Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 03-07- ~ • ~, ; MERIDIAN C1TY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 21, 1995: (APPROVED) 1. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ~ REZONE REQUEST BY HELEN ALIDJANI: (APPROVED) ~ 2. ORDINANCE #692 - ALIDJANI REZONE (TABLED FEBRUARY 21, 1995): (APPROVED) I , 3. BOB HAGEN: DISCUSSION ON PARKING SIGNS IN FRONT OF 24 HOUR PLUMBING AT 1334 E. 1 ST ST.: (ENFORCE 2 HOUR PARKING , SIGNS) ~ - 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE ' REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVE FINDINGS; DENY VARIANCE) i 5. FfNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE ~ ~ REQUEST FOR ALBERTSON'S INC.: (APPROVED) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED) . ~ , ~ 7. ORDfNANCE #695 - REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF 2-1001: , (TABLE UNTIL MARCH 21, 1995) ~; . 8. ORDINANCE #696 - CAROL LOTSPEICH ANNEXATION: (APPROVED) 9. ORDINANCE #697 - SEWER PRE-TREATMENT: (APPROVED) r ~ 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW DRIVE THRU BANKING ' FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED) ~~ , • • i ~Q3A021dd~d) ~~12~~dd ' Jlllfll 0112lia 33?~~ 3nOW ~Jl~N3Jb3W3 3bt/1~34 ~ ~ ~NdW~1~Nf10~ 'dWSl01 N02~ ~~ ~a3A021ddt/) ~1N3W332JJt/ JNISS02~~ NOI1tlJlbbl Nb~IdR13W b~dWt1N ' 6 ~Jl~N2iOlltJ Jlll~ 'NOIS~OOb~ 3NJlt/M "9 ~a3A02~ddb~) ~NOIlb210db0~ NOlHJlbB ~81b~1d 3S21(10~ ~~OJ Ol 1N3W1Sflfdtf 'E ~ ~a3A021dd~d) ~1Nt1ld 1N3Wl~d~iJl ~ b~M3S lb~ NOll~dllb~lSNl b3~108 ~Sll(1S~2~ 418 'Z ~a3A021ddb~) ~S3NIl b3M3S 'n'1 aNd Nd3l~ Ol S1N3Wf1~Oa al8 2~0~ 1N3W332iJ~d JNIb33NIJN3 ' 6 ~ ~?~33N1JN3 J1.11~ 'HlIWS JlbdJ 'b~ -Sl2iOd3b 1N3W12~b~d3a ~6 ~ ~I ~a3/~021ddt/) ~SlllB 3/~Obddb' '81. ~ ~2l31S3~ J11138 ~O NOIld3~X3 3H1 H11M 3A021ddb~) ~S~I~N3f1t~Nil~a HS~11I2~3M3S21~1~dM 'L~ ~566 L `961Sf1Jflb~ ~IlNfl 3~1~~0 J121t~NOdW313/~021ddt!) ~M3lnblt/~ '~ ZE~ l~d 3~1~~0 Jl2~t~lOdW31 NO NOfSN31X3 1S3f1D~?~ ~~INb9 Sfl '9L ~431N3a) 2i~M~S Jlll~ Ol dfl ~OOH 1S~flb~2~ ~b3lJNt~dS a32~~ ~56 ~3Sf1 ~t/NOlIaNO~ ~O a3~SN~J2113/~OZlddb~) ~NOSIIM SR~H~ Jl9 b3~SNb~il lIW2~3d 3Sf1 Ib~NOIlIaNO~ 2~0~ 1S3f1~~2J ~JN12J`d3H ~Il9fld ~b~ ~Mt~ ~O SNOISf1~~N0~ aNt/ l~~d~ ~O SJNIaNI~ 32ltld3?!d Ol A3N2~Ollb~ All~) ~'~NI `S~NOSlb39lb Jl8 ~~Ntf12i`d/~ Q~Ib~JI 3QIS 100~ Ob3Z tl b0~ 1S3f1D3b ~JNRib~3H ~I18(ld ~£ 6 ~a3A021ddt!) ~'~NI `213A3W a3?~~ Jl8 3?~OlS Jl?~3~02~J/lldl3~l 100~ ~?~t1f1DS 000'ZL 6 MO~I`d Ol 1S3(1D3b lIW2~3d 3Sf1 1dN01110N0~ ~Z 6 ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCfL CHAMBERS MtNUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 21, 1995: (APPROVED) 1. AMENDED FfNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY HELEN ALIDJANI: (APPROVED) 2. ORDI'NANCE #692 - ALIDJANi REZONE (TABLED FEBRUARY 21, 1995): (APPROVED) 3. BOB HAGEN: DISCUSSION ON PARKING SIGNS IN FRONT OF 24 HOUR PtUMBING AT 1334 E. 1 ST ST.: (ENFORCf 2 HOUR PARKING SIGNS) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVE FINDINGS; DENY VARIANCE) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARtANCE REQUEST FOR ALBERTSON'S INC.: (APPROVED) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED) 7. ORDJNANCE #695 - REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF 2-1001: (~ABLE UNTIL MARCH 21, 1995) 8. ORDINANCE #696 - CAROL LOTSPEICH ANNEXATION: (APPROVED) 9. ORDINANCE #697 - SEWER PRE-TREATMENT: (APPROVED) 10. PUBLIC HEARFNG: REQUEST FOR A PRELiMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHfP: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW DRIVE THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED) i ~i 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW 172,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIUGROCERY STORE BY FRED MEYER, INC.: (APPROVED) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A ZERO FOOT S1DE YARD VARIANCE BY AL~ERTSON'S, INC.: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TRANSFER BY CHRIS WILSON: (APPROVE TRANSFER OF CONDITONAL USE) 15. FRED SPANGLER: REQUEST HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER: (DENIED) 16. US BANK: REQUEST EXTENSION ON TEMPORARY OFFICE AT 132 E. FAIRVIEW: (APPROVE TEMPORARY OFFICE UNTIL AUGUST 15, 1995) . 17. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BETTY LESTER) 18. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED) 19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. ENGINEERI'NG AGREEMENT FOR BID DOCUMENTS TO CLEAN AND T.V. SEWER LINES: (APPROVED) 2. BID RESULTS: BOILER INSTALLATION AT SEWER TREATMENT PLANT: (APPROVED) 3. ADJUSTMENT TO GOLF COURSE PLAT BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (APPROVED) B. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY: 1. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION CROSSING AGREEMENT: (APPROVED) C. RON TOLSMA, COUNCILMAN: 1. DECLARE EMERGENCY: MOVE FREE DIRT TO TULLY . PARK: (APPROVED) .~ ~. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ____ MARCH 7, 1995 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Dana Cowan, Mary Cahoon, Scott Edens, Gordon Anderson, Larry Durkin, Dave Husk, Dann Mullen; John Anderson, Chris Willson, Bob Hagen, Steve Sweet, Roger Allen, Kathleen Weber, Elizabefh Gwin, Dan Wood, Scott Stanfield, Catey Brown, Ralph Trinsley, Patrick McKeegan: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 21, 1995: Kingsford: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions to those minutes? Is there a motion? Yerrington: Mr. Mayor I make a motion that we approve the minutes. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the February 21 st minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY HELEN ALIDJANI: Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed those? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve those amended findings of fact and conclusions of law for the rezone request foc Helen Alidjani. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law on the rezone request for Helen Alidjani, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: ORDINANCE #692 - ALIDJANI REZONE (TABLED FEBRUARY 21, 1995): • • Meridian Gity Council March 7, 1995 Page 2 Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERFDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING CERTAIN ZONING OF REAL PROPERTY WHIGH 15 DESCRIBED AS THE SCHOOL PLAZA SUBDIVISION NO. 1, LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT NO. 2, NW 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T.3N, R.1E, B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 1993 LOTS 1,2 AND 4; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would Iike to have ordinance #692 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion on Ordinance #692. Cocrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance #692 with suspension of the rules. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob Second by Ron to approve Ordinance #692 with s.uspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTIDN CARRfED: Afl Yea ITEM #3: BOB HAGEN: DISC'USSION ON PARKING SIGNS IN FRONT OF 24 HOUR PLUMBING AT 1334 E. 1 ST ST.: Kingsford: Mr. Corrie you did the follow on fhat, what was you finding? Corrie: Yes Mr. Mayor, I contacted the homes in that area of fhe 24 Hour Plumbing, I got to talk to everyone but one and they all agreed that the 2 hour parking should be enforced. I checked with the area around the plumbing shop and there is adequate parking to accommodate the employees cars both in front and behind the shop. I have recommended the signs stay up and the enforcement be carried out. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to leave the 2 hour parking signs as is, all fhose in favor? Opposed? MOTION GARRfED: All Yea (Max Yerrington abstains from vote) ITEM #4: FI'NDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDI'NG N0. 7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 3 • Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed that information? That issue again was the tiling of the ditch. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to appro.ve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written for the variance request by the The Landing No. 7, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRtED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that the decision, that the application for the variance of 11-9- 605M is denied. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve of the decision denying the variance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FFNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ALBERTSON'S, INC.: Kingsford: This is a variance on the width of the landscaping and the tiling of the ditch. Is Council prepared on those findings? Morcow: Mr. Mayor I would like some discussion on the findings. We have a combination of the findings here with respect to the piping of the ditch and the landscaping issues. I think that the piping of the ditch is fine because we had granted that same variance to Parkside Creek. On the last page of the conclusions it says that the plan may be and we are talking now here about the landscaping plan and the buffers, it says that the plan may be submitted to the Council if the Planning and Zoning Administrator believes that it should be approved by tMe Council. I think my preference there would be to give (inaudible) after • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 4 looking at the site, after Wally Lovan's comments that there were some potential changes in that ground configuration that would further expose more of those homes to this particular shopping center and given the fact that with the Avest properties we will be requiring substantial bufferin,g it appears to me that I would Iike that to say that the plan shall be submitted to the City Council for our approval in its final form. (Inaudible) deafing with these other issues but also as a means of supporting not only the neighbors but our (inaudible). Kingsford: Further discussion? Tolsma: I agree with Walt wholeheartedly. Morrow: I would like to put the motion on the table then to change the wording from the plan may be submitted to the plan shall be submitted. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to amend the findings to include then the plan may be to the plan shall be submitted for review, that is item #22 the next to the last line, ait those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED; All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion then on the rest of the findings? Morrow: I move we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the change that has been noted. Yerrington; Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yerrington - Yea, Morrow - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the decision that was written on the ~ndings of fact that it is decided the application for a variance from 11-9-605M is granted • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 5 under the condifions stated herein, that the variance of the planting strip shall be granted under the conditions stated herein. If the applicant agrees with these findings and conclusions and submits the required plan that if the applicant is not in agreement and submits a letter so stating this variance is denied. Kingsford: Is there a second? Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Rori, second by Max to approve the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FtNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSPONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: Morrow: Mr.~ Mayor I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written for the variance request for the Landing No. 7 by Skyline Development, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the decision as stated, that it is hereby decided that the variance request to allow one lot in the R-8 subdivision not to be 8,000 square feet is approved but fhe applicant shall place the pedestrian pathway adjacent to the lot 12, Block 12 of the Landing Subdivision No. 7 and shall meet the ordinance requirements for the pathway. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve the decision, all those in favor? • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 6 Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #695 - REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF 2-1001: Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERlD1AN REPEALING SECTION 2- 1001A OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND RE-ENACTING SAID SECTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AS AMENDED WITH THE CHANGES TO SECTION 2.303, 4.108, AND 10.507H ARTICLE 78, ARTICLE 79 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE FOLLOWING APPENDIX, 2F, 3A, 3B, 3C, 5A STANDARDS, 6A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION, AND 7 UBC REFERENCE TABLES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This for public information is the Uniform Building Code and Fire and Life Safety Code adoption with those amendments. Anyone from the public like to have that ordinance read in its entirety? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, can we have some background as to what the changes are going on here. VVe didn't have anything in our packet, there was no information here to indicate why we are repealing and then re-enacting. I personally would like to know (inaudible). Kingsford: Counselor, can you address that or the Fire Marshall. Voss: What is it you don't understand there Walt? Morrow: Why are we repealing? Kingsford: What those exceptions might be? Morrow: What is it we are repealing and why are we repealing that and then we are re- enacting a portion. What is the difference, what is the change? Voss: Without a copy of it, which I don't have in my hand right now, basically what we are doing is changing from the number of occupancy in certain apartment housing, hotels, motels, enacting a sprinkler ordinance to sprinkle buildings that are above a certain level of occupancy, heights, and get protection to the public that is living in these rented apartments. This transpired in Nampa, we are trying to following suit. I look forward to it being adopted throughout the state. Morrow: What does the code currently say, what is the difference in height and occupancies in the code currently? • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 7 Voss: Off the top of rny head i fhink we went from 30 down to 20 on one section, height requirements in Uniform Building Code at this time it gives a height of, the basement level is there is a berm of dirt 5 foot around I think it is 60% of the building that is classified as a basement even though it is ground level. We have changed it to state that any building 3 floors or more. We have done away with the story end of it and fhat is basically the most radical change of doing away with the word story to floors. . Morrow: And floors makes the basement then inclusive of the 3 floors? Voss: Yes it does. Morrow: And that is basically it? Voss: That is basically it. Morrow: Thank you Kingsford: Is the Council prepared to act on that or do you want to review all of those changes separately? Morrow: My preference would be to review this and act upon it at the next meeting. Kingsford: 1 would certainly endorse that if the builder doesn't know what it is about. I have some serious questions too. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move we table Ordinarice #695 until the next meeting. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to table Ordinance #695 until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: ORDI'NANCE #696 - CAROL LOTSPEICH ANNEXATION: Kingsford: That is the corner of Overland and Meridian Road, southeast corner. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERFDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 19, T.3N, R.1E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the pubfic that would like ! ~~ Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 8 to have Ordinance #696 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion on #696. ~ Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance #696 with the suspension of the rules. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve Ordinance #696 with the suspension of the rules. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ~ ITEM #9: ORDFNANCE #697 - SEWER PRE-TREATMENT: Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE 7 HEALTH AND SANITATION OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER TO BE KNOWN AS CHAPTER 7 SEWAGE PRE- TREATMENT ADOPTING SECTIONS RELATED TO THE PURPOSE AND POLICY, PROGRAMS, ADMINISTRATION, DEFINITIONS, PROHIBITED DISCHARGE STANDARDS, PROHIBITS ON STORM DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER, ACCEPTANCE OF PRE-TREATMENT MEASURES, STATE REQUIREMENTS, ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE, FEES, INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT, EXTRA- JURISDICTIONAL INDIRECT DISCHARGE, INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT APPEALS, INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT MODIFICATION, INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT RE- ISSUANCE, fNDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT REVOCATION, USER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, INSPECTION AND SAMPLING, CONFfDENTIAL INFORMATION, ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have this Ordinance read in its entirety? If somebody is interest we could be here until about midnight with that. Seeing none I would entertain a motion. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve Ordinance #697 with the suspension of the rules. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve of #697 with the suspension of the rules, roll call vote. • Meridian City Counci1 March 7, 1995 Page 9 C~ ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBUC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Larry Durkin, 380 East Park Center Blvd., Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Durkin: I am speaking on behalf of Dakota Development, Avest Limited Partnership, Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. and Key Bank of Idaho. As you know we have been working on this development for the past 3 years and the plat and the site plans that I am going to show you tonight are the result of neighborhood meetings, public hearings, meetings wifh the City of Meridian, AC'HD, tenant meetings and the input from our architects, engineers, traffic study experts. The property is presently annexed to the City of Meridian, the property is zoned for the use we are pcoposing. Fred Meyer, Key Bank and the storage units are ready to begin as soon as we can gain final approval and complete the necessary.architectural and engineering work. We received unanimous final approval from ACHD after 2 public hearings on this project. The project wilt represent a multi-million doltar investment in the community and will employee nearly 500 full and part time employees from the area. Some of the concems we have encountered and solved include traffic flow to and from the project. Adequate buffering, from the project to the adjoining residential areas, off site work to accommodate the project and adjoining residential areas. The traffic flow~concems to and from the project have been solved according to the ACHD staff and our traffic study engineer. We have reduced or restricted the access points to meet the concerns of ACHD. Adjacent properties are buffered by a berm along Locust Grove and by the construction of the storage units behind Fred Meyer. The berm will be constructed in accordance with the development agreement approved by the City during the annexation of the project and in accordance with the recommendations of staff and the previous public hearings. The project is divided into 10 lots, if I may step over and use Wayne's microphone. I will face it this way and then I will turn it back for the audience. Lot 1 is the parcel that is the Fred Meyer parcel, Lot 2 is a pad up in this corner up on Locust Grove, Lot 3 is the parcel that we intend to build a Key Bank on. Lot 4 is a parcel that we expect to build a McDonald's restaurant on. Lot 5 is a pad that would be a multi- tenant building pad. Lot 6 is the loop road that surrounds the entire project. Lot 7 is a pad on the corner of Fairview Avenue and the loop road. Lot 8 is another pad parcel and then Lot 9 is the mini-storage parcel and Lot 10 is a separate parcel that will be used for the detention pond for the storm drainage for the project. The off site improvements we will ~ ~ • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 10 construct include medians along Fairview Avenue, sidewalks around the project and extend the necessary utilities tq the site. I would like to now put up the site plan if it is appropriate for the entire 40 acres so you can get an idea of how it will be laid out. The project lays out, see the Fred Meyer, it is 171,000 square foot store, and the parking, will have landscaping along Fairview in accordance with the development agreement, all up along Locust Grove. We are landscaping the entry drives off of Fairview and Locust Grove into a certain point. Then the loop road comes around the back of the project, this is atl the mini-storage here will screen the retail development from the residential areas. It is about 430 feet from the loading docks of Fred Meyer to the closest resident going to the north. We have, there is a particular matter in the development agreement that we have with the City fhat I would just Iike to bring to your attention and make sure you are aware of. One of the big concerns we have, had from the adjacent property owners are the people to the west along that Locust Grove. We are providing them with the materials to build a berm along the front of their properties and we are providing them with money to landscape that berm. I have talked with one of the owners and they wondered how are we going to build this berm. The big question is when is ACHD going to expand the west side of Locust Grove. That schedule just isn't within our control it is within ACHD's control. When we develop this project the east side of Locust Grove will be expanded and widened so that you will have 2 lanes going north and a center turn lane and one lane going south. ACHD at a later date will be expanding the road and fhey just have not let us know precisely when that will occur. I want to assure the Council tonight that we'll continue to get fhat information from ACHD and that we will have our surveyor provide a staking along the west side of Locust Grove so that the property owners have a fairly good idea where that road extension is going to be. The concern specifically was that they would build these berms on theic side and then ACHD would come along and widen the road and take out the berms. So I think that to the best of our abilities we are going to handle that concern, but ACHD hasn't been specific with exactly the dimensions and the timing (inaudible). I am prepared to answer any questions that you may have. Morrow: The storm drainage site, Lot 10, is that within the inside of the fence that separates fhe storages from the rest of the project? Durkin; Yes it is. IUlorrow: So it is not exposed to general view? Durkin: No, it is completely protected. Morrow: You also stated that from the loading docks on the Fred Meyer store to the northern residences was a minimum of 430 feet, how many feet is it to the west to those residences? • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 11 Durkin: I would like to clarify that statement, it is approximately 430 feet, it isn't a minimum of. I can give you that other answer here just a minute. Mr. Morrow, was your question the loading docks or the edge of the Fred Meyer building? Morrow: The loading docks. Durkin: 480 feet. Morrow: My final question is with respect to you are providing materials and money for those landscaping berms, what sort of guarantee does the City and the citizens have that those will come to pass in terms of completion bonding and those types of things? Durkin: That is a good question, in our annexation process we had to agree to enter into a development agreement with the City, it is an agreement that is drafted by and provided to us by the City. It covers our requirements prior to obtaining a building permit you have to do certain things, excuse me prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. I don't know precisely if that matter is a bonded issue, there are quite a few of the improvements that are bonded and I am not certain if that specific one is bonded. It certainly has to be done prior to getting an occupancy permit for any of the parcels. It is an obligation that we have with the City to do fhose improvemenfs, that berming and provide that money to the residents. It is also the same requirements we have to provide some of the perimeter landscaping for the project. We have to do those things, they have to be completed prior to gefting an occupancy permit. Morrow: With respect to ACHD are you short the technical data in terms of where the expansion on the west side would go, or are you short an approximate time schedule as to when that is going to take place? Durkin: I am short the technical data, we ace dealing with estimates right now, we are dealing with approximately X number of feet instead of precisely. So it is not an answer I can't give a precise location of where that is going to be. We are dealing with estimates from them at this time. From a timing standpoint, they are using a year, fhey are saying we are going to complete it in 1997. I don't know if that is January or December, so that is the timing we are facing with ACHD. Morrow: Okay, in resolution of that is somebody asking for more specific time, I know that it is in our 5 year plan. I know that our transportation committee for the City has worked really hard to get North Locust Grove taken care of. So, if it is a question of a real tight time schedule I am not sure that anybody can give you that information. It is a question of specifics in terms of the road cross sections and elevations that information should be forthcoming and that is fhe information you are waiting for? • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 12 Durkin: As far as the road elevations that information will be available to us well in advance of us going into construction because that is important data to us and that is something that ACHD is working on at this time. I don't have that information yet but that will be available. The construction of the, from the center of Locust Grove all the way to the east into our property including fhe property that we are dedicating to them that will occur at roughly the same time as the canstruction of our project. Which we expect to begin in July or August and have completed by April of 1996. But the construction of the west side of Locus# Grove as it affects those adjacent property owners on the west side, the precise time table and the precise width of that Iane isn't available to me at this time. So, as much as I would like to get up and say we are going to mark the exact spot that information is coming from others that are out of my control. So we are going to work as closely as we can with ACHD as we have to for this construction anyway. As soon as I have that information available we will provide that location. Morrow: I understand, my final question has to do with respect to the major concern in that area from a couple of property owners standpoint, it has to do with the irrigation supply lines coming across this property. There was a meeting last fall befinreen myself, the Gity Attorney, representatives from Avest, Dove Meadows, Wingate Place and the church. Essentially the outcome of that meetings where it was left was that it was up to the development folk to form together whatever team they needed to have the problem in terms of the irrigation as it affects Mr. Aschenbrenner, Mr. Bryan resolved prior to the start of the irrigation season. We are now within about 40 to 45 days of the start of that season. It is my understanding by virtue of a letter we received tonight fhat nothing has yet been done towards solving those problems. Quite candidly the City's position was is that those things would be resolved prior to the start of the irrigation season or there would be no further action with any of those subdivisions in terms of pcoceeding further on. Can you tell us tonight what the schedule is for solving fhose irrigation problems? Durkin: I cannot answer that, but there is a gentleman here tonight that can. I will ask him to stand up, his name is Steve Sweet and he has had meetings with these people. It is my understanding that the matter is resolved. Was this letter delivered to you tonight or was this in the packet. Kingsford: Delivered to us today. Durkin: I am just, it is a technical matter and he is an engineer and he can answer that. Crookston: Mr. Durkin, a5 much for Avest's protection what devices are going to be put in place for the property owners that do abut Locust Grove on the west that you are giving money to and materials. What I don't want to see is you give them the money particularly fhe money, the materials t assume will be there, but what assurances are you taking to • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 13 make sure that money goes into construction of a berm on their side without someone selling their house and taking the money and then leaving their buyer with the obligation to do it but they don't have any money. Durkin: Wayne, I don't believe that it is an obligation that the property owners have to do the berm. The obligation was put on us to provide the top soil materials for these people and provide them with the money to finish the landscaping and sprinkling or whatever they want to do. We are going to do that in accordance with the development agreement that was drafted by the City. But as far as Avest assuming the responsibility that money be used in an appropriate manner, it was our obligation to provide the materials which we will. It is our obligation to provide the money which we will, but that is where it began and ended as fiar as (inaudible). Kingsford: Would there be a disclosure requirement if that sell that Wayne? Crookston: There should be. Whatever money you have put into it is put into the project and not used by the owners for another purpose. Kingsford: Well, if the owners opted to do that I see nothing wrong with that, they are the ones being inconvenienced. If they want lights in their yard that is going to be their elective I would think. I would think they would want to screen themselves. Crookston: I would agree with that but I would certainly want to see it there. Durkin: From our stand point we didn't have the ability to force them to do it, they all have expressed a desire to do it and we are taking care of the material and some of the financial part. Kingsford: Mr. Durkin, I had a question with regard to the storage sheds on the north part. It is my understanding that will be phased that the part along. the north will not be constructed, we don't know a date certain that will happen. And I understand from the minutes of P& Z that there was discussion of there being a mound of dirt from excavation that would screen that. What kind of provision is there to see that is not an attractive nuisance, a dust bowl that sort of thing? Durkin: I have some people tonight here from Stor-I# and I would ask them to talk about precisely their schedule. But, if I could just walk over. It is my undecstanding that the storage unit will begin in phases and start here go up into this area first, when that is up and full it will expanded along to the west. It is our plan to take roughly 60,000 yards of excess material that we are going to have from top soil and stock pile it along in this area. As far as timing of that, timing of the storage units I am going to ask Kathleen Weber to '~ ~ Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 14 address that precisely. As far as what we are going to do to maintain it, we would anticipate that it would look similar to the way it looks out there right now except there would be a dirt pile. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Durkin? Yerrington: Yes, I have one question,, on the west side of the road where you are going to build this berm, were you planning on putting a sidewalk on that side of the road? Durkin: There are actually 2 berms that we are going to be building. The one on the west side we are providing the materials to those people and they are going to finish the berm and use the monies that we are giving them. The sidewalk will be part of the ACHD expansion, the sidewalks are in their control for the west side. The sidewalk on the east side of Locust Grove adjoining our property will be installed and completed prior to the opening of the center. That sidewalk on the west side again falls into the ACHD time frame and that is part of their construction as well as curb and gutter. Kingsford: Any other questions? Thank you Durkin: I would like to just mention then 1 have Steve Sweet, I would like him to talk about the irrigation matter, I have David Husk from Fred Meyer stores here that would be happy to answer any questions regarding fheir store. Kathleen Weber is here from Stor-It and I am going to ask her to talk about the schedule for the storage units. Steve Sweet, 405 South 8th St, S-295, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sweet: Gentlemen, we are dealing with 2 issues here. We are dealing with irrigation and drainage. I want just for the record to read Mr. Bryan's words, I have been in contact this past week with the engineers involved with the Avest property. I feel at this time that this problem can and will be resolved. Mr. Bryan has been very good to deal with, we do have irrigation along this north property line and a number of previous landowners have relocated (inaudible) upstream. We are working to deliver to his point of delivery as required by State statute that we continue to deliver his water. .Drainage is another matter, there is considerable agricultural use upstream of Mr. Bryan's home. He has more drainage water than he wants at times. And we are working with him on relocating the ditch away from his property onto the Avest property as a temporary measure to relieve the irrigation drainage. We have a legal right to convey the drainage through our property onto the next and not backing up our upstream user. Mr. Bryan is also under the same criteria and is in a little bit of a quandary in that the ditch is adjacent to his property in the Highway District right of way outside of Nampa Meridian's jurisdiction. There is a need for Mr. Bryan also to clean his ditch in order to convey the water downstream to the Jackson • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 15 stub drain. We will be working with him on that. Timing, we are in the design process, we will need to have Mr. Bryan and Nampa Meridian review and approval, we have met with the City Engineer on a preliminary basis and we will also be submitting to the City Engineer for his review and approval of the plans. As far•as when construction is going to take place I can't tell you other than my client says he would like it yesterday. Kingsford: It will be before the irrigation water is in? • Sweet: I am not in a position to say when the construction will take place. Kingsford: I guess I will remind of our requirement that it has to be done by then. Sweet: Allow me to get a nodding of the head of my client, he says will it be done before April 15th? Durkin: I don't know if it will be done by April 15th, but if it is done after April 15th then there is a transfer over. If the construction work is done after April 15th and we assure him that we won't interrupt his water supply does that cover it? Morrow: No; I think the issue here is bigger because in our meeting, what impaets this project and unfortunately for the Avest project it happens to be a collection point where all of these things come together. Prior to any developing the agricultural system worked pretty well. And Mr. Bryan didn't have a problem. Mr. Aschenbrenner farms the spaces along Eagle Road, Mr. Aschenbrenner has the capability of irrigating those mint fields with well pumped water. His property drains and has historicall.y drained through the remaining parcels and through the Avest property and on out. Quite candidly if you folks don't have your drains and those other things done prior to the start of irrigation season than you are going to get more water than you can use. And the concern in our meeting last fall was is that befinreen fhe Avest project and the other 3 subdivisions and the church the irrigation system and the drainage system has been pretty well goofed up. Where the meeting was left was that there was going to be a concerted effort befinreen those 4 groups of people to make sure that the agricultural problems and Mr. Bryan's problems have been solved prior to the start of the irrigation season. And so that is where we are tonight with respect to this question. Durkin: Can you point out to me where that ditch is, where (inaudible). Sweet: There are 2 ditches, there is an irrigation ditch along the north boundary, the drainage ditch that comes fcom this point across the site and they both rneet in the northwest corner of the site. • . Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 16 Durkin: The one on the northern edge of the property is the one that we are talking about as far as collecting Morrow: We are talking about both of them. (Inaudible) Roger Allen, 9647 West Pebblebrook Lane, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. AI1en: We had a meeting here just this last week with the City Engineer and with our engineer. We believe that we have both the short term solution to the problem and the long term. We understand and I have Iived here long enough to know that what you are saying is correct and that we have to take care of the water situation. There is a concern presently that we cannot resolve (End of Tape) we have our eleyations and a lot more of the engineering done on our project, we really can't go in and start putting pipe in the ground and then find out that we didn't do it properly. So what we proposed here the other day was a temporary solution which basically cesolves both the drainage and the irrigation system and leaves it much like it was and has been through the years. If I could approach the map there I think I can show you just in a general way what our problem is and how we might resolve that. As we pointed earlier the irrigation water that enters our property comes in cight here comes down to this point and goes into Don's property and that is where he irrigates. That ditch can stay, in fact we went in last year at our own expense and cleaned the ditch for pon so it could continue through there and it does deliver the water here. So as far as the irrigation that could be next year, 5 years, 10 years from now. There is really, when we know the exact elevation and our engineering is completed this of course will be covered according to your ordinance, the City ordinance. As far as the irrigation water, nothing will change whether we build or whether we start now or what. WE are going to deliver pon's irrigation water to this point and the ditch is open and clear now and we will keep it open and clear and fhen of course as do our phasing in our development this ditch will be covered according to the development agreement. Now the other problem that arises is a drain ditch that comes into our property about here, it comes down and enters through Don's property about mid-property line, his property lines goes from. about here to here and it enters right here. In fhe past part of the water that came from up here off of the Aschenbrenner properties entered a ditching system actually it is referred to as dirty water but one way or another it got thcough a ditching system and to this point of our property. Then there was a ditch down across approximately in this area and interested Locust Grove at this area and then continued on down and crossed in front of John's home and down this way. So basically you had irrigation water coming here, he would irrigate with that, you had drain water coming across the property here which is the existing drain ditch. And you have part of this water though was split and came around this direction go to here and came back to hece. Any way the water moved it came across the • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 17 property to here the drain water and fhis water came to here and eventually all winds up right here. Don's ditches will not carry that water for one thing I know that the pipe underneath his driveway is not large enough to carry the volume of water that is coming down there now. And Don is having a lot of problem with this water backing up, part of it is irrigation water, part of it is fhis drain water, part of it is this drain water. And I think Don's contention in our discussion with him is fhat because this used to carry part of the drain water so that it split coming across and part of it is coming here and part of it is coming here that it relieved some of this water that was coming on and causing the flooding here. What we are proposing as a temporary solution and that will work for the time being to put the system back exactly like it was. On our property where this drain come across we will divert and put in a culvert system and we can either regulate it or pon can so that this water, the drain water that comes into his property can be split. We will dig a ditch over here to this ditch and bring it down to this point. Now basically we have put the water back exactly like it has been in the past. If Don feels like this is flooding him or he doesn't want to use the water he can divert it to here and it winds up at this point leaving our property. If he wants all the water to irrigate he can let it go that direction. And that is what we would like to propose on a temporary basis until our engineering and I believe Steve has quite a bit of information there on the engineering and what we are proposing to do there. I really don't know, it seems Iike to me that I feel like our obligation is to deliver the water exactly as it was delivered previously. That is what we are attempfing to do on a temporary basis and of course the long term solution is all of that will be covered and in culvert and done according to your City Ordinance. So anyway, I don't know any other solution to it. Just one other point to make it real clear that I don't feel or Steve that diverting this water whatever way it gets diverted up here and this ditch winding up over there I understand it is carrying part of it, all of the water leaves our property at this point whether it goes into Don's here and then runs down here because he has a ditch along this area. But if we put a diversion ditch right here on a temporary basis until we get this engineering and so forth now we can regulate this water we can put part of it here or all of it whichevec way and it seems like a reasonable solution to me. Can I answer any questions? Kingsford: I think that was Don's concern and not seeing him, his concern was if it was all dumped on his east boundary that ditch doesn't handle it. It needs to come in 2 locations so I think you have addressed at least what I heard was his concerns. Allen: If you have other questions I would be glad to try and answer those. Durkin: I have a photo here that I would be happy to submit and you can pass around. It is an aerial photo, the date is on the back, it was last fall I believe. That shows the ditch that we are talking about and then the irrigation line that we are talking about and Don's house over by the Locust Grove end. • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 18 Kingsford: Thank you, are you finished Steve? Kafhleen Kathleen Weber, 6904 Randolph Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Weber: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council I didn't know I was going to have to speak tonight, but I am glad I get to. I am here on behalf of Stor-It rental storages and we are very anxious to be coming to the Meridian area, we are so anxious that we have had our phone number in the phone book for the past year saying that we will be here in 1995. We have been receiving calls from people in the Meridian area and the calls are transferred to our Maple Grove office. The reason I bring that up is that whether we expand or not past about the 1/3 mark on the back of I believe it is Lot 9 depends on the demand here in Meridian. Since January of last year I have had abut 214 calls that have been recorded, I am sure there are some fihat have been missed. My people have been keeping track of that. I feel like there is going to be a real strong demand here in Meridian and I do know that when we initially came in with our conditional use request for storages the people that were past the 1/3 rnark on Lot 9 said we want it to go on down here too. So we have kind of decided that if the demand is there that is what we will do. Initially I know that there is going to be a lot of dirt coming off of the Fred Meyer excavation and the elevation work that needs to be done, that is probably where we will keep fhat dirt and some of the neighbors that were here at the Planning and Zoning meeting said that would be fine with them and that is where they would Iike it. Kingsford: Do you plan #o do anything else with it besides, dirt can blow around in the wind and that sort of thing. Weber: I do know that, I am not sure how that would work but maybe someone has heard like if you could sprinkle some grass seed or something to keep the dirt, so it is not quite as loose for the neighbors. Thank you. Kingsford: Did Fred Meyer want to take this time now? Durkin: I just wanted you to be aware he was here and could answer any quesfiions if you had anything specific. Kingsford: Does Council have questions for Fred Meyers? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Elizabeth Gwin, 1515 South Carol Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gwin: Well, you know we have been here before. Our main concem are the houses along the road because we have 4 houses that face directly onto this property. One of my . • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 19 concems is that we want to preserve those houses as residential homes. I have like in the comprehensive Plan it designates our area as a mixed use area. I don't know if you know this or not but our subdivision has covenants and one of the covenants is that there will be no commercial within our subdivision. This is sort of causing a problem because the last 3 homes that have sold in there, people have come in there and set up some kind of home business. I checked with the Council, the County does allow some sort of businesses but not one of these people have a permit for a business. 1Ne have a nursery along the road, a landscape business, we have someone that is running a small welding shop, another man that is some sort of a concrete business where he brings some trucks and things and I think some of the neighbors had to write to the County about that and ask them to curtail the traffic. Well, I don't know how you enforce covenants if people don't want to do that. I guess if you have a lot of money you can get a lawyer and sue but I don't' know who wants to do that. I don't know when you are going to annex us but I do wish you would change that designation because it is sort of creating a conflict in that little neighbofiood there. I know the people that face the road may need that option, but I hate to see that. My biggest point is that I would like to see whatever can be done to preserve those homes so people can be comfortable living there with a shopping center and whatever else goes there. As far as the money that has been allotted by Avest for landscaping for these people I would like to see some sort of a contract with those people that it is used for that with the idea that we are preserving these homes for residential use. Some of the things that I think the people might want to do with that besides just buying shrubbery. would probably be sprinkler system, some people might want to change their driveway configurations to maybe a circle drive or somefhing like that. I don't know someone might want to add more fencing of some sort because we don't really know how much foot traffic this thing will generate and whether we are going to have a problem with people lounging on lawns and things like fhat, maybe some teenagers. And some people might want to add more fighting because we don't have street lights in our subdivisions. I don't know what their needs would be but I would like to see a contract of some sort so that the money is used for that. Some of the yards are so small now that face the road that I don't know that they will want to use dirt for berming or not. If you have driven along there you have probably noticed that. Also I would like to say thanks for the 4 foot berms on the east side of the road, I think that will be a big help. I would like to see, I don't know what the City can do to encourage Avest to do this or not but I would like to see a lot of evergreens along that side of the road too on those berms. I noticed a lot of shopping centers Iike to use these litfle what people call mall trees, little maples and thing~s. They really don't screen much so I would like to see evergreens there if you could thing about fhat. Also, you haven't gotten to the Key Bank yet but I did write in my letter about loud speakers. I would Iike to see the ordinance that the City has of a 100 foot from their property Jine be evoked here, I think that would pretty much take care of noise coming into our area I am not sure. I am sure they will be at least 90 feet from the property lines, is what I am figuring from the edge of the subdivision. On the irrigation, I am not real sure • ~ • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 20 what happens to the water after it leaves Don's I guess it goes back down the road into another ditch. Kingsford: It goes north a little ways and then under Locust Grove and through those subdivisions. Gwin: I have a little bit of a concern because in our subdivisions I think there are maybe a couple of people that use irrigation water and I am not sure, they come off a different ditch so I know that, I understand that ditch is being abandoned but what concerns me is a Iot of people have wells that are just for irrigation and they aren't very deep and they count on that influx of water coming in through the ditches and it saturates the ground and then they pump it out is what they do. I don't know whether that is going to lower that ground water level to the point where a lot of people won't have those wells. When you have lots that are half acre to 1 1/4 you can't really pump from your house well and water so that is anofher concern. I do have a concern about the dirt and debris when they are constructing over there and digging up. I don't know what kind of containment they can do but I have been thinking about power washing my house down for the last 2 years and everytime I think about doing it some other construction starts and then there is dust all over the windows and everything. So I figure I might as well wait and rent the power washer and do that. I wish they would do whatever they could, if it takes water trucks. Another problem was D& B where they are constructing that there was a big problem a couple days they drug mud and dirt right onto Fairview and you couldn't even use the right lane you had to get over, if you had a truck to go through there you would be alright. I hope that won't happen, there won't be a lot of dirt drug out onto the roads because that really makes a mess. Another thing is the road widening, whenever fhat happens, I don't know what City of Meridian's policy is on all of this widening of roads, I think it is kind of not real smart in a way. It costs mill'ions of dollars and I don't know that it really does that much to help traffic flow, it just makes people think fhey are on a freeway and they speed up. So, I had spoke to the County about lowering the speed Iimit along that road until the road was completely widened and we had more than one southbound lane along there. Which it looked like it would be a year or 2 but maybe not until we would have 5 lanes. I would still Iike to see maybe down to 30 or 25 along there because it seems like it is going to be a real mess for people turning off and on Locust Grove Road from the shopping center side and from our subdivision which only has the one entrance there. I don't know what the City can do to influence that but whatever you could do that would be appreciated. That is about all of the concerns that I have really right now, but I wrote in my letter and asked that the City and staff and anyone else that was going to peruse these plans if you would do your utmost ~to look at things that maybe the people, just the neighbors by it don't see as being a conffict or realize what is going to happen. This has happened so many times when we have had Idaho Afhletic and now we have fntermountain Sports along there. You end up with problems with fighting and the ~ ~ Meridian City ~Council March 7, 1995 Page 21 windows wifh Idaho Athletic that is still not resolved. Now the neighbor down there has a problem with some drainage on his property, we finally got some decent rain and he had some flooding in the back and he said he watched the water run off Idaho Athletic and run over across their sidewalk into his property which sits a little bit lower. So there are a lot of problems thaf can happen you just can't anticipate and I wish you would try to think about all of those. You are more accustomed to construction and everything and this development then we are really. So, whatever you can do to keep our neighborhood a nice place to live and keep the homes along Locust Grove so they are comfortable and good for the people there. We are real worried about our property values and things because I don't know we should be everytime our property values go up our taxes go up which is another concern. Whatever you can do we appreciate it. Thank you. Kingsford: Mr. Wood Dan Wood, 2119 East Chateau, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wood: My parents are out of town right now they live at the end of Dixie Lane so I have a few questions they asked to me check on. Avest has really tried to do a good job overall and it is difficult to please everyone. What I was hoping to do was have a few questions answered. My folks Iive right at the very end of Dixie Lane with their map I think he mentioned Lot 7 and 8 are commercial sites. I was just wondering with the way it is set up is there anyway we can have some kind of restriction so that all the dumpsters and those types of things aren't put at the back of the lo.ts so fhat Dixie Lane doesn't turn into a alley way type situation. So it looks to me like if Avest Lane that private lane is going to be used for a go around street for the project if Dixie Lane is not, it is going to be a private tane I guess, I don't think anybody knows for sure. So it looks like it is going to be a perfect spot to turn into an alley. If there is anything anybody can find out on that. The otfier thing I was wondering is they are also talking about a pass way from their northeast corner all the way up to probably lot 8 and then cutting across from there over into the project. The time frame with that would that be completed in the first phase of the mini- storage units. That would be, right now it is still used as a private lane for the cars to go up and down, I am not sure all that pathway is on their property so maybe there is plenty of room but it seems like that something else that needs to be answered. The only other thing, you brought up earlier about your ordinance on pathways what is it. How wide does it need to be is there a certain. Kingsford: We don't have a specific width unless we use federal funds then we are limited to how small they can be, but we don't have a specific width. Wood: Okay, so if you could just find out or set some requirements, really the biggest thing is the dumpsters if there is something we could find out on that. • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 22 • Kingsford: It is probably logical that those would be in the back but I would say certainly the City could make some requirements that they be enclosed in some nature so they wouldn't be an eye sore. Wood: So then would Dixie Lane get paved or is it going to stay that way? Kingsford: I don't know what the situation with Dixie Lane is now, whether Avest would ~be able to use Dixie Lane or not. I am not sure who the owner of that property is, it is a private lane. Who owns that currently? Wood: It seems to me it would be part of the City ordinance that somebody has to own it for it to be annexed. Kingsford: It is owned by someone, PII give you that. Wood: The only reason I ask is because I went through a lot of trouble with the northern part of Dixie Lane to clarify who owns that because of tfie request from the City Council. Kingsford: We can check I am sure the legals would show who does own it. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. Anyone else from the public? Mary Caho,un, 1875 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cahoun: I won't tell you my whole little sad story about living off of Locust Grove because I am sure you have heard enough of that. I guess the only thing I want to talk about tonight is the service road that is going to be right there by my property. Your loop road, I am just west of that. I know that the first 2 entrances into Fred Meyers are right in and right out and maybe this is a mini-fhing that you can help me with. Maybe you can make a recommendation to ACHD, probably you can't do that either but I am just going to ask anyway. Is that, since I live right there and I think this road if I am wrong just let me know, but I think that this is a full access road where it can go in both ways. My driveway is right there, I have talked about this before and it is hard enough right now getting in and out of my driveway, I can hardly wait with this extra road right there it is going to be even more difficult for me. We have a trailer, I finally got my husband to move that to the side of the house so it is {inaudible). How am I going to pull my trailer in and out when we go camping this summer, do 1 have to go out there and direct the traffic. We have these semis that are going to be pulling in and out to deliver their goods or whatever, is it ACHD that makes that decision or can you make recommendations for them or is it the fire codes that makes it so they have to do it a full service. Kingsford: I think if you are talking about the access road Mary, currently they are saying • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 23 that ACHD has given that approval. Could I get you to point to your property, is yours the property just west of that road which is Weber Lane? Cahoun: (Inaudible) I guess I have these little (inaudible) 5 year old and an 8 year old. The people right next to me also have 2 small children the same ages as mine and I guess I keep thinking about all of this tra~c and then crossing right where we live we don't have sidewalks there. That is my mayor concern right now. Kingsford: I appreciate that and probably your house will be more impacted probably than the others and they are impacted bad enough. Cahoun: Yes, it is really hitting me big time. Can you give me more money, that would real make me happy. Kingsford: I guess the answer to your one question is at least as we have been told and not controlling the roads is that ACHD has approved those, I am not sure that is necessarily a final thing but they have given approval. Certainly it is something we can still try to look at. Could I ask you, is that access road going to be, it appears that circulation would primarily be one way, but it is going to be both ways is that correct? Durkin: Yes, it will be a 2 way street and it will be all movement at that intersection. Frankly, Mary is the most affected person in the vicinity. I can't, she is directly affected, the street lines up so that it goes between the 2 houses from a lighting standpoint and everything else. There wilt be a center turn lane. Kingsford: Of course that tuming action is going to put those lights directly into her house. Durkin: They will, she is directly affected by this. Mary was at the ACHD meeting and we discussed that at the hearing at length. The traffic on that street is really minimal, we have a center very similar to this in southeast Boise, Albertson's and a Kmart center with the same loop road going around. It is very light traffic from a trucking standpoint the semis that would use that would be, the only trucks I would anticipate using that would be the trucks servicing Fred Meyer, they average 19 semis a week at their store. They don't operate at all hours of the night, they generally operate during the business day. So it isn't like there are a lot of trucks going in and out of fhere. I do believe though that they will come in off of Fairview it would be real unlikely for them to come in off of Locust Grove because of the way the docks are facing. But they will exit out that way. So there is no question. Kingsford: I would ask that you try and give Mary some landscaping assistance when dealing with at least that lighting. u Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 24 U Durkin: Would it be alright if I comment on a few of the other matters that were discussed? Kingsford: Well, wtiy don't we (inaudible) address all of those again. Other members of fhe public that would like to offer testimony? Scott Stanfield, 2223 North Glenfield Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stanfield: There was some question on the drainage a little bit earlier and one solution was a temporary solution of increasing the pipe size and then put another culvert in. I just have a question about what would happen to the existing drain during this construction. If you cover that drain up during construction chances are you are going to bring in some fi11 from the lots and I am worried about flooding this other lot. The lady addressed the Athletic club drainage and I am thinking (inaudible) if you fill in this ditch what is going to happen to this lot owner? It is just a comment that I have. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else? Durkin: I just wanted to make a few points that were brought up and then I will be real brief. As far as the irrigation I am clear on this now and I apologize for not being versed on it before I got here. I wanted to emphasize there will be no interruption to any of fhe irrigation service we are certain of that. As far as Dixie Lane it is a private street, ACHD has asked us to leave it alone, we have no access onto it from our development. Each of the parcels that are along, each of the parcels in the entire plat will require a conditional use permit and that process is when the dumpster issues and all of those matters are brought up. But the access points to Lot 7, Lot 8, and Lot 9 will come off of that loop road. All pedestrian paths and walkways will be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. On the letter that you gave me Mr. Mayor, I assume that all of you received the letter regarding this irrigation. It says in here in this letter there was a meeting in July of 1994 and nothing had been concluded, but he also says in fhe letter that I have been in contact this past week with the engineers involved and with the Avest property and feel at this time that the problem can and will be resolved. However I would like to make it a public record in case that it does not. Don is not here tonight, we talked many times on it and the reason I am so surprised is he always seemed comfortable to me that he was satisfied it was going to be resolved and 1 just wanted to point that out. Kingsford: I think Don has been very patient over the years;and to have that on record is certainly appropriate. Durkin: Sure it is, but we it is not something we have ignored, we have met and talked to him and i felt that he was real comfortable that it would be taken care of. • ~ Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 , Page 25 Tolsma: On Mr. Bryan's letter also he had recommended a temporary fencing to keep the debris out of his pastures and (inaudible) toward the end of the letter. We have had some problems before (inaudible) Iivestock areas (inaudible). I just wondered how you plan to address that? Durkin: Well, under the conditions that we have in our development agreement is that we have to construct a perimeter fence around construction areas prior to any construction to contain the debris. That was a condition that is on page 6 of the development agreement we .have with the City. Corrie: I guess I am still not convinced of what you are going to do. I guess this is to Steve Sweet, the third drainage diich that is down there which looks like it is going to go underneath the store whether it does or not what happens to that drainage water this summer. It is flooding him out there, are you going stop it there and push it up higher, I can't quite see where you are going to benefit by stopping that water from that side. How are you going to stop even? (inaudible) Corrie: On the north side here you have fhe irrigation ditch then you have this drain ditch and then there is another one that goes down through here and feeds into this area here. AI1 3 of these going in is what is causing him some problems, what happens to this drainage ditch right here. Sweet: (Inaudible) this is an irrigation ditch, upstream that has been cut off, this irrigation comes around the north side of the Shoshoni building along the drainage. That water presently goes d,own to the drainage ditch and conveys across here. So in essence fhis ditch has been abandoned by the upstream efforts. Morrow: Have you talked with, it seems to me like in our meeting before that there was some with respect to this split ditch thing some of that waste water that was used .previously to irrigate other properties that are no longer being irrigated. I think Mr. Ewing indicated something along those lines did he not. And so, have you touched bases with Mr. Leader, Mr. Ewing and fhe church folk with respect to. It seems to me part of the problem here if I recall is that now there is more water coming through the waste ditches because of lack of upstream usage of that water which would make the pipe sizing that Mr. Allen alluded to undemeath Mr. Bryan's driveway obviously too small. Have you touched bases with those of the 3 owners to see what the issues there are with respect to this irrigation thing? Sweet: Personally I have not talked to them, Scott Weber of the Stor-tt group has been • • Meridian City Council IVlarch 7, 1995 Page 26 talking with those folks_ and is aware of the situation. Our firm has been instructed to determine how much water is coming down stream and the size the conveyances adequately to pass the water through the site. There is a piece of gaposis on Mr. Bryan's property between.where we discharge the water and where the Nampa Meridian picks it up on his northwest corner of his site of the Jackson stub. We will be able to advise Mr. Bryan of the size of the pipe that needs to go there to convey the water which he will also want to keep in mind though is Ada County Highway District along with the improvements that Avest is proposing for Locust Grove is planning on acquiring property from Mr. Bryan along his westerly property line and completing Locust Grove which includes the drainage. My anticipation is that as the improvements are done and Avest sizes the pipe and the Highway District makes the improvements fhis matter will be taken care of. Morrow: And the one point, my final point in terms of this issue is that it may very well be that because of Mr. Leader's subdivision activities and because of Mr. Ewing's subdivision activities you guys are bearing the brunt of solving the problem and certainly they should have some share in the expense in terms of solving the problem. If the solution on a temporary basis is to increase the size of the pipe underneath Mr. Bryan's driveway than it looks to me like those folk ought to be contributing to that because it is their change in usage that has created a part of the problem if inemory serves me correctly. Sweet: Your point is well taken and I believe the City Engineer addressed this previously when he talked about a lapsed preliminary plat upstream and that any future submittals by properties would be coming into solving this drainage problem. I hear your message and I also believe your City Engineer has heard fhe message. Kingsford: Any other questions? If there is no other comment I will close the public hearing. Seeing none it is closed. Counselor, is it your evaluation there was additional testimony? Crookston: There are no findings on this matter. This is the platting so there are no findings. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for the Avest Plaza subject to staff conditions. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the preliminary plat for Avest Plaza subject to staff conditions being met, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTIDN GARRIED: All Yea • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 27 Kingsford: I thank everybody for their testimony, I also thank everybody for their involvement towards making a maybe not so good situation for people more bearable at least more bearable as possible. ITEM #11: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW DRIVE THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: Does Council have questions about that? I have one, who is doing that configuration? Can I ask a question on how that drive thru will be handled, is that going to be on west side or north side or south side? Durkin: The drive thru facilities are on the eastern side of fhe Key Bank building. The access for this property comes off of Fairview. Kingsford: The reason I ask was Ms. Gwin's concern about the noise and certainly if it is on the east side it is going to help that. Durkin: Actually that drive thru is not on the east, fhe drive thru lanes are on the south side of the building. The City staff recommendation that the noise not exceed 59 decibels I believe, oh 55, the volume is so low on the drive thru facilities that it was, it is not even close to the street noise is quite a bit further. I pointed this out at the last one, I can show you where her house is and where the drive thru is and I think you can (inaudible) Carol Street and this is the first house, the Gwin house is the second house in. The noise has to travel around the building over the berm across the street, over another berm down the street before it affects her residence. The first affected residence would be this one here, they face to the north on Carol Street. This is the 5th bank like this that we have built and I am really familiar with them and I just can't foresee the circumstances for anyone. Kingsford: Well surely she is not just concerned about her house (inaudible). (End of Tape) Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure on the conditional use permit for the drive thru? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move that we adopt he findings of fact and conclusions prepared for P& Z for the conditional use permit for the drive thru banking facility by Avest Limited Partnership. Yerrington: Second Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of fhe findings of fact and •. Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 28 ~ conclusions of law as prepared for P& Z for the drive thru facility for banking at Avest Property, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Totsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the conditional use? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the conditional use permit for the Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue for the drive thru banking facilities. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to approve of the drive thru banking conditional use permit, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTIDN CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW 172,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/GROCERY STORE BY FRED MEYER, INC.: Kingsford: Does the Council have any questions on that? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P& Z for the Fred Meyer store. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for the Planning and Zoning for Fred Meyer store, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Entertain a motion on the conditional use. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the conditional use permit to allow the 172,000 square foot retail grocery store as recommended. • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 29 Yerrington: Second • Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve of the Condilional Use Permit allowing 172,000 square foot retail and grocery store for Fred Meyer Inc., all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRtED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A ZERO FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE BY ALBERTSON'S, fNC.: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Gordon Anderson, 1718 N. 15th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Anderson: I am here to represent Albertson's Inc., what we are here to request is a zero foot off set on a line that will be created common to lots 1 and 2. Lots 1 and 2 are proposed lots of a 2 lot subdivision. I would like to point out on the map that first of all Lot 2 would be outlined by this configuration here. Lot 1 would be outlined by this configuration here. The area we are requesting a zero lot line off set would be just the line that is highlighted here. The purpose we want to do that is so with Albertson's development plan for this site and the site has some constraints which is a configuration of the lot itself. They feel that the best configuration for another development or developed building would be adjacent to and along a common property line as shown on this map. If they are developed as shown here that the purpose they wanted to develop this other lot is to sell fhat to somebody else (inaudible) that they will just own and maintain the remainder. Kingsford: So you are talking about using a common wall basically befinreen those buildings. Anderson; Right it would be a common wall. I think just to hightight again, the irregular shape of the lot does create some constraints on what the development could be. The current zoning ordinance allows for a 10 foot sideyard setback only, it doesn't allow for a zero configuration. Do you have any questions? Corrie: The big plat we had sent to us earlier doesn't have that same configuration. There is shop A but that didn't come around here. Where you have it straight across, let me show you here (inaudible) you have it showing coming up here. • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 30 Anderson: This is a map for the (inaudible) and when fhey decided to name the architect from CSHQA it helped some on this issue. With this configuration they hadn't decided to develop another lot at that time. This was conditional use, we haven't changed any of the other items on this map which would be driveways, other improvements, what happened was the improvements, the proposed lot line configuration just wasn't shown on this map at fhat time. Other than that the buildings are in the same location, driveways are in the same location, improvements are depicted exactly the same. The only difference befinreen this map and that map is the property line has been drawn. Corrie: You are still going to have this parking in here? Anderson: Yes, I can bring this one up. (Inaudible) parking spaces in here along this bank here. Kingsford: Any other questions? Crookston: Excuse me, on the drawing that you have on the easel there, would you point out where you want the zero lot line along that purple line that you have marked on there? Anderson: (Inaudible) zero lot line on each side of this purple line. Crookston: How far south? Anderson: In the southerly direction it would end at this property line right here (inaudible). Crookston: There is not going to be a building there is there? Anderson: (Inaudible) but there will be an Albertson's building that comes out. There will be an Albertson's building that comes straight through here and they won't need to utilize the zero lot line there. We could contain the zero lot line to a more defined area. It is not as i# they could shift this building down and develop in this area because of setbacks anyway. Our request to keep it simple was to be common to lots 1 and 2. Crookston: Well, I guess my point is it has been the policy in the past to allow a zero lot line as a common wall, but if you create a zero lot line all the way along the lot line befinreen lots 1 and 2 than that would almost run down to the Eight Mile Laterat. Is that what you are requesting? Anderson: Our request was to create a zero lot line between the finro lots 1'~ and 2. The main purpose is when the Lot 1 is sold that they can develop a building right adjacent to ~ Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 31 C~ J the Albertson's building. That building there is shown conceptual there is going to be some constraints to the south which won't allow you to build any closer to the lateral but we do want some leeway to shift that building around a Iittle bit to fit within the setbacks and our request was to do it common to lots 1 and 2 to simplify the matter. There won't be any way that they can build near that lateral with a zero offset. Kingsford: I think Gordon I wouldn't have any problem with the zero off set line between those 2 buildings but I would hate to see us grant a zero lot line on your entire purple line. That really opens up a, by us doing that you can make a building right up to your parking lot and I don't think that would be desired at least to me, I don't think it would to the Council. To have it co,nnect to the west boundary of Albertson's I don't have a problem with because you are right, you are not going to move that very far south because you wouldn't meet the sideyard setback. If you move it up to the front of the building that still doesn't bother me but t don't want to see us grant a zero lot line all the way around there. Anderson: Albertson's wouldn't be opposed to that, that would be fine. Tolsma: (Inaudible) northern most line (inaudible). Anderson: 1t would be appropriate to limit the zero lot Iine to this line only befinreen this point and this point. I would have to verify with the building layout being that I erased some of the text in here. We might need it on this 8 foot jog here too. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Thank you, is other testimony from the public? Katie Brown, 3459 SugarCreek Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brown: My question is, the people that were just preceding from Avest they addressed the issues with the property owners. I want to know who we have to contact with Albertson's for them to do the same thing. I want to know what the impact of all of fhis is going to be on my property specifically. And what they are going to do to off set it. I have no idea to contact. Kingsford: Part of the problem there Katie is that this has been zoned for 15 years and it doesn't have some of the same requirements fhat the Avest property did. With regard to trying to eliminate some of those impacts certainly this is the body to address those with. Brown: Because at the last hearing you were talking about the lights and noise, that is still a big concecn for me. The more properties and businesses you put in that area the more impact it is going to be. I want to know what is going to be to protect our interest. C~ Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 32 • Kingsford: Certainly we have our Ordinances with regard to height of lights, parking lot Iights and direction that sort of thing. ~ Brown: How do we go about getting that information as property owners? Kingsford: We have that information, either through Shari or Gary's department. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council members Corrie: I have a question of information, do we need to get clarification from Albertson's on exactly what they want that zero lot line now since they asked for the whole purple now they said they would be willing just to go the store side. Kingsford: I think that at least their representative said that I think what you can grant is just that zero lot Iine on the north south Iine. Morrow: We have to do findings on this anyway (inaudible). Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant the request, I would request we instruct the City Attorney to prepare those findings of fact. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Those findings will be completed at the next meeting. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I might make a comment to Mr. Anderson, it may be to your benefit to address Ms. Brown's issue. One of the things that we have seen with Avest project is it has been a Class A presentation with respect to them working with the neighbors and so on and so forth. I know that you guys don't have the same constraints that they do but it would certainly be to your benefit to meet with the neighbors and explain what your project is and walk them through what is going on in terms of a good way to appcoach the project so that it doesn't become a major issue when you come before the City Council. It is a piece of advice and that is all. Kingsford: Such things I think Katie is concerned about is the screening on fhe front, lighting and messy dress, those sorts of issues. So if you would visit with the neighbors affected please. • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 33 ITEM #14: PUBLtC HEARING: TRANSFER BY CHRIS WILSON: ~ REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and ask Mr. Wilson or his designee to speak first. ~ Chris Wilson, 721 Bacon Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wilson: On the first of February I purchased an existing building from sue Peckham doing business as Children First. I would like to formally request a transfer of that conditional use permit be transferred to me as doing business as A Child's Dream. I do have my fire inspection completed, health inspection and day care license at this time. Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Wilson? Basically what you are asking to do is exactly the same kind of business? Crookston: I have a question, where is this located, what is the address? Wilson: 407 East Fairview. Kingsford: It is the former Ross Furniture building Counselor. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close fhe public hearing. Corrie: Mr. Mayor I move that we direct the City Attorney to draw up findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kingsford: Counselor is that necessary in a transfer? Crookston: I don't think that it is. Kingsford: Not where we don't change use, I wouldn't think. So I leave that up to the Council to decide this evening if you want to go ahead and transfer. Crookston: There were findings prepared when the Ross building was used for this. Kingsford: We are talking about doing exactly the same thing as what the Peckham's were doing. I assume it is roughly the same number of children and so forth. We are not changing the use in any manner we are just transferring that conditional use which, it isn't necessarily a given but when they are not changing any of the uses and it is in a commercial building. • ~ Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 34 Corrie: We are not changing the number of children or anything like that. (Inaudible) Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I would approve this transfer of this license. Kingsford: You approve of it but would you make the motion to approve it? Yerrington: I make the motion to approve of it. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of fhe transfer of the conditional use permit to Wilson's from Peckham's all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: FRED SPANGLER: REQUEST HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER: Kingsford: Does the Council have any questions, you are familiar with that. It is a parcel of land on East Pine that is not in the city limits at this time. You were advised fhat being out of the City Iimits it is a double hook up, you were invited to be annexed. (Inaudible) Kingsford: We would be glad to annex you and not charge you the double fee. Spangler: Well, how long will that take, it has already taken me 90 days now through Ada County, they denied me. I came to you guys, I have waited 2 meetings now to see you. Kingsford: I wouldn't be surprised that what this Council might very well say you can hook up if you start that and get it done in a timely fashion and be annexed. That is kind of an enclave out there. Spangler: It is going to happen eventually you are going to annex me into the City of Meridian, but back in through my studies of the sewer hook up there is not a line directly across the street for me to hook up so it is going to take me an additional $10,500 to hook up to the City of Meridian and that includes my impact fee. That is to dig across Pine Street and to hook up. That is from my foundation across Pine. Now, Ada County who I have already talked to last week they said, people are going to be building on the south side of Pine Street eventually within 2 years. They are covering up what I call the • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 35 ~ mosquito nest and putting a big culvert in there. Which that is one the south side of Pine street that is where the sewer sits. So, there we are going to have to widen the road because they are going to put a subdivision in there anyway within 2 to 3 years. That is my understand 2 to 3 years maybe 4 years. Ada County says I can have 2 bedrooms and I can stay hooked up until the development goes across Pine Street and they covered that up that way if they decide to widen Pine Street that would be the time for me to hook up because then I don't have to cut the asphalt. The cost is cutting the asphalt, it is not hooking up, $2740 I will pay that to hook up but what is costing me is that $10,500. Tolsma: They are charging you that much? Spangler: That is one estimate that I got. Kingsford: That is cutting the asphalt Spangler: And digging 2 feet down, I have to have permits from Ada County to get digging everything. That is what I found out on my vacation last week, it kind of bummed me out. Kingsford: If it is any consolation Ada County Highway District treats us the same way. Yerrington: How many feet do you have to go with this line? Spangler: Sir, I have got to go roughly off of my foundation down my lane is going to probably be 157 feet. That is the the edge of Pine Street and then there is another 12 maybe 15 across or 20 feet across Pine Street and then 15 feet down. Kingsford: What is that Gary, 18 inch, that was the line that was laid out. Smith: I think it is 15 inch. Kingsford: Well that was just my pitch, we would welcome you to fhe City. Does the Council have any questions with regard to that hook up? Is there a motion? Morrow: I don't have a problem with it, I am still not clear in my mind what the objection is to being annexed to the City and I know he mentioned an impact fee. I don't know where an impact fee applies to an existing residence, it is simply adding Kingsford: I think what he is talking about is our hook up fee isn't it? He was not referring to an impact fee but rather our connection fee, reserve capacity. ~~ Meridian Gity Council March 7, 1995 Page 36 • Morrow: I understand that, the statement was impact and I didn't understand how the impact applied to this particular situation. And the question in terms of, you feel it is less expensive not to be in the City? Spangler: Well, it is not that I feel it is inexpensive to be in the City, it is cheaper for me to go ahead and go with Ada County with the Health Department way of saying that within the period of time before they develop the area across Pine Street and widen Pine Street, widening Pine Street would be the time for me to put my sewer and annex all at the same time. Because in a period of time, it is a small parcel, it is a half acre, I am Ada County I am not City. So, when they decide to tear up Pine Street at that point in time than I can hook into it. Kingsford: So what you are saying is you just want an approval from us, you don't plan to do that connection until that street is widened. Spangler: Well, no, that is not what I am after, if you say no this is not the right time for you to hook up than I can go to Ada County and put in a 2 bedroom 1100 square foot home on this property, 3 bedroom they want me to hook up to City sewer. I have a 2 bedroom (inaudible) and they have got to know in a reasonable amount of time when this hook up if I can save up money and hook up within the next 2 years I can do that or find a reasonable price on digging cost across Pine Street. Kingsford: I guess Fred I would ask you what do you want us to say? You want us to tell you that you can't hook up? Spangler: I came over and talked to Will and went and talked to Gary and then I received a phone call from the Health Department last Thursday. He asked me, I thought you were going to put a 3 bedroorn additional onto the existing home that you have. I am going no, I want to put a new home on a foundation, well that changed the whole story around and here I am up here talking to you. I am putting a 2 bedroom with a den and they are saying now I can hook up and use my own original system until it is time for me to hook up or you zone me into the City of Meridian and hook up at that time. Morrow: Let me see if I understand there is no house on this site at present time? Spangler: There is a single wide mobile. Morrow: A single wide mobile home that has a septic system and what you are wishing to do is to take that single wide mobile home off the lot, build a 2 bedroom house with a den and utilize that same system. • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 37 Spangler: Right, until you annex me into the Ciry of Meridian and then at that point in time hook up to fhe City sewer. That is my fhinking. Morrow; So what you are basically wanting us to tell you and Ada County is that no we won't provide the service or allow you to hook up to our line so that Ada County Health Department will allow you to build the thing and hook it to fhe septic system. Spangler: That is correct. Kingsford: So you want us to turn you down? Spangler: Yes Kingsford: We can do that, that puts us back on balance, we like to approve a certain number and deny a certain number. Spangler: Well until you annex me into the City of Meridian, when you annex me into the City of Meridian then I wi11 hook up to city sewer. Kingsford: We would like to do that. Spangler: (Inaudible) within like a year because they have to be notified of that a year to 2 that you are going to annex me to the City of Meridian and at that certain time then I can go ahead and run my line as I am digging my foundation to the edge of my property to the edge of Pine Street than all I have to do is go (inaudible). Kingsford: You are virtually an enclave out there now, we would like to kind of clean up some of those. Spangler: I am a red fight district in a subdivision. Kingsford: Don't say that this is a public meeting. I would entertain a motion to turn him down. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moyed by Walt, second by Bob to deny the request to sewer hook up, all those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 38 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • Kingsford: Any time you would like to be in the City pick up an application we would be glad to take you in because we like to clean up those jagged marks. (Inaudible) Kingsford: I would say in the next couple of days Mr. Berg will have that letter for you and a copy of those minutes. ITEM #16: US BANK: REQUEST EXTENSION ON TEMPORARY OFFICE AT 132 E. FAI RVI EW: Kingsford: Would you come forward and make your plea. State your name for the record if you would. Timsley: My name is Ralph Timsley, and I am a construction project manager for US Bancorp the parent company for US Bank. I am requesting from the Mayor and members of the Council that we are granted an extension for the use of our temporary double wide manufactured unit presently sitting at 132 Fairview Avenue. We are in the process of planning a new facility basically directly behind that same unit. And we have run into some unforeseen delays and would like to extend that permit if we could to August 15th to allow us ample time to get our other new unit constructed and remove the temporary one and do the site work necessary. Kingsford: Your current plan ttien does not call for purchase or utilization of the Seat Cover shop. Timsley: No, that is now history from what I understand. Kingsford: I guess I would just caution you that this is the second extension and we have been hearing about it from a number of people. We are not going to look very favorably on yet another extension. We would like to see a building up and operating by August 15th. ~ Corrie: What do you mean in process, where are you? Do you have the land? Timsley: We own the land, we own the property, we now have just as of today our architect Mr. Patrick McKeegan has delivered sets of drawings to the city for the plan review process permit process if you will for fhe site plan site work. And the manufactured building that we are in process of trying to get into production if you will. • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 39 Corrie: Manufactured building? • Timsley: Yes, it is a triple wide type manufactured home that, not home but commercial building if you will that would go behind our present facility. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, quite candidly, did we not have a set of plans for this project that basically were destroyed after being in the building department for a one year anniversary and it was not as I recall a modular type of construction. Kingsford: That is correct, that is when they were looking at using the Seat Cover Factory and so forth. They have not purchased that. What their request is now goes back to basically square one when they were going to build a building in baek of where the current mobile home is. New though is the request for modular construction. Morrow: So now is that going to go baek through fhe hearing process? Kingsford: I am not sure what is necessary. Crookston: I am sorry I am not up to speed on this at all. Kingsford: I guess Mr. Morrow what I would perceive if that building, they have their zoning, they are zoned properly, if that building meets our building codes and standards I would assume that it wouldn't have to go back through the hearing process. Crookston: Not if it is zoned for that use. Kingsford: It is zoned for a bank. (Inaudible) Morrow: My question is did they go through a hearing process that there was a pr.esentation for the one building to get to this point? Has there been any hearings? Kingsford: The hearing did not request Walt a specific building only that a building would be built. And where it would located initially was in back of where that current facility is. Then they opted to buy the Seat Cover Factory and I think they were going to incorporate part of that building into their bank. That didn't progress parfially because of contaminated ground. And now their request is what you see in front of you there. We just got those plans this afternoon ancl Will shot just a reduced copy of that for you this evening of that modular building that would go back on the same site that originally they discussed. . Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 40 • McKeegan: I am the architect on this particular project. It is my understanding that the building is an allowed use on the zone and the original requirement for an design review or approval of the building that is to be constructed it is just for the information of the Council. The modular unit is going to be set in the ground on a foundation it is not going to be above ground like the temporary branch. For all intensive purposes it will appear to be as if it was constructed structure on the site. It is going to be in the same location that was originally proposed when we asked for approval of the temporary branch the first time around. The traffic flow, patterns and everything are fhe same. Again it is my understanding there are no further hearings or any hearings required for approval of a project fhat is an allowed use in an allowed zone. We are meeting all the set back requirements, we exceeding landscape requirements, we are exceeding the parking requirements and the building meets the design standards and the construction standards. Kingsford: I don't think we have seen yet plans for actual construction have we? The plans that you dropped off didn't really. . McKeegan: That is correct, that is one of fhe difficulties we are having is the contractor for the construction of that has yet to sign a contract with the bank on that unit. We are meeting tomorrow with the general contractor who is going to take over that responsibility and we will Kingsford: Our building department has not seen plans for that building am I right? McKeegan: They have not seen plans or the engineer drawings for this foundation. Kingsford: Certainly, those will have to be approved and reviewed by the Building Department. McKeegan: Yes, by the Building Department for a building permit process. Morrow: Let me see if I understand these plans that are going to be submitted to us are going to coming from fleefinrood or somebody that manufactures modular types of things. McKeegan: Yes and they will be approved by the Idaho State under their jurisdiction for modular buildings. It is going to be a commercial building, it is going to have a(inaudible) exterior, we are going to be putting a vestibule on the front that is similar, uses the same architectural elements that are present in the other US Banks with the (inaudible) and that sort of unit. But it is going to be placed on a foundation in the ground. Morrow: So to make a snide remark on my part, the other cities get custom built banks and we get mobiles. • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 41 McKeegans: I can't speak to the banks philosophy on why. You also know, you read in the paper the bank has been downsizing, letting employees go and there are reasons for it. We are just trying to get something that is a little bit more, that is permanent rather than the trailer that is there because we made the commitment fhat was going to be temporary branch. Kingsford: Other questions? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, what is the size of this going to be, do you have any idea how big it is going to be? McKeegan: 60 by 38 feet approximately 2000 square feet. Corrie: I am kind of like Walt, a little uncomfortable here for some reason I don't know why. Morrow: Wetl, quite candidly (inaudible) because I certainly wouldn't vote for this particular presentation. In essence all you are really doing is changing a temporary structure that currently exists there for a bigger structure that is going to be put on a foundation, certainly it is not going to have the aesthetic appeal that the other branches of this particular bank that you represent have. The ones that I have seen and I am thinking in terms of the ones on Fairview and I believe Cloverdale and Emerald and Milwaukee, those are all pretty classy offices. Quite candidly in the back of my mind when we are talking about putting something here in Meridian i visualize this same kind of thing. It is one of those deals that it is basically a loophole that you guys are going through and not something that I am comfortable with but it appears that there is nothing we can do about it. It is definitely not going to be an asset to the community in terms of architectural appeal. Those are my comments. Kingsford: Other comments of the Council? McKeegan: I am sorry you feel that way Mr. Morrow but there are certain budgetary constraints that the bank has to operate under. Architecturally we have worked with the manufacturer to try and make it look something more than just a mobile home. Like I said we are exceeding the landscape standards, we are working with the electrical company to make sure that we just don't have a meter on a post, we want to do some architectural things there. Kingsford: Any other questions or comments of the Council? What is your pleasure wifh regard to the extension? Yerrington: I will make the motion that we extend this to August 15th of this year and no • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 42 further. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of the extension of the temporary office until August 15th 1995, all those in favoc? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 2 Yea, 2 Nea, Mayor breaks fhe tie ITEM #17: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Kingsford: This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to a pre- determination hearing befoce the Mayor and Council to be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that your sewer, water and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on March 15th, 1995 unless payment has been received in full. Is there anyone from the public that would Iike to contest their sewer, water and trash delinquency? Seeing none I would entertain a motion to approve the turn off list. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I would move fhat (inaudible) I have been trying to get a hold of her and I can't reach anybody there. They have had a massive leak and I did talk to the plumber (inaudible) for a littte bit. (Inaudible) Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to approve the turn off list with the exception of Betty Lester. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the furn off list less Betty Lester, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: You are hereby informed that you may appeal or the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though you appeal, your water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off tist for this month is $17,024.57. • ! Meridian City Cou.ncil March 7, 1995 Page 43 ITEM #18: APPROVE B1LLS: Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the bills. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve the bills, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTfON CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #19: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: Mr. Smifh Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council rnembers the first item I have is I need your approval on a task order for some engineering work that needs to be done through the sewer department. We need to prepare some bid documents for cleaning and televising some of our gravity lines. I have a proposal from Aarons and Mason Engineering who has done some engineering for us at the waste water plant and some other sewer work for $5,476. Their services that they would provide would be a standard document for bidding and contracting sewer line cleaning and video taping. They research hardware and software for logging and processing video tape data.. That would be for inventory of our gravity sewer lines, selected gravity sewer Iines. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the contract to Aarons and Mason in the amount of $5476 (End of Tape) and thaf we authorize the Mayor to sign and the City C1erk to attest. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the engineering agreement with Aarons and Mason in the amount of $5476 and allow the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTIDN CARRIED: All Yea Smith: On March 3rd we had a bid opening for installation of a new 3 million BTU boiler at the waste water plant and rehab project for the digester cover on the number 1 digester. I will pass out the results of that bid opening. We had 2 bidders submit a bid and Drake Plumbing from Boise was the low bidder at $164,112 there is a considerable amount of ~ • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 44 pipe work involved in this as well as 2 new heat exchangers around the mixer tubes on the exterior of the digester. The installation of the boiler which we previously have purchased, the removal of the existing boiler of course and there was some modifications to the control system for our waste gas burner. Kingsford: Gary, I am kind of a novice at that particular endeavor, but didn't we at one time look at creation of a storage system for that methane gas that would allow us to heat the digester that we wouldn't have to hook to natural gas or have LP gas there? Smith: We looked at it, I think Earl Ward did some investigation into that. I don't recall what he found was going to be necessary aside from quite a large tank to store the methane gas. The one problem with the methane gas is fhat it is dirty, there is a lot of residue from it. Kingsford: Your going to burn it anyway you have the same problem don't' you, or are you talking about contaminating in the digester when you burn it. Smith: Right, the boiler itself takes a beating in burning the gas and the natural gas and of course we looked at that because natural gas was such a long ways away. But with the development of candlelight subdivision at Ustick and Ten Mile Road natural gas was pretty close. The natural gas line we did contract with the gas company to have that gas line extended to the plant so it is existing at fhe boundary of the fence right now. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: Well, I don't know about the stainless steel tank, I know we had problems with the stack coming off of fhe boiler even stainless steel tank it was very corrosive to fhat. Morrow: John Shawcroft and I have discussed this issue and I don't remember exactly the particulars but there were several reasons. If you would like I would be more than happy to get those (inaudible) we can't use the methane (inaudible) cost effective to do it this way. Tolsma: (Inaudible) large enough (inaudible) Kingsford: I think and of course again I am ignorant to that enterprise but it seems that I have read that methane gas can burn clean. tf we have and goodness knows we have Iarge amounts, there doesn't seem to be an end to it, if we can use that it seems reasonable to (inaudible). I wouldn't suggest that if it costs us more money that we spend fhe taxpayers money to use it at their expense. • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 45 ~ Corrie: Gary, you have to have some way of compressing that down into a tank, there is going to be expense there. Just because you have methane gas doesn't mean it is going fo get into that tank itself. So you have to have a compressor to compress it down (inaudible) I agree. ~ Smith: I don't recall the exact cost thaf they ran out but it seems like (inaudible) pressure vessel and it was a 50,000 or 60,000 gallon tank that was necessary, but I don't recall it has been too long ago. Kingsford: The volume of natural gas that we use then based on what we pay for propane isn't going to be a big amount of money. I guess I am really kind of talking about peanuts. Smith: We are going from a 1 million BTU to a 3 million BTU boiler so there is going to be considerable increase in the fuel. Kingsford: I am sorry I brought it up, but I would be interested Walt in your suggestion. I have been discussing this with 2 plant supervisors out there for a number of years. If it is a product that we have and can utilize I would like to see us utilize it. If it isn't cost effective to utilize than I certainly, the great economist that I am, let's not. Morrow: I will get that information to you. Kingsford: Is there a motion to approve the low bid for Drake Plumbing? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we award the bid for the boiler installation and the digester rehab in the amount of $164,112 to Drake Plumbing and that we further authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest those bid documents. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the low bid to Drake Plumbing in the amount of $164,112 and allow the Mayor to sign and fhe City Clerk to attest those documents, all fhose in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Atl Yea Smith: Thank you, the last item that I have, I just need to show you all a map that reflects the golf course second nine holes of the golf course boundary. Kingsford: That is the next nine holes is controlled by Brighton Corporation, that didn't include the Steiner part. C~ Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 46 • Smith: No, this is a drawing of just the Ashford Greens subdivision. The dark blue double, it is a Iong line and then 2 dash lines indicates the boundaries of the original deed that Jim and Lois Fuller deeded to the City of Meridian for the golf course. The green line that I have shown close by that heavy blue line is the amended or the revised boundary of the golf course property that would be necessary to conform to this subdivision plat. I have gone through the description that was provided to me from John Fitzgerald who is the attorney for Fullers and also I have read through the revised description of the golf course holes as provided to us by the developer. They are in fact the lines that I have shown on this plan. Mayor Kingsford was yery interested to make sure that the golf course holes that we are getting from the Brighton Group was similar to what was previously deeded to us. I think that in most respects they are. I find one Iittle glitch in that legal description but it is not a serious thing. One of the things I guess that is going to happen is that there will be quit elaim deeds wrifiten, some kind correction deed written such that fhe original deeded golf course whole boundary will be revised to reflect what is shown in green on this drawing. I guess what Mayor Kingsford and I would request from the Council is your apprbval to give him authorization to sign those correction deeds along with our City C.lerks attesting. Kingsford: One further comment the original deed included actual what will be Ada County Highway District, so those would be transferred up. What we ended up with is something in the neighborhood of a net additional 1.32 acres if inemory serves me. Some each way and we end up with one point something acres. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the adjustments in the golf course by Brighton and allowing the Mayor and City C1erk to sign and attest those recordings, all those in favor? OpposedZ MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. Kingsford: Shari? Stiles: Nothing Mayor Kingsford: Mr. Cfiairman? • • Meridian City Council March 7; 1995 Page 47 Johnson: Nothing Kingsford: Chief Gordon: Nothing Kingsford: Counselor? Crookston: Yes, in the process of doing the sewer along the Five Mil~ Drain it was initially started by St. Luke's and with the involvement of the City. And now it is the City taking it over. St. Luke's had been working on a license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for them to allow crossings of the Five Mile Drain I believe at 3 sites. St. Luke's had a license agreement agreed to with Nampa Meridian, now that the City is taking it over I think that it is appropriate that licensing agreement be in the name of the City. The initial agreement was that it would, when St. Luke's was doing it, that would be transferred to the City when the construction was completed. Since the City is doing it I think it is appropriate that the licensing agreement be in the name of the City. There are some things that I think still need to be worked out. I have discussed it with the Nampa Meridian attorney, he needs to have the City sign the document and have it delivered back to him by the 16th of March. Those changes haven't been changed yet, I would like to have the Council approve of the Mayor and City Clerk in signing the licensing agreement, if it is approved by Gary Smith and myself so that we can get that back to Nampa Meridian's attorney so they can act on it at their meeting on the 21 st. Kingsford: Questions? Morrow; Mr. Mayor I would move that we authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign and attest to the Iicense agreement between the City of Meridian and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District with respect to the 3 crossing sites on Five Mile Drain subject to the approvat of City Engineer Smith and City Attorney Crookston. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of allowing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and attest the 3 crossing agreements with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District pursuant to fhe approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else Wayne? • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 48 • Crookston: Let me bring you a little more up to date on the Magistrate's court. I had a discussion today with Jack Britton who is the Garden City attorney, he told me that he had had a discussion wifh Judge Newhouse who I believe is the new Administrative Judge since Judge Schroeder is now on the Supreme Court. His discussion with Judge Newhouse was go ahead and plan on having it. He basically said plan on having it or work a deal witfi Boise. Kingsford: Well, he might ought to be advised that the Bill passed by the legislature says we have 3% to deal with. Is there anyway we can build a new building and increase our budget 3%? Crookston: I don't disagree with that whatsoever. That is just bringing you up fio speed on what happened. Kingsford: Wayne, since that is a, it is in code, what, if we ignore it we are not in contempt because it is an administrative ruling am I right. They couldn't levy a fine I guess is what I am getting at. Crookston: Grant that is something that has been a gray area in this whole thing since the City received the inifial order signed by all the judges. It was instituted under a statutory provision, not a court provision, not a court rule, but a statutory provision that allows the district judges to direct that magistrate court facilities be built and supplied by a city within the judicial district. I think that it is an administrative order, I have not, and Mr. Britton and I have discussed it. But since it is signed by the judges I truly believe that it is an administrative order. So, I don't think that there are judicial penalties. Kingsford: I don't' understand where Newhouse gets off saying we have to strike a deal wi,th Boise, it is not Boise's obligation to furnish court facilities either. Crookston: That is right, that was his statement to Mr. Britton. Kingsford: I suggest to the Council, Wayne if you would get me that code number, let's everyone of us make a call to Mr. Bivens, Mr. Bunderson and Mr. Erhart and see if we can't get that particular part of code repealed. It is absurd. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Kingsford: But the state hasn't done anything about those. We have to get with it because they are winding down this session. The last I heard we were probably going to be able to ignore that from (inaudible). ~ ! Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 49 Crookston: That is what we, #he information that I had received from, well not from Trailer but from Bill Schwartz who had a discussion with Bill Narry who is a Boise City Attorney. Mr. Trailer was backing off on it. This is the most up to date that I have. Morrow: (Inaudible) 2 weeks window or there about. Kingsford: Well, less that that they want to have all of their stuff submitted by the 10th. Let's get on that tomorrow in the morning and I will get after fhem in the afternoon. The other thing I will get after is Mr. Coles with regard to maybe withdrawing that request for Amanda Horton. I have chewed him out 3 or 4 times about that, I' think maybe we can get a retraction on that request of the court too, not that it will do any good at this juncture. Crookston: It is in the court's hands now. It wouldn't hurt if they approached the judges and, the initial request was from Amanda Horton and Greg Bower so it wouldn't hurt if we had at least one of thern back off. I don't know how the Sheriff's department, the impact on them is going to be significant in transporting inmates to Meridian and to Garden City. Kingsford: That would be my bet that it becomes significant on Meridian, I wouldn't be surprised if Bill will be asked to go over and collect and fetch them over here and return them. Crookston: That is not his job that is the Sheriff s job. ICngsford: It is not our job to provide court space eiiher, but it is coming down that way. Thank you for that insight, you really made my evening. Anything else? Morrow: A reminder fhat tomorrow night here at this facility at 7 P.M. the Ada County Highway District are holding their regular meeting. Everybody that is on this dias should attend, ask them any questions you wish to ask in terms of there will be a presentation about our projects in the five year plan what is coming up. They will be opened to questions that you may have about anything that is going on in the district with regard to any of the budgeting process, the work process (inaudible) and all those other types of programs. So feel free to come and ask those questions. Kingsford: Anything else? Mr. Yerrington? Yerrington: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Corrie?. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I apologize for the Ordinance #695 and not getting that to you sooner . • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 50 and also the presentation on what the change was. I will not go into it now due to the time but as soon as I get back from Colorado I will be happy to sit down with anybody or with Skip but it is a very minor change but it is a change for the good of the City. So I will get with you on that. Kingsford: Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: Yes, I need an approval for Tully Park, we got some free fill dirt from the food outfit out there. If we haul it, we are putting it at Tully Park, we need approximately 4,000+ for top soil and fill out there. The problem is it has to be moved within 30 days and the second problem is finding anybody to move it within 30 days. I located some trucks, I told them to commence moving the dirt. We have about 800 to 1000 yards moved already. If we had to bid this project the project would be null and void because there would be no dirt and no trucks to haul it. We would be on the time frame that we have to get it moved. So I took it upon myself to hire fhe trucks and get them commencing. Now I just need CounciPs approval. Morrow: At what cost? Tolsma: We have about 4000+ yards which were donated to us. We are going to get it moved between $3 and $3.50 a yard. So it will be between $12,000 and $14,000. Morrow: Not to second guess you Ron, but given the distance the stuff is being moved and what we are currently competitively paying is we are paying befinreen $2 and $3 a yard moving dirt from our job sites to places a competitive distance. Tolsma: I had 4 trucking firms that I called and I got one trucking firm to even say they would even consider moving it within 30 days. The rest of them said they weren't even interested bidding on. Morrow: Are these small trucks? Tolsma: No, fhese are end dumps. Morrow: So they haul 20 yards a load? Tolsma: No, with the State police out there on their routes they are hauling about 15 yards a load. If the State police weren't out there it would' be all of 20 to 25 a load. Corrie: Where is this coming from? • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 51 Tolsma: It is coming from Eagle Road, just Corrie: Money? Tolsma: The park budget. Corrie: It sounds to me like it has been done. Kingsford: I noticed signs drawn at D& B for free fill, top soil, have you checked, do you know what the time constraints are on that? Tolsma: No~ I don't, I know that these people got a hold of Shari and talked to her. (lnaudible) Kingsford: Recommendation Cownselor? Crookston: Is there an emergenay on this Ron? Kingsford: The emergency is that the dirt won't exist if we were to take time to bid it. It was discussed at our meeting a week ago. Crookston: I think there has to be a declaration and a finding of the emergency so you can. not have to comply with the bid law. Morrow: The total amount is outside of the bid law. Yerrington: (Inaudible) Kingsford: I think your only remedy is to declare an emergency. Tolsma: How long does that put us out? Right now (inaudible) otherwise there is going to be no dirt an there won't be any emergency. Crookston: You have to make, in order to not have to comply with the competitive bid laws you have to make a finding fhat there is an emergency. Tolsma: If I have to move $9990 worth we could just bag it. Crookston: I think that the $10,000 limitation is on equipment. Kingsford: I think you are talking $5000 for labor u Meridian City Council March 7,.1995 Page 52 Crookston: $5000 for labor and services. LJ Tolsma: Shall I have them stop moving it them and bag it and pay somebody $8 or $9 a yard later. Kingsford: I think our alternatives are either to do that or for this Council to declare an emergency. I think that is your 2 choices. Morrow: What kind of time frame does it take to declare an emergency, does that start tonight and finish next week. Kingsford: Start tonight and finish tonight. This Council could declare an emergency tonight and go ahead with fhat program. Crookston: I think that you should lay out some information as to support the finding. Tolsma: All the inforrnation was that they wanted the dirt moved within 30 days and that was a week or so ago. The trucks that I contacted to haul it, there are 5 of them that were supposed to start another job today and then we were going to be out of trucks anyway. Because I can't find anyone else that is not busy right now to haul the stuff. The, I guess that might be grounds fo~ emergency. If we don'Y move it within the next week or 2 it is not going to be there to move anyway. Then we won't need an emergency because we won't have nothing there to move. Crookston: Is there dirt in other places? Tolsma: (Inaudible) We have to get it moved so it can be compacted. If we want to start our sprinkler system and our grading system later we have to have the dirt out there before they can start their grading system. And stake the ground out there to start moving the di~t with the land scraper and stuff (inaudible). But our pathway project (inaudible). Crookston: Is there dirt elsewhere that is obtainable? Kingsford: I don't know that there is, but my suggestion would be if the Council were to declare an emergency that they prior to exercising that emergericy check with D& B to see the number of yards fhey have and what the time frame is on moving that. That is a 1/4 mile closer and maybe there is not that 30 day requirement. Crookston: That would be fine, whatever you can do to show the emergency. Kingsford: I was thinking Avest might very well be willing to dump it out there for us but • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 53 they need their stack but we may get some there too. I think we need to, if it is your desire to think about going ahead with that, you need to this evening declare an emergency or otherwise we have to cease and assist on that thought. Morrow: What is the commitment you have in terms of price, the absolute commitment? Tolsma: Befinreen $3 and $3.50 a yard. Morrow: Is it either or, what are they committed to? How much are they going to charge us? Are they saying somewhere between $3 and $3.50 or is it $3 or $3.50? Tolsma: (Inaudible) for sure that he could get the other trucks to do it. Morrow: Well, I think that if we are going to declare an emergency and we are going to do this than we certainly ought to set the price and I would agree to the price of $3 a yard or the deal is over with. That would be my thought in terms of if we are going to go ahead and do the emergency thing. Kingsford: How many yards are you talking about there Ron? Tolsma: 4000+ between $12,000 at $3.00 a yard or $14,000 at $3.50 a yard. Kingsford: Well that $.50 that you are talking about there is $2000. We need some hard cost definitely. Corrie: Do we have enough facts to do it now according to your expert opinion? (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: Usually it is more expensive the smaller the truck (inaudible) because of the number of yards they can move per move. Distances are about the same comparable (inaudible) in that price range. I would be willing to go with $3 a yard, using end dumps you are basically almost a 1l3 more than what you are with tandem axles. Given the nature of the soils being wet and so on and so forth with respect to weight. Tolsma: We can declare an emergency at $3 a yard and I will tell them tomorrow if they want to work for that fine, if they don't well we stop. Then we can find somebody else to haul it. Morrow: My mayor concem here is anytime you have an open ended anything is as we are learning the hard way you are going to get burned. (Inaudible) and burned badly. So I . • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 54 don't want to see in terms of that taxpayer dollar l don't want to see us with open ended stuff. I am sensitive to the emergency, it would be nice to have the dirt but I think we have to Iimit some where as to what we are willing or capable to pay. You are talking about spending here $14,000 almost 10°/a of your budget for free dirt. I don't have a clue as to what the rest of the budget is in terms of what it is going to take to get her done. Tolsma: Well (inaudible) I think we are quite a way (inaudible). Morrow: I can't tell you that there are any investigate that and find out what is out there this point but no more. alternatives (inaudible) I think we need to I am willing to go along with the $3 cap at Kingsford: Could we have a motion to declare an emergency proviso that we can't get other free dirt that have a longer period that we might be able to bid. Crookston: That would help. Morrow: I don't have a problem with that as long as the motion includes that and caps it to $3. Kingsford: Okay, let's have something to that effect. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the declaration of emergency conditioned upon that there not being other available free dirt that we could use in a time frame to bid and that it is capped not greater than $3 a yard and that our finding is not having, pardon me to bid the removal of that dirt would constitute no access to it, all those in favor? Opposed? MOT14N CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Look at that D& B first thing in the morning Ron. You might visit with Walt a little bit and see if there might be other truckers that you need to be aware of in terms of price too. Anything else Ron? Tolsma: No, that is it. Kingsford: Two things as I addressed to you at the work session last Tuesday due to the • • Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 55 contract that we have been trying to do with regard to the Five Mile Sewer construction. I would like to ask the Council to change, to transfer line items from the Enterprise budget from the funded depreciation to construction account in the amount from each of the water and sewer to handle construction of those enterprises for extensions to Eagle Road. The dollar amount is a little in the air and I am sensifive to your open ended because it needs to include Walt the engineering eost which we don't have all of yet. It doesn't include the cost of the licensing agreements, all of the work that we are going to have to do in terms of change orders. We are looking at having to maybe to work within a 20 foot easement on one property instead of construction easements, some of those sorts of things. You saw the bids as they come in both to Masco. Gary do you have those, $178,000 for water and $619,000 on the sewer and there wilf be additional of course because of the cost of the engineering which we haven't absorbed at all yet. Morrow: So we are transferring approximately a couple hundred thousand on the water and $700,000 on sewer. Kingsford: That would be about correct then. Morrow: That is fine, I would so move. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to transfer from the enterprise funded depreciation accounts water and sewer the amounts to deal with the extension to St. Luke's water and sewer from their respective funds roughly in the amount of $200,000 and $700,000 for water and sewer respectively, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: You guys in yowr packet had a letter that I had asked Will to copy from Brent Coles and a resolution and then a memorandum of understanding that was presented by Dick Winder over in Cafdwell. I am not going to necessarily ask you to deal with that tonight but for you to (inaudible) and see if that is something you are willing to proceed with. The effort is particularly by Boise and our neighbors to look at and of course we have been dealing with that Walt and I have had hours and hours of discussion along those lines for transportation long term. I think that basically is what they are addressing fhere. The City of Boise has sent one person part-time who is nearly full-time now who is Thompson to deal with transportation issues. So I would like for you to look at those and maybe be willing to make a move on that sort of a thing for the next meeting. Mr. Berg? ~J Meridian City Council March 7, 1995 Page 56 Corrie: Mr. Mayor I move we adjourn. ~~ Tolsma: Second • Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETCNG ADJOURNED AT 10:28 P.M. (TAPE ON FfLE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~ ~ . NT P. KINGSFO D A O ATTEST: ~2~~~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., TY LERK . • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 21, 1995: a~~r~v~ AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY HELEN ALIDJANI: a~~vrv~~ 2. ORDINANCE #692 - ALIDJANI REZONE (TABLED FEBRUARY 21, 1995): a~p/'av~ 3.. BOB HAGEN: DISCUSSION ON PARKING SIGNS IN FRONT OF 24 HOUR PLUMBING AT 1334 E. 1ST ST.: `QCo•nmen~ ~y /~oh C~- ~ ~h~-~e fl~e eu~.er~t 2~.~a~k,~y -- a~,nrv~z~ 4. ~FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE 7~~~~~ REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: gpP~-ov~e ~l~?`~~~ Qe~y vc~,~ce ~i ,~ot ~,,,h~ 5. FiNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ALBERTSON'S INC.: ~~/~~ ~e 6. FINDI.NGS Of FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE Go~S~ZE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: a~~o~ove f/~' f~lL l~~j~rov~ ~/~ce a.h ce~ 7. ORDINANCE #695 - REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF 2-1001: ~~d/e 8. ORDINANCE #696 - CAROL LOTSPEICH ANNEXATION: aP~Orvv~ 9. ORDINANCE #697 - SEWER PRE-TREATMENT: a~prov~ 10. PUBLfC HEARfNG: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: /~ 6t~~j"ove ~. ~Q~ .~'GG~~~c~ ~!tit ee ~h~/ d'~".c~ C'~nG~~~ii9-n s ~ / 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW DRIVE THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: u~p~ ~~e ~l~ ~ c/ l ap~r~v~ ea~,. ~ei~t~ a,e ~~~ 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW 172,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIIJGROCERI~ STORE BY FRED MEYER, INC.: a~o/~rvv2 ,~/~' E` C'/L a~~o~'0~2 Cios2~i~-ibna-~ u.r~ 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A ZERO FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: ~~~ ~fto~,.ey ~ p,-~eP~e. ~/f { e/l 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CO(VDITIONAL USE PERMIT TRANSFER BY CHRIS WILSON: ~~Fro~e.. ZS'a~.~.r~e~- p~ Gmd.~~-.,~u.Q.e~ ~` ~. 15. FRED SPANGLER: REQUEST HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER: de~.~ re~c~ ~.rf ~r h-o o,~- u~o 16. US BANK: REQUEST EXTENSION ON TEMPORARY OFFICE AT 132 E. FAIRVIEW: aP~v~~~ ~e~-~~r~ r~-ht~7 ~~r~ /S~~ 17. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: ~~~/~ w~"~~- e,c~e~~°~ d~ /.~ef{~ LeJ'~~' ~~ 18. APPROVE B1LLS: ~pproV~ 19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGfNEER: 1. ENGfNEERING AGREEMENT FOR BID DOCUMENTS TO CLEAN AND T.V. SEWER LINES: 2. BID RESULTS: BOILER FNSTALLATION AT SEWER ~ TREATMENT PLANT: ~ CITY OF MERIDIAl`~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ~'i~y ~o~cv~e~ % `1/~a~cG~ 7, l ~Cl ~ NAME PHONE NUMBER ~ ~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAl~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ~~irG~ ~'ouh e.~'/ !'l7a~-cGc 7~ / ~l ~S , NAME PHONE NUMBER , ~1~.,Y ~ s ~; ~ ~ ~~S s~. ~ y- Z ` I ~ (~ Z a • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 7 1995 APPLICANT ITEM NUMBER; 19 REQUEST; DEPARTMENT REPORTS AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: 'i CITY FIRE DEPT: I CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY FiIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: COMMENTS All Materials pcesented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. LJ OFFICE OF THE MAYOR H. BRENT COLES MAYOR January 25, 1995 The Honorable 33 East Idaho Meridian, ID Dear Grant: Grant Kingsford 83642 ~ COUNCIL MEMBERS PAULA FORNEY SARA BAKER COUxCIL PRESIDENT pNNE STITES HAUSRATH CAROLYN 'I'ERTEUNC M• 1EROME MAPP COUNCIL PRO TEM Mt~ WETHERELL As Mayor Coles was departing for the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter session in Washington, he asked me to provide each of you a status report on the forthcoming study on "Treasure Valley Transportation Alternatives". For your ready reference, I have enclosed a copy of Mayor Coles' letter of November 25, 1994, to each Ada County Mayor. First, who's on board so far? We have Nampa, Caldwell, Ada County, ACHD, Boise Area Chamber of Commerce and, of course, ITD, APA and Boise. I've been in touch with the Canyon Highway District; Ralph Little has expressed interest in joining in. The Nampa Highway District is also interested, it appears. We are hopeful that Canyon County will soon join in. Second, what about funding? We have now secured enough funding for APA to launch at least Phase I of the study. Erv Olen is drafting the Request for Qualifications. Alice Reyes (Canyon.County Head Start) and her Board agreed to provide $100K in CMAQ planning funds allocated earlier to Treasure Valley Transit. We much appreciate her sharing the federal planning funds for this important endeavor. Third, the status of "high tech" support (ie, Cybertran)? John Denson, President of Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company at INEL, has committed his '~cautious support" to the study. His letter to Mayor Coles observed that "we can provide detailed information to help evaluate other alternatives and help guide you with a systems engineering approach that will identify all aspects of the problem and thoroughly evaluate all potential solutions'~. This will be very useful in ensuring objectivity in our study. It would be helpful if your city would formally associate itself with this study effort that will have far-reaching consequences for transportation in the Treasure Valley. For your information, I have attached a copy of Caldwell's resolution and Memorandum of Understanding by which they joined in the study. CIT'I'HALL • 150NORTHCAPITOLBOULEVARD • P.O. BOX500 • BOISE, IDAH083701-0500 • 208/384-4422 An Equal Opportunity Employer ~ ri;,,4a oo.rem~~ea oape~ ~ i • • ;, ~~ ;) Mayor Grant Kingsford January 25, 1995 Page 2 If Clair Bowman or I can assist you in this effort, please call upon us (384-4422). We would be pleased to meet with you and your Council if that seems appropriate. Sincerely, ~. . ~ ~ Jame..` ~~ Thompson ~i JMT/li Tr~iisportation Coordinator 'J Enclosures ~ Addressees: Mayor Ted Ellis, Garden City Mayor Steve Guerber, Eagle Mayor Grant Kingsford, Meridian Mayor Greg Nelson, Kuna cc: Larry Falkner, ITD Clair Bowman, APA ~... ;'' ~ ~ ~ ~1 FtESOLUTION NO. 65-94 A RESOLUTION 11ppROVZNG l1S TO FORM 1~NU CONT'ENT A MEMOR~~NDUM OF UNDERS'!'ANDING CONCERNING A STUDY OF THE FEASIBILYTY OF 1~LTERNATIVE MEANS OF PUBLIC 'i'R1~NSPOR!'11TIOT1 SERVICES BY 1~ND AMONG THE CI'i'Y OF C7~.I,liWELL, THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEP.ARTMENI', A:NU T~IE U. S. DEP7~.RTMENT OF ENEFZGY, AUTFiORIZING 'i'HE MAYOR 1~Nll CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE 1~.IVD 11TTEST S11ID AGREEMEIVT ON BE~~11~.LF' OF T~iE CITY OF C11LllWELL; 11.IVD PROVIDING 1~N EFFECTIVE D1~TE. NOW, THEREgp~~ nE IT RESOLVED BY THE M1~YOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CA.I,DWELL, IDl1F-ip; Section 1, That the Memorandum of Understanding to Study the Feasibility of A,7_ternative Means oi' Public Transportation Services by and among the City of Caldwel.l, the Idaho Transporta~ion D~partment, and tlie U.S. Departmen~ of Eriergy, a copy of w~lich is attached hereto as EXFiIBIT ~'1~~~ and i~~corporated herein b}• reference, be, and ~he same is hereby, approved as to both foxm and content. ~ Section 2. Tha~ the Mayor and City ClerJc be, and tliey hereby are, authorized to respec~ively execute and a~test said Memorandum ! of Understanding to Study the Feasibility of Alternative Means of ; Public Transportation Services for and on behalf oL- the City of Caldwell. ,: ; Section 3. That this Resolu~ion shall be in full. force and e~fect immediately upon ics adoption and approval. i , PASSED BY THE CI`1'Y COUNCIL of the City of Caldwell, Idaho, this 5th day of December 1994. ~ ~ I~PPROVED By THE MAyOR oL the City vL Caidwell, Idaho, this _ Sth day of ' Dece~nber 1994. ~ ayor ATTEST: - ~ " ~~2.,,, City Clerk / ~. ._ _ - : . ~ r_ • I • • MEMORANDUM OF UND~RSTl1NDING CONCERNING A STUDY OF T~IE FEILSIBTLITY UF 11LTEFtN11,TIVE MEANS OF PUBLIC TRIINSPORT.~ITI:ON SERVICES This Memorandum oi iTnderstandzng by and between the CITY OF C7~LUWELL, the IDI~FiO TRIINSPORT'ATION DEPILF2TMENT, arid the U. S. DEPARZ'MENT OF ENERGY, hereinafLer referred ~o as P1~RTICIp1~~T'g, is for the general purpose of exploring possible alcernative means of public transportatior~ services in the Treasure Va11ey. . WFiERE11.S, population growth in ~he Treasure valley continues to result in significant traL-fic congestion pr.oblems whicti exceed likely available resource capabi.lities fox- their resolution; and WfiERF.13S, It is generally recognized ttiat public a~titudes about and dependence on automobile use ie the greatest contribution factor to congestion, and Lhat reciuctions in numbers oF ~single occupa~icy autos on streeta, roads and highways are a desirable so].ution for congestion problems; and WHEREA,S, Federal mandates and sta~e and lvcal plans encourage maximurn usage and coordination of intermodal means for ~rans.portation, including public transportation services, for deve].opment of alternatives to automobi.le use; and W~~S, The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory is current].y involved in day-to-day ~ransportation iseues, such as running a very large bus transportation f].eet and operaCion of a railroad line, is engaged in a number of research projects related to transportation, and is experienced in the application of systems analysis to complex problems; and W~iERF..~S, These diverse capabili~ies a~~d technologies provide a zesource fzom which an alternate concept for public transit may be developed to potentially offer a cos~ effective and eEficien~ means of transporting large numbers of the population in the Treasure Val.ley; THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD by the parties to this memorandum that cooperative etforLe by and among all PARTICIPI~NZ'S shall be exercised £or the foilowing purposes: 1• To individually and jointl.y determine and agree upon plans, informatioii gathering and related activities for the development of stra.tegies and creation of an Action Plan Co explore ways and means by w~iich fixed guideway systems may be evaluated for e~onomic, social, community, environmental, £inanciai, commercial, transpor~ation, legal and cechnological purposes; and • • z• For Purposes o~ creation of- the aforementioned Action Plan and subsequent feasibility study the P1IRTICIp1~]TS agree to exploze the possibility and the specific er.tent of sta~fing and funaing par~icipation to accomplish and support the developmen~ of the Action Plan; and 3- All aforementioned act-ivity and ttle . development of tlie Action Plan shall be completed no Iater than December 31, 1994, vr a~ a later .date mutually agreed upon. P~RTICZPA.NTS contemplate tliat t~ie feaaibiiity study of possible alternative means of public transportation servicea can be accompliehed by December 31, 1995. 4• The Action P1an wi].1 specify, among other things, L-kie e:c~ent of each PAFtTICIPIINT' S commitment of resources. 5• ~y commitment of DOE under this memorandum shall be subject to (i) the availability of appropriated funds, and (ii) the requirements of all applicable laws, regulations, and DOE Orders_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned do hereby agree: FO THE CITY OF CALDWELL; . Mayor FOR THE IDAF;O TR.~NSPORTATION DEp11RTMENT; ~ ~P ~ L fi~-Qi1~,~ Administrator, Di sivn of lic Trans ortation P FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERaY; ~7'.M. Wilcynski,~Acting Manager Idaho Operations.Off~ce, U.S. Department of Energy II .. • ' ( '~ ~ 19;I: ~111'I J ~:~ ~ rC ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ • ~~. ;~ ~~ ric:c c~i ri~~ nt?~Yuii ~ j l7 ~ FI. 131iLIJT l:(iI.1:S ~ - ~~~~,; I . '. I ~ I I\. i~ ~ ni~ti~~~ic - ~ - ~ ~ _ ~...It I'I S - ~- November 25, 1994 The Honorable Steve Guerber Mayor of Eagle P. O. Box 477 Eagle, ID 83616 ~ Dear Steve, • cuur~cu, t•ii:~+nscizs PAUI.A F'OItNIiY tiAltA k,1KF:R cou~iai. rkesiuerrr ANNF: S'fl"1'F.S IIAU~ItA'fll CAROI.YN 7'F.RTF.LINC D1~ ~~~t°r~e r~,~i~l' COUNCIL PRO TF.DI ~'~~~tE ~S'ETIIEkEI.L sce~v-~Q ~1~xa,r-.~w~ ~~ ~ uY' ~Q-o ""'~~ ~~ ~~. v-~.v~ ha'Qa~,'`' On NQVember 22, 1994, I provided you and other interested organizations a brief synopsis of our November 16, 1994 meeting concerning "Treasure Valley Transportation Alternatives". indicated in that letter that I would follow u with I the next steps in this important endeavor. A similar Cl tter lis beinq sent to the addresses indicated below. As we all know, broad-based support in Ada and Canyon Counties will be essential if we are to move this project along successfully. We certainly do not want to wait antil growth and the impact of that growth overwhelm us. Prudent planning and decisive action, when the various alternatives have been thoroughly analyzed, will help ensure the high quality of life to which our communities aspire. I would like to encourage you to demonstrate your support of the broad-based study of transportation alternatives in the Treasure Valley by associating your city with the attached Memorandum of Understanding consummated by and between the City of Boise, the Idaho Transportation Department and the U.S. Department of Energy. I am acivised that your support could be in the form of a Resolution of Agreement. Please note that you need make no financial commitment at this time by agreeing with this MOU. As far as funding for the broad study of alternatives is concerned, we hope to make use of certain planning funds that could be made available through the coordinating activities of ITD. To stimulate and encourage INEL's support in the area of technolo Cy_berTran) , I plan to propose to the Boise City Councilc th ttwe enter into a modest contract with INEL (or DOE at INEL) in the amount of $25,000. These funds would come from a reshuffling or planning funds currently on hand and $5,000 in new funds from the general revenue account. --_.. _..... ..... ._._ . .. ~:i'I'1' l 1:11.1. • I.'~U ~111K'I'l l l::l l'I'I ~)1,11~ 111I:I;Vr11f l1 • 1'.( I. Itf l\ `illll • IIl )I.^i I, I1J:111( ) H:37111 (1!illll •:!li}S:~~llS I- 1•1;'.'' I~i I•'.~u~~! ( lry~n~lrraui r Is'„r~,L,~ ~:r ~ • ~! Page 2 What I would like you to consider, now or in the next few months, beyond associating your city with the MOU as requested above, is a statement of support for the INEL technology portion of the study by allocating a modest amount of funds to go with Boise's $25,000. I believe that a tangible commitment on our part across the Treasure Valley will pay dividends in the long run. We will be setting up a small steering committee to oversee the study and ensure t}iat it moves forward expeditiously. The steering committee will incTude representatives from Nampa, Caldwell, Ada and Canyon Counties, ITD, ACIiD, APA, INEL, the Boise Area and (possibly) the Nampa Chambers of Commerce and Boise City. Once formed, the committee will be charged to keep each of you informed of the status of the study and to seek your advice and counsel as the study progresses. Should you desire further discussion of these matters, Clair Bowman of the Ada Planning Association and Jim Thompson of my office are available to meet with you at your convenience. Please call my office to set np an appointment (208-384-4422) if you would like them to meet with you. I look forward to your response as soon as you are able to do so. Very truly your ( N. ent Coles ~_~4 or HBC:gl Enclosure: Boise City Resolution 12964 with attached ~{ Memorandum of Understanding Addressees: ~ The Honorable Ted Ellis The Nonorable Steve Guerber ;j The Honorable Grant Kingsford '~ The Honorable Greg Nelson ;i cc: Larry Falkner,,ITD il Clair Bowman, APA ~ ~~ ;~ ; °° ~~ . °~i, ~, _ ~ - ,~ ~ d ~~ ~ ~ ~ , x~ ~. ~ ~ ~4~ , ~ o ~ ~ ` ~~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ !~ ". ~ °~ ~ „~' ~.`+, ~ ~. ; ° a o~," ; ~ ~ ' ~' " v *t- ' ~ M ~u ~ : ~I "~~ -. p~ . ~ ~ ~ 8 I.'`L ,i ~ ~ ~t ~~ o ~ ~ r ~ ~ ' ~:.~ ii ~ ~~`J '~ r ~~ ~,. ai, ~ °~ ~ 6 ; ~ ,,~ i. ~ ~ r ~ ' 4 ~on 9 ~ ^~. ~,~ . ~.e.~ ` ~` yl I ~j ~0 11 ~ . -• ~ ; . ~ •^ ~ 1 a~~° ~ ~ ~ 3 f ' C ~ e ~ o t (1 ~j ,~ ° ° a q ° `~ ~ '~,. _~ ` ~ a 8. ~ o r ` ~ - ~ ~ ~,r~ ~r~'_ .~ ~ ~ ~ - ; ~ d ( ~ 1~. ~, ~ 9 y ~ i i ~ t~- °o o ~ , ' ~ r ~ ~ - ~~~~ 'ti~, ~a" ~~o ~ ~u~ ~ ,; , ~ „ ~ a a , ~ q~< ~~ . q a a , , ~ - ~ u a ~ o ~ ~, 9 B a ~ . , o , n°' ~ ~~ ~ -~ a ~ G ' ' m I Y .1 ~:v ~ e ~ Q ~. o ~~ ~. , a a ~ ,~ ' ' :; ~ a ~ ~~' = °,~; ~!~ ° }t, , ~ , ~ ~ r;~fi .; j ' .r; f o ,' ~, ~ _ ~ . ~ oa~A ~nA . ~. 'd11' ~~ y ~~ p '~A ~ d+i !~ g ~ ~ ~ C ~J ~i7 U ~ ~~ +.,,~ ` ~ . ~~- ~ 8 ° J ~q= ,i ~ ~^~ °t'v. ~ ~~ j ~~g ~ ., ~i a ~ ~~ ~ j ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 P9. ~ ~ / t , ~. ~# ~ ~ ~ ' ' n ~ ~~. Fl 'u~ya ~ ~ a ."k_ ~t~• ~ - 'ti ~e •. ~ ~.~ ~ ~ e a ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ 1~~~ ,,, ~. ~a ~I .ea,artl ~ :. r ', Q ,, n" ° ~" H n. y E r~ ~r F F' . ~ ~a-` ~~ 4",~ o e ~ aj ~~ ~p'p~i ~ ~~ . . ~ .i ~: a57' a ' ~~ r~, i `~ I..~ .x t~. ~~ q7~~~3 ~ ~ ~ .~ _~Q. f. ~ a ~ ~3 ~ _ !{ e n a6 ~~~ a a Q °,n ~.;~~a~L~...a.~ $- ` fi j ao ~ ~ ~_} ,r , `t~ 1 0 ~ ~ ~ • ~~ il 4. ~ , °° 0 , ~ 1 , ~ t ~ 9~~^90 9u ~n~ ~ 07,~~, `~ f M1~~ t(uI~ ~ ~~ ,? ~ I f3 o e ° ~ ff .al ~'~ 'y ; ~ ~. d a '~~.. ~ a ^~~~ ~ r. ~ ` ` ° 'i~,. ° ~< o ~ ~- i , ~t Q :. ~ ~ ? y , ~ ~ ° Q o 0 . o Q . ~ ` ~ o (I o ~ ~f ~`~~~ fl. , Q ~y f e Q..<~ ". ~ y .. d- ~ ~~ ° Ca v'~ j ~ ~ ' ~ 9c ~~ ~ ~ ~ t3 `~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ` 4 ~g ~~ °~~ ~ ~. A 9 ~ ~~' ° .~ ~ r.' ' i o ~ ~j ' e i! a a a ~ _ y , 0 11 o~ o ` ~ ~ a !, ~ , ~ Q ~ u a ~ ~~+` ~ .l `' ~ a . `. ~ , t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~;' i F'~ ~ ~ +' {: ~ e ~ i~ ~ ~~~ ' s ~~ ` ° ° o ~1 , ~^ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; -a o a '} ~ a ~j p " a. e I~ ~ ° ~ ° 't1 ~ ~ ~ ° ~, ~ p,~~ m ~ ,,r- ' o °, ~ 09 ~~ 0 8 ~ ~~p~ ~ a ~ =r a ~ ? ~ e~ o ~ n ~"~ ~ m~ e ~ ~ i~ ~ .. ~a~~,aa 8 ° ~~ 4~i'`~,~ `~i. o ~~~' o (~] ~w ~ lv' Q o o e Q oO~a~~ Q e ry`~ O•y ~~.~ ..~~~ ~ . ~V ~ ~ ~ ? ~~ ~O ~ ~.. N H ` ' • o~ '~ ~~J a 47 ~ a ii ~ ~. s ~ k ~ ` ~ ~ " -.• ~ a ~~ .. ~ e '~. a y i, o m,m°~~.., , ',f.e ',,V , ~J , n."`~j ° ,(~ ,~ I oQ ~.~ ~ . • ;, ~BOILER INS'TALLATION/DIGESTER NO.1 REHAB. ; ;~ _. BIDS OPF,NED MARCH 3, 1995-3:00 P.M.-CITY HALL i CONTRACTORS NAME #1 BOILER INSTALL b~ Zl lj ond ~ . Z~ a~d~h~c'u,?„ ,i/ ~ l/-~ 33~0'. a° ~~~ ~ ~Dra e Plumbin b~ ~ bo~, c(i / 2p~Wei• dc.,,.-s . ~/ /~~ZO/ 000. o0 ~ 'ke Mechanical S~ ~ v I Ros_s Enterprises #2 DIGESTER REH ~ 48~776.°= ~ S8~ 0 0 ~7, °~° ~ / 6 ~ //2~ ~~ __ I `~/ 78~ oo~, °_°_ • • ORaGIN AL I BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~ HELEN F. ALIDJANI ' REZONE APPLICATION A PORTION OF THE NE UARTER OF SECTION 12 T. 3 N. R. 1 W. I MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing November 9, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing,.the matter was continued to February 7, 1995, at Thom's and Alidjani's request, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for November 9, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the November 9, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and is owned by Mohammad E. Alidjani and Helen F. Alidjani; that the Applicant has been changed from John E. Thom and Shelly M. Thom to Helen F. Alidjani and she is now the applicant requesting this AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 1 • • zone change; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-15 Residential; the area surrounding Applicant's property was developed as a residential area but many of the homes have been converted to commercial uses; the U. S. Post Office is to the west and northwest; there are homes to the east and south. 3. The R-15 zone has been the zoning district of the property for some time; that the Applicant proposes to now have the property zoned L-O, Limited Office; that Thom had submitted a drawing of the buildings that are now on the property; the purpose of the rezone was stated in the Application by Thom but Helen Alidjani stated at the February 7, 1995, hearing that she has no tenants secured and does not know the exact development of the property. 4• That the subject parcel contains approximately 3.4 acres of land. 5. That the R-15 District and the L-O Districts are described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 and 7 as follows: purpose of the (R-15)1yDistrictjl~isl to S per it the establishment of inedium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses, apartment buildings and condominiums. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 2 I • • " (L-O) Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L-O) i District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, ; clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of ~ any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The (L-O) District is ' designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- ~ residential uses and high density residential uses, and is ~ thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. ! 6. That the subject property has been used in the past as a school; it initially was the Meridian High School and was subsequently converted to lower grade levels. ~ 7• The Applicant, Thom when he was the Applicant, stated at the Planning and Zoning Hearing that it was his intent to remodel the building; that the exterior of the property will be excavated ~ removing all of the debris and shrubbery and the old broken down concrete and totally renew the landscaping, black topping, and ~ , putting in storm drainage; they will replace 226 broken windows and i ~ ~ begin remodeling the interior; that he had been contacted by the ~ I State of Idaho Historical Preservation Council and the Meridian Historical Society about keeping the building as close to its ~~ natural state as possible; that the school is the first concrete ~ poured building west of Denver, Colorado; that it is the first ~ ~ concrete poured building in the State of Idaho and all other ~ ' western states; that he has agreed to enter the building into the i ~ Historical Registry; that although the building is very sad ~ appearing it is structurally sound; it is the intent to keep the i i AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACTfAND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 3 • . gymnasium as it is now, but cosmetically improving the walls and making some needs as required by fire requirements; that at the city Council hearing Helen Alidjani did not state that her intent on development was the same as Mr. Thom's. 8• That the City of Meridian does have an Historic Preservation Code but has no specific ordinances pertaining to how historic buildings will be preserved; that Thom had indicated that he has agreed to have the school placed on the Historical Registry; that Helen Alidjani did not state her desires as far as the Historical Registry. 9• That the State of Idaho has a Preservation of Historic Sites statute, Title 76, Chapter 46, Idaho Code. 10. That there was no testimony at either the Planning and Zoning hearing or the City Council hearing objecting to the Application. 11. That comments were submitted by the Assistant to the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Ada County Highway District, and the Central District Health Department, which comments are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that comments may be submitted by other governmental agencies and those comments, and if submitted, shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in herein. 12. That the comments form Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, were that irrigation ditches shall be tiled, AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 4 • • ~ assessment for sewer and water will be determined during building ~ , renovation plan review, existing wells and septic systems shall be ! removed, that off-street parking, landscaping, drainage, lighting, ~ i paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set i i forth in 11-2-414, and that all signage shall be in accordance with ,I 11-2-415. ~ 13. Shari Stiles, the Planning Director, commented that the ~ ~ rezone request complies with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan ; and would clean up the area, that landscaping and parking would ~ ; need to be reviewed during the building permit process, that all ; sidewalks will need to be a minimum of five feet, and that a ~ development agreement should be entered into as allowed under 11-2- I ; 416 L and that the rezone should be granted subject to the I development agreement. ~ 14. Kenney Bowers, Meridian Fire Chief commented that the building will need to be brought up to all the codes. ~ 15• The Ada County Highway District had three specific ~ requirements that are 1) to replace damaged curb and sidewalk on I Carlton Avenue and 2 1/2 Street with new sidewalk, curb and gutter, ;• 2) to construct a pedestrian ramp on the corner of Carlton Avenue ~ and 2 1/2 Street, and 3) to replace a sub-standard access point on Carlton Street with a Distr.ict standard curb cut and align access i with 2nd Street. i ' 16• 2-416 L, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, states as follows: i ~ "If property is rezoned, the City may require or permit, as a i condition of the rezoning, that an owner or developer make a AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 5 il • • ~ written commitment concerning the use or development of the ;I subject property. If the commitment is required or permitted, i it shall be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder i and shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance rezoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of I the parcel. Unless the commitment is modified or terminated by the City Council, the commitment shall be binding on the ~ owner of his parcel, each subsequent owner, and each other , person acquiring an interest in the property. A commitment is ! binding on the owner of the property even if it is unrecorded; ~ however, an unrecorded commitment is binding on subsequent ; owners and each other person acquiring an interest in the ~ property only if the subsequent owner and each other person ; acquiring an interest in the property has actual notice of the I commitment. The City Council is hereby authorized to adopt, ~ by resolution, rules governing the creation, form, recording, I modification, enforcement and termination of commitments." ~ ~ 17. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been ! followed. CONCLUSIONS 1• That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants' property. 2• That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 3• That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. 4• That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 6 • • '~ 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian ~I ; and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 !~ Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it I ' can take judicial notice. ~i , 5• That 11-2-416 A of the Zoning Ordinance states, in part, !~ as follows: ~ "When the public necessity, convenience ' zoning and develo ment . general welfare or ; P practice require, the Council may amend, supplement, change, or repeal. the regulations, ; restrictions, and boundaries or classifications of property as well as the regulations and provisions of this Ordinance." 6• That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows: (a) The Limited Office (L-O) zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan since the property is included in the Old Town Area and no Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required. (b) The area was not specifically intended to be rezoned in the future, but the rezone and stated improvements are in the best interests of the City of Meridian. (c) The area included in the proposed zoning amendment is intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning as the Applicant stated at the public hearing what his improvements were going to consist of and that meets the requirements of the Limited Office District. (d) There have been recent changes in the area or adjacent area which dictate that the area requested to be rezoned to LO (limited Officej should be so rezoned. These changes have AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 7 ~ ~ been the rezone of land for commercial operation and the placement and construction of the U. S. Post Office. ( e) That the property is designed so as to be harmonious with the surrounding area since the building was there prior to most of the surrounding buildings and houses. (f) The L-O zone and its permitted uses would not be hazardous to the existing or~future uses of the neighborhood and should not be disturbing to the property owners in the adjacent residential areas. (g) The property would be able to be adequately served with public facilities. (h) The L-O uses and development would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (i) The L-O zone and developments should not involve a use detrimental to the existing residential area or the general welfare of the area. (j) Development of the limited office should not cause an increase in vehicular traffic over and above what the traffic increase would be if developed as R-15. (k) That a rezone would not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment to rezone the land to Limited Office is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 7. That Section 11-9-605 M., PIpING OF DITCHES, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance requires piping of ditches, canals and waterways and that ordinance shall be complied with as a condition of development of the limited office. 8. It is further concluded that, upon development, the comments, recommendations and requirements of the other governmental agencies shall have to be met and complied with as AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AIVD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 8 • • would the ordinances of the City of Meridian. 9• That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, Mechanical Code, and all parking, lighting and landscaping requirements. 10. That Applicant shall meet requirements of the State of Idaho Historical Preservation Council and the Meridian Historical Society. 11. That all requirements of these Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall be met, including entering into a development agreement; that Applicant, Helen Alidjani, must submit the plans for re-development and they shall be subject to design review. 12 • It is further concluded that the Applicant shall meet the requirements and comments of the City staff, particularly those of Shari Stiles and Bruce Freckleton. APPROVAL OF' AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these '~ Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. , ROLL CALL ~ COUNCILMAN MORROW ~:~'.'' ~•N VOTED ~i COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON ' Page - 9 • ~ COUNCILMAN CORRIE ~~~~~~ ~ VOTED-~,~i`N~r`~..' COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED_ i~~ MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council decides that the requested rezone of the land to L-O, Limited Office, is approved; that as a condition of the rezone that the Applicant meet the terms and conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the comments and requirements of the Assistant to the City Engineer, Planning Director, the water and sewer ordinance requirements, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, Mechanical Code, and all parking, lighting and landscaping requirements. The limited office construction shall be subject to design review and if there are irrigation canals, drainages or other means of conveying water, located on the property, they shall be tiled. MOTION: APPROVED: ~/ ~`j/~~ DISAPPROVED• AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALIDJANI REZONE OF SCHOOL ON CARLTON Page - 10 ~ • ORIGI~IAL ~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL i APPLICATION OF SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT ; FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605 M TILING OF DITCHES FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS i The above entitled variance request having come on for ; consideration on December 20, 1994, and was continued for several ~ meetings for additional information and the last Council meeting was on February 21, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on i said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appeared through Tucker Johnson, and ~ ; the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT ~ 1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was ~ i published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing for February 21, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen ' (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly I ~ considered at the February 21, 1995, hearing; that copies of all ' notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to ~~ property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the ; land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E. , 11-2-419 D. , and 11- i 9-612 B. 1. b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City ~ of Meridian; that his requirement has been met. ~ , 3. That Ordinance 11-9-605 M., PIPING OF DITCHES, requires ~ all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural ~ ~ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 ~ • waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with I tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to restrain access ! to said ditch, lateral or canal; that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, adopted by the City on the Annexation Application approval, stated in the Conclusions and in the Decision i that the Applicant and owners were specifically required to tile ' all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation; ~ that when the lar~d was annexed by the City of Meridian, the Annexation Ordinance stated in Section 2. e., that the development ~~ ~ of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-605 M. 4. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a variance from the above ditch piping requirements and be allowed not to pipe the Kennedy Lateral but to fence the lateral; that in the Application the Applicant states that the Kennedy Lateral would require at least a 54 inch CMP pipe; that the cost of tiling such a large irrigation lateral would be enormous and cost prohibitive; that in the Application it is stated that the cost would approach *0.00 per foot, that the property line of this application is the centerline of the lateral, that the adjacent property owner does not want the ditch tiled, that when the Applicant started the first ~ phase of the subdivision, tiling of laterals was not an issue and j that had tiling been a strict requirement or if it becomes such ~I properties adjacent to larger waterways would experience a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 • . depreciation in value; and states that fending large waterways instead of tiling them has been allowed in other parts of Meridian. 5. The Applicant submitted a report from Keith Jacobs, P.E., attached to the Application, which stated the pipe should be a 54 inch diameter concrete pipe; this.size pipe is adequate to pass the calculated flows and could pass additional urban storm runoff that may be added with or without Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's knowledge. Mr. Jacobs report states that Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District had stated that the spring-time flow of the ditch was 50 CFS; the report is dated December 16, 1993, and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 6. Mr. Johnson testified that the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District will only take liability for 50 inches; that they are willing to accept 50 cfs which would fit through 48 inch pipe; that Civil Survey studied the drainage at his request and found that the drainage is full at 50 cfs and that any additional flow will increase the elevation, thus increasing the cubic feet per second which will exceed a 48 inch pipe; he additionally testified that he had conducted research into the construction of the Interstate, which does not border the parcel but is near the Applicant's land on the south, and that there is drainage from the Interstate that goes into the Kennedy Lateral; that there was other land that drained into the lateral also; that when the Interstate was improved in 1976 the natural drains in the medium which drained into the Kennedy Lateral were removed• t-hat Namr» Mo,-; a; .,.. Irrigation District puts 50 CFS into the Kennedy Lateral and that FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 ~ . 1 is all that they are willing to take liability for; that the federal government has a discharge agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District; that he had Civil survey Consultants do a study of the Interstate area and the Kennedy Lateral which ;I ~ indicated that lateral carries 50 CFS but in addition there are I ~ water marks indicting there has been higher water, from what source ~~ ~ nobody knows; that they engineered the area from the drain off that ~ would potentially come off the Interstate system and the ' surrounding hill sides and concluded that there was an additional 8 CFS above and beyond NM's flow of 50 CFS; that Mr. Johnson therefore stated that 50 CFS will go through the pipe (48 inches) and he stated that 50 CFS will go through the pipe but it would be at maximum capacity; and stated that adding the potential for storm water, there is a significant amount (water) that impacts that ditch. 7. That Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, signed by Bill Henson, Assistant Water Superintendent, that were received by the City on December 13, 1994, which stated as follows: "Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District will accept only what is agreed to in a license agreement. This district will not accept water amenities or 4 to 1 sl`oping. If I can be of further help concerning this variance request for The Landing Subdivision No. 7, please feel free to contact me. 8. That the City received a subsequent letter from John P. Anderson, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District Water Superintendent ~I dated December 19, 1994, and he stated, in part, as follows: "The 50 cfs figure that Bill Henson ... gave adequately FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 ,, • • I ; , reflects the flow needs of the Kennedy Lateral through this ~ development. I do not believe that there is any drainage ; return to the Kennedy Lateral that would cause the District ' any difficulty in operating a pipe system through this area if ~ ~ this flow criteria is used in the design. If you feel further discussion is required regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me." " 9. That on February 8, 1995, the City received a copy of a ~ letter from Bill Henson, Assistant Water Superintendent, which stated, in part, as follows: ~ "Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's engineers have reviewed the calculations that were submitted concerning the ~ proposal for the piping of the Kennedy Lateral through The ; Landing Subdivision. The calculations that were provided to our engineers show that there could be a possible flow of as ~ much as 64.5 cfs in the Kennedy Lateral. However, the ~ District's records indicate that there has never been any more ; than 50 cfs within this facility and the high water marks on the drawings that were provided indicate that the flow within ; the existing facility has not been as much as 64.6 cfs. ~ Therefore, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District will accept ~ and approve 48 inch pipe for the piping of the Kennedy Lateral i through The Landing NO. 7 Subdivision. Please feel free to contact me if further information is required." 10. That on March 1, 1995, the City received a letter from John P. Anderson, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District Water Superintendent dated March 1, 1995, and he stated, in part, as follows : "The flows for the Kennedy Lateral that were provided the engineer were based on a year in which N& M could provide a full one inch per acre to every delivery. A margin of approximately 15 per cent for evaporation water was included. These calculations were used to obtain the size of the pipe in case that we ever have need to deliver this amount of water. However, with the urbanization within the area, the odds of the District ever running maximum flows are slim. Even with the known surface run-off upstream from the Landing No. 7 Subdivision, I do not believe that the District would FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 ~ ! have a problem with the ditch over flowing during a rain storm. Therefore, in order to clarify what I have written prior to this, I believe that a 48 inch pipe is adequate and I believe that it will work quite well. If the pipe line is installed according to approved plans, N& M will assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance." 11. That Meridian City Engineer, Gary Smith submitted comment dated December 16, 1994; he stated that the engineering information presented by the applicant's engineer shows that a 48 inch diameter pipe can carry a springtime flow of 50 CFS as specified by the N& M. However, there isn't any room for any additional flow that may enter the ditch from surface runoff sources, without increasing the water surface elevation upstream of the pipe; that N& M comments that they will accept only what is agreed to in License Agreement and that the existing License Agreement states in part that the Licensee (Skyline Development Co,) will "place a 54 CMP in the Kennedy Lateral where Kennedy Lateral crosses Waltman Lane. He additionally states that he placed a telephone call to Bill Henson at the irrigation district office to further discuss this ditch and the piping thereof and that he will forward that information as soon as it is available. ~~ 12. That Gary Fors testified and submitted a letter; he ~ testified that he did not see any need for tiling the ditch; that ~ it was six feet deep and six feet across; that if N& M want a 48 ~ inch pipe why do they have such a large ditch. In his letter he 'I ~ stated that he had testified against the tiling when the ~ ; subdivision was initially proposed and felt that fencing would I provide the purpose as tiling and a fence would suffice; that if FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 • •~ the canal was tiled it would have a detrimental effect on him because he would have to find an alternative way to water the trees that he has along the ditch; that even if tiling is required that a fence should still be put up between his property and the Applicant's; in the letter he also stated that he did not receive notice of the variance request. 13. That the Ordinance requiring that ditches be tiled may be changed so that ditches which require tile of over a 48 inches may not have to be tiled; that the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has informed the City that the grates required for ditches that require larger tile than 48 inches may be more dangerous than not having the ditch tiled. 14. The entire property in question is described in the variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 15. That the property in the area where the variance is requested is zoned R-4 Residential District. 16. That the Application states that Edward A. and Janice M. Johnson are the owners of the property. 17. That no other testimony was heard at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 i . ~ ~i I ~ j 2• That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. ~ 3. That the City Council has judged this application by the ~~ guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the ~I ! Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon which it may take ~ judicial notice. 4• That the Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ~ ~ ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within ~ i ~ the City and the State. ~ 5. That the following provisions of Section 11-9-605 M, ~ PIPING OF DITCHES, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance are ~ , noted which are pertinent to the Application: i "All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of ~ natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent ~ and contiguous, on both sides of•the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering i equivalent in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral ~ or canal. The City may waive this requirement for covering i such ditch, lateral or canal, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual ; case. Any covering program involving the distribution system ~ of any irrigation district shall have the prior approval of i ~~ that affected district. . . . 6. That the City Council is considering changing the Ordinance regarding the piping of large ditches; that the Ordinance ~ may be changed but it has not yet and a variance is required to ~ ~ enable a developer to not have to tile a ditch, canal or waterway; the City has previously granted variances where the size of the ~I tile would be greater than 48 inches; that the City has required ; ~i FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - page 8 • •' that the Kennedy Lateral be tiled in Elk Run Subdivision which is upstream of the Applicant's property and the owners of that subdivision requested a variance and it was denied by the City Council. i~ 7. That the Applicant claims that there is drainage that enters the Kennedy Lateral south of its property which adds to the amount of water that the ditch carries over and above the amount of I ; water that the ditch carries as it crosses the property in the Elk Run Subdivision; however, it is the input from N& M that even with ~ the surface run-off upstream from The Landing Subdivision No. 7, a ; 48 inch diameter pipe is adequate if the pipe line is installed ~ ' according to approved plans and it believes that the District would , ~I not have a problem with the ditch over flowing during a rain storm. 8• That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing, that all of the following exist: ~ a• That there are such special circumstances or conditions ; affecting the property that the strict application of the ~ provisions of this Ordinance would be clearly ~ impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or requirement involved; ~ b. That strict compliance with ~the requirements of this 'I Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature or , condition of adjacent development, other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of this Ordinance will result in inhibiting the achievement FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 • ~ ~` or objectives of this Ordinance. ~• That the granting of the specified variance wi.ll be detrimental to the publi.c welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; d• That such variance will not violate the provisions of the Idaho code; and e• That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan. 9. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience, to the Applicant if this variance is granted in that the Applicant would not have to expend a significant amount of money to pipe the ditch. 10. That the requirement of tiling ditches is a health and safety requirement; that there has been testimony and evidence in prior applications for variances from this ordinance that it is less safe to have ditches that require a pipe greater than 48 inches tile because of the size of grate that is required at the entrance and exit of the pipe and the force and swiftness of ditches that are larger than could be tiled with a 48 inch pipe. 11. That by reason of the size of this ditch, it appears that to require tiling of this ditch would achieve the safety purpose for which tiling is required in the Ordinance. 12. That the irrigation district affected, N& M, has demanded that this ditch be tiled in this subdivision and in one other subdivision, Elk Run. 13. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2., regarding the tiling of ditches, it is specifically concluded as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - paqe 10 • ~` a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the ditch tiling Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable. b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this ditch tiling Ordinance would not result in extraordinary hardship to the Applicant. ~• That the granting of a variance would be detrimental to the public's welfare or possibly injurious to the public. d. That the granting of this variance would not violate the Idaho Code. e. That the variance would have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the ditch tiling Ordinance which is included in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance for safety purposes. 14. That it is concluded that the Application for a variance from 11-9-605 M, PIPING OF DITCHES, should not be granted. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED : MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION That it is decided the Application for a variance from DISAPPROVED• FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - page 11 ~ ,; 11-9-605 M is„denied. , • ~ oR~~i~q L BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF ALBERTSON'S INC. FOR VARIANCES FROM 11-9-605 M TILING OF DITCNES AND VARIANCE 11-9-605.G FROM 20 FOOT PLANTING STRIP FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS > The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on February 21, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant's representative, Craig Slokum, appearing and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1• That notice of the public hearing on the variance was published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing for February 21, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 21, 1995, hearing; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11- 9-612 B. l.b of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that his requirement has been met. 3• That Ordinance 11-9-605 M., PIpING OF DITCHES, requires FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - paqe 1 ~ • all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to restrain access to said ditch, lateral or canal. 4• That the Applicant, Albertson's Inc., has requested that they be granted a variance from the above ditch piping requirements and be allowed not to pipe the Eight Mile Lateral. 5• That Craig Slokum testified that the property is bound by the Eight Mile Lateral along the southern edge; that the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District retains rights to a 30' ditch easement on each side of the south property line; that the property is irregular and restrictive; that the City granted a similar variance to Rod's Parkside Creek Subdivision No. 4; that the size and length of culvert necessary to tile would impose a financial burden on the property owner. 6• That the entire property in question is described in the variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 7. That the property in the area where the variance is ~ requested is zoned C-N Neighborhood Commercial. ~ 8. That the intended use of the property is to develbp a ' neighborhood shopping center including an Albertson's grocery store ; with 6,000 square feet of adjacent retail shop space. ~ 9. That the project will include landscaping, screening for ~ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 • • equipment and trash compactors, concrete sidewalks, and paved areas for customer parking and delivery areas. Landscaping will occur within parking row-end planters, internal planters, a large screening buffer for the delivery service area, and perimeter buffering with expanded areas along Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road to help create an attractive entrance corridor. 10. That the City previously granted a variance to this Ordinance for Rod's Parkside Creek Subdivision which is directly south of the Albertson parcel, not to tile the Eight Mile Lateral. 11. That applicant also requests a variance to City Ordinance 11-9-605.G which requires a 20' wide planting strip next to incompatible features such as commercial and residential properties to screen the view from residential properties. That the Applicant's representative testified that the proposed project would provide more than the required 20 foot planting strip along the westerly property line; that along the southerly property line from Ten Mile Road to the corner of the proposed Albertson's store, a 10 foot wide planting strip is proposed; that along the remainder of the southerly property, two (2) triangular shaped planting strip are proposed, providing from 60 feet of planting to 0 feet of planting; that due to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District ditch easement, the adjacent residential properties are provided with 60 foot of separation from the proposed commercial development in addition to the proposed planting strips; that the net planting strip/separation width from the residential property is a minimum of 60 feet and a maximum of 120 feet which are well in excess of FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 • • the required 20 feet. 12. That Katie Brown testified that the Eight Mile Lateral ~ which comes across into her property is being tiled now; that this i ; canal should be completely tiled; that children are run off all ~I summer lon from la g ~ ~ 9 p yin there• that the lights from the parking i ; lot will be in her bedroom and significantly impact her property i value; that significant noise from Albertson's will effect her life ~ and some sort of noise barrier needs to be present to protect the I ~ residents; that there needs to be a stop-light at Ten Mile and Cherry Lane; no other testimony was heard at the hearing. 13. That the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, ;I Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, City Planning Director, or ~ the Central District Health Department may submit comments and the Y ~ shall be incorporated herein if submitted. 14. That a view of the property and the lots in Parkside Creek Subdivision #4 shows that there are no houses built, or being built, on the lots that abut the Eight Mile Lateral, but that the lots that do abut the Eight Mile Lateral could houses be within 25 to 50 feet of the Eight Mile Lateral. 15. That 11-2-410 B 3. states in part as follows: "Reauirements for Non-Residential Uses AbuttinQ Residential Districts Screening and/or other buffer requirements, as stipulated by the Commission or Council, shall be provided." 16. That 11-2-410 C, SITE PLANNING REVIEW, states in part as follows : ~I "In addition to any other requirements contained in this ~ Zoning Orciinance or in the Subdivision Ordinance, the City in ~ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - page 4 • . its discretion may require, as a condition of a any use, development or construction have the plansvadesignt plat, specifications, drawings, actual construction, landscaping, etc., reviewed and approved by the City. 17• That 11-2-413 B, PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, 1., states in part as follows: "No land or building in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner creating dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable conditions which could adversely affect the surrounding areas or adjoining premises except that any use permitted by this Ordinance may be undertaken and maintained if acceptable measures and safeguards to reduce dangerous and objectionable conditions to acceptable limits as established by the following performance requirements: ~• Noise - Objectionable noise which is due to volume, frequency, or beat shall be muffled or otherwise controlled. Air-raid sirens and related apparatus used solely for public purposes are exempt from this requirement; f. Glare - No direct or reflected glare shall be permitted which is visible from any property outside an industrial district or from any street; ...~~ 18• That 11-9-605 J, FENCES 9., states as follows: "Subject to the other restrictions contained in this Section, 'Fences', the maximum fence heights in each zoning district shall be as follows: - • • ZONE HEIGHT b• C-N, C-C, C-G and RSC, OT and MUR* 8.0 feet" 19• That 11-9-605 K, LINEAL OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS, states in part, as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined largely by natural features and, to a lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights-of-way or water rights-of-way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - paqe 5 • • corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights-of-way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-improved areas (a landscaped pathway only) or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 4.~ •To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; . ~ . . . CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. That the City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 5. That the following provision of Section 11-9-605 M, of PIPING OF DITCHES, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the Application: "All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 • • natural waterways, intersection, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous, or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal. The City may waive this requirement for covering such ditch, lateral or canal, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. Any covering program involving the distribution system of any irrigation district shall have the prior approval of that affected district. . . ,~~ 6. That the City Council has considered changing the Ordinances regarding the piping of large ditches and has directed that the Ordinance be changed so that if the tile required to tile the ditch is greater than 48 inches the ditch that it need not be tiled; that the Ordinance will be changed. 7. That the following provision of Section 11-9-605 G, of PLANTING STRIPS, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance are noted which are pertinent to the Application: That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "1• Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement."; $. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;~~ 9• That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: "11-9-612 A. 2., FINDINGg; No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council unless there is a finding, as a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - paqe 7 • • result of a public hearing, that all of the following exist: a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would be clearly impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or requirement involved; b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature of condition of adjacent development, other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of this Ordinance will result in inhibiting t h e achievement or objectives of this Ordinance. C• That the granting of the specified variance will be detrime`~ntal to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the Idaho code; and e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan. 10. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or ; profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant if the ~~ variance of the ditch tiling is granted; however, to re uire tilin Z ~ of the ditch would cause extreme hardship to Applicant. ~ ' 11. That the requirement of tiling ditches is a health and ~ safety requirement; that by reason of the size of this ditch, it appears that to require tiling of this ditch would not achieve the ~ safety purpose for which tiling is required in the Ordinance. 12. That the irrigation district affected has not demanded that this ditch be tiled. ~ 13. That regarding Section 1I-9-612 A. 2., regarding the ~ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - page 8 • • variance of tiling of ditches, it is specifically concluded as follows: a• That there are special circumstances or conditions ! affecting the property that the strict application of ' the provisions of the ditch tiling Ordinance would ; clearly be unreasonable. ~ b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this ditch tiling Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the Applicant. ; ~• That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental ; to the public's welfare and possible injurious to the public. ~ d• That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the ditch tiling Ordinance which is included in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance for safety purposes. ; 13. That since the piping of the ditches is not going to be i required, other safety measures must be undertaken to assist the ; health, safety, and welfare of the people of this City; that it is ; concluded that the Applicant shall fence the ditch in a fashion ~ ,~ that will be in accordance with the plan submitted under the ~ provisions of the planting strip variance. 14. That in regards to the Application for a variance from the 11-9-605 G. PI,ANTING STRIPS AND RESERVE STRIPS, it is concluded as follows in the Conclusions below. 15. That 11-9-605 G 1, requires that planting strips be placed next to incompatible features such as commercial uses to screen the view from residential properties, and because the houses will be so close to the Albertson property and the store, it makes complete sense that a planting strip be required. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 • . 16. That there is limited distance from the boundary of the south boundary of the store property to the houses in Parkside Creel Subdivision # 4 and there apparently will be limited distance from the store to the south boundary; that a twenty foot planting strip, depending on what was placed in the planting strip, would likely not provide a sufficient land width to provide an effective screening or buffering from the likely impacts of the store, including light, noise, and glare, and the truck traffic going to and from the store. 17• Applicant put forth no plan, and did not testify as to a plan, when asked how the impact from the store on the houses, that would be in Parkside Creek #4 Subdivision, would be mitigated. 18• That it is concluded that if the Variance were denied the Applicant may not provide efficient and useful plants that would provide a sufficient screen and buffer to protect the houses and people in Parkside Creek; that it may be more practical to grant the variance and provide for requirements that would, hopefully, provide adequate screening and buffering. 19• That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2., regarding the variance of PLANTING STRIP requirement, it is specifically concluded as follows: a• That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the planting strip Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable, as to only have a twenty foot planting strip may not be sufficient to buffer and screen the houses to the south. b• That strict compliance with the requirements of this ditch tiling Ordinance would not likely result in FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - page 10 . • extraordinary hardship to the Applicant but it may cause extraordinary hardship to the residents of Parkside Creek Subdivision. ~• That the granting of a variance would not be.detrimental to the public's welfare and possible injurious to the public so long as the Applicant meets the requirements placed on the granting of the variance. d• That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the Planting Strip Ordinance if the Applicant meets the requirements and conditions for receiving the variance. 20. That 11-2-410 C, SITE PLANNING REVIEW, states in part as follows: "In addition to any other requirements contained in this Zoning Ordinance or in the Subdivision Ordinance, the City in its discretion may require, as a condition of approval, that any use, development or construction have the plans, design, plat, specifications, drawings, actual construction, landscaping, etc., reviewed and approved by the City.~~ 21• It is further concluded that there should not be a total variance of the 11-9-605 G, but a variance that allows the Applicant to not meet the full twenty feet requirement, but as a guid nro auo, that the Applicant provide sufficient screening, buffering and landscaping to protect the houses, and people that will eventually reside in Parkside Creek. 22. That it is concluded that the Variance should be granted; that since 11-2-413 B, PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, 1., states that no land or building shall be used or occupied in any manner creating dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable conditions which could a~.TO,-~e,.. _~r_ __~ .. surrounding areas or adjoining premises except that any use permitted by this Ordinance may be undertaken and maintained if FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - page 11 • • acceptable measures and safeguards to reduce dangerous and objectionable conditions to acceptable limits, it is concluded that the Applicant shall submit a landscape, screen and buffer plan to the Planning and Zoning Administrator showing how the Applicant proposes to provide screening and buffering for the homes that are, and will be, in Parkside Creek; that the plan may show less than a twenty foot strip but it must show that there will be sufficient screening and buffering for Parkside Creek, which should include a block or masonry wall; that the lan s~/ P be submitted to the Council if the Planning and Zoning Administrator believes that it should be approved by the Council. 23• That if the Applicant is in agreement with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Decision, it shall submit the required plan to the Planning and Zoning Administrator as soon as possible; if the Applicant is not in agreement the Application shall be deemed denied; that if the Applicant is not in Agreement it shall submit a letter so informing the City within ten (10 ) days of March 7, 1994. i~ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12 ~ . • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ~ ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) DEC~N VOTED VOTED_G~~ VOTED VOTED VOTED That it is decided the Application for a variance from 11-9- 605 M is granted under the conditions stated herein; that the variance of the Planting Strip shall be granted under the conditions stated herein, if the Applicant agrees with these Findings and Conclusions and submits the required plan; that if the Applicant is not in agreement and submits a letter so stating, this variance is deemed denied. APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - paqe 13 • • ORIGIf~qL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDING NO. 7 SUBDIVISION IN THE R-4 NE( FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on February 21, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Applicant's representative, Tucker Johnson appearing and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1• That notice of the public hearing on the variance was published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing for February 21, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 21, 1995, hearing; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2• That the notice of public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E. , 11-2-419 D. , and 11-9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. 3• That Tucker Johnson appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Skyline Development Company; that Skyline Development is requesting FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - THE LANDING NO. 7 Page 1 • • a variance to the minimum lot size in the R-4 Zone, which is 8,000 square feet, for Lot 12 Block 12 to provide a strip for a parkway, greenbelt pathway on that lot so that the maximum block length of 1,000 feet is not exceeded; that the lot will be dedicated to the homeowners association to be maintained as per the City's fire department request to keep free of trash, weeds and so forth. 4• That Mr. Johnson testified that the net square footage of the lot would be approximately 7,393; that this variance impacts only one lot, making the backyard slightly smaller than the counter part to the east; that the preliminary plat was approved without any reference to or comments about block length; that in Mr. Wayne Forrey's opinion, as he was the one who reviewed the preliminary plat at that time, he didn't see any problem with it. 5• That Mr. Johnson also stated that the subdivision preliminary was approved, as was the final plat, without any comment on the block length in the block where this lot is located and that the problem with the block length was only pointed out by the City staff to him when the he came into to have the final plat signed. 6• That in the application the representative states that in cooperation with the City Planning Director, and in order to provide an inter-neighborhood connection/pedestrian path without loosing a lot and having to undo and re-do utility work that is all ready complete, it has been agreed to that a win-win situation for the City and the owner is to affect only one lot on the approved final plat by requesting a reduction in the minimum square footage FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - THE LANDING NO. 7 Page 2 • ~ requirement. 7• That the ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AIVD COVERAGE CONTROLS in Section 11-2-410 A of the Zoning Ordinance, allows single family dwellings in the R-4 District, requires that the lot size in the R- 4 Zone be 8,000 square feet; Section 11-9-605 E. of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance states as follows: "Every block shall be so designed as to provide two (2) tiers of lots, except where lots back onto an arterial street, natural feature or subdivision boundary; blocks shall not be less than five Hundred feet (500') nor more than one thousand feet (1,000') in length." 8. That the property is zoned R-4. 9• There was no testimony from the public, either opposing or approving of the Application. CONCLUSIONS 1• That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2• That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3• That the City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Zoning Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice. 4• That the Council may take judicial notice of its own FINDINGS OF FACT AIVD CONCLUSIONS - THE LANDING NO. 7 Page 3 • •_ proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 5. ~ That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of the Zoning Ordinance, are noted which are pertinent to the Application: 11-2-419 A. "The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for issuance of a variance. Variances shall be granted only where strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go to the Commission unless directed by the Council.'~ 6• That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: 11-2-419 C. FINDINGS A variance shall not~,be granted unless (as a result of a public hearing) the Council makes a statement of supportive reasons based directly on the evidence presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have been met by the applicant and unless all of the following exist: 1• That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable; 2. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - THE LANDING NO. 7 Page 4 • ~ hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, other physical conditions or other conditions which are not self- inflicted, or that these conditions will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of this Ordinance; 3• That the granting of the specified variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; 4. That such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 7. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically concluded as follows: a• That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the applicable ordinances would clearly be unreasonable since the subdivision plat was before the City in the preliminary and final plat applications but the violation of the block length was not discovered by the City and brought to the Applicant's attention. b• That strict compliance with the requirement that there only be at least 8, 000 square foot single family dwelling lots in the subdivision would result in extraordinary hardship to the Applicant as a result of factors not self-inflicted since the plat application were before the City but the City did not bring the violation to the attention of the Applicant. ~• That the granting of the specified variance would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated, in that the lot would be approximately 7,400 square feet and the subdivision would have pedestrian access to the property to the south. d- That such variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the required maximum square footage in the R-8 zone. 8• That it is concluded the Application should be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - THE LANDING NO. 7 Page 5 ~ ~': APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) APPROVED: DECISION VOTED ~ VOTED~ VOTED VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED: It is hereby decided that the variance requested, to allow one lot in the R-8 subdivision not to be 8,000 square feet, is approved, but the Applicant shall place the pedestrian pathway adjacent to the lot, Lot 12. Block 12, of The Landing Subdivision No. 7 and shall meet the Ordinance requirements for the pathway. APPROVED : ~==~_ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - THE LANDING N0. 7 Page 6 ~ r' ~, MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 7.1995 APPLICANT ITEM NUMBER; 17 . REQUEST; WATER/SEWERITRASH DELINQUENCIES 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: COMMENTS r~~j,~/~~ ~~I I. ~f V n~ ~~ -(/'" ~ ~i ~~ ~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q~ ~~ d~ ~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: AI! Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cety of Me~dian. / Ki yn ~ ~1]. ~' b e yo i co un f wi I, re Ki th Co wa ~~ sford: This is t~ ir~form you in ~writ•g, if you choose to, 9 have the right to a pre-determin~tion hearing at 7:30 .M. , before the Mayor and City Cou~r±~il to appear in person to ;~u~dg -d on the facts and defi-enc~ the claim made by the City that J r water, sewer and trash ~ill is delinq.uent• 03/15/95 retain nsel. This service will be discontinued on . fess payment is.received in full. Is there anyone present who hes to contest their water, sewer and trash delinquency? No ponse. sford: They are hereby informed that they may appea.l, or have decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District t, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal, their r will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is `~ I~ ~ i~. I . ~ • ~ a~ i; ~~ ~ DELINQUENCY LIST ~ TURN OFF LIST SCHEDULED FOR 03/15/95 ~ ACCOUNT # ~ NAME & ADDRESS AMT. PAST DUE I ' 1---920 JON C. HOFFMAN 73.70 ~J ~~ 233 W. BROADWAY AVE. ~I 1-1040 i - JOE & H. AZEVEDO 54.00 ~ u 110 W. RAILROAD AVE. ~ 1-1160 DONALD J. FLATEN 50.60 !~ 32 W. IDAHO AVE. ~ 1-1290 TECO INVESTMENTS 53.90 S 811 W. 2IVD ST. ~, ~ 1-2040 DOUGLAS SEAMONS 50.60 ~ ~~ 203 W. IDAHO AVE. ~, ~~ 1-3310 EMIL & E. BRINCKEN 106.00 ~~ 711 W. PINE AVE. i !~ 1-3520 KENT FL1~3RMAN 229.30 830 W. 2ND ST. ; 1-3780 WESTERN DAIRYMEN CO-OP 508.90 ~ 237 W. TAYLOR AVE. ~ 2--180 ~ RHONDA DLJNN 60.50 ~ 921 W. 3RD ST. I 2--390 ~ DANIEL LLJKE 83.60 i 712 W. P1NE AVE. ~ ~ 2--402 ANDREW & D. LUBACKY 50.60 ' ~ i~ 912 N.W. 7TH AVE. _ , • 2--810 THOMAS & J. HICKEY 1120 N. CLARINDA DR. 2-1050 BILL GRAU 820 N. LINDER RD. 2-1160 DION STATES ' 37 W. CHERRY AVE. 2-1170 KENT & S. CAMPOSAN 1304 W. 1 ST. ST. 2-1250 ELIZABBTH WEAKLEY 1528 W. 1 ST ST. 2-1370 DEBRA LYNN WHITE 1607 W. 1 ST. ST. 2-1400 DAVEN L. STORY 1513 W. 1 ST. ST. 2-1530 JAIME OBENCHAIN 1320 W. 2ND ST. 2-1690 E. RALPH NASH 1616 W. 2ND ST. 2-1860 H. LARUE BEVINGTON 240 MAPLE AVE. 2-1960 DONALD M. DICKSON 233 W. MAPLE AVE. 2-1970 KERRY L. LARSON 225 W. MAPLE 2-2060 SCOTT FARMER 314 W. CAMELLIA AVE. 2-2180 DUWAIN SHEPARD 238 CHERRY AVE. 2-2480 CHARLES HALE 331 CHERRY AVE. . 67. l 0 130.00 387.20 79.93 69.70 39.70 70.40 107.30 50.60 80.30 67.20 93.80 57.20 13 7.40 57.20 ~i ~I , I~ ~ ~ ~ I' ~~ 2-2760 JOHN D. HANSFORD 67.10 ~ ~ 1303 W 4TH ST. ~I 2-3570 D. J. STANLEY 199.70 ~ ~ 1122 W. 4TH ST. II 2-3702 E. E. BRINEGAR 53.90 ~~ i 1635 MERIDIAN ST. i ~ 2-3712 CLYDE E. BRINEGAR 54.00 ~{ 1625 MERIDIAN ST. ~ ; 2-3912 DONALD & C. COUCH 44.00 j i 1121 MERIDIAN ST. ' ~ 2-4240 DAVID L. SHAFFER 96.80 1208 W. 12TH AVE. ~ 2-4340 RICHARD CARRIER 44.00 ; 1215 ELM COURT ; ' 2-4480 MICHAEL S. MYERS 103.40 ~ ~) 1224 NORTHGATE CT. i ~, 2-4710 DEANNA ROSE 90.20 '~ 1316 W. 14TH ST. i ;, ~ 2-4740 JCTDY ALBRECHT 106.30 ~~ ii 1406 W. 14TH ST. ,, ' 2-4750 ~ COLLEEN FLTNK 77.00 ~~ 1414 W. 14TH ST. ~ 2-5130 RUSSELL SMITH 86.90 a ;; 1433 W. 14TH ST. ' 2-5170 JILL RODRIGLTEZ 93.40 ~` ~ I 1401 W. 14TH ST. ~a i 2-5410 SHERRI ELIADES 54.20 I 1434 ELM PLACE ~ ~ 2-5610 ~ K.HOPKINS/G.L. ARCHIJLETA 73.20 ! 1504 W. WASHINGTON ST. • ~ 2-~730 DOUGLAS GREINER 54.00 1339 W. CARLTON AVE. 2-5900 LISA M. HARVEY 60.45 1104 W. 15TH AVE. 2-5960 E. GAINES & R. SCHULER 70.60 1104 WASHINGTON PL. 2-6030 TOM KRASOWSKI 57.20 1017 W. 12TH AVE. 2-6380 STEVE G. NONAMAKER 50.60 908 W. WASHINGTON DR. 3---10 MIKE ENGLISH 60.50 ~ 770 N. ABERNATHY WY. 3---54 RICK FISHER 90.00 705 N. ABERNATHY WY. 3--370 HARVEY MARTIN 57.20 728 N. ROTAN AVE. 4-1662 BOISE VALLEY CONST. 55.00 2722 W. SHERYL ST. 4-1914 SYLEU SINGKHAOPET 80.40 1445 N. TOKAY WAY 5--190 JAMES & ADELE REED 80.30 3977 W. THORN CREEK CT. 20--32 KENT JOHNS 56.00 1835 N. WHITE OAK WY. 20-1638 THOMAS LINK 77.00 1920INCLINE WAY 20-1664 STEVEN MEDLEY 116.60 3761 WOODMONT DR. 20-1784 BRYAN J. KINDALL 86.30 3840 W. WOODMONT DR. • ~ ~ 20-1988 20-2026 20-2054 20-2062 21---42 21-996 21-1480 BETTE LBSTER 2663 W. CHATEAU DR. 782.20 21-1734 KRISTA YOLTNG 2053 KRISTEN WY. 21-1758 ROBERT B. KOCK 1840 TODD WAY 21-1770 YVONNE DESIND 1941 MARIANNA PL. 21-1930 BRUCE BAILEY 2594 REBECCA WY. 21-1958 ALAN DOTY 2575 REBECCA WY.. 21-2068 JEFFRY & P. PUGMIRE 3015 W. ANN ST. 21-2182 NAN S. LUNA 3040 W. HIGAN ST. 21-2198 JENIVIFER LOVAN 3035 W. KANDICE ST. LIFESTYLES MGMT., INC. 213.80 3749 QUAKER RIDGE DR. TERESA C. MII,LER 63.80 3737 SUGAR CREEK DR. FREDRICK C. HUTH 110.00 3419 SUGAR CREEK DR. CLAUDE MIXON 69.40 3281 SUGAR CREEK DR. TANYA RAMSEY 73.70 2006 KRISTEN WAY DAVID & K. GOURLEY 93.50 2723 W. PEBBLESTONE CT. 47.30 60.50 103.50 70.40 50.60 63.80 96.80 48.40 • • 21-2234 TIMOTHY & L. DAIVIELSON 47.30 2938 W. KANDICE ST. 21-2920 KEVIN & B. CROFTS 306.10 2931 W. ELK STREAM ST. 21-3070 KIlV~ERLY DECK 68. l 5 2921 W. JOUST ST. 22--g6g RONALD POLLARD 126.50 2307 N. KUBIK PL. 22--9 ] 4 JEAN RUCKER 77.00 2261 MONACO WY. 22-1066 PALTL LINEBERRY 67.10 2049 N. SPARKLING PL. 22-1152 DAVID C. STRAIN 57.20 2349 W. RAINVVATER CT. 22-1216 ROBERT WHEILER 43.80 2208 W. HENDRICKS ST. 22-1288 LIFESTYLES MGM'T.,INC. 230.30 2065 LASHER COURT 22-1350 GAYLEN & S. COWGER 70.40 1956 W. MCGLINCHEY ST. 22-1354 RODNEY WILLIAMS 80.30 1908 MONACO WAY 22-13 86 MICHAEL SCHAEFFER 110.00 1933 W. SANDALWOOD DR. 22-1406 H. BRENT PERKINS 77.00 1854 W. MCGLINCHEY ST. 22-1422 BLAINE HUNTER 97.30 1689 W. MCGLINCHEY ST. 22-1482 LYLE D. ANDERSON 86.90 1723 SANDALWOOD DR. • 22-1500 JULIA JII.,L METZ 1718 W. SANDALWOOD DR 22-1574 ROBERT D. TALBURT 1895 W. CHATEAU DR. 22-1602 ALLYN HILTON 1687 BEARDON CT. 22-1614 DONALD H. FISHER 1750 BEARDON CT. 31---b6 TEDDY KILDOW 1250 W. CHERRY LN. 31--142 MARY VANDEVENTER 1330 W. YOST CT. 31--248 RUSSELL S. HEUGHINS 1528 W. CHERRY LN. 31--758 p~,Ip ~~ . 1509 TANA DR. 31--834 TED DUMONT, JR. 2219 N. W. 12TH ST. 31--886 JOHN RADLER 2410 LINDER ROAD 31-1274 JAMES & B. CALLISON 2662 W. 12TH ST. 31-2236 LINDA PARSOIVS 2635 N.W. 13TH ST. 31-2282 JACK FIESELMAN 2802 N.W. 14TH ST. 31-3018 FORREST F SCHUSTER 2218 N.W. 14TH ST. 31-3060 DAVID BASTIAN 960 W. CHATEAU DR. . 45.60 51.00 90.20 67.10 63.80 70.20 57.00 60.50 90.30 26.00 117.30 70.40 60.50 165.90 136.20 • 31-3230 STEPHEN M. WITT 2323 N. W. 11 TH AVE. 31-3242 DAVID E. MCGOWAN 2211 N. W. 11 TH ST. 31-3250 SHIRLEY WARE 1131 DELMAR DR. 31-3368 DONNA GARDNER 933 W. CHATEAU DR. 31-3406 MARY H. ULIN 1111 FAIIZWOOD CT. 31-3420 JULIA COUCH 1012 FAIRWOOD CT. 31-3434 GARY FRAIVK 1142 FAIIZWOOD CT. 31-3 528 JACK TEATER 193 8 N. W. 11 TH AVE. 32--446 WILLIAM A. CAVINESS 2054 N. W. 8TH ST. 32--508 BRIGITTE STONE 626 MCGLINCHEY 32--522 STEVEN HAVEN 1843 LAWNDALE DR. 32--566 BARBARA J. HICKS 1919 CRESTMONT DR. 32--630 VINCENT GARDNER 2070 CRESTMONT DR. 32--656 H. LARUE BEVINGTON 467 CRANMER DR. 32--852 GREGORY BEEBE 567 W. WILI,OWgROOK DR. • 83.60 80.30 91.00 53.90 80.30 53.70 53.90 93.60 53.90 107.20 113.30 143.30 54.30 83.70 35.40 • • 32"g~2 ROGER F. BECKER 129.80 671 TIFFANY DR. 32-1254 MICHAEL MERS 156.20 134 W. WATERBURy DR. 32-1284 EDWARD W~L,LERT 72.30 428 W. WOODBURY DR. 32-1368 THOMAS GRATTON 63.70 382 W. WATERBURY DR. 33---56 TEL-CAR., INC. 129.80 220 E. FAIRVIEW AVE. 33--348 IVA KISSINGER 61.80 1990 N. MERIDIAN RD. 34--342 RONALD & T. DARCO 96.80 1686 JERICHO 34--500 LAYNE MOURITSEN 60.50 2092 N. SAPPHIRE PL. 34--552 BRADLEY D. FOSTER 73.70 2120 N. AMETHYST PL. 34--588 CHRISTOPHER ERIC JANSEN 57.20 2298 N. AMETHyST AVE. 34--812 KARL & L. KAUTZ 33.35 2298 1v.E. lOTH AVE. 34--946 MICHAEL GARSHAK 80.92 2448 N. VALMET AVE. 34-1854 WAYNE MCGURER 100.10 1011 CLAYBOURNE DR. 34-1888 RANDY C. MARCIJM 110.10 2132 N. LARK pL. 34-1948 FORREST MOORE 80.30 821 E. WILLOWBROOK DR. . . 34-2122 GLEN SCHMIDT 80.30 1920 TEARE AVE. 42-1990 JAMES PETTERSON 360.40 2215 N. MEADOWROSE PL. 50---72 JEROME W. ROE 66.00 930 E. 4TH ST. 50--210 MIKE CLACJNCH 83.60 ~ 338 E. STATE AVE. #1 S 50-212 DAVID W. RICHARDSON 57.20 330 E. STATE AVE. 50--350 DAVID C. THOMASSON 77.00 1115 E. STH 50--726 C. F. I INVESTMENTS 51.00 364 E. WASHINGTON AVE. 50-1266 JERRY BITTICK 200.20 1237 E. 2 1/ 2 ST. A 50-1380 GARY TIMSON 60.25 1302 E. 1ST ST. 50-1778 CECIL CHERRY 77.00 1608 MERIDIAN ST. 50-1856 SANDRA AVERILL 25.00 1035 E. FAIRVIEW AVE. 50-2354 OWEN & LARA JONES 53.90 1294 N. SANDLIN AVE. 50-3724 STEVE MEISTRELL 71.20 995 N. RALSTIN PL. 50-4482 JOHNNY & H, MEyER 103.40 526 E. PINE AVE. 51--302 SHAGAY GREGORY 47.30 420 E. BROADWAY AVE. • • 51--354 AUDIO ELECTRONICS 103.40 722 E. 2ND ST. S l--450 MURRI'S ELECTROIVICS 151.80 131 E. IDAHO AVE. 51--486 KATHERINE KEELE 77.00 325 E. IDAHO AVE. 51--758 ELITE CLEANERS 90.20 140 E. IDAHO AVE. 51--774 BOB PREECE 44.00 126 E. IDAHO AVE. 51--866 CHERYL ROHRBACH 83.70 319 E. PINE AVE. 51--890 . WANDA M. COLE 50.60 421 E. PINE AVE. 51--928 VIRGINIA JE1V1vISON-ADMIN. 58.50 603 E. PINE AVE. 51-3300 DAVID ROBERTS 43.00 133 E. KING ST. 51-3370 CINllI ATWOOD 148.90 223 E. 3RD ST. 51-3930 STEUNENBERG SHELTER HOMES 128.40 402 E. 2ND ST. 51-4100 STEVE'S RADIATOR WELDING 60.00 41 E. BOWER ST. 51-4130 COLTNTRY GLASS 160.70 436 E. 1 ST ST. 51-4320 DOUBLE-D SERVICE CEN. 320.00 502 E. 1 ST ST. 51-4350 SHOW PLACE CARPETS 143.50 516 N. MERIDIAN ROAD • • 69---46 DAVID WII,LIAMS 63.72 1877 S. GOLDSMITH AVE. 69--524 PAT & B. ELORDI 93.50 ~ 1082 E. PEACOCK ST. 69--530 DEBBIE & MARK BROWN 70.40 1053 E. PEACOCK ST. 69-1388 LEROY & J. JENKIIVS 44.00 2300 S. E. STH WAY 74---60 VALERIE J. ALVES 119.50 343 S. W. 7TH AVE. 74---70 ROY PORTER 83.60 469 S.W. 7TH AVE. 74--344 SHIRLEY HOOK 77.00 635 HANpVER CT. 74--350 GARY E. FRANK 87.10 638 HANpVER CT. 74--354 MICHAEL & S. SAIJNDERS 53.90 678 HANOVER CT. 74--426 GLORIA LACY 44.00 623 BARRETT ST. 74-1084 EDWARD & M, NEAI,E 100.10 102 W. 1 ST ST. 74-1104 DONNA WIEBER 62.80 37 ROSE CIRCLE 74-2432 KENNETH & D. COFFEY 57.20 1160 W. KIMRA ST. 74-2458 LIFESTYLES MGMT., INC. 302.90 1260 W. KIIVIIZA ST. 74-2524 THOMAS LOVELL 59.30 1353 W. KIMRA ST. ~ ` 74-2850 JAMES G. CHEESBROUGH 67.20 519 S. SPOONBILL AVE. 74-3238 DEBRA RiJLE 53.90 1134 W. GREENHEAD DR. 74-3296 ROB & C. BIENAPFL 44.00 404 S. CANVASBACK WY. 74-3300 DONALD L. MOORE 67.10 1244 W. GREENHEAD DR. 74-3308 WAIDE T. WOODLAND 62.80 1312 W. GREENHEAD DR. 74-3326 MICHAEL A. YOIJNG 67.10 1516 W. GREENHEAD DR. ~OTAL DUE: $17,024.57 ii ~ ~ ;~ ~ ,~ ~, ~ ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~ ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE VII, HEALTH AND SANITATION, OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER TO BE KNOWN AS "CHAPTER 7, SEWER PRE- TREATMENT" ADOPTING SECTIONS RELATED TO PURPOSE AND POLICY, PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION, DEFINITIONS, PROHIBITED DISCHARGE STANDARDS, PROHIBITIONS ON STORM DRAINAGE AND GROUND WATER, ACCEPTANCE OF GROUND WATER FROM CLEANUP PROJECTS, SEPTAGE WASTE, ADDITIONAL PRETREATMENT MEASURES, STATE REQUIREMENTS, ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES, FEES, INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT, EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL INDIRECT DISCHARGE, INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT APPEALS, INDIRECT ~DISCHARGE PERMIT MODIFICATIONS, INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT REISSUANCE, INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT REVOCATION, USER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, INSPECTION AND SAMPLING, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, ENFORCEMENT, PENALTIES, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City of Meridian and its citizens to adopt sewer pre-treatment ordinance provisions to protect the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridi.an. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Title VII, Chapter 7, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, be, and the same is hereby enacted to read as follows: "7-701: PURPOSE AND POLICY. This ordinance sets forth uniform requirements for users of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and enables the City to protect public health and the environment in conformity with all applicable local, State and Federal laws relating thereto. Since this Ordinance governs and relates to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian and the users of the City of Meridian Publicly Owned Treatment Works and system, these provisions shall be applicable to all users, regardless of the SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 1 ~i r ~ ~ i' date, time or place their use commenced. j The objectives of this ordinance are: i A. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the I POTW which will interfere with the normal operation i ~ of the system or contaminate the resulting ~ municipal sludge; ~ B• To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the i POTW which do not receive adequate treatment and ~ which will pass through the system into receiving i i waters or the atmosphere or otherwise be ~ incompatible with the system; i , C. To improve the opportunity to recycle and reclaim i wastewater and sludge from the POTW; and D. To protect the public using and the personnel ~ operating the POTW. i This Ordinance provides for the regulation of users of ~ the POTW through the enforcement of administrative ~ ~ regulations. This Ordinance authorizes the issuance of ~ indirect discharge permits; authorizes monitoring, compliance, i and enforcement activities; establishes administrative review ~ I procedures; requires user reporting; and provides for the ~ i setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs ~ resulting from the program described herein. This Ordinance does not provide for the recovery of operations, maintenance ~~ or replacement costs of the POTW or the costs associated with i the construction of collection and treatment systems used by ~ ~ Industrial Dischargers, in proportion to their use of the POTW, which are the subject of separate enactments. ~ 7-702: PRETREATMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. Except as ~ otherwise ~ y. I provided herein the Cit s Public Works Director or i his desianee shall administer, implement, and enforce the ~ provisions of this ordinance. ~ 7-703: DEFINITIONS. i (a) Act - The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq), SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 2 i ~ ~ , I ~ ~ ;~ ~ as amended. ~ ~ (b) Applicable Pretreatment Standards - For any I specified pollutant, the discharge prohibitions i are: the City's specific limitations on discharge, i State standards, or the National Categorical ~ Pretreatment Standards, whichever standard is most ~ i stringent. ~ (c) r Bypass - The intentional diversion of wastestreams ~ from any portion of an user's treatment facility. (d) Categorical Pretreatment Standard - Any regulation i containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated ~ by the U.S. EPA in accordance with Sections 307(b) ~ ; and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1317) which apply to ~ I a specific category of users and which appear in 40 j CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405 - 471. ~ (e) Categorical user - A user regulated by one or more ~ of EPA's Categorical Pretreatment Standards. I (f) Cooling Water/NonContact Cooling Water - Water used I for cooling which does not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product, or finished product. Cooling water may be ~ generated from any use, such as air conditioning, I i heat exchangers, cooling or refrigeration to which ~ the only pollutant added is heat. '; (g) Indirect Discharge - The discharge or the i introduction of nondomestic pollutants into a POTW i from a source regulated under Section 307 (b), (c) i ~ or (d) of the Act. (h) Industrial User - User - Any nonresidential user I with an indirect discharge of effluent into a POTW ~ by means of pipes, conduits, pumping stations, force mains, aonstructed drainage ditches, surface i water intercepting ditches, and all constructed ; devices and appliance appurtenant thereto. This SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 3 ~ ~ term inciudes Federal, State, and local facilities as part of the regulated community, since such entities are subject to Federal pretreatment regulations. (i) Industrial Waste - Solid, liquid or gaseous waste resulting from any industrial, manufacturing, trade, or business process or from the development, recovery or processing of natural resources. (j) Interference - A discharge which alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, either (1) inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations; (2) inhibits or disrupts sludge processes, use or disposal; or (3) is the cause of a violation of the discharge permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with any of the following statutory/regulatory provisions or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent State or local regulations): Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (including Title II more commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and including State regulations contained in any State sludge management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA, the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. (k) Minor Industrial User (MIU) - A nonresidential user with an indirect discharge to the POTW which does not meet the criteria as a significant industrial user or a singnificant connecting user, but whose operation and discharge may warrant inspection to ensure compliance with discharge prohibitions, SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 4 ~ • pretreatment facility operation, spill prevention ~ measures, and pollution prevention assitance. i (1) New Source - Any building, structure, facility or j installation from which there is or may be a ~ discharge of pollutants, the construction of which I j commenced after the publication of proposed ; pretreatment standards under Section 307(c) of the Act, which will be applicable to such source if i ~ such standards are thereafter promulgated in ; accordance with that section, and such building, I structure, facility or installation: ~ i (1) is constructed at a site at which no other i source is located, or ' (2) totally replaces the process or production i equipment that causes the discharge of ; ' pollutants at an existing source, or i (3) is constructed for production or wastewater generating processes which are substantially ~ ` independent of an existing source at the same ~ site, substantial independence being ~ determined by factors such as: (a) the extent I to which the new facility is integrated with I the existin i g plant, and (b) the extent to ~ which the new facility is engaged in the same i ~ general type of activity as the existing source. '~ Construction on a site at which an existing source I ~ is located results in a modification rather than a il New Source if the construction does not create a ~ new building, structure, facility or installation I meeting the criteria of paragraphs (2) or (3) i f above, but otherwise alters, replaces or adds to j existing process or production equipment. ~ For purposes of this definition, construction is SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 5 • • ! deemed to commence when: ~ (A) the owner or operator of the facility has ~ entered into a binding contractual obligation ~ for the purchase of facilities or equipment I which are intended to be used in its operation i ~ within a reasonable time. Options to purchase ~ or contracts which can be terminated or ~ modified without substantial loss, and I i contracts for feasibility, engineering and ' design studies do not constitute a contractual ~ obligation herein; or when ; (B) the following are begun as part of a ~ continuous on-site construction: ~ [1] any placement, assembly or i ; installation of facilities or equipment, or ~ [2] significant site preparation work, including clearing, excavation or removal of existing buildings, structures or facilities, which is necessary for the placement, assembly or installation of New Source facilities or equipment. (m) NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program as administered by the USEPA or State. (n) Other Wastes - Decayed wood, sawdust, shavings, bark, lime, refuse, ashes, garbage, offal, oil, tar, chemicals and all other substances except sewage and industrial wastes. (o) Pass Through - The occurrence of an Indirect Discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 6 . ~ violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation). (p) POTW - Any sewage treatment works owned and operated by the City and the sewers and conveyance appurtenances discharging thereto, whether or not owned by the City. The term also means Meridian City Sewage Works since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues the NPDES permits to Meridian City. (q) Pollutant - Any substance discharged into a POTW or its collection system which is prohibited or limited by Sections 4.01, 4.02, and Sections 5, 6, and 7 herein. This term includes dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural wastes. (r) Pretreatment - The reduction of the amounts of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater to a less harmful state prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW. (s) Pretreatment Requirement - Any substantive or procedural requirement related to pretreatment, other than a Cateqorical Pretreatment Standard, imposed on an industrial user. (t) Severe Property Damage - Substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 7 • • ~ resources which can reasonably be expected to occur ~ in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage ' does not mean economic loss caused by delays in ii production. '~ (u) Sewage - Water-carried human wastes or a combination of water-carried wastes from I residences, business buildings, institutions and ~ i industrial establishments. I (v) Sewer - Any pipe, conduit, ditch or other device ~ ~ used to collect and transport sewage from the ~ generating source. ~ (w) Shall - Is mandatory. ~ (x) Significant Connecting User (SCU) - All private, ~ I public, or quasi-public reservation, compound, district, government installation, industrial, ~ commercial, or domestic complex which indirectly ' i discharges to the POTW at single or multiple i ~ connection points to the City's sewer collection , system. Upon determination by the Sewer ; Superintendant that an SCU, as a result of the ~ discharge of toxic pollutants or high strength i sewage as measured by BOD and TSS, causes or has ~ the potential to cause interference with the i operation and maintenance of the POTW, including i its wastewater collection system, causes or has the ~ potential to cause pass through of pollutants to ; the receiving waters, or causes or has the ~~ potential to cause interference with the treatment, i disposal or beneficial reuse of the POTW's sludge, ; or that contributes greater than 5~ of the total ;~ flow entering the POTW, the City may issue an ~ Indirect Discharge Permit to the SCU. Issuance of ; an indirect discharge permit may not be necessary ; if the SCU is regulated by an EPA-approved SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 8 • • i pretreatment program. ~ ; (y) Significant Industrial User (SIU) - Any industrial I; i users of the POTW: ~ (1) subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards ' promulgated under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR i Chapter I, Subchapter, and I (2) any other industrial user that: discharges an ~ average of 25,000 gpd or more of process ~ wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, ~ noncontact cooling, and boiler blowdown ; wastewater); contributes a process wastestream i which makes up five percent (5~) or more of ~ the average dry weather hydraulic or organic i capacity to the treatment facility receiving ~ the waste; or is designated as such by the ~ ~ City as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(a) on the ~ basis that the industrial user has a I reasonable potential, either singly or in i ~ combination with other contributing i industries, for adversely affecting the POTW's ~ wastewater collection and treatment system, I i the quality of sludge, the system's effluent ~ quality, or air emissions generated by the ~ system or for violating any pretreatment I ~ standard or requirement. j (3) Upon the subsequent finding that a user, which ~ had met the above criteria, no longer has ; reasonable potential for adversely affecting ! the POTW's operati:on or for violating any ~ applicable pretreatment standard or i requirement, the POTW may at any time, on its ; own initiative or in response to a written ; request from the user [and in accordance with ~ procedures in 40 CFR ~403.8 (f)(6)] may SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 9 • • ~ determine that such user should not be ~ considered a Significant Industrial User. ~ (z) Slugload - Any discharge at a flow rate or ~ concentration which could cause a violation of the ~ discharge standards in Sections 4.01, 4.02, and ii I Sections 5, 6, and 7 of this Chapter or any I ; discharge of a nonroutine, episodic nature, ~ including but not limited to, an accidental spill ~ or a noncustomary batch discharge. ~ (aa) Toxic Pollutants - Pollutants or combination of i pollutants listed as toxic in regulations i promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Section 307 ; (33 U.S.C. 1317) of the Act. i (ab) Upset - An exceptional incident in which a user ~ I unintentionally and temporarily is in a state of I noncompliance with the standards set forth in ; Sections 4.01, 4.02, and Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 ; herein due to factors beyond the reasonable control ~ of the user, and excluding noncompliance to the ~ extent caused by operational error, improperly ~ designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment j facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or ~ careless or improper operation thereof. (ac) User - See Industrial User. ' (ad) Wastewater - Industrial waste, or sewage or any ~ i other waste including that which may be combined , with any ground water, surface water or storm ! water, that may be discharged to the POTW. ~ 7-704: PROHIBITED DISCHARGE STANDARDS. i 1. General Prohibitions. No user shall introduce or ~ cause to be introduced into the POTW any pollutant ~ or wastewater which causes pass through or I interference. These general prohibitions apply to SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 10 ii • • ~ all users of the POTW whether or not they are ~ subject to categorical pretreatment standards or i ' any other Federal, State, or local pretreatment I ~ standards or requirements. 2. Specific Prohibitions. No user shall contribute or cause to be discharged, directly or indirectly, i .any of the following described substances into the ~ wastewater collection system or treatment ~ facilities: ; .(a) Any wastewater having a pH less than five (5) ~ or greater than 9.0 or having any other ~ corrosive property capable of causing damage ~ or hazard to structures, equipment or i ~ personnel of the system. i (b) Any toxic pollutants in sufficient quantity,. , either singly or by combined interaction to ; injure or interfere with any wastewater ~ treatment process, constitute a hazard to ~ , humans or animals or to exceed the limitation i I set forth in National Categorical Pretreatment i I Standards. ~ (c) Any liquids, solids or gases which by reason ~ of their nature or quantity are, or may be ~ sufficient either alone or by interaction with ~ i ~ ; other substances to cause fire or explosion or I be injurious in another way to the POTW or to ~ ~ the operation of the POTW. At no time shall ~ two successive readings on an explosion hazard ~1 meter, at the point of discharge into the ~~ system (or at any point in the system), be I ~ more than five percent (5~) nor any single i ' reading over ten percent (l00) of the Lower ~ Explosive Limit (LEL) of the meter. ~ Prohibited materials include, but are not SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 11 • • ~ limited to gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, ~ benzene, toluene, xylene, ethers, alcohols, ketones, aldehydes, peroxides, chlorates, ' perchlorates, bromates, carbides, hydrides, ~ sulfides and any other substances which the ; POTW deems to be a fire hazard or a hazard to ' the system. ~ (d) Pollutants which create a fire or explosive ~~ hazard in the POTW, including, but not 1'imited ~ to, wastestreams with a closed-cup flashpoint I of less than 140'F (60'C) using the test i methods specified in 40 CFR ~261.21. i (e) Any solid or viscous substances which will or ~ may cause obstruction to the flow in a sewer ~~ or other interference with the operation of '~ the wastewater system, such as, but not ' ~ limited to: grease, garbage with particles ~ greater than one-half (1/2) inch in any dimension, animal guts or tissues, paunch ~ manure, bones, hair, hides, or fleshings, entrails, whole blood feathers, ashes, ~ cinders, sand, spent lime stone or marble j dust, metal, glass, straw, shavings, grass i clippings, rags, spent grains, spent hops, il waste paper, wood, plastics, gas, tar, asphalt ~ residues, and residues from refining, or ~ processing of fuel or lubricating oil, mud or ~ glass grinding or polishing wastes. ! (f) Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, i or products of mineral oil origin, in amounts ! that will cause interference or pass through. i (g) Any noxious or malodorous liquid, gases or j solids which either singly or by interaction ~~ are capable of creating a public nuisance or SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 12 • • hazard to life or are sufficient to prevent entry into the sewers for their maintenance and repair. (h) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems. (i) Any substance which may cause the POTW's effluent or treatment residues, sludges or scums to be unsuitable for reclamation and reuse or to interfere with the reclamation process. In no case, shall a substance discharged to the POTW cause the POTW to be in noncompliance with sludge use or disposal criteria, guidelines or regulations developed under Section 405 of the Act; any criteria, guidelines or regulations affecting sludge use or disposal developed pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act or State standards applicable to the sludge management method being used. (j) Any substance which will cause the POTW to violate its NPDES and/or other disposal system permits. (k) Any substance with objectionable color not removed in the treatment process, such as, but not limited to, dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions. (1) Any wastewater having a temperature which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW treatment plant resulting in interference; but in no case, wastewater with a temperature at the introduction into the POTW Treatment Plant SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 13 i ~ ~ ~ ~ . . i ~ ~ which exceeds 40°C (104°F). If, in the opinion ~ of the City, lower temperatures of such wastes ' could harm either the sewers, sewage treatment i process or equipment; have an adverse effect i i on the receiving streams or otherwise endanger ~ life, health or property; or constitute a i ; nuisance, the City may prohibit such ~ discharges. II (m) Any unpolluted water in excess of 2,000 ~ gallons per day including, but not limited to ~ noncontact cooling water. See Section 4.04 ~ Prohibitions on Unpolluted Waters. ~ i (n) Any wastewater at a flow rate and/or I ; Pollutant discharge rate which is excessive I over a relatively short time period so that ' there is a treatment process upset and i subsequent loss of treatment efficiency. ~ (o) Any wastewater containing any radioactive i , wastes or isotopes of such halflife or i concentration as exceed limits established by ~ the City in compliance with applicable State ' or Federal regulations. i (p) Any wastewater which causes a hazard to human life or creates a public nuisance. i Pollutants, substances, or wastewater prohibited by ~ ' this section shall not be processed or stored in ~ such a manner that could result in their discharge ~ to the POTW. I 3. Prohibitions on Storm Drainage and Ground Water i !~ Storm water, ground water, rain water, street i drainage, subsurface drainage or yard drainage i shall not be discharged through direct or indirect I i connections to the wastewater collection system ~ ~ unless a permit is issued by the POTW. The POTW SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 14 • • may approve the discharge of such water only when no reasonable alternative method of disposal and/or treatment is available. ~ If a permit is granted for the discharge of such waters into the sewer, the user shall pay the applicable charges and fees and meet such other conditions as required by the POTW. 4. Prohibitions on Unpolluted Water. Unpolluted water, including, but not limited to cooling water, process water or blowdown from cooling towers or evaporative coolers shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sewer unless a permit is issued by the POTW. The POTW may approve the discharge of such water only when no reasonable alternative method of disposal and/or treatment is available. If a permit is granted for the discharge of such waters into the sewer, the user shall pay the applicable charges and fees and meet such other conditions as required by the POTW. 5. Limitations on Point of DischarQe. No person shall discharge any substances directly into a manhole or other opening into the sewer other than through an approved building sewer connection unless a permit has been issued by the POTW. If a permit is granted for the discharge of such waters into the sewer, the user shall pay the applicable charges and fees and meet such other conditions as required by the POTW. 6. Septage Waste. No person shall discharge any septage waste into the sewer. Septage Haulers who comply with the licensing requirements presented in [Title 5, Chapter 21 of Boise City Code] may deposit their septage at the site designated by SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 15 • • I Meridian City as a receiving facility. 7. Acceptance of Ground Water from Cleanup Proiects. I Wastewater generated from the cleanup of spills, ~ leaking underground storage tanks, monitoring wells I or other similar sources shall not be discharged ' through direct or indirect connections to the sewer ~ unless a permit is issued by the POTW. The POTW ~ may approve the discharge of such water only when ~ no reasonable alternative method of disposal and/or ~ treatment is available. If a permit is granted for ~ the discharge of such waters into the sewer, the ,~ ~j user shall pay the applicable charges and fees and i i meet such other conditions as required by the POTW. ~ Each temporary discharge permit must be reviewed ~ and reissued if the user wishes to discharge past ' the original expiration date. ~ i 8. Additional Pretreatment Measures. Whenever deemed i ~ necessary, the Pretreatment Coordinator may require ~ users to restrict their discharge during peak flow periods, designate that certain wastewaters be ; discharged only into specific sewers, relocate ~ and/or consolidate points of discharge, separate ~ sewage wastestreams from industrial wastestreams, ;~ and such other conditions as may be necessary to ~ protect the POTW and to determine the user's i compliance with the requirements of this ordinance. j Grease, oil, and sand interceptors shall be i provided when they are necessary for the proper ~ handling of wastewater containing excessive amounts ~ of grease and oil, or sand; except that such ~~ interceptors shall not be required for residential i users. Al1 interception units shall be of a type ' and capacity approved by the appropriate Building j Department having authority and shall be so located i ~ SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 16 • • to be easily accessible for cleaning and inspection. Such interceptors shall be inspected, cleaned, and repaired regularly, as needed, by the user and at their expense. 7-705 NATIONAL CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS. National Categorical Pretreatment Standards as promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Act and found in 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405 - 471 are hereby incorporated and shall be enforceable by this ordinance. 7-706 STATE REQUIREMENTS. State requirements and limitations on discharges to the POTW shall be met by all users which are subject to such standards in any instance in which they are more stringent than federal requirements and limitations, or those in this ordinance or other applicable. ordinance(s). 7-707 LOCAL LIMITS. In addition to National Categorical Pretreatment Standards referenced in Section 7-705 of this ordinance, no user shall discharge wastewater containing concentrations (and/or mass limitations) of substances exceeding the following local limits: Maximum Daily Parameter Concentration (mq/1~ Arsenic 0.25 * Cadmium 0.11 Chromium (total) 2.77 Copper 3.38 Cyanide (total) 1.20 Iron 1.50 * Lead 0.69 Mercury 0.50 Nickel 3.98 Silver 0.43 Zinc ~ 2.61 TOTAL ORGANICS (TTO) 2.13 ** SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 17 I I I • • * NON METAL FINISHING STANDARDS ** SEE LIST OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS INCLUDED IN TOTAL TOXIS ORGANICS (TTO) REGULATED UNDER ELECTROPLATING AND METAL FINISHING CATEGORIES MAINTAINED AT THE MERIDIAN SEWER PLANT ; Wherever a user is subject to both a National Categorical ~ Pretreatment Standard and a local limit for a given pollutant, ~ the more stringent limit or pretreatment standard shall apply. 4 7-707a DEADLINE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE PRETREATMENT ~ REQUIREMENTS. Compliance by existing users covered by I i Categorical Pretreatment standards shall be within 3 years of I the date the Standard is effective unless a shorter compliance I time is specified in the appropriate Standard. Meridian City i shall establish a final compliance deadline date for any I existing user not covered by Categorical Pretreatment ~ Standards or for any categorical user when local limits for i said user are more restrictive than EPA's Categorical I Pretreatment Standards. ' New source dischargers are required to comply with ; applicable pretreatment standards within the shortest feasible ~ time (not to exceed 90 days from the beginning of discharge). ~ New sources shall install and have in operating condition, and ~ shall start-up, all pollution control equipment required to meet applicable pretreatment standards before beginning to ~ discharge. i Any indirect discharge permit issued to a categorical i user shall not contain a compliance date beyond any deadline i date established in EPA's Categorical Pretreatment Standards. Any other existing user or a categorical user that must comply I with a more stringent local limit, which is in noncompliance i ; with any local limits, shall be provided with a compliance i schedule placed in an indirect discharge permit to ensure ~ compliance within the shortest time feasible. ~ 7-708 DILUTION. No user shall increase the use of potable ~ or process water or, in any other way, attempt to dilute a ~ SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 18 • • ; discharge as a partial or complete substitute for adequate i ~ treatment to achieve complianae with the local limits or the National Pretreatment Standards. The City may impose mass I ; limitations on users which are using dilutions to meet the i pretreatment standards or requirements of the ordinance, or in ; other cases where the imposition of mass limitations is deemed ~ appropriate by the City. ' 7-709 ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES. Each user shall provide ; protection from the accidental discharge of prohibited or i regulated materials or substances established by this ~ ordinance. Where deemed necessary by the City, facilities to ~ prevent accidental discharge of prohibited materials shall be ! provided and maintained at the user's cost and expense. An ~ Accidental Spill Prevention Plan (ASPP) showing facilities and ~ operating procedures to provide this protection shall be ' submitted to the City for review and approval before ~ construction of the facility or implementation of procedures. i j Each existing user shall complete and submit its ASPP within i 60 days after notification by the City. Each user shall implement its ASPP as submitted after such ASPP has been reviewed and approved by the City. Review i i and approval of such plans and operating procedures by the ; City shall not relieve the user from the responsibility to I modify its facility as necessary to meet the requirements of ' this ordinance. i ~ Any user required to develop and implement an ASPP shall ; submit a plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following ~ elements: I ! (1) Description of discharge practices, including ~ nonroutine batch discharges; i ! (2) Description of stored chemicals; I (3) Procedures for immediately notifying the POTW of I any accidental or slug discharge. Such i ' notification must also be given for any discharge SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 19 . • ~ which would violate any of the standards in i Sections 4.01, 4.02, Section 5, and Section 6 of i this Chapter; and ~ (4) Procedures to prevent adverse impact from any i accidental or slug discharge. Such procedures i ; include, but are not limited to, inspection and ~ maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer i of materials, loading and unloading operations, ~ control of plant site runoff, worker training, ~ building of containment structures or equipment, ~ measures for containing toxic organic pollutants ; (including solvents), and/or measures and equipment ; for emergency response. ~ Users shall notify the City wastewater treatment plant ~ immediately upon the occurrence of the "slugload", or accidental discharge of substances prohibited by this I ordinance. The notification shall include location of j ; discharge, date and time thereof, type of waste, concentration ~ and volume, and corrective actions. Any user who discharges j a slugload of prohibited materials shall be liable for any I expense, loss or damage to the POTW, in addition to the amount of any fines imposed on the City on account thereof under I State or Federal Law. ~ 7-710 PRETREATMENT FACILITIES. Users shall provide ! necessary wastewater pretreatment as required to comply with i this ordinance and shall achieve compliance with all I applicable pretreatment standards within the time limitations ! as specified by appropriate statutes, regulations and i ~ ordinances. Any facilities required to pretreat wastewater to ~ a level acceptable to the City shall be provided, properly ', operated and maintained at the user's expense. Detailed plans ~ j showing the pretreatment facilities shall be submitted to the ~ City for review and must be acceptable to the City before ;~ construction of the facility. The review of such plans shall SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 20 i +! in no way relieve the Discharger from the responsibility of modifying its facility or operations as necessary to produce an effluent acceptable to the City under the provisions of this ordinance. Within a reasonable time after the completion of the wastewater pretreatment facility, the user shall furnish its operations and maintenance procedures for the City to review. Any subsequent significant changes in the pretreatment facilities or method of operation shall be reported to and be accepted by the City prior to the user's initiation of the changes. 7-711 FEES. .O1 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the payment of fees from users to the City's wastewater disposal system to compensate the City for their costs associated with monitoring, inspection, surveillance and laboratory analysis required by the Federal pretreatment program. .02 Charctes and Fees. If costs are incurred beyond , normal operation through involvement with noncomplying users, the City Public Works Department will charge the noncomplying user for monitoring, laboratory analyses, inspections and surveillance as required by Federal pretreatment requirements and this ordinance. 7-712 WASTEWATER DISCHARGES. It shall be unlawful to discharge sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes to any sewer within the jurisdiction of the City, and/or to the POTW, without having first complied with the terms of this ordinance, or without having first obtained the City's approval of a compliance schedule submitted by the user. 7-713 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE DATA DISCLOSURE. .O1 General Disclosure. All Significant Industrial and Connecting Users proposing to connect to or to discharge sewage, industrial wastes and other SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 21 • ~ il wastes to the POTW shall comply with all terms of this ordinance. I i .02 Disclosure Forms. Significant Industrial and I ~ Connecting Users shall complete and file with the I ~ City a Data Disclosure Form prescribed by the City. i Existing Significant Industrial and Connecting ~ Users shall file Data Disclosure Forms within 60 days after notification by the City, and users ! shall file a Data Disclosure Form a minimum of 30 i j days before connecting to the POTW. This Data Disclosure Form satisfies the requirement of the user Baseline Monitoring Report as described in 40 CFR 403.12(b). The disclosure to be made by the ~ user shall be made on written forms provided by the i City and shall include: ; (a) Disclosure of name, address and location of i the user. ~ (b) Disclosure of Standard Industrial ~ ~ Classification (SIC) number according to the i ~ Standard Industrial Classification Manual, ~ Bureau of the Budget, 1972, as amended. j (c) Disclosure of wastewater constituents and i ~ characteristics including but not limited to ! those mentioned in this ordinance, as ~ appropriate, as determined by bonafide ~ chemical and biological analyses. Sampling I and analysis shall be performed in accordance ~ with procedures established by the U.S. EPA ; and contained in 40 CFR, Part 136, as amended. j (d) Disclosure of time and duration of discharges, ~ including copies of flow charts. i (e) Disclosure of average daily and maximum daily ~ waste- water flow rates, in gallons per day, ~ ~ including daily, monthly and seasonal SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 22 • • variations, if any. All flows shall be measured unless other verifiable techniques are approved by the City due to cost or nonfeasibility. (f) Disclosure of site plans, floor plans, plumbing plans and details to show all sewers, sewer connections, inspection manholes, sampling chambers and appurtenances by size and location. (g) Description of activities, facilities and plant processes on the premises including all materials which are or may be discharged to the sewers or works of the City and a brief description of the nature, average rate of production and Standard Industrial Classification of the operations. (h) A statement regarding whether or not compliance is being achieved with this ordinance on a consistent basis and if not, whether additional pretreatment is required for the user to comply with this ordinance. (i) Where additional pretreatment and/or operation and maintenance activities will be required to comply with this ordinance, the user shall provide a compliance schedule consisting of a declaration of the shortest schedule by which the user will provide such additional pretreatment and/or implementation of additional operational and maintenance activities. (1) The schedule will contain milestone dates for the commencement and completion of major events leading to the construction and operation of additional pretreatment SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 23 • (J) (k) (1) • required for the user to comply with the requirements of this ordinance. Examples of such milestone dates which the user may select include hiring an engineer, completing preliminary plans, executing contract for major components, commencing construction, completing construction and other acts which may be necessary to achieve compliance with this ordinance. (2) Under no circumstance shall the City permit a time increment of any single step directed toward compliance which exceeds nine (9) months. (3) Not later than 14 days following each milestone date in the schedule and the final date for compliance, the user shall submit a progress report to the City, including no less than a statement as to whether or not it complied with the increment of progress represented by that milestone date and, if not, the date on which it expects to comply with this increment of progress, the reason for delay and the steps being taken by the user to return the construction to the approved schedule. Al1 Data Disclosure Forms shall be signed by an authorized representative of the user as defined by 40 CFR 403.12(1), and when required by the City, a registered professional engineer. Each product produced by type, amount, process or processes and rate of production. Type and amount of raw materials used, SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 24 • • ~I including chemicals used in process which may i be discharged to sanitary system (average ~ _ daily and maximum daily). ~ m List of environmental control ermits held b , ~ I P Y I or for the facility. ~ The City will evaluate the completeness of the ~ Data Disclosure Form furnished by the user and may I require additional information. The City may ~ ' require inspection and sampling manholes and/or ; flow measuring or recording and sampling equipment ~ to assure compliance with this ordinance. Within ~ ~ i 30 days, after full evaluation and acceptance of ~ the data furnished, the City shall notify the user j of the City's acceptance through the issuance of an ; Indirect Discharge permit,. or rejection thereof. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be ~ processed and will be promptly returned to the user i with an explanation of necessary revisions. Any ; schedules or timetables submitted by the user shall ~ be subject to review and approval by the City. ~ 7-714 INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT. No Significant j Industrial User shall discharge wastewater into the POTW i ~ without first obtaining an indirect discharge permit. Significant Connecting Users may reguire an indirect discharge ~ permit in order to discharge wastewater into the POTW. Any ~ violation of the terms and conditions of an indirect discharge I permit shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and i subjects the user or permittee to the sanctions set out in this ordinance. Obtaining an indirect discharge permit does i j not relieve a permittee of its obligation to comply with all ~ Federal and State pretreatment standards or requirements or ' with any other requirements of Federal, State, and local laws. I The City shall issue to each Significant Industrial User ;i and to certain Significant Connecting~ Users an Indirect SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 25 • • Discharge permit, which will be based on information in the Data Disclosure Form and include: (a) Any fees and charges to be paid upon initial issuance. (b) Limits on the average and maximum wastewater Pollutant concentrations, loadings or characteristics. (c) Limits on average and maximum rate and time of discharge or requirements for flow regulations and equalization. (d) Self-monitoring requirements including flow monitoring frequency and method, sampling frequencies, number, types and standards for tests. (e) Authorized points of discharge and regulated processes. (f) Requirements for installation and maintenance of inspection and sampling facilities. (g) Compliance schedules. (h) Special conditions as the City may reasonably require, such as sampling locations or , circumstances of a given discharge. (i) Reporting requirements including, but not limited to, notification of accidental spills, noncompliance, and discharge/process changes. (j) Requirements for submission of special technical reports or discharge reports where same differs from those prescribed by this ordinance. (k) Any special agreements the City chooses to continue or develop between the City and SID. (1) Standard conditions as apply to all Signifi~cant Industrial Users and certain Significant Connecting Users. Permits shall be issued for perpetual duration, subject to amendment of revocations provided in this ordinance. Under SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 26 • • extraordinary circumstances, it may be issued for a stated period or may be stated to expire on a specific date. Indirect Discharge permits shall be issued for a specific time period, not to exceed five (5) years. Each permit shall indicate an effective date and an expiration date. Indirect discharge permits are issued to a specific user for a specific operation and are not assignable to another user without prior written approval of the City or transferable to any other location. Indirect discharge permits shall be voidable upon cessation of operations or transfer of business ownership. The indirect discharge permit issued to a particular user is void upon the issuance of a new indirect discharge permit to that user. 7-715 INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT - EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL USERS. Any existing Significant Connecting user located beyond the City limits required to obtain an indirect discharge permit shall submit a permit application as outlined in Section 7-713 and 7-714. New Significant Connecting User located beyond City limits required to obtain an indirect discharge permit shall also comply with Section 7-713 and 7-7- 716. Issuance of an indirect discharge permit may not be necessary if the SCU is regulated by an EPA-approved pretreatment program. 7-716: INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT APPEALS. Users will be provided with a draft permit for their review and comment prior to permit issuance. Any person, including the user, may petition the POTW to reconsider the terms of an indirect discharge permit as follows: within 20 days of the permits issuance. A. The written petition must be filed with the Meridian Sewer Department within twenty (20) days of the permit's issuance. Failure to submit a t.imely petition for reconsideration shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 27 • • B. In its petition, the appealing party must indicate the specific permit conditions objected to, the reasons for this objection, and shall present alternative conditions to meet the intent of this ordinance. C. The effectiveness of the permit shall not be stayed pending the appeal. D. The Meridian Sewer Superintendant or his designee shall provide written action to the appealing party within ten (10) working days from the date the appeal was filed. If the Sewer Superintendant or his designee shall fail to respond within ten (10) working days, the petition for reconsideration shall be deemed denied. E. Decisions of the Meridian Sewer Superintendant or his designee regarding the petition for reconsideration may be appealed to the Meridian Board of Sewer Appraisers by filing a written request for appeal with the City Engineer within fifteen (15) days of the decision of the Sewer ~ Superintendant or his designee. The Meridian Board of Sewer Appraisers shall address the appeal at its next scheduled meeting. The appealing party may appear and present evi.dence and testimony at such meeting. The decision of the Board of Sewer Appraisers regarding the petition shall be in writing. F. The decision of the Board of Sewer Appraisers may be appealed to the Meridian City Council by filing a notice requesting appeal with the Meridian City Clerk's office within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the written decision. 7-716a: INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT MODIFICATIONS. The terms and conditions of an indirect discharge permit may be subject SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 28 • • to modification by the Sewer Superintendant at any time as limitations or requirements are modified or other just cause exists. Any permit modifications which result in new conditions shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance as determined by the Sewer Superintendant. Other reasons for modification include, but are not limited to, the following: A. To incorporate any new or revised Federal, State, or local pretreatment standards or requirements; B. To address significant alterations or additions to the user's operation, processes, or wastewater since the time of permit issuance or the last modification; C. A change in the POTW that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; D. To incorporate special conditions resulting from the issuance of a special order or an enforcement action; or E. To correct typographical or other errors in the indirect discharge permit. 7-717 INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT REISSUANCE. A user, required to a have an indirect discharge permit, shall submit a written request for permit renewal at least 60 days prior to permit expiration. The POTW shall then provide the user with the necessary renewal forms and instructions. A user, whose existing indirect discharge permit has expired and has submitted its renewal application request within the specified time period, shall be deemed to have an effective indirect discharge permit until the POTW issues or denies a new indirect discharge permit. A user, whose existing indirect discharge permit has expired and who failed to submit its renewal application request within the specified time period, shall be deemed to be discharging without an indirect SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 29 ~ • discharge permit. 7-717a INDIRECT DISCHARGE PERMIT REVOCATION. Indirect discharge permits may be revoked for, but not limited to, the following reasons: ; A. Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose.all i ; relevant facts in the data disclosure form or i subsequent permit renewal submittals; II B• Falsifying self-monitoring reports; ' C. Tampering with monitoring equipment; I D. Failure to meet discharge limitations; i ~ E. Failure to pay fines; ~ F. Failure to meet compliance schedules; , j G. If the City has to invoke its emergency provisions; i H. Violation of any pretreatment standard or ~ requirement, or any terms of an indirect discharge I permit or this ordinance. ' 7-718 STANDARDS MODIFICATIONS. All National Categorical i i Pretreatment Standards adopted by the U.S. EPA after the ~ promulgation of this ordinance shall be enforceable by the ~ City through this ordinance. Where a user, subject to a ~~ National Categorical Pretreatment Standard has not ' , previously ~ submitted a Data Disclosure Form as required by Section 7-713, ~ ~ the user shall file a Data Disclosure Form with the City I ! within 180 days after the promulgation of the applicable ! National Categorical Pretreatment Standard by the U.S. EPA. ~ ~ In addition, any user operating on the basis of a previous filing of a disclosure statement, shall submit to the City ; within 180 days after the promulgation of an applicable I National Categorical Pretreatment Standard, the additional information required by paragraphs (c), (h) and (i) of Section ~ 7-713.02. If deemed necessar b the Cit ~ Y Y y, where National Categorical Pretreatment Standards are more stringent, the i indirect discharge permit will be modified. The user shall be ~ informed of any proposed changes in the Ordinance at least 30 SEWAGE PRE-TREATMEIVT ORDINANCE Page 30 ~ • i days prior to the effective date of change. Any changes or ~ new conditions in the Ordinance shall include a reasonable ~ i time schedule for compliance. ' 7-719: USER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. i ~ .O1 Final Compliance Report Within 90 days following ~ the date for final compliance by the user with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements set forth in this ordinance or an indirect I discharge permit, or within 90 days after I commencement of the introduction of wastewater into ~ the POTW by a new user, any user subject to this ~ ! ordinance shall submit to the City a report ~ indicating the nature and concentration of all i ! prohibited or regulated substances contained in its i discharge, and the average and maximum daily flow ~ in gallons. The report shall state whether the ~ applicable pretreatment standards or requirements are being met on a consistent basis and, if not, I what additional operation, maintenance, and/or ~ pretreatment is necessary to bring the user into i , com liance with the a licable P pp pretreatment ~ • standards or requirements. This statement shall be i I signed by an authorized representative of the user, I as defined by 40 CFR 403.12(1). ~ .02 Periodic Compliance Reports ~ i (1) Any user subject to a pretreatment standard ~ set forth in this ordinance, after the ~ compliance date of such pretreatment standard, ~ or, in the case of a new user, after i commencement of the discharge to the POTW, ~ i shall submit to the City at 6-month intervals ! as prescribed in the indirect discharge permit, unless required more frequently by the i City, a report indicating the nature and SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 31 ~ . I concentration, of prohibited or regulated ~ substances in the effluent which are limited ~ by the pretreatment standards hereof. In i addition, this report shall include a record of all measured or estimated average and f ~ maximum daily flows during the reporting ~ i period. Flows shall be reported on the basis ~ of actual measurement, provided however, where ~ cost or feasibility considerations justify, i ~ the City may accept reports of average and ! ~ maximum flows estimated by verifiable ~I I techniques. I ;j (2) Reports of users shall contain all results of ~ '; sampling and analysis of the discharge, i including the flow and the nature and ~ concentration or ~ , production and mass where ' required by the City. Al1 sample results i ~ shall indicate the time, date and place of i ~ sampling, and methods of analysis, and shall i ~ certify that such sampling and analysis is ~ representative of normal work cycles and I ex ected ~ p pollutant discharges from the user. I Al1 analyses shall be performed in accordance with : 40 CFR, Part 136 and amendments thereto. Where 40 CFR, ~ ~ Part 136 does not include a sampling or analytical ' technique for the Pollutant in question, sampling and ~ analysis shall be performed in accordance with sampling ~ and anal tical y procedures approved by the Administrator i~ of the U.S. EPA. ; The frequency of monitoring by the user shall be ' prescribed within the indirect discharge permit. At a I ~ minimum, users shall sample their discharge at least ~ twice per year. If a user sampled and analyzed more ~ frequently than what was required in its indirect ~ SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 32 . • ; discharge permit, using methodologies in 40 CFR Part 136, i it must submit all results of sampling and analysis of I the discharge as part of its self-monitoring report. ~ ~ 7-720 MONITORING FACILITIES. Each user shall provide and I operate at the user's own expense, a monitoring facility to ' allow inspection, sampling and flow measurement of each sewer ~ i discharge to the City. Each monitoring facility shall be i situated on the user's premises. There shall be ample room in i or near such sampling facility to allow accurate sampling and preparation of samples for analysis. The facility, sampling ~ ~ and measuring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a , safe and proper operating condition at the expense of the ~ user. Where required by Federal or State regulations, such ~I monitoring facilities shall be provided at the end of a f ~ process or production unit from which regulated toxic i pollutants are discharged. ~ Al1 monitoring facilities shall be constructed and ~ maintained in accordanae with all applicable construction I i standards and specifications. Construction shall be completed ; within 120 days (or such longer period as may be allowed by ~ the City) of receipt by the user of the indirect discharge permit. I 7-721 INSPECTION AND SAMPLING. The City, or its i representatives, shall have the right to enter the facilities I ; of any user to ascertain whether the purpose of this ordinance, and any indirect discharge permit or order issued I i hereunder, is being met and whether the user is complying will ~ all requirements thereof. The user shall allow the City, or i its representatives, upon presentation of credentials of ~ identification, to enter upon the premises of the user at all ~ reasonable hours, including all hours of operation or i discharging for the purposes of inspection, sampling or records examination. The City shall be given ready access to ;~ all parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 33 ~ • sampling, records examination and copying, and performance of any additional duties. Where a user has security measures in force which require proper identification and clearance before entry into its premises, the user shall make necessary arrangements with its security guards so that, upon presentation of suitable identification, city pretreatment staff will be permitted to enter without delay for the purposes of performing specific responsibilities. The City shall have the right to set up on the user's property, or require installation of, such devices as are necessary to conduct flow monitoring and sampling of the user's operations. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the user at the written or verbal request of the City and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be born by the user. Unreasonable delays in allowing the City access to the user's premises shall constitute a violation of this ordinance. ~-722: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Information and data on a user obtained from reports, surveys, indirect discharge permits, and monitoring programs, and from POTW inspection and sampling activities, shall be available to the public or other governmental agency without restriction unless the user specifically requests, and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City, that the release of such information would divulge information, processes or methods of production entitled to protection as trade secrets under applicable State Law. When requested and demonstrated by the user that the information furnished be kept confidential, the portions of a report which might disclose trade secrets or secret processes shall not be made available for inspection by the public, but SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 34 . • shall be made available immediately upon request to governmental agencies for uses related to the NPDES Program or pretreatment program, and in enforcement proceedings involving the user furnishing the information. Wastewater constituents and characteristics and other "effluent data" as defined by 40 CFR 2.302 will not be recognized as confidential information and will be available to the public without restriction. Any such claim must be asserted at the time of submission by clearly indicating the words "confidential business information" on each page containing such information. If no claim is made at the time of submission, all information will be available to the public. ~-~23 ENFORCEMENT. .O1 Emeraencv Suspension of Service and Revocation of Indirect Discharcre Permit. The City may, after informal notice to the user in writing or in person or by telephone, revoke the indirect discharge permit and order the suspension of the wastewater treatment service to a user when it appears to the City that an actual or threatened discharge (a) presents or threatens an imminent or substantial danger to the health or welfare of persons or substantial danger to the environment or (b) threatens to interfere with the operation of the POTW. Any user notified of the City's suspension order shall immediately cease all discharges. In the event of failure of the user to comply with the suspension order, the City may immediately take all . necessary steps to halt or prevent any further discharge by such user into the POTW. The City shall have authority to physically cap, block or seal the user's sewer line (whether on public or private property) in order to terminate service under this section. The City shall have the right SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 35 ~ • to enter upon the user's property to accomplish the capping, blocking or sealing of the user sewer line. The City shall reinstate the wastewater treatment service upon clear and convincing proof by the user of the elimination of the noncomplying discharge or condition creating the threat as set forth above. .02 User Prohibited Conduct. A user shall not (a) fail to report accurately the wastewater constituents and characteristics of its discharge; (b) fail to report significant changes in wastewater constituents or characteristics; (c) refuse reasonable access to the user's premises by representatives of the City for the purpose of inspection or monitoring; or (d) violate the provisions of the indirect discharge permit, the provisions of this ordinance or any order of the City with respect thereto. The City may seek any or all of the remedies or penalties provided in this ordinance (including termination of wastewater treatment service and water service termination) against any user who violates any of the foregoing prohibitions. The City may seek or pursue any remede, action or relief authorized in this Ordinance, or may seek the issuance of a temporary or permanent injunction, as deemed appropriate, for legal and/or equitable relief. Enforcement of pretreatment violations will generally be in accordance with the Meridian Pretreatment Ordinance. The City reserves the right, however, to take other action against any user when the circumstances warrant. Further, Meridian is empowered to take more than one enforcement action against any noncompliant user. SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 36 ~ • ' These actions may be taken concurrently. I j Issuance of a compliance order, administrative ~ fines, penalties, and/or cease and desist orders I shall not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, i i taking any other action against a noncompliant ~ user. ! .03 Notification of Violation - Administrative i ~ Adiustment. Whenever the City finds that any user j has violated the prohibitions in Section 22.02 ~ ~ hereof, the City shall cause to be served upon such j , user a written notice either in person or by i certified or registered mail, return receipt ~ requested, stating the nature of the alleged ! violation or violations. The notice may also state ~ ~ what fine, penalty or other remedy the City will ~ seek against the user for such alleged violation or ~ violations. ~ i Within 20 days of the date of receipt of the ~ notice, the user shall respond personally or in ~ writing to the City advising of its position with ~ respect to the allegations. Thereafter, the user I ~ shall be given the opportunity to meet with ~ representatives, employees or agents of the City to ' ascertain the veracity of the allegations, to ~ establish a plan for the satisfactory correction of i , the violations and preclusion of a recurrence i thereof, and to pay the fine or otherwise comply I I with the penalty or remedy being sought by the City ,~ ~i for the violation or violations. Submission of a j response in no way relieves the user for liability ~ for any violations occurring before or after ~ I receipt of written notice of noncompliance from the ~ POTW. Nothing in this section shall limit the ~ authority of the POTW to take any action, including SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 37 • • !i emergency actions or any other enforcement action, ' without first issuing a Notice of Violation. ~ .04 Show Cause Hearina Where the violation of Section ~~ 7-723.02 is not corrected by timely compliance ~~ through the Administrative Adjustment procedure set ;1 forth at Section 7-723.03, the City may order any r ~~ user which suffers or permits a violation of Section 7-723.02 hereof to show cause before the i ; Sewer Superintendant or his designate why the i proposed enforcement action (which may include ; service termination) should not be taken. A ! ~ written notice shall be served on the user by ~~ personal service or by certified or registered i mail, return receipt requested, specifying the time and place of a hearing to be held by the Sewer ~ Superintendant or his designate regarding the ~ ; violation, the reasons why the enforcement action ~ is to be taken, the proposed enforcement action and ' directing the user to show cause before the ~ Superintendant or his designate why the proposed i enforcement action should not be taken. The notice I I of the hearing shall be served no less than ten ' (10) days before the hearing. Service of the ~ notice may be made on any agent, officer or ~ authorized representative of a user. The ; information and evidence presented at the hearing ~ shall be considered by the Superintendant or his I ~ designate, who shall then enter appropriate ~ findings of fact, conclusions of law and orders ~ with respect to the alleged violations of the user. ~ Appeal of such orders may be taken within 20 days ' by the user to the City Council, which may grant a ~ i hearing to take additional evidence or render its j decision based upon the record of the SEin1AGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 38 • • Superintendants proceedings. A show cause hearing shall not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, taking any other ~ action against a noncompliant user. i .05 Judicial Proceedings Following the entry of any i final order by the City with respect to the i violation by the user under this ordinance, the i ' City may commence an action for appropriate legal ~ and/or equitable relief in the Fourth Judicial i~ District, Ada County Court to enforce the penalty j or remedy imposed by the City hereunder. j .06 Enforcement Actions - Annual Publication. The City j shall publish annuall y, in the Valley News, a list i ~ of those users which, during the previous 12 ~ months, were in significant noncompliance with ' applicable pretreatment standards or other ' pretreatment requirements. The term significant ~ noncompliance shall mean: i i (a) Chronic violations of wastewater discharge I limits, defined here as those in which sixty- i six percent (66~) or more of wastewater ! measurements taken during a six-month period ~ exceed the daily maximum limit or average ~ limit for the same ollutant P parameter by any ; amount; ~ (b) Technical Review Criteria (TRC) violations, ~ ; ~ defined here as those in which thirty-three ! percent (33%) or more of wastewater ~ measurements taken during a six-month period ~ equals or exceeds the product of the daily ~ maximum limit or the average limit multiplied I j by the applicable factor [1.4 for BOD, TSS, ' fats, oil and grease, and 1.2 for all other i ~ pollutants except pH]; SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 39 . • (c) Any other discharge violation that the POTW believes has caused, alone or in combination with other discharges, interference, pass through, or endangered the health and safety of POTW personnel or the general public; (d) Any discharge of pollutants that has caused imminent endangerment to the public or to the environment, or has resulted in the POTW's exercise of its emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge; (e) Failure to meet, within ninety (90) days of the scheduled date, a compliance schedule milestone contained in an indirect discharge permit or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance; (f) Failure to provide within thirty (30) days after the due date, any required reports, including baseline monitoring reports, reports on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard deadlines, periodic self-monitoring reports, and reports on compliance with compliance schedules; (g) Failure to accurately report noncompliance; or (h) Any other violation(s) which the City determines will adversely affect the operation or implementation of the POTW's pretreatment program. 7-723a WARRANT 1. The Sewer Superintendent shall cause investigations to be made upon the request of the City Council or upon receipt of information concerning an alleged violation of this chapter or of any rule, regulation, permit, or order promulgated SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 40 • • ~~ thereunder, and may cause to be made such other ~ investigations as he shall deem advisable. ; 2. For the purpose of enforcin an g y provision of this ~I chapter or any rule or regulation authorized in , ~ this chapter, the Sewer Superintendent, or the ~ Sewer Superintendent's designee, shall have the i authority to: ; ~ a. Conduct a program of continuing surveillance ; and of regular or periodic inspection of ~ actual or potential health hazards, water I i pollution sources, noise sources, and of solid ' waste disposal sites; ~ b. Enter at all reasonable times upon any private i or ublic p property, upon presentation of ~ appropriate credentials, for the purpose of j inspection or investigation to ascertain ' possible violations of this chapter or of i rules, regulation, permits, or orders adopted i and promulgated by the Sewer Superintendent or ~ the City Council; ~ ~ c. All inspections and investigations conducted j under the authority of this chapter shall be i performed in conformity with the prohibitions i ' against unreasonable searches and seizures ~~ contained in the fourth amendment to the ~ constitution of the United States and Section I ; 17, Article I, of the Constitution of the ~ State of Idaho. The City shall not, under the I ~ authority granted by this chapter, conduct ~, warrantless searches of private property in I the absence of either consent from the ~ i property owner or occupier or exigent ~ ~ circumstances such as a public health or I ~ environmental emergency; ~ ,, SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 41 ~ • i c. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial ' District, Ada County, Idaho, is authorized to i ' issue a search warrant to the Sewer i Superintendent, or his designee, upon a ; showing of (i) probable cause to suspect a i violation, or (ii) the existence of a ~ reasonable program of inspection. Any search I warrant issued under the authority of this ~ Ordinance shall be limited in scope to the specific purposes for which it is issued and ; shall state with specificity the manner and ; the scope of the search authorized. I 7-724: PENALTIES. i .O1 Civil Penalties. Any user who violates an order ~ of the City, or who fails to comply with (a) any I , provision of this Ordinance or (b) any regulation, ~ rule or permit of the City issued pursuant to this ~ ordinance, shall be liable to the City for a civil ~ penalty. The amount of such civil penalty shall be ~ not more than $1,000.00 per violation. Each day i ~ upon which a violation occurs or continues shall ~ constitute a separate violation. In the case of a ~ monthly or other long-term average limit, penalties ~i '~ shall accrue for each day during the period of the i~ violation. ~ Such penalties may be recovered by judicial actions commenced by the City as provided in ~ Section 7-723.05. In addition, the City may I ~ commence an action to terminate the user's ~ wastewater treatment service. '~ .02 Recoverv of Costs Incurred by the Citv Any user ~ - ' who violates any of the provisions of this I ordinance or who discharges or causes a discharge ;~ producing a deposit or obstruction or causes damage SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 42 . , to or impairs the City's wastewater disposal system shall be liable to the City for any expense, loss or damage caused by such violation or discharge. The City shall charge the user for the cost incurred by the City for any monitoring, surveillance, cleaning, repair or replacement work caused by the violation or discharge, and for costs incurred by the City in investigating the violation and in enforcing this ordinance against the user including reasonable administrative costs, fees for testing, attorney fees, court costs and all expenses of litigation. Refusal to pay the assessed costs shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance, enforceable under the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of this Ordinance. .03 Falsifyinq Information. Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation or certification in any application, record, report, plan or other document filed or required to be maintained pursuant to this ordinance, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under this ordinance, shall (in addition to civil and/or criminal penalties provided by State law) be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prosecuted and punished accordingly. .04 General Criminal Penalties. Any user or person who knowingly violates any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prosecuted and punished accordingly. 7-725: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS. .O1 Operating Upsets. Any user which experiences an upset in operations which places the user in a temporary state of noncompliance with this SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 43 • • i ordinance shall inform the City thereof within 24 I hours of first awareness of the commencement of the i ; upset. Where such information is given orally, a i ~ written follow-up report thereof shall be filed by ~ the user with the City within five (5) days. The i report shall specify: I I (a) Description of the upset, the cause thereof i and the upset's impact on the user's ~' compliance status. j (b) Duration of noncompliance and, if the ~ noncompliance continues, the time by which ~ I compliance is reasonably expected to occur. i (c) All steps taken or to be taken to reduce, ~ eliminate and prevent recurrence of such an ~ i upset or other conditions of noncompliance. ;, An upset shall constitute an affirmative ~~ defense to an action brought for noncompliance with ; applicable pretreatment standards if the following j requirements are met: ~ The user who wishes to establish the I affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, ' through properly signed, contemporaneous operating i logs, or other relevant evidence that: i ~ (1) An upset occurred and the user can ' identify the cause(s) of the upset; I ; (2) The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent and workman-like manner i ~~ and in compliance with applicable operation i and maintenance procedures; and j , (3) The user has submitted the following ~ information to the POTW within twenty-four i (24) hours of becoming aware of the upset [if I ~ this information is provided orally, a written SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 44 i i • ~ ~~ submission must be provided within five (5) ~ days]: ~ (a) A description of the indirect discharge ~ and cause of noncompliance; ; (b) The period of noncompliance, including ~ exact dates and times or, if not ; corrected, the anticipated time the ~ noncompliance is expected to continue; and i (c) Steps being taken and/or planned to i reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence I of the noncompliance. In any enforcement proceeding, the user I seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset ~ i shall have the burden of proof. ~ i Users will have the opportunity for a judicial ~ determination on any claim of upset only in an ~ enforcement action brought for noncompliance with I ~ applicable pretreatment standards. ~ ~~ Users shall control production of all ! ~ discharges to the extent necessary to maintain j compliance with applicable pretreatment standards ~ upon reduction, loss, or failure of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an i I alternative method of treatment is provided. This ~ requirement applies in the situation where, among I other things, the primar source of Y power of the ~ treatment facility is reduced, lost, or fails. .02 Prohibited Discharge Standards A user shall have ~ an affirmative defense to an enforcement action i brought against it for noncompliance with the ~ prohibitions in Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 if it can ~ prove that it did not know, or have reason to know, that its discharge, alone or in conjunction with SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 45 ' ~ • ; discharges from other sources, would cause pass ~ through or interference and that either: (a) a ~ local limit exists for each pollutant discharged and the user was in compliance with each limit f directly prior to, and during, the pass through or i ~ interference; or (b) no local limit exists, but the I i discharge did not change substantially in nature or ! constituents from the user's prior discharge when ' the POTW was regularly in compliance with its NPDES permit, and in the case of interference, was in ; compliance with applicable sludge use or disposal ; requirements. ~ .03 Bvpass Provision Users may allow any bypass to i occur which does not cause applicable pretreatment ~ standards or requirements to be violated, but only i if it is also for essential maintenance to assure ~ efficient operation. These bypasses are not I subject to the following: I ~ (a) If a user knows in advance of the need for a i bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the ~ City, if possible at least ten (10) days ; before the date of the bypass. ; (b) A user shall submit oral notice of an ;I unanticipated bypass that exceeds applicable ~ pretreatment standards to the City within 24 ! hours from the time the user becomes aware of ~ the bypass. A written submission shall also i j be provided within five (5) days of the time ' the user becomes aware of the bypass. The ~ written description shall contain: i ' (1) Description of the bypass and its cause. ~ i (2) Duration of the bypass, including the i exact dates and times, and if the bypass , has not been corrected, the anticipated SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 46 • • I time it i.s expected to continue. ~ (3) Al1 steps taken or planned to reduce, ~ eliminate and prevent reoccurrence of the ~ j bypass. ; (c) Bypass is prohibited, and the City may take ' enforcement action against a user for a ~ bypass, unless: i (1) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of i ~ life, personal injury or severe property ~ damage (see definition 8-14- ; ) i (2) There were no feasible alternatives to ~ the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary ~ treatment facilities, retention of i untreated wastes or maintenance during ~ normal periods of equipment downtime. II This condition is not satisfied if ~ adequate back-up equipment should have i I been installed in the exercise of i reasonable engineering judgment to i prevent a bypass which occurred during I ~I normal periods of equipment downtime or II preventative maintenance; and ~ (3) The user submitted notices as required under paragraph (a) and (b) above. ' The City may approve an anticipated bypass, I i after considering its adverse effects, if the City ~ ' determines that it will meet the three conditions ~ listed in paragraph (c) above. ; 7-726: RECORDS RETENTION. All users subject to this i Ordinance shall retain and preserve for no less than three ( 3) I years, any records, books, documents, memoranda, reports, i ~ correspondence and any and all summaries thereof, relating to I monitoring, sampling and chemical analyses made by or in i behalf of a user in connection with its discharge. All i :i I SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 47 I ~ I ~ ~ records which pertain to matters which are the subject of Administrative Adjustment or any other enforcement or litigation activities brought by the City pursuant hereto shall be retained and preserved by the user until all enforcement activities have concluded and all periods of limitation with respect to any and all appeals have expired. 7-727: SEVERABILITY. If any provision, paragraph, word, section or chapter of this Ordinance is invalidated by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions, paragraphs, words, sections and chapters shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. ~-728: RIGHT OF REVISION. The City reserves the right to amend this ordinance to provide for more stringent limitations or requirements on Discharges to the POTW where deemed necessary to comply with the objectives set forth in Section 7-701 of this Ordinance. 7-729: CONFLICT. All other ordinances and parts of other ordinances inconsistent or conflicting with any part of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. SECTION 2s EFFECTIVE DATE: WHEREAS, there is an emergency therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication according to law. PASSED AND APPROVED this ~ day of ~a~C~ , 1995. CITY OF MERIDIAN I By: - u~ G T P. KINGSF RD, YOR ATTE ~ ~~`v WILLIAM BERG, CIT CLERK SEWAGE PRE-TREATMENT ORDINANCE Page 48 .._~, • • ~501b9y1 - ~%~~'~a-~ . . , :,~ h~, .. . . . .._ ~-1 ._ ~ i v ;.~. 1"t . r r ` ` ,t'~ZJ v. ..r.~~U , ~~~, i ORDINANCE NO. 696 ~~;~~ {/ ~~.~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ,Z•ON~-NG CERTAIN. ~ REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LA~ ~I~OC~A~ED~• IN ~ 1 GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTIrJN 19, TOWNSHIP 3' NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, rri' BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE--DATE: ~------- RECG.,:._. ... .. ._ .._.,:'LST OF' WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: A parcel of land located in Government Lot 1 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a brass cap monument marking the northwest corner of said Government Lot 1, from which an aluminum cap monument marking the one-quarter corner common to Sections 18 and 19 bears N 89°43'43" E a distance of 2444.15 feet; thence N 89°43'43" E along the northerly boundary of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 203.60 feet to a point on the centerline of the Ten Mile Drain; thence leaving said northerly boundary and along said centerline the following described courses: thence S 17°38'40" E a distance of 1286.67 feet to a point; thence S 33°38'22" E a distance of 116.09 feet (of record as 116.13 feet) to a point on the southerly boundary of said Government Lot 1; thence leaving said centerline S 89°44'16" W along said southerly boundary a distance of 672.39 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said Government Lot 1; thence N 0°37'33" E along said westerly boundary a distance of 1324.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LOTSPEICH/C-G Page 1 • ~ is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be 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 will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer at his expense and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted .7anuary 4, 1994. 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 prior to the issuance of any building permit or plat approval which ever comes first; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, and L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters; that the property may be de-annexed if the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not satisfied. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, which include that the property must be developed as a Planned Commercial Development or under the conditional use permit process. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LOTSPEICH/C-G Page 2 . • 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. 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 ~~` day of March, 1995. APPROVED: ~ ~ MAYOR -- GRANT . KING FO D ATTEST: i~!~~~--~ ' WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. -- TY CLERK ~,~, ~., _.~~.. ~,-~. ~;~ , ~,z a~~ ~~~~dp~ ;, ~;fr-~~ ~ ,i i.'~ °~ iJ~ ~`a ,~, {:~` ~n~° u:~'a ~' ~ :;~ ~`-~ '~ ~'' ~ ~ ~ ~~ aG< ::5 H pl' P,'~{ ,'~a '"t } ~'T L1::~Y ~a rJ,t,M1; y'l"' t".2 ;'ay ~`S >:j ~v,a 'Y :U .vrl `'' ~ : ~~tj ••, ~y~! ~~~ y ? l`~~ •y~2~"~R S~• ~' ftJl' 4~+.7 y .sn r :° ~ . ~o~ ~: ~ J 4~°r e:Fi:.~' D_'~' s ~'' ~ '~w?: Iy,ei^i„r ~N y~. k~,!4.,r `~S"'_._ A' a"i ~. G , ,,.?,;';~~ ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LOTSPEICH/C-G Page 3 , • . ~ STATE OF IDAHO,) . ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 19, TOWIVSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. 696 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~ day of March, 1995, as the same appears in my office. DATED this ~~k day of March, 1995. STATE OF IDAHO,) SS. County of Ada, ) City Clerk, City Ada County, Idaho ~~ s ,.~ i~,.~ <, r r`9 'R~- ;~~s~t~'~'~y. ~'y''i; ~ ~~~' lCKifib ~}~,y~ T °VY u ~ ~ C, ~~ t ~ .a /1 ~ ,m ~ ~ ow i 4. ~ ~4. Sn f~ ,,a r~ N.~ ~7; :•, ~~.. ::r:+ b ~,4: ti ~t ~, e„~t~y Le, `K '~'' ~~~'~~ "4~`~".f:)~y ~:,:`~'' ~i1 ~t . „'~,.Nr~~tsr• 3 ;' ~ ~'~ 'f ~i ~~; Me`N~''~ ~ ~ .~ ~Y~:~~y".%~ On this ~ day of March, 1995, before me, the -''ii~S~l.,~~~.s~,.~,gi3~'ed 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. ,,eQaaeeneaeBOOO, e~oao`G ~ L . (~ ~~eoe e Oe~~~~~C?:d@~"~~w~ p~e : , , ~ ~ °' ~ '~~~~' ~I D~~ ~ o SEAL v fi ~; m ~~ 4~, ~~ C~ \S a`l~' ~~ W o ~, ~ . ~~, : ~:~~~~~~~~~~oe~ ° °~ ~~ A6~ ~s ~~~~~iu~a~~°1~~ ' ' /- ~-_ ar Public for aho si ng at Meridian, Idaho mmission Expires ~ ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LOTSPEICH/C-G Page 4 ~ , ~ II: ~ . 4 'Ii ~ A~.W. CORNER S£C• ~~~~°~~~ ~I~ o ~.~ ~e e ~ • 26"E ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ' • ~ ~ ~ - - - 7~ V ~ ~~ 0 1~ ~ ~ Au ~ I ~ ~ ~` \ I - .. , - ~. ; - ~ ,~ . R~¢0 ~~ ~ i 63.94 ~ ~ T3.05,~ ~ ~~ R~~ ~ l '~ C V O p 104.83 6I 310'J.2B . l~ O ' O ~ ~ ~ I I . O O SO N 2 p C i0 2 °H "' ~ , ~ . IOS.97 - 101.7~ ~ A Q A 8I S89'43• r N89~3~j E,~ ~'o , . ~ y ~ ~ ` „ I o 3 a o o n ~ o r• 0 , ~o ~. _• J " l c, • 1 1 Z • '• -- o 107.46 /~ ~ ~ 9 ~ L .` ~ J p ' .w ~~ Q ~~~ ~v ~ ~ .~ O '~ r ` ` ~I~ ~ ` ulil o~ n 4 . • ~ o „ ~ ~ { ~ . . ~ ~ , 0 - 96 o . ,r i~+ r tn'~ ~ ~ III:B3 r+ ~(. I ~0.05101.78 ~~ ~ i p ~. •~ h w • ~~„ ~ uc~ o~ ~ C I N g A '='. ~~ 121.l~' C M :; , .~ . .. ' ~ ~O ~ ~j~.29 12~.10 ~9' dE •~~~' ~ ~ ~p,19 NO 0 SO ~ O~itt I07.o00 ~'~ (], ~ . v e,~ ' ~\ p 13 °• m ~9~ ~~ ~,~ T./ y i ~~ 0 6 ~, ra+. n a o ye. ~. ., ~~ ,fi~ ~~,~ ~I m ~ o~ ~ 69'22~3S~E ~~ $ o li.~lt 5 ~~y 6, •~ • i~~ ~o- o \'-~?1 e vl }~N~ 10.00 s~ ~i~.~e y m~. h~ ~ m~ ~} y.{~ '01~+~ ~ ii•~e~ ~o Q? I 60 MB9"17~~f ,~ 9~4`\~'~, .~ ~~ t „~ ~~~ o M 7 O 7 m ~~ ~ r h w ,lo ~ r~' f ~ - m F ~....... ~ ~ S.I7 ~ ~ t,S E •,\ 5 ~'j' ~~ ~ i m ! ~ 8» ~ r ~vl r- Y IB9.49 `% ~ . .'~`~'w.,~yyi~1~~ Yo ~ ~ N o pSee'S~S~W ~ o , a ~ - C o, m 4~t ~, ~y~~ q ~ a `'.r. o ~1~~ 6 y) i,~ m 8 N M ri ~y ~ a ~ ~ o. ~ ~ ,~ ~ w .~ o ~~ ~ ,.. / O~ /A'~ ~0 3 ~~• . ~ '~ + Y 186. ~ V 01 ~~ M o N60'19 03" lLl . O 3 W ~ . ~ cr/~ )!y~ ~,, ~.~9~ .~b m N ~ 9 ~ $ ~ . 2 2, TERRACE ~hti ~, ~ J ;o. Y~ ,6,.0, N s: . Neo•o2i ' ~ ~` w ~ a N o ~y y~' c o ti~~ 6y ~~ '~G .~ ~ I0 0 ~ ~ (a-, N~. ~' ``P ~' ~ i J o ~~' ~~i./D ION ~J ,~ / ~ • ~ 143.42 W~ "'~ ~S ~9'37 ~ ,~ ~ ~F rv^' " , I V ~ '• e u,-r~pEI~H G-4 h \ 1 m O :.? ~ ~~ ~» ~29 J ~' NO ~ BLOCK .34 ~" e N7 + 8023 i ~ IZ o m40.i 7 ~ 1 ~ ~~~ = ~d . rj~ 12 ~ /e vN~U r nJ ~ ~ ' 1 "' ` . N 12O.OI °- SS p ~ ~ ~, , °c- ~c,a•-.F : 1 . ~ ~ s~6~, i ~~OU ~ ~ AO~ L.10~97Z.S ~16.7 ~ ~, s 1 SB9'N~~2~~M 487.12 ' r 569'~3i3 M 241.33 • n I I/ ~ .~, / p N89'43~ 50 ° 89.: g. ~t'44 I~o N-, 2. 589'S915 E 602.99 111~•7~ ; 4b9'4~~12~v •~t.t7 3 ~ T~.~~ ~• o ~... ~ -~~ ~ 3 3~.~0 : ~ `~ ~~ :~~- ~ ~ N . NB9'S915'~W 602.99 ~ '~ 0 i M~ 6~~ I6~ [ m~ 1120.!• p N . r , • ~r .~.~C ~ ~ ~ a3 37 ~ o ~ ~ p o .~ r • N •. IIt0.7• O ~ ~I G • F- /~~/./C E TT ~ .~ a3 3 8' ~ M E~D^~r~` °~ W n~ _o L ~ ,~ ~ ~. ~ n ~~ ORDINANCE NO. 692 950163~2 _ , << < < . ,;: . c,~ o a~~ /.J '. • ~ . ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~. J ,rt~~~ .~,.r., BG~~F I~; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCR;I,~~ -r ~ASI ~SCHOOI~ ~PIl,1~ZA SUBDIVISION N0. 1 LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 2 N~GJ~ ~~/~4E ~O~' SECTI~ON 7, T.3N., R.lE., BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, ~DAHO - 9 LOTS 1, 3 AND 4; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DAFTE:°'`~?''~' `. ',_, ~; ~~'~ RECOkJtu ..~ s. . . 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 amend and change the zoning from R-15 Residential to L-O Limited Office, for the described parcel in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the aforementioned real property which is described as follows: SCHOOL PLAZA SUBDIVISION N0. 1 located in Government Lot 2 NW 1/4 of Section 7, T.3N., R.lE., Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho- 1993, Lots 1, 3 and 4. be, and the same is rezoned from R-15 Residential to L-O Limited Office, and Section 11-2-425, Off~icial Zoning Maps is hereby amended to reflect the same. This rezoning 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 rezone. Section 2. The Applicant shall comply with all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian including the Fire Code, Life Safety Code, and the Uniform Building, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes. The limited office construction shall be subject to design review and if there are irrigation canals, drainages or other means of conveying water, located on the property, they shall be tiled. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the above conditions the property shall be subject to rezone back to R-15. REZONE ORDINANCE - ALIDJANI Page 1 . • 'r Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, ~ i ~ which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall i ~ be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval ~ i as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this ~~~ day of ~, 19 9 5 . `Z~1~.rc~ APPROVED: ~ MA R-- GRANT P. K NGSF D ATTEST: ~ ~` '°"~~~'~ _ ,~ Ao' : : ~'~ ~.~ ~ ~~a~ . , ~ ~`•' r~° ~ ~~ ~` ~"° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. -- ITY CLERK "~ eF~ ~ ~'~'~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~'~~v g ~,t~, ,~, s •~ ~ ~~;.,a.~vxt~'~ R ~,° `' ..e ~ ~c~;t'' ~;~ ~. . '~.~.~~ ~ ,: ~~ ~' ,~- REZONE ORDINANCE - ALIDJANI Page 2 ! j STATE OF IDAHO,) . ss. County of Ada, ) 2, 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 AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS SCHOOL PLAZA SUBDIVISION NO. 1 LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 2 NW 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T.3N., R.lE., BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO - 1993, LOTS 1, 3 AND 4; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE"; passed as Ordinance No. 692 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~ day of ~~, 1995, as the same appears in my office. /'~1~rc~. _ DATED this ~ day of ~rp, 1995. ~~~ . ,~ _` `~~,+~ a~ ~,S 4~ ~i q "~.~ y~° ~ ~~;~~ ~ ~r¢o ~~' r ~~ r~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ c~ ~~ ~ s,~; ~ ~~ ~'~'~ ~? P P. ~~' = '~ ,~ 4' ~~:~ :~<:~~'` ~ ~;~, - ~°~~~A~~i~ , ~~ STATE OF IDAHO,) . ss. County of Ada, ) ~Za~Uf~ i~~~--~~- s City Clerk, City of M id an Ada County, Idaho On this 7f~ day of February, 1995, 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. . ,ee'0'e _ a B ,~ ep0~ ~i~.~9 Oee ~C ~ L G°'., •• ~ .~ °oo '` •~ s B . q,`,~r.~~~~ ~~~p~~V-~ o e. '~ ~ b ~ SEAL - ~ °~~sc~~ ~~ ~~>r e~-~J , ,s, ~ :~,,~a~~~ ~ ~ ~~,,; ~ ~ ~s ~~ ~ e, s °j~~~ceeua06~ ary YL1D11C zor taaho iding at Meridian, Idaho I/~~ CohtN+~sSiok PirPirPS O/o~/9~ REZONE ORDINANCE - ALIDJANI Page 3 ,-~.~ • . i . . •~ ~ ___ . _._.._. . . . ,, __" . _~_.3._.. _'"__-~. . • " _ " . ___._~ . .. ;__.._ - • .- •--,__ _ __" .__. : . ' ~~ ~ f 1 ' I ~ ~ I I I ~ I i I I' I I I i I __~ I j 1 . _ ~ ~ ~ _ _ I I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ , ~, ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ .: __ i ' I ---~ I ~ ,I ~ ; --= '--7~ -------- . . , . , ~ , + `-------------- '---------------' . '- -------- :_ ------------------- ' ~----==-~---- ----------- I i u --~ ~-------Tr---------------------- ~~~~~---- - N . „-----' ~ i i i i i i i i i i i ~ ~ I - ~ i , ' ~ I ~ i i , '~ , '~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' i , ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ,z ; I ~D -- ~---- - I'- -------- ~ - '- - --~ -- - -- --- - -----'--~_ ~~ a ~ •'-~ ` z • W ~ ~ ~, ~ a z v ~ ~ ------ --- - - ~ ~ ~ I ------ r1 ~ ~ I~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~, ,; ~' g ' r ,, ,, ~ ` ~ ,, ~ , ~~ ~, ~ , ~ ~ - i ; ~ ~ ~ ~ , __ ------------------------------- ' ------------------------' 11 -- ~---~~---------------------E---1ST----ST--------------- ~ ~ , ~` -------- ~ ---------------------------- ~ ~ ------------ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ..~ ~ , , ; . m ' I ~`` ' ~ ~ 1N ~ .. , ~ ~; . ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ m; „~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~~ ' ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ' I~ ' ~'~ I V_ i ~ ; ` ~ ~ ~ ~ O -- ~ ,- , ~ i ; ~ ~ ' Z , ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , m ~ ~ " Z ~ , , , o ~ ,,. . , ; : ~ , ~. , - l~- - ; - - --- -- - ------------ ------------ ------- --- ---- - ------ ---------------------------------------------~ , -------- -- ~ i~ ~ --------- ~ ----------------~ ----- ~ - ~ -------------------- ~ ^ ii ~ ~ ~ I ~ O I i~ I~ `. ~ i i ' i i ,~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ = i , r ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ i IV i ~ C i i~ ~ ~I i i -- ~ :-;g ~ ~ oo~ , ~ ~ _ ~~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ m ~ ~ ~ _N aw _ ; ~,'.< Z ; ~ ~ ~ ~ - ; ~ _ , j~ ~ tn r I ~ , D~ - , ~ ~ ~. ~ j ~~ r~-------- ~ i ~ IT,------- - i ~ i ,~ i ~ ~ ---- ~ : ~ ---- -~ -----~--~~---S~-------------' ~ ~ `'~I'~l m ~ p Z D 1 ~ ~--- --, ;--------- ~ ~ ~ IZ ~ » ,;; ,~ ~~ , ~ ' ~ m ~~ ~~ , ~ ~ ~ < `D ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ,, ~~ o: ~Z_ . „ ~ ~ ~ ~ , • , , ~ ; i; ; U3 r ; _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ------------- --- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6~ , p m ., ~ ~------------, --- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ ..fl i " i ~ I f 1; ~ , ~ ~ z ~ ii i i i i i~ ~ i ~ _ ~ N `----------------- / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , ~ ~ : '. , I~ I ~ ~' ~ ' - ----- ---------- ~ , ~ '~ ~ ~ ~k - ' < i `--------------' '---' ~ ~ ; , , ~----------------------' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , ~ i ; ~ ~, ~ r i~ W V i ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ = 'a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~z , ~;~~i ~; „ ,A ~~ ~ p ; ~ ~~ ~~ , 1 ,J I I I I I I~ a ' ' ~ ' _'___'' I . _ 1 ~-----;~ -- J ~-- _ ~ ~ ~l---- :- ' -----, ----------------~ ~~ i~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~; I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ IE !` ~ ~ ~ B ~.- ~----- _ d ~ --- --- ,~ ~~ /i I / ~ n ~ _ _.~_ ~, ~~~ - ~ ~ - (~ ~ i `` ~-'~ "/ I - 1 17 !~ i~I2~1Ia3122r~ I~ I t9 ,t\~ ,~~---~~~ --------- ~I % ~ , ~, ~ ~ I ~ ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ / ~ 1 ~ J/ ~ ! ~ ~ 'I ; ~'~~------ ~ ;i, ~~, ~ ~ ~ ; ~ , : , ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ; , , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ; , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~ rni - -- -S: ~G19~~'L~I~SI~JIn`fll~W ~ L~U~ U~ UIN ~ WL~ IN~I~ u ww~~ u ui~ ~w ~~~ u u~uv d ~II `. . 40ID0' ~ I I DETAIL LO~I~LESS EN~INEERING - BU' re,oE• AREA ~~A~~ ~ (N E~71~~• Ei .~EAST) . N e~~i~ie• E N 89'2l'IS". E- 2425i' --- ~~~~~~~~~~.r+~'-. -- ' - -- ' --- -149.9E' - -- - - - - . 7479~' J / ~ ~ETai~ "B~~ NOT 10 SCALE i ~....,. I ; mm i ~~ ~- ~ ~~J DETAIL "A" DOG KEN.^~EL J. ~ ENGROACHES ~ ~ .II '. 1 :+ . • ~ ~ _ . : - ~_ ~W ~._ , ;, e, ~ . ~~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ o ~ w ~~ , NOT TO 9CGLE . j- ~~~ 58,133 eq.f t. •/- ' . F~ ~ ~ U w ry ~ ~ " ' E -~ N 99'?l'18 :, . 17531'. z ~ 0 ~ J t O Z 0. <I 0 io ~ I 9998 eq.rt. •. ~'~ U Z ,~ r e r `__ ' ~ °' ~ ~ ~ g ' 1 I J ~ .. ~ I)531' ' ~..----. . . ...._...._. -. ~--989'1i•i8'W G 3 ~ ~ O10 " ~ ' y ap' GOr'MON EASEMENT FOQ IrdG4E55, cGQES.. ~ I ` ~ N 90'~0'00" E PUSLIC UTILITIES, SEWER oND WATER 4 i ~ ~~ . 3~.00 ~ ' CFL=GED °G.EFELY . ..N B9'21'IB' E N B9'7l'IB" E--~ . ~~"=.GE~ S E' oco_Q 93~' IBlIDO' ~ ' ' -- S 8 2°C-~o ~'- ~ ;~ : - --- - -- ,=-- - ~,~~ ~ t ~ i .~Re~ „a„ . ~ ~ .... A . I I -'~.._ ~ 3 (l~ ~I I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~g ~;~ ~~ ~ a ,,1~ W ~ L'.5. POST OF~ ICE ~ 1 ~ 0~' i- 2 : Q ~ ~ I~ I ^'IERIDIAN, IDAI-IO , ~-I ~ ~ . b a~ •• ~: ~ SEE R.O.S!II'il, REC04DED AS 0 ; ~ N J I i 7 ~ ~ INSTRUMENT NO.Sl6!8591 ~ ^ I ~ ~ ;~ I ~ ~ i-- t ,~ I N; i ~ ' 19~DC7' ...~ 1 , I ~-- e 89•~,~~s• w ~. ~ i ( ~~ i ~$I ~ ._. -- C -~ ~ I ~~ i ~._ . -~ ~~~ M1i ; DE_A!; ~~C~~ ~ I ; ~ NOT 10 SGALE 0 I I i i I e II ~ • ~ - o.ia~ ~ ~ O r jl • i ~ ' ~` 9 I I ` i I ''~. . z ; 5,,~,3 sq.n_ .i- _..J i =- --- - ,. . I ~" ~ , i ~ I i ~cC~ ~ i' i ~ mmb• 1 ~..- -----._..._ _J 1 ~ I ~ DETAIL ~ ''•.,..........~' " ^INITIAL POIN1' I AREA ~~C / `~T 5~8~~ ~BA~ W/PLA911C CAP I I . ~.~~' ~••~ IN91DE J":t36" GALV. IRON PIPE I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~-- --------- S89'04'44"W - 280.13' I ~ N 00'00 0m° E ~ ---- _. _. N 53'43'14' W Q ~ ~' ~~ 0 ~~ J. ~ • 303.I1' ' 4962' ,~ 793ID0' - IT.98' ~ - - 8 89'0~4'44' W ~ - - j ~. T,F 0 E. GARLTON ~ AvENUE ~ ~ ----------------~ ~~ ~ ~ - - j ~ ~ ' • '~ c.~.I ~ F. r;o. ---~- -- -~ W Q i 1- I I\~N'.W. CORNER LOT 20, BLK 5, I (n ~ ~~Q m "NOURSE'8 SEGOND ADDITION TO MERIDIAN" °~ I I ~~~~~ ~ I` ~I ~ m .: I I. ~`F ._ - CP.~ F. NO. _ '-'_._ ' ~ I _ ~ ~~,~~N~.~ ,~~NAN~ No. ~~~z ~.: ~rs i A Ll r7J 4NI i~LJUDL ~iZtl ~v~rJl V I~Jl DN N~. ~ ~ ~ 1 ~.~ tioaru -~- No2r~{IN~T ~/q ~ ~G7"1~N '7, ~1: 3 N , 6Z. 1 e ^-