudible) so the procedure would be a double hook up fee with 1/2 refunded after his annexation is processed. Pay the double fee up front so that he does pursue the annexation. Smith: I guess that would be up to the Council to do that, but that would be a good idea yes. Crookston: He would have to ask for a variance from the double hook up fee. Tolsma: If he paid the double hook up fee up front and then go through annexation process and get annexed could you refund 1 /2 of his fee? Crookston: That would be up to the Council he would have to request that. He would also have to pay the double annexation or the double hook up fee upfront. Morrow: Does he have to do a variance if that procedure is used still? Rountree: He wouldn't be varying from anything. Crookston: We would have to at a minimum have an agreement with him that was what he was going to do. And he would have to pay the double hook up fee and then it would be up to the City then thereafter to act on his request to have it refunded once he is annexed. Morrow: But I guess my question is i the statute that requires the double fee would not require us to have a variance to enter into an agreement like that. • • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 22 Crookston: No, because he is in fact paying the double hook up fee. He is meeting the ordinance not varying that. Morrow: (Inaudible) Crookston: You are not giving it back at this juncture. Corrie: Only his request after he does the annexation. This is kind of a way to see that he does the annexation from his response that he doesn't want to pay a double hook up he could get half of it back if he asked for it back after the annexation. Crookston: But you don't want to take any action that indicates whatsoever that the Council will be granting that. Morrow: So at this time we can really do nothing with this agenda item until the necessary applications are made is that what you are telling us? Crookston: That is correct. Rountree: Other than instructing that he has to pay the double fee. Crookston: You can do that. Rountree: It seems to me that they made a conscious decision when they sold and platted that (inaudible) I don't know that we need to exercise a great (inaudible) Morrow: No there was a specific intent not to be part of the City of meridian (inaudible). Corrie: I guess we need a motion either to deny or to accept the request. Smith: Mr. Mayor, may I make one more comment, the, in light of what has happened in other areas of town on properties in the County adjacent to a sewer line operated and maintained by the City, Central District Health will not allow him to construct a field drain on his property because there is a sewer in front of his property they will require that he connect. He really doesn't have a choice as to what he is going to have to do it is a matter of how much he is going to have to pay. Right now the ordinance says he pays a double connection fee. Morrow: I think basically what the Counselor has instructed us Gary is that all we can do with this agenda item for tonight is indicate that we have to deny the request for annexation and zoning and hook up to the City sewer with the exception by paying the • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 23 • double fees he then can immediately hook up to the City sewer and then his ultimate remedy is to make the proper request and applications for annexation and zoning and at that point in time once that is accomplished then he can approach the City about whatever it is he wishes to do. Smith: That is fine I understand. Thank you Rountree: If that was a motion then I will second it. Morrow: That was a motion Mr. Mayor. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that the request for annexation and zoning and hook to the City sewer hereby denied. If he wishes to hook up to sewer was denied. Berg: My question is are you denying both the request to hook up? Morrow: No we are denying the request for annexation and zoning because there is no proper application. Berg: I know but then are you accepting his Morrow: We are accepting the hook up to the City sewer with the double fees. Rountree: Do you want to make a motion to that effect? Corrie: I think he did and I am not finished saying what I thought he said. Let me go back the request for annexation and zoning and hook up to City sewer by Robert Flaten is hereby, however he can hook up to the City sewer with the double payment fee at this time if he so desires. Morrow: And the rest of the motion was to be instructed to make proper application for zoning and annexation. Upon satisfactory completion of such then he can renegotiate with the City Council. Corrie: You heard the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 24 ITEM #13: NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDIVISION: Morrow: Mr. Mayor I have a question for Counselor, have you read the proposed non- development agreement and is everything in order? Crookston: I have not read it, I don't believe that I have it. Corrie: This came in the 29th of August. Check your file Counselor. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, while the Counselor is checking his file I think Mr. Smith has a comment that he wants to make. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Will gave me a copy of this non-development agreement and I have reviewed it. From what I can tell it is pretty comparable to what we have used in the past. I did have a question about the description of the lots that are being proposed as non-developed. The legal description that they included in the agreement is the description for the entire subdivision. I think the legal description since it is not a platted subdivision no and cannot be referred to as lots and blocks needs to reflect only those lots that they intend to exclude from development. That is my thought. Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I would move that we table this until our September 17 meeting to allow the City Engineer Smith and City Attorney Crookston to review and have the non-development agreement and legal descriptions in their proper order. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to table the non-development agreement for Raven Hill Subdivision until September 17 meeting, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRAILER IN MORNING GLORY SUBDIVISION BY PRESCOTT HOMES: Corrie: Any discussion on the request? Is there anybody here from Prescott Homes? Berg: I talked to this gentleman when he gave this request and told him that he needed to be here at the City Council meeting to answer any questions that you may have. Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 25 Morrow: Did he indicate a willingness to do that? • Berg: Yes he did, unless apparently some emergency came up. Morrow: I would move that we table to September 17 for a presentation by Prescott Homes. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to table to September 17 meeting for a presentation by Prescott Homes, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Corrie: Turn off schedule for 8-7-96, this is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to a predetermination hearing at 7:30 P. M. September 3, 1996 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on September 4, 1996 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest their water/sewer/trash delinquency? They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they do appeal their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $16,315,14. Entertain a motion for the turn off schedule? Tolsma: So moved Morrow: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Tolsma, second by Mr. Morrow that the delinquency and turn off schedule be approved, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: APPROVE BILLS: Morrow: So moved Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 26 Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the bills, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Corrie: Gary Smith, City Engineer. Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members, all I have is a sewer pipe line crossing of the Union Pacific Rail Road. This is for the extension that Ronald Van Auker is proposing to build east of town. It will cross under the railroad 1621 feet west of the center line of Eagle road. The standard Union Pacific Rail Road agreement has been sent to us by them and it requests that Council approve the City signing of that agreement. It is the same agreement that we have signed on all of the other crossings that we have made of the Union Pacific Rail Road. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest the agreement between the City of Meridian and the Union Pacific Rail Road for the 10 inch domestic sewer pipeline crossing west of Eagle Road at (inaudible). Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, the motion to have the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk attest to the signing for the 10 inch domestic sewer pipeline crossing, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Gary anything further? Smith: That is all Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I had one item regarding the building to the south of us. Dean Ehlert has sent a letter to Mr. Jay Amyx regarding the sales lot and other uses on the property. He has failed to respond or to ask for an appeal so I would like to ask the Council to direct the Counselor to proceed with some kind of action against him. Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 27 • Morrow: Question to the Counselor, do we not have, is this a process where we just go back to the court for compliance like we have done before? Crookston: Yes it is I believe, I am not sure exactly. I believe that just cars being out in the parking lot or on the pavement in the alley is that not correct Shari? Stiles: With for sale signs on them. Crookston: That is in violation of the court's order. We would just go back and go back for a contempt citation. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to purpose a contempt violation for the Amyx property. Rountree: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we instruct the City Attorney to go for the contempt violation from the courts, Mr. Amyx and his selling of cars on the property. Any further discussion, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Anything else Shari? Chief? Wayne Crookston? Crookston: Yes Mr. Mayor and Council, the Mayor and Gary Smith and I had a discussion probably Tuesday or Wednesday of last week, could have been Monday. We discussed whether or not the City would consider the easements, the late comers agreement and the access easement of Albertson's, the access easement relates to going into the Lovan property. The sewer and water relates to going, having an easement to go into the Lovan property with sewer and water. There is an agreement for covenants, conditions and restrictions that relates to the access between the Lovan property and the Albertsons property. I informed Albertson's attorney Dick Mollerup that I would request that the City consider that but that if Gary Smith had not had time to review the matter that there would be no ability for Gary Smith to make a recommendation. I believe that it is as in most of these types of situations with the sewer and water a necessity that Gary Smith approve of what we are doing and that is where we are now. We have received final documents this afternoon which I only brought to Gary this evening. I received them probably about somewhere between 3:00 and 3:15. I was working on other City matters and I did not get them down to him. I don't know if he had time to look at them anyway. But I did tell Mr. Mollerup that he could come to this meeting, he is here tonight. I believe if the City Council desires to hear his comments I think that would be appropriate and to have Gary say whether or not he has had time to look at it. If he has not had time to look at it then I don't anticipate that the Council wants to make any decisions. Mr. Mollerup indicated to • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 28 • me that he did not necessarily feel that it had to have Council action tonight but he wanted to get it considered if that is at all possible? Is that not correct Mr. Mollerup? Mollerup: (Inaudible) Thank you Wayne, as you know we have been discussing the issue of sewer and water easements across Albertsons parcel to the parcel to the west for some time and we have had discussions about whether or not the ordinances apply in this case. Albertson's has come to the decision that in the spirit of cooperation and wanting to get their store open they are willing to grant the easements to the City. The easements we granted are basically taken almost entirely from forms we were supplied by Mr. Crookston that you have done before. We have added the City's signature to them because they do contain maintenance provisions by the City as to your forms. (End of Tape) Albertson's is feeling some time pressure, they have a store opening in October and they have a lot of planning to do for that. This is their 800 store, they would like to make a decision whether or not this can be their 800 store or whether they have to shift that to another store within the next 2 weeks which is why we were pressing for tonight's Council. The easement agreement is not a document that the Council needs to sign or the Mayor needs to sign but it is one that we would like to get some approval on that it does comply with the requirements that have been placed on the preliminary plat. As I understand it is now a requirement of Albertson's construction. I would be glad to answer any questions, I don't know if Gary Smith has had a chance to look at the final documents. The drafts we submitted 10 days or two weeks ago the easements have not changed with the exception of adding the dimension to the pipes that were actually installed. Late comers agreements have not changed from the previous draft except for filling in the blanks once we found the dimensions of the land, the actual construction cost for those easement or those pipelines. Corrie: I guess my question Gary is the cost it seems awfully high at the time it was presented here Gary, has that changed? Smith: Mr. Mayor, yes it has, they allocated the costs to the properties on the basis of area I believe. I just looked quickly at the copy that Wayne provided to me this evening and the cost to the Lovan property is significantly less than as I recall than what the griginal estimate was. But I haven't had a chance to really look at it closely. It does look reasonable. Mollerup: If I may, Albertson's bill (inaudible) was in the neighborhood of $8500, we allocated the cost of the entire sewer line not just the additional, but only the additional portion of the water line. We didn't allocate the line that was run down from the intersection of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane to the curb cut. I think Albertson's paid for that in connection with their building permit and then didn't pay the contractor for it. Based on the allocations of the square footage I think it comes out to in the neighborhood of $3500 for the late comer fee. So it is a significant savings over the actual cost. Albertson's is not Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 29 • concerned with the actual cost as much as getting the conditions satisfied. Crookston: I have reviewed the agreements after I got them, I did that this afternoon. There are some changes that I would like to see, those are items I think the Council should take a look at it, I think they could approve them subject to my approval. But I think as I said we have to have Gary Smith's acceptance of these sewer and water easements and probably the access easement. The CC&R's that relate to the use of the access easement really is something that has to be agreed upon between the Lovan's and Albertsons. Mollerup: Or whoever owns the Lovan's. (Inaudible) the Ada County Highway District required a cross access easement for both properties so that people on the Lovan property can cross access and go out onto Cherry Lane and likewise Albertson's patriots can cross the Lovan property. The idea was when the Lovan property got developed it could be developed with one curb cut and not two as I read the correspondence from ACHD. That necessitates that the Lovan's or whoever is the ultimate owner of the Lovan property because I understand it is to be marketed some time in the future, grant an easement to Albertsons. So I don't believe the Lovan's or anybody knows exactly what is going to happen so it is pretty much a fallacy to set where that easement is going to be. This document says that they will grant Albertson's an easement at a place to be reasonably located by them. Since we don't know how that will be developed. The other issues with regard to that agreement are the cross access easements if that property is developed commercially it will begin to look like the same center. If the property values of that property should be enhanced by virtue of being able to get the cross traffic from Albertson's without going into Cherry Lane and having to come back against traffic which was the ACHD concern for that value (inaudible) reasonable to Albertsons that there be grocery restrictions so they are not value enhancing a competitive business. Likewise we would like to have some normal noxious restrictions that as long as it is going to look like the same center (inaudible) theaters and pornographic things. They are the normal (inaudible) Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council, the CC&R statement is basically an agreement between the Lovan's and Albertsons, I don't know that the City really has any input into that necessarily. So I think that the only thing that the City is dealing with is the two easements and the access easement. Mollerup: I agree with that Mr. Crookston, with the caveat that some (inaudible) requirement of the preliminary plat approval for Albertson's (inaudible) become a requirement of Albertson's construction. So their concern that their certificate of occupancy be held pending the resolution of that issue. So I guess what we are looking for from Council is that this document get signed and recorded will that satisfy the (inaudible) u Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 30 Crookston: That would be something that I would have to leave up to Gary Smith because I am not aware of that construction requirement. Mollerup: I have not seen anything in writing on it but Ada County Highway District is telling us that is (inaudible) It is a concern of Albertson's that the store opening not be delayed because of that issue. I would like to try to resolve the sewer and water easement (inaudible). Morrow: I would ask for Gary Smith's comment with respect to the construction questions that are being asked here. Smith: I didn't catch the comments on the construction part of it. I didn't understand what was said. Mollerup: The requirement for cross access with the parcel to the west was a requirement of Ada County Highway District in the process of the plat approval as Albertson's was replatting in order to sell off a parcel. The preliminary plat was approved subject to all staff and agency requirements including the cross access easement. Up until about 2 weeks ago I have always considered that to be a purely platting issue and not anywhere connected with the construction of Albertson's store per say. In that light it would affect Albertson's certificate of occupancy. In discussions with Ada County Highway District Albertson's engineers were told no you are wrong if you don't do this you won't get your certificate of occupancy (inaudible). We tried to trace that, we cannot find, we can't determine anyone from the City that has ever said that. My question is one of clarification, whether or not that was the case. Smith: I haven't talked to Albertson's in the last two weeks. Mollerup: This was some time ago and no one is saying, this is third hand information by the time it gets to Albertson's and I am afraid it is like the kids game in the circle, I don't believe it to be true but I thought I would ask the question. Smith: I haven't talked to anybody about the cross access easement myself. The only thing that I have talked about is the sewer and water easements trying to get that resolved. Mollerup: So in your opinion they would not hold up the Albertson's certificate of occupancy (inaudible). Smith: Well, Shari was just saying that the Highway District does sign the CO. Morrow: If I may here, I think what Mr. Mollerup is asking Gary is that Albertson's needs • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 31 the CO apparently ACHD has told Albertson's that they are not getting their signature on the CO until the issue of the cross access agreement has been addressed and that was one of the conditions of the preliminary plat. So, what he is trying to find out is if that in fact is true, is that not correct Mr. Mollerup? Mollerup: That is true, I don't know quite frankly if is the ACHD signatures being held up or ACHD is saying that the City of Meridian would hold it up. I was led to believe it was the latter which was a little hard for me to believe actually. Morrow: So I guess the question would be is if it is ACHD, if ACHD is going to hold up their signature on this CO for this cross access agreement if it is then we need to work out that agreement with them. If the point is that it might potentially be us that holds it up then that is something that we can handle internally. In that case the CO would not be held up for their opening. Does that help you? Smith: I think the cross access easement comes back to the plat from our stand point. Mollerup: (Inaudible) Smith: Can I jump back to the easements for sewer and water. I reviewed the easement forms and they appear to be the same format as Mr. Mollerup said that we use. The language therein doesn't create any problem for me. These lines both sewer and water are service lines. When we started this process with the plat re had requested that I can recall the sewer specifically that an 8 inch sewer line be installed up to the end of the line that Albertsons' was going to construct for their store. So that the City of Meridian could operate and maintain, own, operate and maintain that length of sewer line as a City line. It would not be considered a service line because it is a diameter. Plus it would give additional depth to provide because it is a flatter grade to provide service to the west and the intent was to extend it on to the west. Bur right now they are service lines and by ordinance we can't maintain a service line. So, I don't know where that leaves us other than we had requested that the service lines be extended to the property to the west for service. And because the sewer service line was extended as a 6 inch line it had to be run at a 1 % grade and by the time a 4 inch line was extended off the end of that line to Lovan's property it is about 3 foot deep is all. It was kind of this is what you get so take it. It is there right now. Like I say, it is just a matter of the City being responsible for these service lines and we aren't elsewhere responsible for a service line. We have some control over main lines, we have the ability to clean those main lines with our equipment. We don't on service lines. Particularly 4 inch service lines, I can't speak specifically or absolutely about 6 inch service lines but we don't have that luxury on a 4 inch line. Mollerup: Gary it is my understanding that they did install a 6 all the way over. I am trying, Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 32 are you telling me that the City cannot maintain a 6 inch line? Smith: I don't know physically whether we can or not. By ordinance it is considered a service line because of its diameter, because of its grade by the Uniform Plumbing Code, 4 inch and 6 inch lines are service lines. By ordinance the point of responsibility for maintenance by the City ends at the beginning of the service line. That is a technicality but it is a question that I needed answered because we are doing something different than we have done before as far as the maintenance issue. Because this easement is written to the City and the City is responsible for the maintenance of this line. I don't know that we have a choice again but it is just something that I wanted to bring up. Mollerup: It brings up an interesting issue, Albertson's doesn't particularly care, I don't believe, whether or not the City maintains the line. They would probably just assume maintain it themselves but then that brings me back to the issue of do we need to grant the easement to the City if the City is not maintaining it. Smith: No, but there would need to be some kind of an easement between Albertson's and whoever the property owner is to the west. So that property owner had the right to use that line I would think not being a legal person but I would think that cures. But I think there needs to be some protection for their use of the line since it is being extended to their property boundary. Mollerup: Our original proposal was to grant an easement to Mr. Lovan and not to the City. Our proposal with Mr. Lovan was to grant an easement for use of both the water and sewer lines particularly the sewer line. But that at such time in the future that the Lovan property could be hooked up to a City line in Ten Mile then the original proposal before it was (inaudible) that easement would extinguish it (inaudible) Albertson's even agreed that only the maintenance portion would discontinue so that they could continue to use the line until such time as it required tearing up Albertson's parking lot to maintain it and then (inaudible) We could go back to that but (inaudible) negotiating with Mr. Lovan and I have got this date looming on the horizon of, that puts me back a month or two. Smith: May I ask a question, why would it need to be contingent upon a service being available in Ten Mile Road? Mollerup: (Inaudible) private easement (Inaudible) then it is only reasonable that he hook up to a real (inaudible) Smith: I could say that the sewer line wouldn't in all probability never be extended in Ten Mile Road because it is not going anywhere else. It would only serve that piece of property and it doesn't seem to me that it would be any owner of that property would want to incur Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 33 the cost to construct how many feet of eight inch line it would take to get to his property if he already had a service. If the line went onto the west and served other property then yes I agree with you. Mollerup: (Inaudible) Morrow: Let me ask you this, I have a technical question; we can do, what we are really after here is the certificate of occupancy, we could do a temporary CO given the resolution of this issue. It seems to me like given all of the ramifications here that this issue needs to be resolved at least preliminarily by our Counselor, Mr. Mollerup, Mr. Smith and the Lovans. I don't think from my perspective that I am going to go out on a limb with those four parties and say you guys work it out and then we will approve it. I think I would like to see that agreement, I guess the issue here is that pending the resolution of those items we can do a temporary occupancy certificate as that being the only outstanding item that allows Albertson's to be open. That allows the four or five parties including the Council that are involved in this to sit down and look at it from all angles and get everything. worked out. I think that is the direction that I would like to see us go. I offer that as a discussion item. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I don't see a problem with the temporary CO the only thing if that is granted we need a time period when that expires because like many things if it doesn't expire it gets left there. Morrow: I think Mr. Crookston the answer to your question is that with all temporary CO's there is a time period or there is supposed to be a time period for specific performance of whatever is being granted for the temporary CO. That would be part of just out it is written up. I think that certainly (inaudible) Crookston: That would be fine. Rountree: Is that a reasonable solution to Albertson's? Mollerup: It is, I have one comment (inaudible) I have had this argument with Wayne in the past, before we are granting a private easement for now a private line, I am having a little trouble seeing why Albertson's (inaudible) so the ordinance applies. Crookston: I think under the circumstances what happened was that the City requested the 8 inch line initially and that is what the City desired. Then it would have been a requirement that the easement be granted by Albertsons, it run to the City, the line got put in at Albertson's doing without the City's knowledge or agreement. Mollerup: Well it was after a meeting about the 6 inch line. • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 34 Crookston: Is that correct Gary? Smith: Yes Mollerup: (Inaudible) Crookston: That is all my comment on that. Mollerup: (Inaudible) temporary or conditional CO. Cowie: I have a question, what happens though once the time limit is up Counselor, what do we do then, do we close them down? Crookston: If the temporary occupancy permit expires Albertson's would have to close. I think they could very easily come back and say we need some more time to work it out or I don't see a problem with a request to renew that temporary occupancy certificate. Cowie: I just want to make sure that everybody understands where we are coming from here. Balter: (Inaudible) Surplus property representative with Albertson's, kind of in charge of the platting process that brought this whole thing on. My comment is pretty straight forward, the only observation I see is the City has told us to go and negotiate with the private individual and pending the outcome of that issue or that negotiation our CO may be taken away. It seems to me that puts the other individual and we have no reason to suspect that our neighbor is not a good one but it certainly gives them a lot of power over us in the negotiation process. It seems to me that since it is the City's requirement that we grant these easements that the City can approve the easements as being reasonable. In other words like I say we have no reason to suspect that our neighbor is not a good one, but when you put that much power into somebody's hands in a negotiation it puts us at quite a disadvantage. As far as the sewer easements and the water easements is straightforward. Essentially (inaudible) and it seems to me the City can say neighbor if you want these easements this is what we would get, this is what you get if you don't it is up to you. Similarly the access issues (inaudible) the only problem I have with the proposed solution is that it puts us at a real disadvantage. It is the governmental agencies that are telling us to grant these easements but they won't tell us how much of an easement we need to grant or what conditions we can make it subject to. So it seems to me that the motion could be that pending staff and Mr. Crookston's approval we only have to go so far. In other words we won't continually be held as a hostage this is a very important store for us this is number 800. We can get it open but if the rug is jerked out 6 months later because we (inaudible) that is a huge problem for us. i ~' Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 35 Mollerup: We are willing to grant Mr. Lovan the same easements that we have granted the City. I am guessing that we are willing rather than having full maintenance on the part of Mr. Lovan to do a shared maintenance. In fact I think we would (inaudible) and just look for reimbursement. Rountree: I don't know we would expect more. Crookston: I am sorry I was writing, you would do shared maintenance is that what you said? Mollerup: Sure, any maintenance on the sewer line would be shared on the square footage basis and Albertson's would perform the maintenance and (inaudible). Those remedies are normally the ability to place a lean if it is not paid. Morrow: I guess what I would like to see from any of these (inaudible) there is a different, I don't know what Mr. Lovan's thoughts are concerning this at all but it would be good to have his input certainly to see what his thoughts are so we have some common ground to start with as opposed to just agreeing to, had Albertson's put in the 8 inch line in-the beginning none of this conversation would be taking place if I have understood what Mr. Smith has kept me apprised of (inaudible). It seems to me that before I would be willing to set the parameters that I would like to at least here what Mr. Lovan's thoughts are for his piece of property recognizing that he is not the ultimate user in all reality. Mollerup: In response to that Mr. Morrow may I ask a question? Gary is the 6 inch line should be more than sufficient should it not to serve Mr. Lovan's property if it is not extended? Smith: I think so, that is a lot of capacity for that size property. Mollerup: So the only issues we would be discussing then would be monetary issues with Mr. Lovan and not whether it is a 6 or 8 inch line or whether it is installed (Inaudible). So we would be back to the maintenance issues. Morrow: From his standpoint, obviously it is too late now, but had it been an 8 inch line to begin with then there wouldn't be a limiting factor from his standpoint in terms of the elevation of 3 foot it would have been much deeper. That might impact his sale at some point for the need of ejection pumps and so on and so forth. He could make the argument that it diminishes the value of this property because of the height of the line. Now I don't know where any of these things are going to come from but I don't think from my perspective it is fair to give somebody an upper hand. What you have is the preliminary discussion between all of the players to see where the common ground is. I am a little Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 36 uncomfortable with saying yes we will give, these are the parameters that Mr. Lovan has to negotiate from without ever having heard anything from Mr. Lovan. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I think too that Mr. Lovan is going to have to play a part in this but I also feel in regards to Albertson's situation that he shouldn't be given carte blanche for the ability to hold them hostage either. I think there needs to be some reasonable request from Albertson's in there too. Rountree: My concern on this is if we were pursuing easements for ourselves and willing to accept the terms and conditions why would we expect anything different or would be negotiating for Mr. Lovan if the easements were with the City. Would he have been made a part of the negotiations of those easements. Morrow: I think the easements with the City had it been an 8 inch line then the development potential for his property would have been broader and it would have been our line. Rountree: I understand that but I also understand that there has been some direction given that the 6 inch line would be acceptable after the fact and through a convoluted process, but there has been some blessing by the City that 6 inches is okay. So at what point do we draw a line in the sand and say this is what we can do. Morrow: I think once again from my perspective I simply haven't heard anything from him, I agree with Mr. Bentley that nobody needs to hold Albertson's hostage but by the same token Albertson's doesn't need to do somebody else's thinking for them either. We have not heard anything from that property owner in the process and the original design was that we wouldn't be going through any of this exercise because it would have been a City maintained, City owned line that would have been substantially deeper in the ground and some other things going on there. So I just simply what to make sure that owner. of that property at least has the chance to be heard. I don't want him to be a stick up guy, t don't want him eliminated from the process. Rountree: To try to summarize what has been said then, you are looking at a temporary CO for Albertson's and an effort on the part of the City, Albertson's and the Lovan's to negotiate an agreeable easement arrangement between Albertson's and the Lovan property in order for the temporary CO to become a permanent CO. And the City acting ,guess as a moderator or a mediator in these negotiations. Corrie: Probably a facilitator more than anything else. Rountree: A facilitator so we can (inaudible) • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 37 Morrow: I think the City acts as a facilitator so you do two things, one is you bring the limits of fairness for both sides and secondly is that you have control of the time frame in which these things take place and can continue to move it forward and push it on so it is brought to a reasonable conclusion. Mollerup: I guess my only thought (inaudible) I think absent the City ordinance of not having a 6 inch line for City we would have more than likely signed that easement tonight and Mr. Lovan would have a 6 inch line with late comers agreement. We are willing to give him exactly that with the shared maintenance. I have not talked with Mr. Lovan, I have talked with his counsel a couple of times. Those conversations were very short and in the frame of my client is not paying you anything. He has been copied on our initial correspondence and he was copied on our initial proposal with that response. I don't foresee a short easy negotiation with him. Morrow: And that very well may be Mr. Mollerup, in my opinion at least the effort needs to take place. Once the effort has taken place if there is no willingness on his part to participate then very candidly our staff goes back to the City and says this is where we are at there is no desire on Mr. Lovan's part to negotiate and from that point on we make the decision as a Council as to where we want to go and we are off and gone. Mollerup: Can we include in the motion that the CO the temporary CO that (inaudible) before it is ever terminated that Albertson's has the opportunity to show the Council or demonstrate to the Council (inaudible) and that they have to be found unreasonable before it can be terminated. Corrie: Who would determine that Mr. Mollerup? Mollerup: The Council. Morrow: I don't have a problem with that at all. Corrie: Hearing that seems to be the agreement of the Council I will entertain a motion. Crookston: May I have a comment Mr. Mayor, the only thing I wanted to say as far as the CO all of the requirements for the CO have to be met. As I understand it you are not granting the CO tonight you are granting the right to receive it as long as the obligations to get it are met. Morrow: I think the motion Mr. Crookston would be that we are in no way impacting any of the other requirements of the CO we are simply offering our staff an opportunity to issue a temporary CO for this one item only to be included. It is up to Albertson's and their Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 38 builder and their folk to meet all of the other conditions of the CO and if landscaping can't be put in then they can bond as a condition to occupy at the date of October 1 if they wanted. Crookston: Right, I just wanted to make sure that is what the Council was doing so that we were not granting a temporary certificate of occupancy tonight. Morrow: I think clearly what we are here discussing in my mind is that we are not interfering with the certificate of occupancy process that our staff carries out in any way, shape or form. We are just instructing our staff that with this one item we will take, we will give them the guidance as to how they can handle it and everything else is to remain as normal. Corrie: Mr. Crookston you said you had some changes are those major changes? Crookston: They are not, they are just such things as making sure that the drawings the legal descriptions are appropriately included. There is no reference in the water line agreements about the drawing that was included in the document that I got. There is a question about it says that the easement is hereby granted with free right of access. I don't know that this, I think it depends on whose easement we are talking about. Talking about whether or not somebody can just go in there any time they wanted to. I don't know that the City would appreciate that. Again, a reference to the schedule I that is referenced, there is no document that is to my knowledge a schedule I, there is a document attached but it is not marked as Exhibit I. Incorporate the drawing again, those types of things there are not major items. Corrie: Thank you Morrow: Mr. Mayor, two items before I make any motion, as you will recall on prior occasions you will recall that I have declared that I am a stockholder in Albertson's stock. I would ask the reaffirmation that doesn't constitute a problem in the past the Council has voted that is not a problem. Corrie: How much stuck do you have Mr. Morrow, are we talking 1000 shares or less than 100? Morrow: More than 100 less than 1000. Rountree: As before I don't see any problem. Corrie: Anybody else on the Council have any problem with this? Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 39 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I am prepared to move that we instruct our staff with respect to a temporary occupancy cert~cate only concerning the item with the sewer and water access agreement easements need to be executed between Albertson's and the Lovan's and the City and the City is to act as a facilitator in those negotiations. The time limit cap for this to take place would be 90 days and that if there cannot be an agreement reached then the Staff and Albertson's are to return to the Council and the Council will take the necessary action to bring those to a conclusion. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr Tolsma, you have heard the motion, discussion? Mollerup: I understood your motion to be relative both of the sewer and water easements and the access easement. I understood that the access easement from our previous discussion was only a platting issue and not a CO issue. Morrow: That is correct based on our understanding based on Mr. Smith's observation and your representation is was a City issue and not an ACRD issue. Now if that becomes an ACHD issue at the time of sign off then we can deal with that. Mollerup: My question is 2 fold I guess, by your motion, have we made it a construction issue, by your motion have we made the ac.~cess easement a construction issue and I would rather not do that. If it not an issue with ACRD. Morrow: I don't think that the motion or at least the intent of the motion was not to make it a construction related issue. Mollerup: The way I heard your motion was that was one of the conditions of the temporary CO. I would like it not to be if it is not, it should be purely a platting issue because we don't know what is going to happen (inaudible) and we may not plat for another year (inaudible). Morrow: You are talking about the sale of your adjacent lot to your store, there has not been a plat filed as of yet and Gary and I have had that conversation. Counselor, (inaudible) Crookston: I did not see the occupancy being hindered by the access easement according to the motion. Mollerup: That is a clarification, I just wanted to make sure that if we have not reached an Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 40 agreement and we have reached an agreement on the sewer and water and the platting has not been done or still in process that the temporary CO can be transformed into a permanent CO. Am I correct in that understanding? Crookston: That is as I understood it. Rountree: If it is not then I am confused. If what Wayne just said it not correct than I am confused. It was my understanding that the cross access agreement had no bearing on the occupancy. Morrow: And that is correct, that was the point of the motion. Corrie: Any further discussion, I am not going to repeat that motion but I think we can get it on paper, I think we have discussed it and the access it not going to be part of that. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion as stated? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Mollerup: Just for my own information, is there a time limit on temporary CO's there was not time limit in the motion. Morrow: Ninety days, it was in the motion. Corrie: Mr. Crookston, anything further? Crookston: There was a question on the Economic Development Corporation about the attorney fees involved in that. In the past I had always billed the Economic Development Corporation for my fees, the reason I am asking the question is because I didn't want to mail a bill to anybody. In the past, at the time I did that I was a contract City Attorney, I am now a full time City Attorney. The Council has granted me the right to do some private work as long as it did not interfere. So I just wanted to raise the question as to how that should be handled. I can inform you, I talked to Walt earlier, I talked to Mayor Corrie about it earlier and I talked to Mr. Tolsma about it earlier, I can't inform, Mr. Corrie asked me to do this to find out what the amount (End of Tape) before I was City Attorney, I had 8.95 hours after I was City Attorney. I am according to the minutes of the Economic Development Corporation I am the appointed attorney for the Economic Development Corporation. The Economic Development Corporation is a different entity than the City but the bonds that were approved for Hi Micro Tools and Newberry Enterprises have to be approved by the City Council so there is some action there. I did not foresee this as a conflict of interest, I just wanted to bring it out so that the Council would know what is going on and so that they can take action and I would know how to deal with the matter. 1~J Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 41 Corrie: So we are talking 26.4 hours total? Crookston: Yes that is correct. Morrow: I guess my reason for asking it to be brought before the Council was that is I think we need to address this specific issue tonight and then more importantly philosophically in the future are we going to use the paid City attorney for that corporation as a Council when the corporation as the capability of hiring separate council. The issue is that it is billable to the applicant under that scenario. I guess the question in my mind in talking with Wayne was if it is a City Attorney relationship it seems to me that it gets a little confused and a little lost and how do you when the City is passing on, the City Council is passing on the bonds can you justify charging the client as the City Council before with the contract attorney who happened to have both of his clients. There wasn't in my mind an inherent conflict, maybe there is the other way. Roun#ree: I would perceive that there is a conflict with Counsel providing guidance to an independent group or corporation and providing counsel and guidance to the City Council at the same time on the same issue. Morrow: But he is am employee. Rountree: If he is a City Employee in both instances I don't see that there is a conflict. But if he is an independent legal counsel I see that there is potential conflict there. Morrow: I see that point and I think I agree with that. I think also in my mind though is that if he is a City employee it would appear to me to be inappropriate to have him as a Counsel for an independent corporation. Rountree: That would be my position yes. As long as there is direction given to both groups of folks that are interdependent of one another's actions. Morrow: I think in the short term how do we deal with this when we allow the billing for the 17.45 hours that were before the billing afterward as a City Attorney I guess we eat that and then (inaudible) and in the future dealings brings in another, hires another their own attorney and then all of it is directly billable to whoever the (inaudible). Crookston: That is how it is done at this time and has been done in the past. I can appreciate the comments I don't believe that there is a legal conflict but if that is how the City Council feels about that I have absolutely not problem whatsoever in honoring that. The reason I brought it forward was because I wanted it brought out and so that I could either quite frankly either bill all of it to the Economic Development Corporation, bill the Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 42 portion that I did before I was full time City Attorney or bill none of it. I just wanted to bring it out and have it discussed. Rountree: I appreciate you doing that and from my point of view again I can't speak to the legal conflict there but I believe that the perception would be that there is a conflict. Crookston: I can't disagree about what the perception would be Charlie. Rountree: And I think that is something that we need to deal with. Tolsma: So, what you are asking Wayne then is basically that we or you bill the Economic Development Corporation for the 17.45 hours that you had before you were the Full time City Attorney. That the City absorb the other (inaudible) Crookston: The City would not be absorbing it, I assume it would be (inaudible) there would be a separate billing from me apparently from the time that I spent before I was full time I would bill the economic development corporation for that time. The time after that I am not sure exactly how to treat that because if you are going to have the Economic Development excuse me if the Economic Development Corporation is going to have its own attorney then I would not be doing that and I would not have done that had I known that is the way it was going to be. It, I am willing to honor whatever the council wants to do. The Economic Development Corporation is a separate entity but I fully understand and appreciate the comments about the perception of conflict. In the past I had done it, I was a contract City Attorney and I was in essence a contract Economic Development Corporation Attorney. Morrow: And I think because of the relationship change from my perspective I think what I would like to see happen. is that, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney or, let me start over. I would move that the 17.45 hours be billed to the Economic Development Corporation for reimbursement. That we absorb the 8.95 hours and that we instruct the Economic Development Corporation to retain independent counsel on any future actions. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that 17.45 hours be billed to the Economic Development Corporation for reimbursement back to Hi Micro Tools and the 8.95 hours be absorbed by the city, further discussion Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Yes, I just have a question on the absorbed, what do you mean by that? Morrow: I mean we don't bill anybody for it, it is just there. Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 43 u Corrie: You have been paid. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: I think we need to have this addressed by the Economic Development Corporation also. FIVE MINUTE BREAK Corrie: Mr. Morrow? Morrow: In the interest of being five after ten we will press through. I have two items, one is in our box there was a letter from Jim Johnson the Chairman of the P & Z requesting that they have the capability of moving their starting time to 7:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on their regular scheduled meeting. I don't have a problem with that, and what I guess is ask the Counselor is it necessary for us to have a motion in order to accomplish that change in time? Or is it necessary to change the ordinance to recognize that change in time? Crookston: We need to change the ordinance. Morrow: Then I guess I would like to move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the ordinance to change from 7:30 to 7:00 P.M. and the necessary public hearing process for that to take place. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to instruct Mr. Crookston to rewrite the ordinance so that they may have a 7:00 meeting with the Planning & Zoning, just the Planning and Zoning (Inaudible) discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, just a minor point but do we have to be time specific or could we allow that t be as determined by the majority vote of the Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission on an annual basis so we don't have to change the ordinance every time they want to change the time or day or whatever. Crookston: You could do it either way. Rountree: My preference would be to allow them the flexibility to make that determination. Crookston: Are you saying the Council decide that, if it is open or would you like to leave it to Planning & Zoning. • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 44 Morrow: Let me separate with you here a little bit, I think in terms of Planning and Zoning can determine the time but I think that the approval needs to be by the elected officials in terms of the Council. Rountree: They can bring it to the Council for consideration. Crookston: The ordinance would read that Planning and Zoning has the ability to set its own time if that is what the Council desires, that would be an ordinance that the Council has to pass. Because it is a set time now Rountree: Right, as long as it gives them the flexibility to change and come to us and have a motion made tonight that effective their next meeting they could have it at 5:30 if they wanted. Crookston: I think it needs to be a standard time. Morrow: I think if you are going to do that you need to have public notice requirements take place at certain intervals to show that it is going to change. Rountree: I don't have a problem with that maybe it is just getting too complicated. Morrow: Well I think what I would like to see is that the City Council have the option of setting those times for any of those meetings and then all that has to happen is the P & Z approach the Council and ask for the change and then the Council through its regular process hearing process can institute the change without amending or rewriting the ordinance each time. Crookston: ft can be done that way. Rountree: State that as a motion then Walt. Morrow:. I want to withdraw my motion. Rountree: I withdraw my second. Cowie: Okay, the original motion is withdrawn and the withdraw of the second. State the new motion Mr. Morrow. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to rewrite the or amend the ordinance to reflect that starting times and days of P & Z meetings can be set by the City Council with proper public hearing and public notice. Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 45 Tolsma: Second Crookston: You don't need a public hearing on that. Morrow: (Inaudible) Crookston: No Morrow: Well then let me strike that from the motion. Tolsma: Second is withdrawn (Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to amend the ordinance to allow the City Council to set the days and meeting times with the proper public notice for the P & Z Commission. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (Inaudible) Morrow: Once we set the time it is not going to change every month. Berg: Well somebody comes and looks in our ordinance book and they say Planning & Zoning Commission meets whenever the City Council wants them to meet that is what it is going to say. Crookston: No it will state that the City Council will set it by resolution. Then they would have to look at the resolutions. Berg: And every three months we could have a different resolution. Crookston: There will be a set time made (inaudible) Corrie: It probably won't change (inaudible) Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 46 (Discussion Inaudible) Corrie: I think we will set it at 7:00 and get it (inaudible) Morrow: The last item that I have tonight would be we have an issue with David Turnbull and Bedford Place Subdivision No. 1. We released the non-development agreement some time ago concerning this. It is my understanding that as of now we are still not able to get building permits for that subdivisions. There were some issues, we have a letter dated today that was sent to all of us concerning why that is not happening. I guess what I would like to hear is a small presentation on behalf of Mr. Turnbull and the by Attorney Crookston to see if we can't get this issue resolved. Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, thank you for allowing us to come here and speak to you tonight. A little chronology, back in March of 1996 we were starting construction on the non-development agreement portion of Bedford Place Subdivision No. 1. Mike Tanner from my office consulted with Gary Smith and they both concurred that they should some to the City Council at that time and instead of releasing the non- development agreement they would keep that in place until such time as the bulk of the improvements anticipated were in place and then bond for any remaining improvements not yet completed at which time we would come back and have a release of the non- development agreement. That is precisely what we did and at that time as reflected in the minutes of that meeting the amount of the improvements anticipated were stated. We had a schedule set at the preconstruction meeting here at the City of Meridian for that subdivision. There are two documents that basically control, one is the development agreement one is the non-development agreement. I am going to read the applicable parts of the non-development agreement. It says the developer hereby agrees that no improvements will be installed in said subdivision lots as required by the City without prior written permission of the City. If the developer desires to install any of the said improvements for said lots then the developer shall submit a written request of the City which shall contain detailed descriptions (inaudible) improvements which are desired and estimated time and cost to complete such improvements. The City reserves the right to require an irrevocable letter of credit or cash deposit surety agreement in an amount sufficient to secure the full and adequate performance of the developer upon such stated improvements and detailed construction plans. All of those conditions were complied. Developer further agrees not to sell any of the above referenced lots in the subdivision during the term of this agreement or until a new irrevocable letter of credit or cash deposit surety agreement has been issued and delivered to the City or until the required improvements of said subdivision are completed in accordance with the (inaudible) and specifications. All those requirements, every requirement of this non-development agreement has been complied with. We have worked with Gary Smith and some of his assistant City Engineers on that. We have placed in his hands the appropriate bonding C~ J Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 47 • as it was agreed between Gary and I believe that Will Berg was involved with that. The other issue then becomes the development agreement. The issue that keeps coming up in Mr. Crookston's comments regarding this issue of the Finch Lateral and the tot lot and those items. Paragraph 23 of the development agreements says that the developer agrees that it is going to prepare and request approval of an amended plat that the requirements of which shall be at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. That the amended plat shall encompass the land currently covered in the non-development agreement. That at the time of submission and during the process of the amended plat the developer shall submit a request for approval of a tot lot and basketball court or volleyball court. The detail specifics of those recreational facilities shall be submitted at the time of submission of the amended plat even though those recreational facilities will be located in the second phase of Bedford Place Subdivision. This development agreement applies to the first phase of Bedford Subdivision. The said amended plat will be limited to a maximum of 8 additional single family lots adjacent to the Finch Lateral that said lots will each be a minimum of 8000 square feet. That upon approval of said amended plat and in conjunction with construction of the non-development portion of Bedford Place subdivision and prior to or in conjunction with development of phase 2 of Bedford Place Subdivision the Finch Lateral will be tiled, and that a license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District will be in place prior to the expiration of the non-development agreement for the first phase of Bedford Place Subdivision. All those conditions have been complied with, we came back to this City Council with an amended Preliminary Plat that showed the addition of the tot lot and the basketball court. We entered into a license agreement with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for the tiling of the Finch lateral, we constructed that, we tiled that in conjunction with the improvements of Bedford Place Subdivision No. 1 non- development portion. Every condition in there has been met. So what I received from Mr. Crookston's office on Friday was a 14 page memo listing a bunch of other terms that were required, I have detailed my response to those and it is a 3 page letter and I can go through those if you wish but we have complied with every specific of the development agreement and the non-development agreement. We ask that the City Council tonight release unconditionally the non-development agreement and that we be allowed to submit for building permits. I think you can see from my letter that it has been a seven week process, it was seven weeks ago today that the Council voted to release the non- development agreement. I don't think this is Will's fault but Will told us that it was signed by the Mayor and we were clear to bring in our plans for building permits and then it was a couple of weeks later when we started bringing in permits we were turned down. It has been weeks since then that we haven't been able to get any response and now I get a 14 page list of conditions that I don't think are applicable to this plat. So if you have any questions I would be glad to answer them, I will be glad to go through my entire letter and all of the exhibits attached if you wish. Corrie: Thank you David, Council do you want to hear the Counselor's side and then go • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 48 back and forth? Would that be your preference. (Inaudible) Crookston: I was not aware that this was going to be discussed tonight so I didn't bring my memorandum with me. I haven't reviewed it since I mailed, I really don't have time to review it tonight. But I can tell you that I reviewed all of the minutes and what I found was to be as simple as I can basically just as Mr. Turnbull stated that in the development agreement it states that the applicant will bring forth the specifics of the tot lot and the basketball court and to my knowledge in discussions with Shari Stiles that has not been done. That is basically why I have not indicated that I would approve of the release of the non-development agreement. The motion was that the non-development agreement would be released subject to my approval. Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, could I interject here, I have attached two exhibits, 11 by 17 colored exhibits, you can see on the first exhibit and this is the amended preliminary plat that was approved by the Council. On the lower right hand corner you see a green area which indicates a basket ball court and another box which is a tot lot. At that same hearing that same meeting we submitted on the second blow up a blow up of that area showing the tot lot measuring 30 by 30 a basket ball course measuring 36, by 46. I specifically stated in my testimony that the surrounding area would be put in grass, that the tot lot would be sand with a play ground facility similar to the playground facility located in the Mill Creek Subdivision located on Overland Road. I specifically stated that we had submitted a picture of that tot lot facility, I specifically stated that the individual or the company that built those facilities was from South Central Idaho, I believe I stated I thought it was Murta Idaho and that is what I submitted. Now I don't know how much more detailed you want to go than that, unless you want me to start indicating where sprinkler heads will go. The requirement of the development agreement was that we submit those specifics at the time of submission of the plat. That is what we submitted, I specifically worked on this myself to dimension everything so I thought that the Council had sufficient information to know exactly what we were going to put in. If it has not met the Council's approval at that time if the Council felt like it was not sufficient detail I should have been told at that time and my plat should have been tabled until I submitted more detail. But we were approved and I don't think it is subject to further questioning at this time. Ijust -think that is entirely inappropriate. I think we have submitted sufi:lcient detail and you know what we are going to build and we are going to build that facility when that phase of the project is developed according to the development agreement. Corrie: I have two questions David, those to Planning and Zoning the ones that he has here, do you have these Shari have you received these. Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 49 Turnbull: Those were reduction copies we submitted those on large foam boards and Mike Wardle was here to give the presentation at that time. These are just reduced copies that I had copied off this morning so you could have a copy you could file and keep in your files or so the Council was all aware of what was submitted before. Corrie: Do we have those foam boards now? Turnbull: I believe they were returned to us. Crookston: I haven't received Mr. Turnbull's letter. Turnbull: We even went so far as a couple of weeks ago offering to bond for those improvements even though they weren't part of this plat. I don't think that is necessary but we tried everything we could to do to get this thing off of dead center. I didn't want to come back to this Council I know your time is precious and I don't like to bother you with these issues. But I have been waiting seven weeks and it is not just us. I have other builders out there, I have residents that want to build their home out there and we have been held up for seven weeks for no reason. This is not doing the City any service it is not doing anybody any service. Morrow: I guess from my perspective when I received this today and reviewed through it all of this is familiar I have seen all of this before. It was part of the presentations in terms of the picture of the tot lot, I think that was a response to a question that I had asked what a tot lot was. I really didn't know until I saw the pictures. So I guess I need to know whit the definition and specifics is. My mind and I also remember that we had a great lengthy conversation about these poster boards and reader boards and maps that these guys are submitting and that they go to great expense and so we were going to have reduced pictures of those things submitted and return their big displays to them. I think as a Council we essentially approved that procedure that they could go back to them with the submittal of the reduced drawings because we needed that as part of the record. Corrie: I agree, I have one request that those all go to the City Clerk so that he could stamp them so that there is no question about it. Turnbull: I agree and that has been one of our little pet peeves is that we have these nice big marketing boards that we draw up and we want them for our own use but they get stuck in a back room to get beat up for a while and by the time we get them back they are of no value. Corrie: Well you are submitting the same thing here (inaudible) it is a done deal. We have given it to you (inaudible) l J Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 50 • Crookston: Going from my memory one of the things that was stated was that the tot lot and the baske# ball court were going to be each a lot size. That is one of the other reasons why I recall why I didn't think the drawings met that. Turnbull: We addressed that in the City Council hearing, that was a question you brought up in the City Council hearing and I said we are planting a common area lot the length of a football field here. That doesn't meet the size of two lot requirements, two lot requirement being what maybe 13,000 square feet and we have we probably have 300 times 80 (inaudible). Crookston: All I was referencing there was the size of the basketball court and the size of the tot lot, it was stated that they would be a lot size each. Turnbull: We clarified that in the City Council hearing and the City Council approved the preliminary plat as it was submitted. Morrow: Let me ask you this, did you mean that the basketball court be equal tb 6500 square feet? Crookston: No I am not, I saying that is what was stated to be the amount of space of where the tot lot and the basketball court would be. I just went from the tot lot is 30 by 30 and the basketball court is 45 by something else that is not the size of an R-8 lot. Turnbull: The entire common area lot is some 325 by over 80 feet. If you want us to draw a line and plat separate lots for it I don't think and we discussed that in the City Council meeting and the Council didn't feel that was a requirement of the plat that (inaudible) Morrow: (Inaudible) what he is alluding to is that he is saying that it would be of the size of a lot meaning that if I am understanding Wayne correctly is that the definition then would be then that the basketball court would be the size of a lot which would amount to 6500 square feet in an R-8 zone and the tot lot be the size of a lot which would amount to 6500 square feet. Crookston: That is what was stated in the minutes and that is why I said that I did not think it was appropriate for me to release the non-development agreement myself. Turnbull: Well the City Council approved the preliminary plat as it was stated and you brought that issue up in the preliminary plat hearing. I addressed it, the Council agreed with our contention and the layout we had and the plat was approved as it was submitted. Crookston: The idea of whether or not is was going to be a full court or a half court did Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 51 come up, the size of the court did not. Turnbull: It was detailed in our submittal and the Council approved it. Crookston: It is not detailed in your submittal. Turnbull: It is too. Crookston: That each of them would be a lot ann R-8 lot? Turnbull: This is the detail that we submitted this is what was approved. This is a larger lot, 339.71 feet on one dimension, it is hard to tell because of the curves but it is over 80 feet on the other dimension, it detailed within that area, a tot lot and a basket ball court. We specifically talked about the size of the basketball court because you had some recollection that it was a full court basketball court and I stated I didn't know where you came from that understanding because you weren't even in the meeting with Walt and the Mayor and Gary and the Fothergill neighbors and the Ewings. It was discussed again and it was approved as it was submitted and you came back here a couple of weeks ago and said it has to be a full court basketball court again. When in fact the minutes that you copied here in your latest memo reflects that discussion was fully heard and a half court basketball court was approved. Crookston: That is right and that is what I said in my memorandum that a half court basketball court was approved. It also says in the minutes that each of those facilities would be the size of a lot. Morrow: So what the point is the size of the half court would be 6500 square feet by his interpretation and that is the size of a lot. So I guess we are going no place here with that part of the discussion. Turnbull: I want to know if anybody on this Council concurs with that interpretation? Morrow: I think clearly we have two things going on here in my mind, one is that our concept of the half basketball court and the tot lot were as presented here the Counselor's concept was that by definition of lot and in the minutes he is saying what size is the half court. Then he is drawing the conclusion that it is 6500 square feet because in the minutes somewhere it said a lot or the equivalent than a lot. Turnbull: that is bigger than a full court basketball court. Morrow: That is bigger than most everything other than a residential R-8 lot. So the • • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 52 question is how do we need to resolve this to get moving forward here. Rountree: I think we need a point of clarification I think what is presented is what I intended to approve in terms of a half court basketball court being some 36 by 45 or whatever dimensions those are and the tot lot being 30 by 30 that they would be placed on a common lot of the dimensions described. If that is all we need to do is to clarify that and that is the significant issue to release the non-development agreement. If it is just a matter of resolving the communication difference here. Corrie: You are in the process of recording the lot, the 8 homes plus the (inaudible) Turnbull: I just want to make a further clarification so nobody misunderstands here. When we entered into the development agreement we talked about the tot lot as being part of phase 2 because that was going to be across the street. Now our Ada County Engineer Mr. Priester has required that if you look on your exhibit here this area in yellow there are 8 additional lots total, seven of them are on this part of the street, one of them is on the west half of Arrowhead Way, or seven lots on the east half of Arrowhead way is the common area lot for the recreational facility and one additional lot. Because this first phase was platted with the right of way going all the way through Mr. Priester is requiring that this be phase 2 and that then this portion here be phase 3. So the tot lot will in fact fall in phase 3 of the development per the requirements of the Ada County Engineer. We have submitted phase 2, it has final plat approval from the City Council and it is in the platting process it will probably be on Gary's desk the first of next week. We have submitted phase 3 for final plat approval it has not yet been heard by the City Council, I don't know when that is scheduled but I think it is probably next week. Two weeks, that is in process too and the constructions drawings for that will be to Gary Smith the week of September 9 for his review and approval. So we are proceeding forth on this in an orderly manner. I would like a clarification really right here now that we are going to come in with phase 2 and although it says in this development agreement that the tot lot and basketball court will be in phase 2 because of Mr. Priester's requirements it will actually be phase 2 here and the tot lot will be in phase 3. So I would like the Council to recognize and so modify that requirement. I have outlined it as well as I can, pretty colors and the whole works. So, what we are asking for is the Council release the non-development agreement tonight without further condition. I would also ask that since we have had building permits in advance for some five or so weeks now trying to get a resolution of this matter that they be accepted beginning tomorrow morning and and processed as though they were submitted and received when we were told originally that we could submit plans for building permits which was the July 23 City Council meeting. Morrow: I guess I have a question given the additional requirement of the seven lots to be part of phase 2 as per the County Engineer, when would you visualize the tot lot and Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 53 basketball court on the east side (inaudible) Turnbull: We plan on building that phase of the subdivision over the winter and having it finaled out next spring, as soon as we can pave next spring. If not we would bond for it at that time. We are not asking the City to leave themselves wide open we have offered protection from their concerns but requiring that phase 2 of the subdivision be platted before we can build in phase 2 is just incomprehensible to me. Corrie: Any further discussion of the Council? Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council I guess one of the other things about the specifics that I was thinking of that we have no indication as to whether or not the basketball court is going to be asphalt or concrete or whether it is going to be paved in any fashion. There was an indication in the agreement that was entered into between Brighton Corporation and the people that met in Fothergill that the, I think it was just the tot lot but it might have been the basket ball court also was going to be able to be used by people in the Fothergill Subdivision. In a discussion that I had with Ms. Stiles she indicated that there was a sign up that said that it was not that it would only be used for people in Bedford Place, is that correct Shari? Stiles: There is no sign out there, as it is not developed yet. The only thing that we have that indicates that it is a private park to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. I am not sure but I believe there was something said at the public hearings as well but I am not sure. Turnbull: It is a private park owned and maintained by the owners association, but we did enter into an agreement with Fothergill neighbors. In fact John Ewings discussed with us apart from the City that if the Fothergill neighbors were going to use that that they too ought to be involved in the maintaining of it. Which I discussed with Shari and she thought that it was only fair and we have never put a restriction on the use of the Fothergill Subdivision. There has never been a sign put up obviously there is nothing to put a sign on yet. In our application the question was asked if there were any common area we indicated that there was that it was private that it was to be maintained by the owners association, versus public. It is not city owned it is not maintained by the City so those were the appropriate responses to the questions on the application. What was your other question? Anticipating what other detail you might ask for I attached to the back of this a cross section of how a basketball court is to be constructed. The paving section and the gravel section underneath. That was the only thing that I thought maybe unless you wanted location of the sprinkler heads the only other piece of information that I could think to include in this. • • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 54 (Inaudible) Crookston: I haven't reviewed my memorandum but I think those were the majority points that I had. Turnbull: I would be happy to go through them item by item if you would like. Crookston: It is totally up to the City Council as to release the non-development agreement or not. At this juncture, before it was left up to me to do that. Bentley: Mr Mayor, since we left it up to you before have your questions been answered to the satisfaction of where you would release it? Crookston: As I said I didn't know this was going to come up tonight so I haven't looked at it. I cannot say now that all of my concerns have been answered. That designation on the basketball court to my knowledge that is the first time that has ever been stated. Morrow: Well I guess part of the question there is too though is we are talking about a basketball court and a tot lot that are in phase 3, we are talking about anon-development agreement for phase 1. Crookston: Right, but the specifics were to be done at the preliminary plat of phase 1 or those 7 or eight lots. Turnbull: And my contention again excuse me Mr. Mayor is that if it wasn't specific enough for you then the plat should have been tabled and not approved until I came back with more specifics. But we felt like we had and had submitted the specifics and the plat was approved as submitted with the specifics that we submitted (End of Tape) Corrie: (Inaudible) non-development agreement on phase 1, and if so you would if not you won't. Morrow: Well very candidly I guess from my perspective these specifics other than the cross section for the paving section of the basketball court were all part of the original presentation. We are dealing with a development or non-development agreement for the first phase and we still have phases 2 and 3 for that. If there is an adjustment in terms of what it is we have been presented can be dealt with. So I guess what I would like to see us do is press forward with what it is we approved some time ago. Tolsma: I agree with Walt. • Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 55 Rountree: Which would be done for us to take action to release the none development agreement for phase .one. Morrow: Well we have taken that action once we had Wayne, subject to his approval. So I guess clearly in his mind there was a question as to what constituted a lot and so on and so forth and that should have been brought back before the Council for further clarification in my mind because we had already discussed those things. and been through that presentation. So I guess from where we we stand right here unless there is a technical glitch that needs to be ironed out in the development agreement. My feeling would be is that we press forward with the signing of the non-development agreement and technical glitches be taken care of and that the building permit process start immediately. Crookston: It is the release of the non-development agreement. Morrow. The release of the non-development agreement. So I would move that we release the non-development agreement subject to editorial and technical clarifications and that we instruct the building department to begin processing the building permit and applications tomorrow. Bentley: Second Corrie: You have heard the motion by Mr. Morrow and second by Mr. Bentley, any further discussion? Are you clarified with the technical end of it? Turnbull: Well other than I believe that Walt is saying the non-development agreement will be, it is already signed by the Mayor and that it will be recorded tomorrow and that permits will be available starting tomorrow. I believe what he is saying is that maybe we ought to go back on the development agreement where it talks about phase 2 when it is actually now phase 3 and amend that? Morrow: No I am suggesting that as a Council we have that option on the development agreement for phase 2 and 3 and then we are dealing here strictly with phase 1. My motion is that if there is some technical things within the development agreement or editorial language or something that is not quite correct then that needs to be clarified and then recorded. But the recording and the issuance of buildings permits or the processing of building permits are really two independent actions by virtue of the motion. Turnbull: And I agree with that, thank you. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 56 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: The last thing that I had Mr. Mayor was status of the golf course, we are continuing under construction we are actually seeding by this week we will have all nine of the greens ready for seeding. Seven of them Qn Wednesday last were done and covered with visqueen in anticipation of seeding it is my understanding that we are seeding and going wet on about three to possibly four holes this week. The remainder will go wet at the end of the month. Also, there are copies of draw requests that I had City Engineer Smith's department prepare and copy to each one of you so that you can see where the draws are in fact going for the progress of the work that has been completed. So I would entertain any questions that you would have concerning that. That is my last item. Corrie: Council any questions? Mr. Bentley? Bentley: Nothing Corrie: Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Just a quick update from our last meeting, I told you I would give you some information about my investigation on lease purchase, lease option. I talked to an individual with GSA, Sue Foster, GSA's position on lease purchase or leasing or government buildings is if Congress doesn't provide funds for capital investment in property and an agency needs space GSA acts as a landlord they go out and build buildings and lease to the federal agencies who pay for the leases under their operating budgets. That is pretty straight forward, one things GSA is getting into is lease purchase more and more but they don't have any particular cri#eria. They don't have any magic formula it is just if you need space and you don't have the money then you can lease it through GSA. I talked to an individual at the State, Jim Jefferies, h~ indicated in the City's situation that providing space or a capital improvement if the City has a bonding authority that would be his first recommendation. Or if they had a building authority and they are budgeted to do it that would be their second option. The State has only done one lease purchase and that is with an employment office I believe in Twin Falls where the State actually owned the. ground, they entered into an agreement with a builder to build the building at the end of 20 years all of the improvements on the land go to the land owner which is the State of Idaho. They do a number of leases, they do leases primarily for the reasons we talked about leases. When you need space and can't afford to build a building State agencies are leasing property. Jim is the person that does all of the lease work for the State of Idaho. The down side on leasing is that it is not cheap, but the upside is you can get space that way. He indicated that he would be available to come and talk to the City at one of our planning meetings and I will make arrangements if you want me to Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 57 pursue that. Morrow: I think my preference would be that you make arrangements for our meeting in September, the 24th. Rountree: I have already pre-arranged with him that time and I will confirm that with him and get him here at 6:30. That is all I have. Corrie: Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: Mr. Smith, he inquired of me to find somebody to mow the Tully Park property out there so they could set stakes. I have been trying to get a hold of him and I finally got a hold of him today and he gave me a price of $40 an acre to mow that which I told him we had between 15 and 18 acres and he said he would mow it for $40 an acre which was $600 and I told him that was exorbitant and the last person who mowed it was $140 and reference that. He said he couldn't get to it for 2 to 3 weeks anyway because he was going on vacation. So I got a hold of another farmer today who has another type of a mower and I should know from him tomorrow if he can pursue that park property to mow that. That is all I have. I told Gary I would get a hold of him as soon as I found out from him. Corrie: APA is having a meeting September 18 at 11:30, it is a luncheon at the Airport it is being put on by the rail equipment company there discussing the APA is planning what to do, possibility of transportation purposes. Anyone from the Council that would like to go to that they will, it is an invitation from the EPA they will pay for the dinner or the lunch, that is the 18th. If anybody is interested in that get with me if you would like to hear what that presentation is in the future. Anything else? We need to go into Executive session for a couple of informational things for you in reference to a personnel matter. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded we go into Executive Session for personnel matters, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea EXECUTIVE SESSION Corrie: We will call the meeting back to order, it is 11:30 out of Executive Session. No major decision was made at that point, no decision was made at that point period. Any Meridian City Council September 3, 1996 Page 58 • further business to come before the Council? Entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK ~ f MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 20, 1996: uPp~v'e- MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD AUGUST 26, 1996: approvG- 1. TABLED AUGUST 6, X996: FINAL PLAT: FIELDSTONE MEADOWS NO. 5 SUBDIVISION 3Y GARY VOIGT: Gc~Jpf-o Ve. ~u,b,~ec.t ~ ~'~n ~i~i~,,s~ 2. TABLED AUGUST 20, 1996: FINAL PLAT: CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY KEVIN HOWELL: y~~e ~.¢i2 f2~ot. ~? ~ /~ 3. TABLED AUGUST 20, 1996: AMENDED ORDINANCE #3-101 -GENERAL LICENSE CONDITIONS: ~aaEe ~~-~-~° ~epf- /?!~ /~=~ 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDI ISIC~N NO. 5 BY GEM PARK II DEVELOPMENT: ~ ~orvvc ~~~ ~ C'/c ~v~p/-o ~.e Gz'e c ~~~ ~.- o~~e ~a-L. es~.c~~ ~ i~-~e ~i l~~ 7 5. ORDINANCE #739 - BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER ANNEXATION: G2~pro~-~- 6. PRELIP~IINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: TABLED AUGUST 6, 1996: c~~rvt~~ 7. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT EXTENSION OF CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK N0.6 (FORMERLY NO. 5) BY RON NAHAS: a~vprvv~ ~ az,.¢,l.~e~d'io~ ~o-f•ti.2xp~~-~i~.c~a.~- 8. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION OF L,OS ALAMITOS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: ~.pp,~-o w~ o~-e v~cc~- 9. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION OF SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: a~pro v~- d-he r~ecw ~~~ ~~ Off, /7~ /9~t'7 10. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT EXTENSION OF SALMON RAPIDS NO.2 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: (t,~h ~QG~St 11. REQUEST FOR~EER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ALBERTSONS: ar~op~-~ ~.~ c~ j.~a-n ~~c~~p~ d~" she ~`~o~:f~ /~~c~- 12. REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING AND HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER BY ROBERT HALE: G~e~2 ~J d n n ~ ~C _ ~ Zv~ivr~ i^2 ~l.~,Q.S~ F a/o/~rnv~ h-~a~~-up ~_.t'.e~v~ w/~~ ~vu~ hovl~'~f 13. NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RAVEN HILL SUBDIVISION: 14. REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRAILER IN MORNING GLORY SUBDIVISION BY PRESCOTT HOMES: ~~ u~l feat- /~!~ ~~ 15. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: ~pprv/~ 16. APPROVE BILLS: ~L~/~Irvv.~ 17. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. UPRR SEWER LINE CROSSING AGREEMENT: ~ppro~'~ B. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY: 1. ALBERTSONS -WATER, SEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENTS -LATE COMERS AGREEMENT 18. EXECUTIVE SESSION: • CITY OF MERIDIA ~CEIVED PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-SHEET SEP _ 3 ~ OF ~[FR1DlAi~ NAME PHONE NUMBER ~~I~ L~ -~J'~" 37Sr / 9~Z ORDINANCE NO. 739 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, 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, HE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: A parcel of land lying within the NE 1/4 of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more .particularly described as follows: PARCEL ONE: 9S076G88 Commencing at an aluminum cap monument_marking~ the NE corner of said Section 13; h 4 = 4-`.:. ~~ `= ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ thence West along the North line c~~sai~j Section and the centerline of Franklin Road, a distance of 1,328.20 feet to a brass cap monument marking the East 1 / 16th corner of said Section i3; '96 SEP,~.1~2~ P~Ij `1 tft3.~~~a ~/~ thence continuing West along aidJ~'e~~.~on line, a`~~ distance of 362.70 feet; FE~--~-a-_,.._..~ t - __ thence S 00°08'25" West, a distance of 613.70 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N T2°09'35" West, a distance of 316.95 feet to the East boundary of Franklin Square Subdivision as recorded. in Book 44 of Plats at pages 5587 and 5588; thence S 00°08'58" West, along said east boundary, a distance of 1363.46 feet; thence S 85°41'00" East, a distance of 147.41 feet to an iron pin; thence N 79°55'00" East, a distance of 211.34 feet; ANNERATION ORDINANCE B~nT.T.nrrrypE-TROUTNER L-O AND C-G Page 1 thence N 00°08'58" East, a distance of 1005.86 feet; thence N 29°38'58" East, a distance of 170.41 feet; thence N 57°41'11" West, a distance of 161.79 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. containing 10.81 acres of land, more or less. AND PARCEL TWO: Commencing at an aluminum cap monument marking the NE corner of said Section 13; thence West along the North line of said Section and the centerline of Franklin Road, a distance of 1,328.20 feet to a brass cap monument marking the East 1/16th corner of said Section 13; thence continuing West along said section line, a distance of 362.70 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. thence S 00°08'25" West, a distance of 613.70 feet; thence S 57°41'11" East, a distance of 161.79 feet; thence S 29°38'58" West, a distance of 170.41 feet; thence S 00°08'58" West, a distance of 1005.86 feet; thence N 79°55'00" East, a distance of 312.03 feet; thence N 00°13'31" East, a distance of 142.00 feet; thence N 89°52'13" East, a distance of 790.35 feet to an iron pin; thence N 00°23'12" East, a distance of 329.06 feet to an iron pin; thence N 89°56'06" West, a distance of 128.95 feet to an iron pin; thence N 00°18'07" East, a distance of 663.29 feet; thence N 89°58'05" West, a distance of 663.21 feet; thence N 00°13'31" East, a distance of 349.76 feet; thence West, a distance of 123.99 feet; thence N 00°13'48" East, a distance of 313.10 feet; ANNEBATION ORDINANCE BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER L-O AND C-G Page 2 thence West, a distance of 2,38.73 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. containing 28.70 acres of land, more or less. AND ALSO PARCEL THREE: A parcel located in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 1 West,-Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of said SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4; thence S 0°22'31" W along the easterly boundary of said SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 a distance of 327.25 feet to a point; thence leaving said easterly boundary S 89°52'13" W a distance of 533.53 feet to a point; thence N 0°23'12" E a distance of 329.06- feet to a point; thence S 89°56'06" E a distance of 533.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 4.02 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian; that PARCEL ONE is zoned (L-0) Limited Office; that PARCEL TWO is zoned (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial; and PARCEL THREE is zoned (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial; 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 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 for this annexation shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer at its expense and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the. land. ANNE7CATION ORDINANCE BPLT_nN'~'YNE-TROUTNER L-O AND C-G Page 3 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 April 4, 1984, or as amended. 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 1., H 2., K, L, and M ofthe Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters., and specifically that planting strips shall be 35 feet wide along Frankilin and Meridian Roads and not part of street right-of-way or utility easements. d. That surface water shall be used for pressurized irrigation if possible. 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 and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, which include that the property must be developed as a commercial or general planned development or under the conditional use permit process. g. That the Applicant is required to hook up to the sewer and water and participate in the costs of extending the sewer and water services through the payment of late- comer's fees. h. That Applicant shall meet the development time. requirements of the City and meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. i. That the property may be de-annexed if the terms and. conditions of the Development Agreement or this Ordinance are not satisfied. 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 Ordinance. ANNEBATION ORDINANCE BALT.nNTYNE-TROUTNER L-O AND C-t3 Page 4 Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this 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 3 ~0 day of September, 1996. APPROVED: OR -- ROBERT D. CORRIE ATTEST: ~`„~~e+ifiriAr,, w~`````````,` ~ ,'/Or''~'w' ~- `y ~i ~ ~'~7 ~i w~ `'~ rR ' `V ~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. C Y CLERS ~~~L _ '~ ~,`~ STATE OF IDAHO,) '%,'~o T tg'~'~ ~~.`°~ County of Ada, ~ s s . '~,,~~~q', ,,,~R"~~.` 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 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP; 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. 739 , b the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~~ day of September, 1996, as the same appears in my office. ```,~~`,,nnnu~iu~~,,r~~'~ DATED this ~~~ day of Septe er, 1996. ww~`~~~'``y ~~~'<.~ `w ~~p , ~~ City Clerk, City f e"rid'r~n ~, Ada County, .Idaho ", ~~ ANNEXATION ORDINANCE , ~~~~~~~+~+iii ~,(oe~a`°~~~ B21?~T_nNTYNL-TROUTNER L-O AND C-G Page 5 STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) On this ro~ day of September, 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. R SEAL i ~Pc ~° S, ; ~' U B L~ '''~~.E~ OFD ~--`'~ ANNEBATION ORDINANCE Bl~i •?•nN'~'YNE-TROUTNER L-O AND C-C~ ry Public for Idaho iding at Meridian, Idaho Commission Expires B 0~ Page 6 t ~ ~_" ~ 1 X2:10 ~ 132 g , 20 .W th ~. o °~M s ~~ ~ w. r23,9q m W e , o 'r ° 8 ~~w ~~ - h y 8 ,1„ - ~9- k' AI d4° 5B o5° w ~~fia '~. `` N ~o \ ' ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m `~ ~ ~ $ o 4 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ _ __ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ h o ~ O O 8 --- ~ ,41~lNEXA11oN ORD.7 ~,L1AACIYNE-TlzotfTNEt2 I ..... ~ ~ N ~ I ~ i i ~ i ~ ~ ~ M ~ i m ;wi_ 8 ~- L --- ru.gs ~-, `1 Q ~-'_ ~ ~ N dq'S2'/3°E. X90.35' ~I C ~ ~ „ E ~- /42 .~• N.1~~, ~~ S. 85'4/'Cb°E. f47.4r ' -,. ~ ~'~ ~\\ .\ ~~. \\~,, i iN ~ N m ~ %~ , ~~. / ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ `` i ~ i i- l ~, ~ i i ~ ~ , i i i i ~ ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: September 3.1996 APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 4l® ~ CQ REQUEST' DEPARTMENT REPORTS AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS OTHER: X11 Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. R. D. UHRICH ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT ROOM 1100, 1416 DODGE STREET OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68179-1100 (402)271-3753 FAX (402) 271-5493 ' U`QION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMP~-NY CONTRACTS & REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT August 15, 1996 Folder: 662-83 Robert Corrie CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Mayor Come: J. A. ANTHONY DIRECTOR-CONTRACTS 8 JOINT FACILITIES D. D. BROWN DIRECTOR-REAL ESTATE J. L. HAWKINS DIRECTOR-OPERATIONS SUPPORT D. H. LIGHTWINE DIRECTOR-REAL ESTATE W. R. ULRICH DIRECTOR-FACILITY MANAGEMENT RE: 10" Domestic Sewer Pipeline Crossing West of Eagle Road at Beatty (Meridian), Idaho Enclosed are duplicate originals of an agreement covering your use of the, Railroad's right-of--way. To properly document this use, it is necessary that you sign or arrange for signature of the enclosed documents, and return the following to me in the enclosed envelope: 1. BOTH duplicate originals of the crossing agreement. 2. A Certificate of Insurance, if required. 3. Resolution of Authority for individual executing the agreements, if required. 4. Check made payable to the Union Pacific Railroad Company in the amount of $700.00. If you require formal billing, you may consider this letter as a formal bill. In compliance with the Internal Revenue Services' policy regarding Form 1099, I certify that 13-6400825 is the Railroad Company's correct Federal Taxpayer Identification Number and that Union Pacific Railroad Company is doing business as a corporation. If any work to install the utility is to be performed by a con(actor, please ensure that the enclosed letter and duplicate originals of a Contractors Right of Entry Agreement ace forwarded to your Contractor for execution and return - - to me. Your contractor will not be permitted on the Railroad Company's Right-of--Way without this agreement. _- We are continually trying to do a better job for you, our customer. To do this, we need to know if what we do is done right. If there are areas where you feel our performance could improve or needs to change, we need to know that also. Therefore, enclosed is a survey form that we would appreciate you completing and returning to us at your earliest convenience. We need to hear from you if we are to meet your nceds. ff the crossing agreements are not executed and returned within six. months from the date of this letter, the offer of the agreement is withdrawn and becomes null and void. If you have a~ questions concerning this agreement, please feel free to call me at (402)271-5153. s 'nYours truly, ~- / JACK L. NIISON ONTRACTS REPRESENTATIVE DOCEX.LTR S EP - 3 1996 CITY OF iNER1DIAN DELINQUENCY LIST TURN OFF LIST SCHEDULE FOR 08/07/96 ACCOUNT# NAME & ADDRESS AMT. PAST DUE 1-90 LEONARD MCFADDEN 47.40 710 W 2ND ST 1-270 GEORGE BARKLEY 52.60 436 W BROADWAY AV 1-770 THOMAS DEUBER 88.40 511 W BROADWAY AV 1-800 SID BREWER 46.90 423 W BROADWAY AV 1-1414 NORMAN L. GODBOUT 332.20 512 W IDAHO AV 1-1810 GLADYS CLYMENS 46.40 729 W IDAHO AV 1-4430 MOEIAMMAD ALIDJANI 208.40 850 W FRANICI.IN RD 2-450 BRENT MCCLURE 91.40 638 W CRITERION ST 2-470 J & G CONSTRUCTION 68.40 643 W APPLEGATE ST 2-860 DEAN ANDERSON 336.22 1200 W PINE AV (CASH ONLY ACCT CLOSED) 2-1170 KENT CAMPOSAN 147.80 1304 W 1ST ST 2-1270 MOLLIE P FLERCHINGER 79.20 1546 W 1ST ST 2-1690 RALPH E NASH 114.60 • 1616W2NDST 2-1870 LARRY PIPER 59.00 306 W MAPLE AV 2-2150 LOUIE J NEAGLE 123.70 216 CHERRY AV 2-2460 LISA L COX 46.40 1230 W 4TH ST 2-2500 ELLEN BAILEY 67.40 338 CHERRY AV 2-2550 PAUL PACK 138.50 1313 W 4TH ST 2-2608 CENTENNIAL CONSTRUCTION 72.40 1482 N MIDTOWN ST 2-3660 LEONARD MCFADDEN 64.00 115 W WASHINGTON AV 2-3782 JOHN LIGGETT 84.00 1421 MERIDIAN ST 2-3952 GARY GRIFFIN 46.40 1023 MERIDIAN ST 2-5080 DOLAN KEENEY 93.60 1439 NORTHGATE AV 2-5610 KRIS HOPKINS/GAY LEE ARCHULETA 77.00 1504 W V~'ASHINGTON ST 2-5740 MONA NIMO 106.60 1327 W CARLTON ST 2-6030 TOM KRASOWSKI 111.20 1017 W 12TH AV 3-292 ROD SHURTZ 156.50 2195 W SNYDER DR • 3-386 LINDA WRIGHT 54.40 1954 W SLATON DR 3-388 _ LESLIE BRUNTON 117.60 1968 W SLATON DR 4-1634 RUSSEL MOORE 54.42 2922 W WILLARD ST 4-1774 GARY GEYER 163.20 2588 W WILLARD ST 4-2116 JOHN PAUL 135.80 2217 W SANTA CLARA DR 4-2184 JOHN SNELDERS 97.40 1256 N YAKIMA WY 4-2236 BRIAN CROSSLAND 112.40 1718 W SUNNY SLOPE DR 4-2280 STEVEN HAMMOND 156.80 1842 W SONOMA DR 19-28 ROBERT GILBERT 98.60 3864 HARBOR POINT DR 19-46 ROBERT MOWREY 61.40 3727 HARBOR POINT DR 20-1754 DARRELL OSTYN CONSTRUCTION '4.40 3536 W SANDWICH DR 21-502 ROBERT SANPHILL 54.00 2818 N QUARRYSTONE WY 21-582 MARJORIE CHANCE 174.20 2606 W PEBBLESTONE CT 21-1054 BERNARD & KARLEEN BRAUNSTEIN 136.80 2961 N FIELDSTONE WY 21-1174 DAVID TWADDLE 2492 W CHATEAU DR 21-1766. RICK COFFMAN 1960 MAR)"ANNA PL 21-193 8 DAVID & SHAWNA LONGO 2615 REBECCA WY 21-2006 MARK & TAMARA ROSE 1732 N MORELLO AV 21-2920 KEVIN & BECKY CROFTS 2931 W ELK STREAM ST 21-2994 JAMES DUNLAP CK& CC 3075 W MIRAGE CT 21-3178 THOMAS CLARK 3111 N GWENOLINE 22-846 LESLEY A MCNORTON 2117 W CHATEAU DR 22-1032 REN THOMPSON 2039 N NYBORG WY 22-1144 JEFFREY KORELL 2407 W RAINWATER CT 22-1150 GARY HARRISON 2365 W RAINWATER CT 22-1350 GAYLEN & Sb~ANNON COWGER 1956 W MCGLINCHEY ST 22-1354 RODNEY WII,LIAMS 1908 MONACO WY 22-1356 MARVIN L KERBS 1983 HENDRICKS CT 22-1384 PETER MICHNO 1947 W SANDALWOOD DR 106.40 126.20 109.40 75.80 113.40 94.65 113.00 104.20 105.00 77.40 153.80 114.60 178.40 69.00 69.50 22-1482 LYLE D ANDERSON 131.00 1723 SANDALWOOD DR 22-1514_ DALE E ZIlVINEY 162.80 1894 SANDALWOOD DR 22-1518 JAMES WOOSLEY 219.20 1942 SANDALWOOD DR 31-142 MARY VANDEVENTER 77.12 1330 W YOST CT 31-184 TRACEY & THOMAS BENNETT 97.00 1968 NW 12TH ST 31-806 KEITH TAUFER 100.40 2131 NW 12TH ST 31-864 DIANE GII,BERT 87.20 1316 W CHATEAU AV 31-1686 MARK H WOLFE 188.40 2778 NW 12TH ST 31-2226 AUDREY JOHNSTON/ANNA HORNE 151.60 1321 CLAIRE ST 31-2236 LINDA PARSONS 110.60 2635 NW 13TH ST 31-2254 RAYMOND TURNER 91.15 1402 DARRAH DR 31-3418 FORREST F SCHUSTER 108.50 2218 NW 14TH ST 31-3236 VICKIE HRUSKA 128.00 2267 NW 11TH ST 31-3250 SHIRLEY WARE 86.80 1131 DELMAR DR 31-3364 ALLEN BURGESS 95.00 2282 NW 10TH AV 31-3420 JULIA COUCH 98.40 1012 FAIRWOOD CT 31-3528 JACK TEATER 123.40 1938 NW 11TH AV 32-444 MICHAEL & CYNTHIA WARNER 96.70 2044 NW 8TH ST 32-520 KELLY BESS 138.20 1907 LAWNDALE DR 32-566 BARBARA J HICKS 218.00 1919 CRESTMONT DR 32-650 GAVIN TAYLOR 145.20 501 LONGFORD DR 32-1174 TRINA LEE FISCHER 114.20 207 W SPICEWOOD DR 33-1832 TORY & SHAWNY CULLEY 77.60 165 E WOODBURY DR 33-1850 GARY & BOBETTE MARSHALL 75.40 2472 N LARCHMONT PL 33-2318 JOHN & SHARON SCOTT 64.60 2542 N ARROW WOOD DR 33-3572 TRACY & KATHY ANDERSON 71.20 410 E EDGAR CT 33-4154 RAYMOND BOBKO 144.10 2711 N ARROW WOOD WY 34-496 TIMOTHY LOVE 102.00 2089 N SAPPHIRE PL 34-800 KENNETH ZEAR 148.40 998 E CHATEAU DR 34-1172 CARL & DOROTHY QUARENBERG 135.00 • 2530 N BLACK BEAR WY 34-1302 RANDY CLIFF 111.40 2480 N SNOW GOOSE WY 34-1902 KEITH D HUNSAKER 81.60 2061 N LARK PL 34-1948 FORREST MOORS 89.40 821 E WII,LOWBROOK DR 34-3286 ROBERT HALE 142.60 1527 E STORMY DR 42-282 JERRY & DONNA SULLIVAN 219.23 2567 E APRICOT CT 42-346 AARON & KATHY JONES 115.60 2392 E APRICOT DR 42-348 RANDAL PIPAL 132.40 2350 APRICOT DR 42-378 JOSH & SHARI BRECKS 125.00 2463 E APRICOT DR 42-1146 WADE MILLER 169.00 200 E OAKCREST DR 42-2452 ARENDA AXTELL 114.70 1795 E LOCHMEDAOW ST 42-2582 LORRI CHAPMAN 131.60 X542 N MEADOWGLEN PL 46-108 WENDELL & KATHLEEN LAWRENCE 92.00 889 N FILLMORE WY 46-468 KEVIN & TINA BORCHARDT 66.00 1071 N FILLMORE WY 49-1126 MONTEREY HOME 652.40 2070 E COMMERCIAL CT 50-12 PAUL SMITH 151.60 29 E STATE 50-226 JAMES HOWELL 152.00 234 & 236 E STATE ST 50-262 SCOTT MURRI 78.00 12 E STATE ST 50-284 MARK DALE 46.40 31 E CARLTON AV 50-354 DENNIS CARSTENSEN 88.75 416 E CARLTON AV 50-2106 RICHARD ROBINSON 114.60 1278 N STONEHENGE WY 50-2378 DARLENE & RICHARD GUTHMILLER 75.60 1290 E DRUCKER ST 50-2424 DEBI MARTS 68.80 1449 E DRUCKER ST 50-2581 DANBURY HOMEOWNER ASSO 183.00 SPRINKLER -DANBRY FR E 50-3726 NICKIE MEATTE 201.00 989 N RALSTIN PL 50-4506 BETTY B JACOBSON 81.40 436 E PINE AV 50-4562 STEVEN & CAROL JOHNSOIN 95.20 238 E PINE ST 50-4598 LONNIE MORRIS 46.40 124 E PINE AV 51-3146 S & S MII.LER 65.60 218 E FRANKLIN RD 51-3300 DAVID ROBERTS 99.60 133 E KING ST 51-3320 TIMOTHY P ZIlVIMER 111.20 I. ~' 234E 2ND ST 51-3370 - CINDI ATWOOD 71.60 223E 3RD ST 51-3840 KIMBERLY WOLFS 78.40 424E 3RD ST 51-4200 PHILIP G LORCHER 213.60 432E 2ND ST 69-136 HOME ART BUILDERS 58.40 1453 E BLUE TICK ST 69-566 LAWRENCE & DEBRA CHURCH 140.20 1035 E SHEPHERD ST 69-2298 DIANE LANG 123.00 1895 S MARSHWOOD PL 72-164 LOUIE & JENNELL BONFRISCO 83.40 1958 S COVEY PL 74-350 GARY E FRANK 79.80 63 8 HANOVER CT 74-422 DENA CROASDALE 62.40 633 BARRE TT ST 74-692 JAMES M MCDILL 150.80 190 SW 7TH 74-1084 EDWARD & MADORA NEALE 112.40 102 W 1 ~T ST 74-1316 NORMAN FULLER 125.40 417 S MERIDIAN ST 74-2324 RALENE J GREGORY 82.60 1125 CRESTWOOD DR 74-2350 THOMAS HA77ARD 134.60 1031 CRESTWOOD DR 74-2416 MARK & REBECCA LAPP 97.40 R ~ , 958 W KI1VIltA ST 74-2614 MICHAEL MACKRILL 127.20 989 W KIl11~iRA ST 74-2688 STEVEN & KRISTIE EVANS 96.80 188 S CRESTWOOD DR 74-2690 MONTEREY HOMES 137.40 152 S CRESTWOOD DR 74-2756 JEFFERY DALLING 206.40 1388 W CRESTWOOD DR 74-2764 BRYAN K ROPP 95.20 1476 W CRESTWOOD DR 74-2822 KENNETH BARR 134.80 1421 W CRESTMONT DR 74-2932 DENISE SPECK 78.40 13 74 W PINTAII. DR 74-3102 KAY HARRISON 53.40 1005 W EGRET DR 74-323 8 DEBRA RULE 84.00 1134 W GREENHEAD DR 74-3246 JOHN & LISA MEYER 141.10 461 S PELICAN WY 74-3342 HOME ART BUILDER 58.40 1463 W GANDER DR TOTAL # TURNOFFS TOTAL AMOUNT $16 , 315.14 ~ ~ TURN OFF LIST STARTING 10/95 DATE COUNCIL APPR # AMOUNT ACT. TURNOFF ACT $ AMOUNT 10/11/95 235 $26,917.96 64 $6,695.95 11 /15/95 181 $21 043.78 35 $4,271.74 12/13/95 267 $25,869.42 54 $12,519.57 1/10/96 291 $24,366.49 43 $3,521.50 2/17/96 246 $18,874.87 68 $5,347.35 3/13/96 258 $19,934.89 38 $3,154.20 4/10/96 262 $21,055.55 58 $4,701.91 5/15/96 196 $16,980.06 38 $2,713.32 6/12/96 263 $19,527.28 45 $3,291.76 7/10/96 217 $16,444.58 64 $5,610.89 !x'/96 137 $13,860.07 98 $9,750.27 9/4/96 142 $16,315.14 96 $10,800.74 ~C~~~~~ S E P - 4 1996 c,~rv o~ r~ER~~N