HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 09-20~ ~
MERIDIAN CtTY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SWEAR IN TWO NEW POLICE OFFICERS:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994:
(APPROVED)
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETfNG HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 1994:
(APPROVED)
CLAIRE BOWMAN: APA -"UPDATE ON DRAINAGE BILL LEGISLATION":
2. TABLED: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5, REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY INTERWEST
DEVELOPMENT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ;
TABLE PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL ORDINANCE PREPARED)
3. TABLED: FINAL PLAT - THE LANDING NO. 8, 48 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE
CORPORATION: (APPROVED WITH CONDiT10NS)
4. TABLED: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
ON TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER
4, 1994 MEETING~
5. TABLED: FINAL PLAT: TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1, 73 LOTS WITH
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY STEELE AND SON: (APPROVED)
6. TABLED: SCO1T SWANBY: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY TRAILER AT 1901
E. LANARK: (REQUEST WITHDRAWN)
..~
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR FAWCETT MEADOWS NO. 2 BY RONALD HENRY: (APPROVED)
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING WITH A PRELiMINARY PLAT FOR BRAMBLE WOOD
SUBDIVISION BY HARDEE CONSTRUCTION:(APPROVED, CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE; PRELIMINARY PLAT
TABLED UNTIL ORDINANCE PREPARED)
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND GONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION:(APPROVED)
~ ~
10. FINDINGS C1F FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR RONALD VAN AUKER: (APPROVED)
11. ~RDINANCE #674 - AMENDED FIRE ORDINANCE: (APPROVED)
12. FINAL PLAT - CANNA LILY ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 14 LOTS BY FLOYD
AND VICTORIA MADSEN: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION
NO. 1 AND 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP: (CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
14. DON FISHER: ISSUES CONCERNING MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
CITY OF MERIDIAN:
15. HARTFORD SUBDIVISION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: (DEFERRED
ACTION UNTIL APPLICANT IS THE OWNER)
16. ORDINANCE #670 - HARTFORD ANNEXATION AND ZONING:(APPROVED)
17. HARTFORD SUBDIVtSION: PRELIMtNARY PLAT: (APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS)
18. THE HOLLOWS: DEVELOPMNET AGREEMENT: (APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS)
19. ORDINANCE #671 - THE HOLLOWS ANNEXATION: (APPROVED)
20. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR TURTLE CREEK
SUBDlVISlON: (TABLE UNTIL OCTOBER 4, 1994 MEETING)
21. TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
(TABLE UNTIL OCTOBER 4, 1994 MEETING)
22. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR FAWCETT'S
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION NO. 1: (APPROVED)
23. FIRELIGHT ESTATES SUBDIVISION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
(APPROVED)
24. WAYNE CROOKSTON: ATTORNEY FEES: (APPROVED)
25. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, ~ITY ENGINEER
1. BID RESULTS - BROADWAY PARKING LOT: (APPROVED)
~ ~
2. BID RESULTS: WATER DEPARTMENT ADDITION: (APPROVED)
3. FIVE MILE CREEK PATHWAY RE-DESIGN: (APPROVED)
4. MERIDIAN ROAD - RAILROAD CROSSING:
B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING DIRECTOR
1. SENIOR CITIZEN ADDITION - COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT:
C. CHIEF GORDON, POLICE CHIEF
1. OPEN HOUSE AT POLICE ACADEMY OCTOBER 1, 1994:
2. LIFE SAVER TRAIN RIDE:
D. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY
9. COURTROOM UPDATE:
E. WALT MORROW
1. DEVELOPMENT OF DRIVING RANGE UPDATE:
~ ~ ~i~Cui~t~~~ - i ~ ~:~+'~~ ~ ;,'~~
a'.~?~~ ~~~l:.i'~ i i' R°~:0~^E~;
ll~~~~rtu Cj~rnih'*n ~r7 ~""
~~~
, ,' ~ , , , , ,. ,~ ~' E ~ u ~ rr :s ; '~' __ ,.
ORDIN,pI~~A~I' .Qw ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~o'o ! ~/~- ~ ~ ~ ' !; a~ ~.PE-~tA1V C1TY
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN~NEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF
THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 35, T.4N. , R. 1W. , B.M. , ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of
said City to annex to the said City real property which is
described in Section 1 below:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
Section 1. That the real property described as:
A portion of the South half of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4
of Section 35, T.4N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the corner common to Sections Z and 3,
T.3N., R.1W., and Sections 34 and 35, T.4N., R1W., B.M.,
thence North 00°53'34" East, 347.44 feet along the West
boundary of said Section 35 to a point;
thence South 80°11'00" East, 183.85 feet to a point;
thence North 00°53'34" East, 123.21 feet to a point;
thence North 89°14'23" West, 181.63 feet to a point on
the West boundary of said Section 35;
thence along said West boundary North 00°53'34" East,
219.14 feet to the S-S 1/64 corner;
thence South 89°14'23" East, 1319.17 feet to the C-S-SW
1/64 corner;
thence South ~0°40'05" West, 660.43 feet to the W 1/16
corner common to said Sections 35 and 2;
thence North 89° 15' 30" West, 1321. 76 feet to the point of
beginning.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned R-4
Residential; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - VIJYA LAXMI/HARTFORD Page 1
i •
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 and resolve how the water and
sewer mains will serve the land.
b. That the developmen~ of the property shall be subject to
and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinanoe and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted
January 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; that the
development agreement shall address inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2,
K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
of Meridian and other matters.
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.
Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of
the legal description, and map, wha.ch 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.
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - VIJYA LAXMI/HARTFORD Page 2
• ~
PASSED by the City Council and approved b the Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 2~day of September,
1994.
APPROVED:
R-- GRANT P. KI S RD
4.~ ~
. Y~ ~,~T ~G' ~~-,~,
ATTEST: ~~ ~~' `°-~y
.~.m ".. f~w"~.
.~`~'~, .~'_~ui ~ ~ ~; '~~.~ '~-1'~
~ ~:•,.. ~t-,~.
s:, ~{ . ~ _. ~,
~ ~,~ 1"`~ arYxf+ ~ L r4 6 l~~l
~ ~ ~s,~ ~'~ '~ ~'' ~ ~ ~ s~~
WILLIAM G. BERG, J.- CITY CLERK ~~, ~~.~ ~~~,4 ~ z
~ ~~ `~
;~• ~~,,, ~, ~ ~ .~
« r.R '~ *~ t °q 6 t ,~: `~ • .
~, "~ "~'uc:t.sC'.i'p~~ ~z; ~ ~ ~1' .
5TATE OF IDAHO, ) , '~ c~~`;°r~;•~ , ~'~-g'`~'~
. s s . r,~.~`'='r~
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 PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE
SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 35, T.4N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Ordinance No.
~, by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on
the 2U~- day of September, 1994, as the same appears in my
office.
DATED this 2p.~ day of September, 1994.
,~.~~~- ,=,~ ~ ~ .
City Clerk, City eridian
Ada County, Idaho
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - VIJYA LAXMI/gARTFORD Page 3
• i
STATE OF IDAHO,)
. ss.
County of Ada, )
Sept.
On this 2oth day of-a~, 1994, 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.
~ q,~qqla"a~ v~e,
~y~,~"r~.*~~~°^~B3c~"' ~`Pt?°'~
` . ^,~ ~ ', , 4~ ',
SEAL "'"' ~~ ~~'~A~ ~- '
,3~ ~'~ a d `;;
,` ~
;~ ~ ~ r'; ~-~ a ~ ~'~ ~3
~ ~
~_y ~ .;
~ ~' :~ o
°i .. - ~; ~. . :'~' ~0,
i t~, p ~'~A
''`,'~~~'/1//BQAEE~\4\~i
Q//u~G/
N y Public for ldaho
e ding at Meridian, Idaho
Commission Expires oR, ~2/aa
~ V S ' )
v ~~. fi :.... ; .~~ :J
J I li v v l.i
s^`:;,`'~ , ..
~~~~cq C~
~ ~
~ ~;.; ,~ -
.1 , (~., ; ,, t;~ ~ ;~; ._ _
.~~~~_ ~ T_
;~~•;;: . .. . _. . . . _ ~ (1.,:
ANNE]CATION ORDINANCE - VIJYA LAXMI/HARTFORD Page 4
.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
-------------------------- --------------------
- ~-~e53~~-~--~~ -------_ _
,
a~ ~ ,,,,
E~ ~~i.44 . ~ ' %/
` ;.i
• •R / i / /
i
N.~ 53 ~}v ; ~ ~
E.t73,2(' /,/ ~ ''~;
~
~
;~ ~
+C ; r ~
~ ~i ~ •
~
~
~ I
o ~
~
S ;
~ ~ii
~ ~z ~ '
~ ~ N ' ~ ~ ir
~ ~zQ W ~ i '~
m ~ 'I /
~ ~ ,..~ '
~ ~ W ;ii
~ii
~ ~ i i i~
~ '
~ ` ,.,,,~ :..1 i ; ;
~
~ O ~
!„~ ~ ~
~ ~
V '
;~~
;~r
r i,ii
i ~;
' , ~,
~
~
~
; „m~i-N oo°qo'o6°~165~ (dai.43 ~J
M-L~ ~
. . ~
1- ~
~~
.
~ - ---
, -
~ ~~
~ ,;
~ ~~
~
~
~
~
~
~
, ~
; ~
, ,
,
~
~
,
,
,
/
~
~ ,~ '
~ ~;
~ / „ ~
,
.
.
~ ~~ ~
,
~ -
,-
~ r~
/ / ~
i / i
/ / ~
i
i
/// /
~~~~ /
II 3
~~ ;
, ~;' , .
;
;
~ ~
,
o '
,
g ~ .
r r;
i i~~ '
i i~
/ ;i
/ /i .
~
~
~
7
/ /
/ /
i /
/ / I{
I
II
/ /
~ ~
MERIDIAN CITY ~4~N~ _ _ SEPTEMBER 20,.1994
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Max Yerrington, Walt Morrow, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Thomas
Geile, Donald Fisher, Toni Fisher, Chip Gallagher, Brian and Tiffany Walt, Shawn and
Katie Tate, Karl and Nona Galloway, Terry Tipton, Billy Volker, Tucker Johnson, Claire
Bowman, Gary Lee, Floyd and Victoria Madsen, Bill Hart, Howard Folley, Bob Stow, Brian
Twait, Norm Laconee, Chief Gordon:
SWEAR IN TWO NEW POLICE OFFICERS:
Kingsford: I want to begin the evening by swearing in of 2 new police officers to the City.
1 asked the Chief to come up and give a little criteria that these gentlemen went through
in taking that step. Chief Gordon.
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, police officers are required to go through extensive
training, background investigations, to assure the City and the citizens of Meridia~ that
they are getting not only the finest but the best trained and best qualified officers. The
minimum standards for Law enforcement in Meridian is they must already be State
certified. The State of Idaho has set minimum standards that all police officers must meet
within the first ye2r of employment. The officers that we tested and it was approximately
50, a list of 50 qualified, certified police officers that we went through. The 2 that we have
selected is Terry Tipton, Terry worked for the City of Meridian some years back. He is
extremely well qualified, ,he went to work for the State of Idaho and I think it was quite a
coup that we pulled off stealing him back from the State of Idaho. The other one is Bill
Volker, he comes to us from Boise Airport Police and he is also State certified and has
worked in Canyon County. He is retired 20 years from the Marine Corp. With that 1 would
appreciate it if the Mayor would swear these finro in and we will put them to work.
(Mayor Kingsford swears in finro new police officers)
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994:
Kingsford: You have read and have those are there any corrections, additions or deletions
to those minutes?
Tolsma: Mayor, I move they be approved as written.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the September 6, 1994 minutes,
~ •
Meridian City Counci!
September 20, 1994
Page 2
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 1994:
Kingsford: Any corrections, additions to those minutes?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor I move for their approval.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the Special meeting of September
7, 1994, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: CLAIRE BOWMAN: APA -"UPDATE ON DRAINAGE BILL LEGISLATION":
Kingsford: Mr. Bowman would you come forward.
Bowman: I am here this evening representing the Ada Planning Association on the subject
of County wide drainage. The two pieces of paper 1 gave you before the meeting began
include a white paper talking about the need for such a district and the June 28th draft of
proposed legislation to implement such a district. My intent tonight would be to cover very
briefly the 4 points on the white paper and highlight a couple of pieces of the legislation
then seek your kind of response to that. We have no request for action this evening, our
intent is to seek comments and ideas, come back with a revised version of the legislation
somewhere around the middle to end of October and seek at that time support if we can
get it from the City Council. In the white paper we talk about 4 particular reasons why a
county wide drainage district is now becoming an urgent need. Number 1 is Boise River
water quality as I believe most of you know the river down stream of the Star bridge has
already been declared a water qWality limited area, at the time this white paper was
prepared it was proposed I think the action took place as of September 1 st. The primary
sources of the pollution that are causing that water quality limited designation are from
things like storm water run off, drainage irrigation run off and atso from water treatment
plan#s. Development as you well know probably more than anyone else in the county has
also had a pretty significant impact as housing and commercial both have moved closer
and closer to the river over the past few years. Closer to the existing drainage areas and
in many cases eradicating some of the former drainage ditches and even some of the
irrigation feeder canals that used to exist. A third and probably the current most urgent
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 3
need is to qualify for the new federal regulations regarding national pollutant discharge
elimination systems, abbreviated as NPDES in most places. Currently that legislation
affects cities of 100,000 or greater and the metropolitan areas around them. There is a
need in there to first inventory the sources of run off that exist into the US bodies of water
and secondly to estabfish a permitting system for identifying and permitting those run offs.
At spme point in the future we anticipate there will be limitation or that you will have to
clean the water from things like parking lot run off before it can be allowed back in the
river. Currently we are facing the first 2 steps of that. Fragmentation is the other obvious
problem that we wish to address with this legislation. 1 sent you all last week a copy of the
current version of our listing of all of the districts that have drainage or irrigation
responsibilities in Ada County or regula#ory authority over those drainage or irrigation
facilities. I did not count the exact number in there but I think there were about 60
agencies on that last that have some kind of responsibility for this function. The proposed
legislation which we will review very briefly has as it primary intent consolidation of just the
drainage functions. We make no pretense to touch the irrigation functions of any of those
districts that currently exist, but it does propose to consolidate all of the drainage and
storm water functions in a single County wide agency. It provides for the elimination of
any districts which have only drainage or flood control responsibilities. Those would
things like drainage district #3, 4, Flood control district #10, 11, #he portion of it that is
within a small portion that is within Ada County. And all of those organizations like that
are in support of this legislation. We have, in fact we have the attorney's for a couple of
these drainage districts that would be going out of business under this legislation helping
us draft the legislation. Because they would like to be out of that business. Generically
the purpose for the drainage district are established in Section 42-4303, I already
mentioned providing the single County wide authority, it identifies there as well the other
purposes provide a coherent system of flood control, drainage, water shed protection and
improvement. To balance and provide for multiple uses of drainage waterways, to
maintain adequate water quality flows, to comply with environmental laws and regulations
including but not limited to the NPDES ones which I referred to earlier. The organization
of the district as the legislation is drafted would be implemented upon adoption within Ada
County, )daho. It it worded so that it applies to any County which has adopted a single
County wide Highway District, Ada County is the only one of the 44 counties in Idaho that
have adopted this single County wide Highway District provisions. The legislation assigns
responsibility for the new district to the highway district with a budget goveming board.
I don't know exactly how that will be referred to yet, but the budget determination of the
highway district for that portion dealing with drainage would be over seen by a group
appointed in part by the City of Meridian and the City Council. Each of the cities has a
position on that advisory board and Ada County has a position on that advisory board.
They will be involved directly in the preparation of the budget as the legislation currently
stands. There are 3 sources of revenue proposed in the current version of the legislation.
One is assessments that are based upon benefit to each tract of land that comes from a
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 4
long history of Idaho codes dealing with benefits, so we are taking advantage of a good
deal of Idaho code that already exists on how to determine benefit. A second method for
revenue is ad valorem tax levar proposed at maximum of one tenth of 1% of market value.
I anticipate I wili hear a good deat comment about that one. The third source of revenue
is user fees that virould be applied in the event that it were necessary to treat water coming
off from any traet of iand. There is one item in here that we already know has to be
moved, Section 42-4314 in intended to ensure that everyone pays the user fee portion of
whatever fees are established since we cannot require State and Federal agencies or non-
profits to pay property taxes or other levies that might be assessed against. So we know
that portion needs to be moved into Section 4323. There is an enforcement provision on
the back that would provide enforcement capabilities, we also know based on the
comments of several other agencies that we will need to make some modifications there
and we intend to do so. With that Mr. Mayor I would entertain questions and would be
happy to provide answers if I can. Mr. Dave Wynkoop, the counsel for the Ada County
Highway District is also here and would be happy to respond if that is more appropriate.
Kingsford: Questions of the Council for Mr. Bowman? I just say nice concise presentation
Claire. I think most likely the Council, having a first look at this would like to look at it and
maybe give you feedback either in writing or by telephone.
Bowman: I understand that I did not get these out earlier, I apologize for that. I was out
of town a little bit last week and missed a mailing to you. I would be more than willing to
entertain phone calls.
Morrow: (lnaudible) do you have any projected cost to the taxpayers?
Bowman: At this point we do not anticipate, we will come back to you with a projected
preliminary cost or some kind of an estimate of what cost will be. We do not yet know
exactly all that is collected by the existing agencies. A problem that we have had is
determining within districts that do both drainage and irrigation determining what the split
of those expenses is. We know what their assessments are for but we understand tMat the
expenses actually do not always follow that exactly. So we don't have all the numbers in
place and anticipate we will have those for you in October or the first of November.
Morrow: Do you have participation by aN of the drainage districts and irrigation districts
that were on that paper that you sent to us?
Bowman: No we do not, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has expressed some concems,
actually their attomey has expressed some concerns about it. We know that we will need
to work with them much more closely in a final draft.
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 5
•
Tolsma: 1 just seen on here that you had a cost on here of $5 to $12 per capita that the
(Inaudible) is our cost going to be in that area? You know befinreen the $5 and $12 or are
we going to get (inaudible) what is it going to cost us in the rough idea.
Bowman: I could take a guess at that in much the same way I could have for Councilman
Morrow's question. My preference would be to wait until I come back to you a second time
to try to have a bit more accurate information on the numbers. That $5 to $12 range was
put in there as an off the cuff estimate although what we do know is that Boise City 2 years
ago had approximately a quarter of a million dollars in their budget to meet some of the
NPDES preliminary work that need to be done. As we have realized it is a larger problem
than Boise, most of that cost has been transferred already to the Ada County Highway
District. So we know the highway district is currently putting dollars into this because they
have to manage their drain systems, the largest one we have in the County is the curb and
gutter system we have in the County. So much of that hits the Ada county Highway District
and they are already putting a considerable amount into it. But I do not know the exact
numbers on that right now.
Tolsma: I would think the (inaudible)
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Bowman? Thank you very much.
ITEM #2: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5- ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT BY tNTERWEST DEVELOPMENT:
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I believe that was tabled due to lack of proper preparation and lack
of proper time for our staff to review those documents. Could we have Gary and Shari tell
us whether those things have been done and done correctly. 1 also note in our packet
there was a letter from Tom Geile addressing water and sewer issues. I would like to
know if those things have been covered also.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Morrow, I received the information
from the developers engineer that I had requested on my review of the revised preliminary
plat. And I believe he has addressed everything that I had some concems about.
Morrow: So from your perspective this proje~t has completed everything it needs to have
completed and you have no qualms about it proceeding further tonight then?
Smith: Right
Tolsma: We have our development agreement and everything all in place?
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 6
Smith: I don't know about the development agre~ment.
•
Kingsford: We don't have one according to Shari yet. That is one that would have to be
done before devefopment takes place.
Morrow: Has Mr. Geile's concerns as per his letter received the 14th, have those been
addressed?
Kingsford: Mr. Geile and I visited just before the meeting and I would give him the
opportunity to say it but he indicated to me that looked alright. Do you want to make any
other comment Tom?
(Inaudible)
Smith: The concerns that Mr. Geile and his son Paul Geile had and Pau1 has been in to
see me several times was that th~ sewer and water lines be extended to the property line
and that its common to their parcel, Geile's parcel and Haven Cove No. 5. As I explained
to Paul at the time he came to see me it is the City's policy to require that those sewer and
water lines are extended through a project and to the project's boundary so that they are
available for the adjacent property owners to connect to. Once in a while as is shown in
he Northwest corner of this project the sewer doesn't go to the west boundary, that may
be because of the elevation that the sewer would have just physically can't go any farther.
But that will be researched before any final plans are approved on that. But as far as the
Geile property is concemed that sewer can serve into their property and the water is
extended to the boundary also.
Morrow: I think given past performances my concern here is 1 don't want to see any
loophotes left and I want to make sure that you are totally satisfied and Shari is totally
satisfied before we press on.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I guess I just have 2 things more specific. The 50 foot right of way that
has been cleared up right?
Smith: What the engineer is proposing is a 40 foot right of way with a 5 foot roadway
easement on each side of that 40 foot right of way making a total of 50 foot of roadway
construction width. Within which they will construct a standard 36 foot back to back curb
street section with 5 foot sidewalks. They made a similar proposal and was approved by
the Highway District in Chateau Meadows East subdivision on a short culdesac. The
highway district accepted that, my concern and I think the fire departments concem was
the width of the roadway that was actually going to be built. That it would be a standard
subdivision residential street width and the engineer has assured me that will be the case.
• i
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 7
Corrie: Okay, and what of the 20 foot landscape strip, that has been resolved?
Smith: He is proposing a 20 foot landscape strip along Pine, I did not look closely at that
I don't know what it consists of but I am sure Shari has looked at it.
Kingsford: Gary, with regard to the street and the easement of 5 feet on each side, would
those lots then meet our minimum requirements exclusive of the easement?
Smith: I don't know, I didn't look at that.
Kingsford: Haven't we required that on ditch easements?
Smith: On ditch easements we have yes. I don't recall how the ordinance reads with
respect to streets. But if that is included in that verbiage or not. But the lot would need to
meet that square footage requirement if the ordinance does speak to a street easement
as being excluded from the lot square footage. I will be sure and check that.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Smith?
Morrow: You have reviewed everything with Haven Cove No. 5 and you are satisfied that
everything has been covered and as presented by the representative and the developer?
Stiles: Yes, I believe they have addressed those comments. The landscape strip they
have shown as being 20 feet now, 5 of it as a common lot and 15 of it as an easement.
Morrow: And there are no down stream problems with that arrangement as you can see?
Stiles: Well, our ordinance doesn't require it be a separate common lot we have just been
asking for that to make sure that is maintained by the homeowners and it is not the
responsibility of each individual property owner. And that was the reason for requesting
common lots on that, but they are including the landscape easement as part of their square
footage and our ordinance wouldn'# have anything that prohibits that.
Morrow: As far as you are concerned at this point this project can continue on?
Stiles: Yes
Kingsford: Any other questions for Shari? What do we need to do, it has been so long ago
since we started this. We need to have you prepare an ordinance annexing?
Crookston: That is correct, it is I believe in the findings there has to be a development
• ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 8
agreement.
Kingsford: So we would have a motion to have you draw up the annexation ordinance
conditioned upon a development agreement secured.
Crookston: Yes
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare and
annexation ordinance for Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5 conditioned upon a development
agreement being agreed upon, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Counselor, appropriate or inappropriate to deal with the preliminary plat at this
time, it is not yet annexed, what is you feeling?
Crookston: 1 think it is best you set that aside until it is annexed.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move we table the preliminary for Haven Cove No. 5 until such time
the annexation ordinance is adopted.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table Haven Cove No. 5 the preliminary plat
until the property is annexed and zoned, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: FINAL PLAT - THE LANDING NO. 8, 48 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE
CORPORATION:
Kingsford: Likewise I assume you want reports from staff.
Morrow: Staff and I think it has been tabled twice before because of no representation on
the part of the devefopment team.
Kingsford: For the record Tucker Johnson.
• ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 9
Morrow: I would just like to have you review the project and bring us up to speed with a
little bit of a presentation and confirm that the comments by our staff are agreeable to you.
Johnson: Certainly, we apologize that we were out of town, we missed the prior 2
meetings. This is the 8th pMase of The Landing Subdivision. We have reviewed staffs
comments, we have loosened the density of the plat. The minutes indicate this is a 48 lot
subdivision that is currently correct, it used to be a 49 buildable lot phase of the
subdivision. And there are some problems that were pointed out by Gary Smith as to the
minimum lot size requirements. We are working with a new engineering firm on this
project, a few things feN through the crac4cs. We have adjusted the plat accordingly to
ensure that every lot meets the ordinance #hat required 8,000 square feet with the
minimum of 70 foot of frontage. I have given of a copy of that revised plat to Gary and
have 3 copies available to any Council members who may like that for their packet. The
notes that are refereed to in Gary's memo have been addressed to my knowledge without
re-reading them as I stand here I think we have made every attempt to address each
problem and certainly will work hand in hand with Gary on getting his approval and his
consent.
Morrow: I think the biggest thing with respect to his notes was have you addressed the
note #5, it says Lot 13 and Block 9 is to be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association. The purpose of the lot is a storm drainage retention pond to hold drainage
water for the public right of ways. The staffs comment was that they feel quite strongly that
homeowners association is very limited in its abilities.
Johnson: And I would agree absolutely.
Morrow: (lnaudible) drainage system. He goes onto suggest a solution.
Johnson: And we strongly agree with that, we have done similar (inaudible) with ACHD
before. The plans have been reviewed once by ACHD and we will be working through
those additional details, but I am sure if protocol is the standard here a letter from the
personnel ACHD prior to Gary signing the plat specifying at this point that ACHD would
maintain the (inaudible) the pipes, manholes and have an easement on that property to
discharge the homeowners could use it between the 100 year rainstorm to play bali and
soccer.
Kingsford: Any other ques#ions for Mr. Johnson? Mr. Smith
Morrow: I would just ask for your comments with respect to your letter dated August 10th
that was sent to us. There was some 8 items there, obviously since the 10th of August
there has been some time. Mr. Johnson indicates they are in agreement with those items,
• •
Meridian City Council
September 2~, 1994
Page 10
has all of that been taken care of?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Morrow, I received a copy of the
final plat revised today and all of the comments that we had made in our review of the final
plat have been addressed except for the item #8 which is a 15 foot common lot to get
water out to Waltman Lane. We will need to have that done but that is a minor item and
I assume it is not a problem for the developer to take care of that.
Johnson: If I can just make a comment on that item, we would like to work with Gary on
this point. Staff has been very swamped as 1 am sure you are aware. A computer water
model has not been run yet, we have been waiting for that for some time as to whether a
connection is needed there. My thought is if it is needed there requiring it to be a separate
lot who would own, who would maintain it, why not get an easement on that lot so the
homeowners could use it with some regulations as to what type of trees or perhaps
fencing. But make that available to the homeowners as opposed to becoming a potential
nuisance to neighborhood weeds and so forth or another headache to the City to maintain
or whoever it may be. That easement we would have no problem with.
Smith: I know that the development community doesn't have a problem with easements
but we do. It is an access problem, especially on a water line because it is a pressure line.
If that water line should break in that easement area and we can't get to it, it is a
tremendous liability for us. So we have only in very limited instances do we even allow
a common lot area to be used as a water line for water line placement. This particular
case the highway District didn't want or the residents of Waltman Lane did not want a
direct access connection to the Landing Subdivision. So that original proposal I think was
at the preliminary plat stage was not included. The water line however since we run water
lines on section lines and quarter section lines and Waltman Lane is a quarter section line
in an overall sense they need to continue that 10 inch line to the east into Waltman and
continue it onto to Meridian Road and make that connection in order to form our loop. Now
I know there is a roadway proposed to the north of Waltman Lane, however when that gets
built is anyone's guess. It is going depend on the development out there as to when that
happens. So this is an opportunity for us to get a water line stub to Waltman Lane so that
it could be extended if indeed the water modei does require that we do that at this time.
Johnson: 1 can understand that concem, my only question is it is a separate lot, would the
City own and maintain it, would it be a pedestrian path?
Smith: Typically they are used as a pedestrian pathway that is paved and is fenced and
very little maintenance involved as I understand it. Like 1 say, there aren't too many of
them in existence but that is how they have been treated in the past.
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 11
C~
Johnson: We are certainly agreeable to work with Gary on the finer details of this and prior
to his signing the final plat.
Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Smith? Do you have questions for Shari?
Morrow: Everything is fine according to her.
Kingsford: Do you have a motion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat subject to staff conditions
for the Landing No. 8.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the final plat of the Landing No.
8 subject to staff approving their conditions, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
ON TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: It has been asked to be tabled again by the developer, Stubb{efield
Development pending a meeting with staff and interested parties.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table Stubblefield, Tumble Creek
Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOT10N CARRIED: All yea
ITEM #5: TABLED: FINAL PLAT: TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1, 73 LOTS WITH
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY STEELE AND SON:
Kingsford: Does Council have questions of staff or the developer on that?
Morrow: I guess my questions would be, refresh my memory, why was it tabled at the last
meeting?
# •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 12
Kingsford: Shari, do you have that information, why was that tabled at the last meeting?
Stiles: Mayor and Council members, I befieve it was tabled, part of it was the access
problem to the north, a development agreement was required, the landscape strip was
shown as being 5 feet. I wasn't' aware that the CC&R's had been submitted and
(inaudible) on the agenda tonight. There is a letter, it was in your box but it wasn't in there
until today, Gary Lee has addressed the items. He met with me, the developer and Gary
Lee met with me and went over all of those items and I believe they have satisfied my
concerns.
Morrow: According to my notes, part of the reason for tabling this last time was
coordination with the adjoining subdivision on the north, has that occurred?
Kingsford: That is what I was going to ask Mr. Lee, maybe if we can get you up here Gary.
What is the status of that coordination with Stubblefield Development, the street access.
It causes them block length problems and to a lesser degree you guys.
Lee: On Thursday, after Tuesday night's Council meeting which was the 8th, John Steele,
the developer sent a tetter to Mr. Stubblefietd requesting a meeting to coordinate that
access condition. He has also called him try to get his input on the stub street and was
not successful in meeting with Mr. Stubblefield. So that prompted myself and Mr. Steele
and through our meeting with Shari Stiles to review what could be done with our
subdivision preliminary plat to accommodate access points to that property to the north.
And we beiieve we have come up with a solution. We would at least recommend and
would be willing to make the change to accommodate that access point into his property.
And I believe at this point in time with the state of the parcel north of us that is about the
best we are going to do. We will be able to provide the 2 stub streets and limit that block
length problem.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Lee on that subject?
Corrie: There is not going to be, exceed 1000 foot is it, the new block length, is it going
to be over 1000 feet?
Lee: No, it won't with my suggestion in my letter.
Kingsford: And likewise the Stubblefield Development, if they use those stub streets theirs
would not exceed 1000 linear f~et either.
Lee: That is right.
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 13
~
Stiles: It might slightly exceed the 1000 feet but to line up with the one stub street they
had proposed it is just about 80 feet maybe.
Lee: That is Monaco Street, it is in our Phase 2.
Kingsford: Any other questions for either Mr. Lee or Shari?
Morrow: Did you have any additional comments Shari? And you are satisfied everything
has been taken care of?
Stiles: Yes
Kingsford: The landscape section, that meets with your approval as I recall.
Stiles: Yes, they have revised that to 20 feet.
Kingsford: Any other questions for staff?
Morrow: Does Gary have any comments, everything is fine with you?
Corrie: That land strip along North Linder Road, that was a 10 foot wide on the plat.
Lee: We revised the plat.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the plat for Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 1 subject
to staff conditions and development agreement.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the final plat for Turtle Creek
Subdivision No. 1 subject to staff conditions being met and development agreement being
signed, alt those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: TABLED: SCOTT SWANBY: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY TRAILER AT
1901 E. LANARK:
Kingsford: Item 6 has been asked to be removed, the request of Mr. Scott Swanby his no
C~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 14
•
longer need of that temporary trailer. Entertain a motion to withdraw that from the agenda.
Tolsma: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to remove that item from the agenda, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR FAWCETT MEADOWS NO. 2 BY RONALD HENRY:
Kingsford: Council reviewed those findings.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as written.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as written, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, l would hereby adopt the decision of those findings, it being decided
that the setback ordinance is hereby granted and the applicant shall not be required to re-
locate the structures on Lots 9 and 10 of Fawcett Meadows No. 2.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Its moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the decision, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
fTEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FQR BRAMBLE WOOD SUBDIVISION BY
HARDEE CONSTRUCTION:
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 15
Kingsford: Council reviewed those findings.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Bramble
Wood Subdivision.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared on Bramble Wood Subdivision by Hardee Construction,
roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the decisions of the findings of fact and conclusions.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve the decision, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: The preliminary plat, do you want to have the City Attomey prepare an
ordinance, and table the plat until the next meeting.
Walt: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attorney prepare an
annexation ordinance, to table the preliminary plat until the land is annexed and to meet
the development agreement, all those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Council reviewed those findings.
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 16
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions for
Thunder Creek Subdivision as written.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law for Thunder Creek Subdivision, roll call vote.
RO~L CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: A motion on the decision.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I(End of Tape) stated herein that the ditch sha11 be fenced with either
chain link or wrought iron on both sides of the right of way. That before this variance takes
effect the applicant shall supply proof that it is the owner for the property whether the
owner consents to the variance.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the decision as read, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR RONALD VAN AUKER:
Kingsford: Council reviewed those.
Morrow: I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the
Ronald Van Auker request as written.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsfard: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law on the Van Auker annexation as written, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
• .
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 17
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the decision, City Council hereby decides that
the property set forth in the application be approved for annexation and zoning under the
conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Concluding that the
applicant and property owners enter into development agreements or that the land be de-
annexed. If the applicant and owners are not agreeable with these findings of fact and
conclusions and are not agreeable with entering into development agreements than the
property shall not be annexed.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the decision as read, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, point of irrformation, on this land use were we to work with this on that
ordinance we are preparing and using following their guidelines here.
KingSford: As I read those findings they basically are saying that if the applicant agrees
to (inaudible) to the zoning of the new ordinance (inaudible).
Morrow: I think the intent was there that when the revisions that our committee made
some months ago are adopted then they will compty to this annexation.
Crookston: When they are adopted as an ordinance.
Morrow: I guess a point of question for the benefit of the applicant's, how soon will that
happen? When will it be in ordinance form?
Crookston: It could be some time because it requires an amendment to the zoning
ordinance and because of the land use planning act it takes about 2 1/2 to 3 months to get
it done.
Morrow: And would that amendment be inclusive of the other things we have discussed
as a council besides (inaudible).
Crookston: Yes that is the idea to include all of the amendments.
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 1 S
Kingsford: Certainly, Mr. Van Auker as you review those (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: I think really Rich until you have a chance to review those it would be just kind
of a meandering.
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: As you review those and that applicant doesn't see a problem with those
findings then certainly that can go forward.
ITEM #11: ORDINANCE #674 - AMENDED FIRE ORDINANCE:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REPEALING TITLE 5,
CHAPTER 3 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN; RE-ENACTING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 3 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO PROVIDE PROVISIONS FOR THE
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING ORGANIZATION, OFFICERS, MEMBERS,
DUTIES OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION,
INVESTIGATION OF CAUSE OF FIRE, INSPECTIONS, MEETINGS OF MEMBERS,
BLOCKADE OF STREETS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, POLICE OFFICERS TO HANDLE
TRAFFIC AND PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE F1RE DEPARTMENT,
COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS, AND PENALTY; AND PROVIDlNG AND EFFECTIVE
DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like Ordinance #674 read in its entirety?
Seeing none 1 would entertain a motion.
Yerrington: I move for the approval of #674 with the suspension of the rules.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve Ordinance #674 with suspension
of the rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: FINAL PLAT - CANNA LILY ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 14 LOTS BY FLOYD
AND VICTORIA MADSEN:
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 18
•
Kingsford: Certainly, Mr. Van Auker as you review those (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: I think reatly Rich until you have a chance to review those it would be just kind
of a meandering.
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: As you review those and that applicant doesn't see a problem with those
findings then certainly that can go forward.
ITEM #11: ORDINANCE #674 - AMENDED FIRE ORDINANCE:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REPEALING TITLE 5,
CHAPTER 3 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN; RE-ENACTING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 3 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO PROVIDE PROVISIONS FOR THE
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING ORGANIZATION, OFFICERS, MEMBERS,
DUTIES OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION,
INVESTIGATION OF CAUSE OF FIRE, INSPECTIONS, MEETINGS OF MEMBERS,
BLOCKADE OF STREETS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, PO~ICE OFFICERS TO HANDLE
TRAFFIC AND PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT,
COMPENSATION OF M~MBERS, AND PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AND EFFECTIVE
DATE. Is there anyone ftom the public that would like Ordinance #674 read in its entirety?
Seeing none 1 would entertain a motion.
Yerrington: I move for the approval of #674 with the suspension of the rules.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve Ordinance ~74 with suspension
of the rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: Alt Yea
ITEM #12: FINAL PLAT - CANNA LILY ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 14 LOTS BY FLOYD
AND VICTORIA MADSEN:
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 19
Kingsford: Does Council have questions of staff on that?
Morrow: My questions would be to Gary Smith, with respect to the letter dated September
15th, have all of those conditions or issues been agreed to by the applicant?
Smith: Just a moment let me check. I think the only thing, Councilman Morrow, that we
need to get some feed back on is that sewer line easement that we were talking about
getting sewer over to that lot on the east side of the subdivision, the undeveloped lot that
fronts onto NW 8th. There is a sewer {ine that exits the church property which is near the
NE comer of the subdivision that flows to the east between some lots and into a trunk line
that is on the west side of Applegate Subdivision. Now whether or not that sewer line has
enough to serve this property, this undeveloped property to the south of the church I don't
know. But if that doesn't have the necessary depth then the only access that this
undeveloped piece of property to the east side of Canna Lity subdivision would have would
be back into Canna Lily subdivision so that needs to be solved.
Morrow: How about item #4 with respect to the minimum frontage on the culdesac lots?
Smith: That needs ta be changed so that it is (inaudible). But it is not as, I looked at the
plat that we reviewed for the applicant, it doesn't appear that would be any kind of a
problem. It just means moving of a lot line, that would take care of it.
Kingsford: Any other further questions for Gary? Any questions for anyone else, Shari or
the developer'?
Morrow: There is no development agreement involved with this?
Kingsford: No
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move we approve the final plat for Canna Lily Estates
Subdivision subject to staff conditions.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the final plat of Canna Lily Estates
Subdivision subject to approval of staff requirements, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRiED: Atl Yea
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR ELK RUN
SUBDIVISION NO. 1 AND 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP:
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 20
•
Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the developer and his
parties to speak first.
Bill Hart, 1903 Gull Cove Place, was sworr~ by the City Attorney.
Hart: We are in front of the council on a variance to try to in lieu of the current ordinance
of tiling our ditch behind Elk Run No. 1 and No. 2 because of the sizing of the pipe which
is at the 60 inch mark to come in with our current fencing that we have and simply let it
continue right on into to phase 2 for a couple of reasons. The aesthetics of the homes
themselves and the way we have constructed them we fence all of our homes. We have
started doing this and we would really like to keep doing it. The 60 inch pipe is going to
have to go in this ditch is considerable in size and quite costly. Once we put this pipe in,
this area between the fences becomes basically a no man's land. It is an area that not
very many people are going to want to maintain, Nampa Meridian Irrigation I don't' know
what their policy is on ditch riders and going over the top of a pipe that is covered in the
ground. I don't know what type of travel it will have, right now it gets travelled every day.
It gets maintained everyday, it gets cleaned up every day. It gets checked for any
problems with maybe children playing in the area, breaking things down. I think our
biggest concem is once we start doing this and once it starts happening in phase one and
2 and so on and so forth these structures are going to become some what of a safety
problem, a maintenance problem. It is my understanding the inlets on these the grates are
of a big question, how big are the grates before trash can pass through and how small
shall it be so a child can't crawl through and get studc in the pipe and drown. At least with
the canal a child can stand up and say help, waist deep in the water, and I need help, I am
stuck in the pipe that is basically it especially on a pipe of that size. My fencing would
proceed all the way down to Meridian Road, which by all rights would basically contain the
westerly side of it. We would entertain the idea of fencing the most westerly end of
Calderwood extension so it would completely seal it off. Although we can't do anything
about the most westerly side of the ditch because obviously we don't own it.
Kingsford: Mr. Hart, if I could interrupt you, we just received today and certainly we have
been laboring under that illusion too. Mr. Smith's memorandum to us might be worthy of
you taking a look at Nampa Meridian saying that could be 48 inches.
Hart: I have been instructed and paid considerable money to JUB engineers to say that
it is going to be a minimum of 52 inches and for quite a length it is going to be 60. And I
do believe Gary Smith does have the calculations to support that.
Kingsford: Well, it is a public, so go ahead with your comments. I just thought you would
like to have that because we just received it today.
•
Meridian City Councii
September 20, 1994
Page 21
~
Hart: That is based on information from Nampa Meridian Irrigation.
Kingsford: Right, and the gentleman quoted here is their director John Anderson.
Hart: I know John's capacity at the Irrigation and 1 also know Gary Lee's capacity at JUB
as a licensed engineer. And I tend to agree with the licensed engineer as far as hydraulics
and stuff. I spent considerable time on the sizing of this thing. I'm concemed that once
we start doing this it is going to be the snowball effect, it is going to keep right on going.
{ think we need to draw the line of where the sizing is going to be. I think that has been
done on a few projects here recently. I am at a disadvantage by not knowing the exact
ones but 1 do believe they were in the 52 inch range. We start at 52 and go to 6 so it is
a matter of interpretation and who's book of rules we are going to use as far as what in fact
that has to have. I am concemed as much as the homeowners are about the children and
as about the area. There is a junkyard to the immediate south that is an eye sore, it is
within 10 feet of the waters edge. Its got beat up cars and power poles and all kinds of
things. All I am trying to do is keep a nice fenced area that is aesthetically pleasing and
keep it safe. And also keep it reasonable. That is all I have, I do have Mr. Folley who is
our legal counsel that would like to say a few things on this issue that I can't convey
because that is not what I do. So if he could step up 1 would appreciate it.
Howard Folley, 2875 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Folley: For the record I represent the Development Company. We have some
photographs we thought might be helpful in terms of Council making a decision. If I coutd
submit those for the record. The photographs are numbered on the back, for the record,
photograph #1 shows the ditch back looking south, #2 is the ditch bank on the north turn,
#3 is the tum to the southeast, #4 (inaudible), #5 shows a vehicle in the ditch bank looking
south to north, #6 the vehicle is kind of in the middle of (inaudible) to the immediate right
and #7 (inaudibie). My understanding of the proceeding here this evening is that it is a
request for a variance and that the request itself is consistent with the acts of the Council
in the past when the tiling of the ditch, the size of the ditch pipe exceeds 48 inches. It is
also my understanding that at the time of the initial platting of this property 2 things
occurred, #1 it was the expe~tation of the developer as well as his engineer that the size
of that pipe would be 36 inches therefore they assumed they would tile it. And #2 they
called and asked Nampa Meridian Irrigation District or their representative how much of
an easement they had. They were told that they had 35 foot easement along that ditch
bank. As this matter developed we were all asked to meet with Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District and a member of the Council to try and resolve the differences. We attempted to
do so, at one time Nampa Meridian committed in letter form their willingness to look at a
15 foot easement. I represent to the Council that in these pictures there is a 15 foot
easement. At times it shrinks itself down to 14 foot 6 inches as measured from the high
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 22
~~
water mark of the canal to the fence itself. I would also represent to the Council that I
have spoken to the Attorney for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District who advises
inconsistent with what was stated at the meeting with Council members is there is no
recorded easement, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District does not have a recorded
easement up and down this ditch bank. They rely on a prescriptive easement, an
easement of necessity t go up and down the ditch bank to repair their ditch bank and to
make repairs as necessary. They have by practice over any number of years used a
formula whereby they ask for an easement equal to 35 feet as you look downstream. And
20 feet as you look upstream as I understand. In this particular situation I guess the point
we are really at this juncture is a fence has been constructed and the property has been
sold. It involves 5 homeowners. The request here this evening is to ask you to allow us
to vary from the requirements as has been your practice I understand it, when we need to
tile a ditch in excess of 48 inches. As Mr. Hart stated sizing of that pipe exceeded the
expectations of the engineer, at the time the plat was made. I don't think this was one let's
run this past the City Council. I think they really expected the pipe would be 36 inches and
that they would tile it. That was not the case and they constructed a fence, they felt that
they were constructing a fence and giving sufficient leeway for Nampa Meridian to go up
and down the ditch way to repair it. I think the concem here is that I don't think the Council
ought to get involved in with all do respect with a disagreement now that may exist
between Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the developer as to where their easement
lies. I think the issue before the Council is, is this a proper case because of the sizing of
the pipe, to grant the easement. If it is I think we can work out our differences with Nampa
Meridian on those 5 lots, it strikes me that it is very simple to do that by simply if they need
the e~ra 4 or 5 feet or whatever the case is to do that on the off side of the canal. I guess
mainly ! would again reiterate that there just simply is no recorded easement, there is
nothing that a developer could look at and say here is an easement and when we do our
plats this is recorded this is it this is exactly how big or long or short or small it should be
there just isn't anything there. It is in the final analysis an easement of necessity, it is
necessary for Nampa Meridian to get up and down that bank to make the repairs that are
neceSSary. They are running concrete trucks up and down the ditch banks, 1 would
suggest to you or submit to you that if they can do that surely they can get their equipment
up and down the ditch bank to take care of those problems. The other concern the
developer has at this point that representatives of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District have
now caiied homeowners, told them as if they have an absolute right to it that they have an
easement there they are going to tear down their fences that you folks need to step in and
intercept those plans. They don't have a right to tear down the fences, it is an easement,
and if they need it and are able to establish that by necessity then that is a different issue
and a different time. At least that seems to be our perspective.
Kingsford: Well, Counselor, in difference to your comments I would just say that we do
have a development agreement, that development agreement calls for tiling it. And our
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 23
ordinance calls for it to be tiled. That issue is a variance indeed we have taken a policy
that those pipes that are larger than 48 inches we have granted variances on. Now we
have a dilemma in terms of how big is the damn pipe. I think that Nampa Meridian knows
how much water goes through it, I would suggest that probably Mr. Lee can calibrate how
much goes through it and obviously they are in difference. But that aside I think that is
something to be resolved but we need to proceed with the pubiic hearing. 1 thank you for
your comments.
Folley: If I might just respond, it is also my understanding that again because of the rapid
development and those sort of things there isn't a devetopment agreement yet in place on
this that we have typed one and submitted one that puts in it an issue of a variance. I think
the only thing before the Council is that plat, I don't think there is a development
agreement not on phase 1 at this point.
Bob Stow, 1875 South Riptide, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Stow: I live along this lateral and am here as kind of a spokesman for the group of
homeowners that do live there as my neighbors. And, I wanted to voice some of our
concerns and our main concern is the movement of the fences, or backyard. If these
fences are going to be moved we are very opposed to a variance. However, if the fences
can remain as they are I don't see, I don't' know of anyone that would be opposed to this
variance. Some of our concems are if the fences are to be moved who is going to pay for
tearing down our fences and who is going to pay for the landscaping that we paid for.
Who is going to be responsible for that area behind our fences as far as maintenance and
repairs go. It is my understanding, 1 don't know if it is true or not but it is my understanding
that once it becomes #iled over the Nampa Irrigation District basically washes their hands
of it and it is up to the owners of the property to provide the maintenance on it. As it is now
we own the property to the center of the ditch and there is a roadway that runs behind like
Mr. Folley said there is no recorded easement, it is just something that has been there kind
of a prescriptive easement. And we don't feel that as a group that is an unreasonable
easement as it is now. I have seen the pictures that Mr. Folley showed you and I think
they are clearly indicative almost any average size vehicle and even the larger like he said
cement trucks go up and down that thing constantly. So I don't see any reason to move
our fences. If they are not going to be moved there is not reason why a variance can't be
granted. I don't know why the Nampa Irrigation District needs to have 35 feet which would
put it close to 18 feet on our side of the ditch, that is something that I woutd like for you to
consider because like the pictures show there are abou# 15 feet there, there is a lot of
space and at this point we like things the way they are and we don't want anything
changed. That is the homeowners view.
Yerrington: Can I ask you a question, when you bought your property, were you told that
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 24
ditch was going to be tiled?
Stow: No I was not.
Yerrington: I have heard that some of the people have been told that.
Staw: I personally was not, I was told that I own to the middle of the ditch and I was told
about the prescriptive easement that went through it. I was shown where my fence line
would go and everything was satisfactory to me.
Yerrington: What was the date that you bought your property?
Stow: I think the contract date was May 24th.
Yerrington: Of this year?
Stow: Of this year.
Brian Twait, 1893 South Riptide, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Twait: I am a homeowner in the vicinity there, I have property that goes up to the canal
line, (inaudible). I can agree somewhat with what the last representative of the
neighborhood has said but I have some discrepancies with that. I was totd upon signing
on my house that the canal was going to be tiled over. This is one of the deciding factors
in buying the lot, actually at the time of signing on the house I wasn't informed of having
any easement right at all of any irrigation district. It was my understanding that my
property was indeed enclosed inside of my fence that was put up. it was our
understanding in buying the lot that it would be tiled over and that there would be some
type of green belt put in there was the idea that was presented to me. They didn't' get a
definite time on their but they did definitely give a time on that but they did definitely give
a time on when it would be tiled over and that would be before the second phase went in.
My wife and myself are looking forward to having children someday soon there and we are
concerned about the safety and that is another real concern of ours is the safety of the
neighborhood there. The irrigation canal lateraf actually is pretty sizable, it is pretty wide
and at times it is pretty deep, 4 feet maybe 5 or 4 1/2. And it poses what 1 consider a
threat to young chi)dren. My lot, like I say my back fence is 15 feet off of there. One of the
ideals put forth on that being tiled over is the safety factor would be taken care of. It was
a huge concern on my part and my wife's part in buying our tot there. Also, to Mr. Hart's
concerns about the maintenance back there, I am not sure about the other homeowner~
but I can speak for myself in saying that I would be more than happy to take back my 15
or 20 feet or 10 feet or whatever it is and maintain it. When you purchase the land you
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 25
own that land, I would be more than happy to maintain it in a nice fashion. i can't reaily
see many homeowners that wouldn't want to have another 2000 square feet of their yard
back or fawn back for whatever reasons. As far as being an eye sore 1 don't see that being
a real problem particularly that no one can basically see it unless you are walking down
the easement or down by the canal. Other than that, (inaudible) of the possibility of having
my fence line move back into my further than it is existing. As we have spent a lot of
money, a lot of time working and landscaping and such. And fully expected that to stay
with the property. Those are some of the concerns that I have and take them into
consideration please.
Kingsford: Any questions?
Norm LaComb, 230 W. Davenport Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
LaComb: I am a homeowner also on the back lateral and I am also one of the real estate
agents that at times wor4ced out there. We had 2 at one point. So some of the information
did not come from me, but at the original just like Mr. Folley stated, it was perceived as a
36 inch pipe and it was to be tiled. That was agreed upon, I am not sure how it got to the
higher ratios and the variances and all of that. We did start the first homeowners with the
38 inch pipe that was to be tiled. As far as how we use it, I am seeing several of the
homeowners through out the subdivision they take their dogs they go for jogs. I go out and
walk my own dog on it. My main concern and really the only concern to me is that the
fence stays in the area that it is in now. Whether they tile it and 1 can move my fence, but
t don't want it to encroach it more on my backyard than it already is. Did you have any
ques#ions?
Kingsford: Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Shari I would like to ask you a
couple ofi questions with regard to your memorandum.
Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kingsford: Shari, with regard to your memorandum dated September 18th, you have in
paragraph 3 a comment that there is a development agreement on #1. What does that
development agreement say?
Stiles: tt says they wi{I tile all ditches.
Kingsford: You say in paragraph 1 the developer originally requested a variance for Elk
Run Subdivision No. 1, the first pubtic hearing was held April 6, 1993. Findings of fact and
conclusions of law approved on April 20th, the variance was denied. The developer asked
for reconsideration of the variance June 15th, 1993 which was also denied. ls that your
C~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 26
research from the file?
Stiles: Yes
•
Kingsford: Is there any indication as to why the developer then didn't proceed with that,
why he went ahead and fenced?
Stiles: Disregard for what he had agreed to.
Kingsford: Any questions for Ms. Stiles? Thank you Shari. Anyone else from the public?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to have Gary Smith comment for the record with respect
to the memorandum he gave us as of 4:00 this afternoon and the potential sizing dilemma.
He has been involved with this project.
Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councit members, Councilman Morrow, this afternoon at about 4:00
P.M. I received a telephone call from John Anderson who is the Water superintendent for
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The memorandum that 1 placed at your positions
tonight tells you what he related to me. The Superintendent or the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation district retains Sharp and Smith co~sulting engineering out of Boise, Idaho as
their consulting engineer. And he indicated to me that firm had done some field survey
and had analyzed the hydraulic data necessary to determine the size of pipe required to
carry the amount of water that they felt was being conveyed in the open ditch. Part of the
discrepancy I think between what Gary Lee has arrived the size of pipe that Gary Lee
arrived at versus the size of pipe determined by the Irrigation district is the number of
minor inches which is in a quantity of flow of water that was used by each one of the
engineers. The engineer for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District used 2700 minor inches
as the flow in the ditch, according to John Anderson this flow allows one minor inch per
acre of land to be served plus a 15°~ loss due to evaporation in the ditches. The amount
of water that was used by Gary Lee was 3300 minor inches so there is a 600 minor inch
variance there between the 2. Mr. Hart indicated that I did have calculations and I do from
Gary Lee, that shows the amount of head toss and the size of pipe required to carry the
3300 inches of wafier. The other thing that John Anderson told me was that the ditch, in
order to utilize 48 inch round pipe the ditch would have to completely piped from the north
boundary of Elk Run Subdivision No. 1 to the chuck obstructer which is near the south
boundary of Elk Run Subdivision No. 2. And this would be taking full advantage of the
dead differential from the upstream side of the chuck obstruc#er to the water etevation on
the north boundary of Elk Run Subdivision No. 1. If only a portion of the ditch is piped, a
48 inch pipe would nvt be large enough simply because the head differential wouldn't be
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 27
•
large enough. So in order to push that much water through a 48 inch pipe they wouid
have to take advantage of that total head difference. He also indicated that the district
would take care of the chuck obstructer to Meridian Road or Kuna Meridian Highway.
So basically that is a little more background on the memorandum that I handed to you this
evening.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Smith?
Smith: I might also mention that the plats that were received, both final plats for No: 1 and
No. 2 do show a 35 foot easement on the plats along the west boundary of both
subdivisions. Which is what the irrigation district had requested. I don't know anything
about easements of record but that easement was shown on the plat.
Kingsford: That makes it an easement of record doesn't it?
Smith: The No. 1 subdivision is recorded and so it would be an easement of record there.
Kingsford: So the people in question, the irrigation district could come in and take those
fences down? Is that right?
Smith: 1 don't think 1 am qualified to answer that question Mr. Mayor.
Kingsford: Anyone else? Go ahead Mr. Hart.
Hart: 1 am concerned that everybody realizes that if this goes to a tiling scenario of past
problems with grates, inlet structures and things that are problems especially to children.
If the grate is too large a child can pass through, if the grate is too small the garbage plugs
it up and it overflows and wipes out all the peoples houses. I think it is fair that the people
realize this and that some of these things are addressed. There has been numerous
problems with these and a pipe of this size whether it becomes 48 or 60 there is a
tremendous amount of water and ciphening at either end creates a large suction. (t would
take nothing more than a child putting his arm down there and it will suck him right into the
inlet. That becomes a big problem, and also if it does get that way it wont' allow us to
fence our subdivisions anymore. We wiii have a no man's land back there that we cant'
afford to fence. It is just going to be an open area, one of our main billings to Elk Run No.
1 and Elk Run No. 2 is that we fence all of our subdivisions and we landscape all of our
subdivisions. Are the homeowners willing and everybody else willing to leave their back
yards open to these inlet structures? I think not, I think they would rather have their
backyard fenced and enclosed for their children to play in rather than to just walk out their
back door and jump into an inlet structure or have somebody drive off the bank into their
back yard. We spent a{ot of time and a{ot of money in our communities from bus stops
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 28
~J
that we put together to stay off the highway to front yards and fences. We would no longer
be able to afford to fence our subdivisions if we had to go ahead and put in 2205 feet of
this at a cost of about $280,000. So I just wanted to convey that.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing,
Council members.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have several comments with respect to this particular project. I was
the City Councilman that sat in on the meeting between the irrigation folk, Gary Smith and
listened to these discussions. And then at Gary Smith's request I personally on August
29th went and looked at this project and quite candidly where I was viewing it from was
at this end looking what amounts to north. l think one of the things that this picture
probably serves best to demonstrate is we in society create irrigation districts to deliver
water. And the responsibility of those irrigation districts is to make sure the water is
delivered in a safe and efficient manor. 1 think there are 2 outstanding issues here, in the
practice of my own business I don't make it a practice to ask my people to do anything that
I wouldn't personally do myself. When t was here and observing this ditch full of water it
struck me as only a fool would telf his people to drive any kind of a heavy duty vehicle
down this ditch and that probably nobody that was not totally qualified would reach a great
degree of success with large pieces of equipment. The capabifity of dropping the front
wheel and rolling a vehicle in there is great. The second issue is that part of those dit~h
riders r~sponsibilities this is an elevated ditch as the pitcher clearly shows. Part of their
responsibitities is to make sure those ditches aren't going to blow out. If this fence is here,
(inaudible) can any ditch rider or anybody else see if there are gopher holes in the
{andscaping, see if the ditch bank has begun to be compromised. At some point in time Mr.
Hart made the comment in our mgeting before that nothing has happened in two years.
But the issue is that this is a permanent fixture, nothing may happen for 10 or 15 years, but
if we don't put it together right, how many of you folks that live below here are going to run
to your favorite legal beagle when this thing breaks and turn around and try to sue the
heck out of everybody. (End of Tape) in my perspective from a common sense standpoint
none of this makes any sense. If in faet the ditches are going to stay and we are going to
deprive those that we charge with the responsibility of maintaining these ditch banks so
that they don't rupture then it is not fair of us to ask them to assume responsibility for
something they can't see and something they can't correctly take care of without going to
extraordinary steps. If they stay then the ditch in my opinion should be tiled. If the ditch
is not going to be tiled then as per the information I have been given which was before my
time on the Council then these fences ought to be moved clearly back to the tow of the
slope so that as those folks are doing their jobs in inspecting the ditch, making sure it is
unplugged and the bank is safe that they have an opportunity to be able to easily see that
and to do their work. f think that for my perspeetive for the record here is that I am not
willing to allow a variance from tiling of the ditch and leaving the #ences in place. I think
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 29
~
that my position based on obsenration of the ditch with water in it, having walked a portion
of it and toaked at it is that it is clearly not a long term safe issue and it is not in the
homeowners best interest nor the ditch companies best interest or the tax payers best
interest to leave the situation as it is. The only people that will profit by this long term are
the legal folk as I see it. That is my position with respect to this issue.
Kingsford: Well, I think the issue that needs to be done, the pubiic hearing is closed, the
issue needs to be done is you need to have findings ofi fact and conclusions on the
variance. Entertain a motion to that effect.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to draw findings of fact
and conclusions on the variance.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attomey prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law on tk~e variance request for Elk Ftun Subdivision No. 1 and 2,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Yerrington: I would like to ask a question, since this was turned down on June 15, 1993
did we have the findings of fact at that time?
Kingsford: Yes
ITEM #14: DON F{SHER: {SSUES CONCERN{NG MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
CITY OF MERIDIAN:
F~sher: Members of the City Council, I appear before you tonight to address an issue
confronting cities and towns all over the country. Gang activities are turning communities
and schools into prisons. Prisons housing innocent inmates. The time is now to turn the
tide on the growing attraction that gains our childrens interest. I visited with several
people in the past 2 weeks, a school principle, a resource o~cer, a police o~cer along
with fellow community members. They all agree that something must be done. Our
community has grown leaps and bounds over the years, with growth comes outside
ir~fluence, some good, some bad. Teenagers and young adults I visited with all seem to
have the same thoughts they tend to feel the adults don't know how widespread gangs are
becoming. Are they right? We have several good programs working to deal with the
issues to gain our childrens attention toward gangs, but can we not deny that the attraction
is still there. I would like to see a stronger emphasis placed on removing the elements that
~ .
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 30
cause our young people to desire the gang type atmosphere. Neighborhood watch, block
homes, dress codes in schools are all very good ideas yet are they truly removing the
attraction that pulls our young. I along with every community member I have talked with
want to do our part. With this Council's support we can overcome this issue, our children
are our future we can't afford to let them down. That is my statement.
Kingsford: Do you have specific proposals Don?
Fisher: I haven't had time to really research and talk to people to get a multitude of ideas.
I think it is not one simple solution.
Kingsford: I agree, I deal with the little renegades everyday I understand that. I would
suggest that you do visit over this, there has beer~ some extensive work already been done
in that area, in the juvenile crime area. I know Mrs. Kluever at Meridian High Schoof is on
a task force, several members in Boise, I think their Chief has been involved in that in part.
I would encourage you to work with them and certainly that would be a good forum to
challenge your efforts through. I am sure you will not find any opposition from this Council
and myself in trying to stem any kind of a gang activity that might be taking place.
Fisher: My intent in addressing the City Council is to bring it to your attention that there
are a fot of children out there that are considered at risk. I think we are in an advarrtage
right now that if we address and catch it before it becomes a problem or spreads like a bad
virus.
Kingsford: 1 appreciate that Don, I certainly share those concems as I am sure the Council
does. Thank you.
ITEM #15: HARTFORD SUBDIVISION: DEV~LOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Kingsford: Shari, do you have that agreement? Will you report on its progress.
Stiles: Mayor and Council there is a letter in your packets I believe from the developer.
It is a letter stating his intent to enter into a development agreernent but his problem now
is he doesn't own the property and has requested that he be allowed to go ahead with the
annexation and the plat so that he can determine what those final conditions will be. I
talked to Wayne Crookston about this and it is just, the current owner of the property can't
enter into a development agreement and the one with the option would like to wait until he
is the owner of the property.
Kingsford: The actual owners of the property do agree to annexation and zoning?
• •
Meridian City Counci~
September 20, 1994
Page 31
Stiles: Yes
Morrow: I am perplexed here, has this process, the Hartford Subdivision has it started its
way through the process with the former owner who is now apparently selling to V.L. for
short, they are selling to them. The impression of the letter is they are going to start the
process over.
Stiles: The app(icant has atways been the Vijya Laxmi. The other development
agreements we have done have gone onto the point where they are just waiting to get their
final plat signed. So they are already the legal owner and the final purchase is complete.
In this cas~ where we are changing to having the development agreement prior to even
being annexed they are in that transition period where the applicant can't legally enter into
an agreement that would be binding.
Morrow: So help me out here.
Kingsford: Counselor, does the ordinance then speak to that development agreement aa
you have prepared Ordinance #670, does it speak to a development agreement so as to
protect us in that regard?
Crookston: I have no# looked at the ordinance itself.
Kingsford: Well, who would have looked at that pray tell? Do you have a copy of it there
so you can review it quickly.
Stiles: I think all of the ordinances that have been passed have that.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: It is a real problem
Kingsford: Do we have a disclaimer in there that if the applicant doesn't become the
owner that it is de-annexed. I guess it looks like it is more or less covered.
Merkle: V.L. is the applicant he has the option to buy on the property from Wilder but as
is typical not every applicant that comes through you is the owner of the property in the
development. They are going to close on the property sometime in the near future, I don't
know exactly when, but after the preliminary plat and annexation are approved by the
Council. Your ordinance 11-2~16 L and 417 D regarding a development agreement state
that basically the applicant or developer will enter into an agreement stating what his
intentions for the property are. In a nutshell that is what your ordinance. What your
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 32
conclusions of law you have written with the annexation state various items stating you will
provide pressurized irrigation, you will tile ditches, you will connect to meridian water and
sewer, that you will be subject to the development ordinances and the zoning ordinances
and then at the bottom it says that if the provisions of this chapter are not met you will be
subject to de-annexation. Well obviously he can't do those items prior to annexation, he
can't connect to city water, he can't do those things. He can't enter into a development
agreement prior to annexation, so in my mind it is kind of conflicting. V.L. can't enter into
a development agreement, obviously you are not protected by that. In that letter you have
he is going to enter into a development agreement, but he just like the process to continue
along so he can get into his final plat stage which on the other project he has done Cougar
Creek, the development agreement was entered into and signed prior to the signature of
the final plat, which is further into the process. So I think that is more appropriate than
having it now when some of the issues that aren't flushed out until final platting are
evening addressed yet. And he has stated his intention he is going to enter into a
development and the conclusions of the findings of fact basically state that the
requirements of this paragraph are not met will be subject to d~-annexation and loss of city
services so you are covered in that respec:t. It is basically a technicality, I am not sure
he needs to sign. Ray Wilder who owns the property certainly isn't going to enter into a
development agreement at this time. 1 should have had him come in and speak to you
regarding that.
Kingsford: Well, as I look at those, we have gotten to that stage many times and the
development came about just prior to final plat. I certainty don't see the problem with that.
I guess it issues the way it is one the agenda, we just dispense with item #15 until it is put
together and move forward with annexation if that is your pleasure. Or you passed
findings of fact and conclusions of law to that extent.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to dispense with Item #15, the development
agreement until such time as the applicant is the owner, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: ORDINANCE #670 - HARTFORD ANNEXATION AND ZONING:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CfTY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE SOUTH
HALF OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 35, T.4N, R.1 W, B.M., ADA
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 33
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVID{NG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the
public that would like Ordinance #670 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain
a motion.
Yerrington: I will make the motion with suspension of the rules to approve #~70.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve Ordinance #670 with suspension
of the rules, discussion.
Morrow: I have a question here so it is clear in my mind. In the past, we have approve the
ordinance and said okay it will be enacted upon receipt of the development agreement.
Now the question in my mind is how is this different than what we have done in the past,
now that we have the thing in the proper sequence? Obviously what happens here is that
we have an owner who is not an owner at this point in time and if we approve the
ordinance not subject to the development agreement which is what we have done in the
past. The ordinance has become effective when the development agreement is executed.
That still gives this group V.L. the opportunity to press ahead with the project and get the
thing done. But then it also protects us from the standpoint of A being consistent and B
ensuring that we are getting the development agreement before the ordinance becomes
effective. And so my question is how does this work.
Kingsford: (Inaudible) it speaks to that exactly (inaudible) it has to be the development
agreement entered into or they will be (inaudible) as well as in our ordinance. Likewise
in terms of being consistent we are inconsistent anyway. I think we have probably
numerous annexations that we haven't yet completed a development agreement upon.
Tonight for example we passed one with regard to the Van Auker property that is as you
said, if they don't agree to that we are not going to annex them. But, we probably have
99% of that property we have annexed that would follow this guideline that we haven't in
fact had a development agreement ahead of times.
To{sma: Well, a technical point here Counselor, it says Section 2 that the property shali
be subject to the annexation, the owner shall (inaudible) following requirements. The
owner that has the property right now does not intend to meet any of these requirements.
So if we enact this for this owner than the second owner what does he do. When he
becomes the second owner when does this ordinance take effect. Which owner are we
talking about here?
Crookston: Well, the ordinance takes effect when it is passed and published. The other
problem that we have is that we normally do not approve plats until we have passed an
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 34
annexation ordinance.
•
Kingsford: Likewise we don't accept plats until there is an owner of record. We got into
a real fiasco out here on with Voigt and Boesiger on that subject that we didn't' realize that
there wasn't an owner of record until we had separate preliminary plats in here.
Tolsma: I think I will withdraw my second on that motion.
Kingsford: Well, the catch 22 comes is they are not going to do anything with it unless we
annex it.
Corrie: I think we need an owner somewhere along here.
Crookston: Jim, if you know when will Mr. Wilder convey the property, at what point?
Merkte: It is unknown to me, I talked to my client who is V.L. and the closing is the next
6 weeks, they wouldn't give me a specific date. But the point is what you would be saying
tonight is you can't have anybody except for an owner of a property do an application of
a property which is not right.
Crookston: The owner has consented to the annexation, but what you would be requiring
is that every owner who owns a tract of land out there is (inaudible) he has to enter into
a development agreement. I am not sitting here arguing that they are not going to enter
into a development agreement, they are going to. What I am saying is it is a condition in
your findings for the annexation that is says if the requirements of this paragraph are not
met it will be subject to losses of city services and de-annexation, you are covered right
there. There will be a development agreement prior to the signature of the final plat as has
been the case in all of the projects I have been involved with. And now afl of the sudden
we are saying you have to enter into the development agreement prior to annexation, prior
to preliminary plat approval, prior to everything.
Kingsford: I think a lot of those development agreements prior to annexation have been
commercial and industrial property too. I think there is some validity in doing that on some
of those projects.
Merkle: There are some issues as you go through final platting and final design that are
even flushed out yet that need to be addressed in a development agreement. Like
reimbursements for off site utilities, things like that aren't even addressed yet during
annexation but they are addressed in development agreements.
Kingsford: Things like impact fees, we have a kind of whole bunch of those things that fit
• ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 35
into (inaudible).
Merkle: Your ordinance, I am not reading the ordinance that you have that you are going
to adopt or may adopt, but the ordinance you have there is small paragraph regarding
development agreements and all it says is a requirement of the development agreement
is for the applicant to state his intention for the development of the property and it be
agreed upon prior to recording the final plat. That is what your ordinance states. It doesn't
say prior to annexation, it says it is a condition of annexation but not prior to annexation.
It becomes prior to annexation when you put it in the findings of fact and your ordinance
you have tonight. I would just like to stress he is not trying to get out of it he is going to
do it, it is just now is not the appropriate time.
Morrow: I understand that part of the issue, what is the issue with respect to the
comparison between he Voigt and Boesiger properties?
Kingsford: I think that we are covered in the findings still with regard to the Voigt property,
we annexed some property legitimately that the owner didn't request. As I recall, excuse
me the owner did request (inaudible) but the property was not even optioned by the person
that we had a preliminary plat for. And so then a different owner then bought another
parcel of that and submitted a different preliminary plat which caused us to have kind of
conflicting traffic flows and a whole range of things in that section. This small of a parcel
f don't see that same problem. Your client has an option on the entire parcel of Wilder"s
so I don't' see that happening there. I just brought that up to illustrate some of the
problems we've had.
Morrow: Let me see if I understand this right, what we are doing here really is we have
taken, somehow what has happened is that the development agreement was requested
prior to annexation which doesn't make sense. So now we are going to do is
Kingsford: We are going to annex it if they don't do the development agreement we de-
annex it.
Morrow: We are not going to make the timing of this ordinance or the adoption of this
ordinance contingent upon receiving that development agreement as we have done with
apparently commercial types of plats.
Tolsma: Should there be wording changed in this development agreement, it should be
applicant instead of owner then on this. The property shall be subject to de-annexation
if the applicant shall not meet the following requirements.
Kingsford: Well, the applicant is the owner
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 36
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: Right, but as soon as the applicant, in essence the owner he signed to do that,
we accept these from the owner. So we have his agreement to do this annexation.
Crookston: All the owner does is consent to it, he is not applying for it.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) the owner shall meet the requirements so he is not going to meet the
requirements (inaudible).
Merkle: (Inaudible) which the applicant is going to enter into or he is not going to have a
project approved by you guys.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Tolsma: Well it should be owner or applicant.
Kingsford: Legal counsel worded that wrong, it is hard to get good help.
Morrow: My point is here, or the point is do we approve the ordinance as written or with
the little insertion of or applicant?
Kingsford: it doesn't matter, because the ordinance is saying if the owner doesn't enter
into a development agreement it is de-annexed. If it is never bought by V. L. then obviously
Mr. Wilder is not going to enter into that development agreement in which case it would
be de-annexed which is our intent.
Crookston: We1i, the concern that f have and maybe just bringing up new wrinkles is that
when the preliminary plat is approved that is really what controls most of the development
of the property.
Kingsford: But if we conditioned that the development agreement then that is a condition
of the preliminary plat. If it is not fulfilled it doesn't go forward either.
Crookston: I agree with that, I think we need to change some of our procedures.
Kingsford: That is what we did and that is how we got into this mess.
Morrow: So let's make it real simple how do we get out of it.
Kingsford: Roll call vote, the motion was to approve Ordinance #670 with suspension of
• •
Meridian City Counci{
September 20, 1994
Page 37
the rules.
Morrow: I think Mr. Tolsma indicated he
Tolsma: I withdrew the second, I wanted to get that cleared up.
Kingsford: I didn't recognize his withdrawal it is still on the floor.
Crookston: You were still in discussion when he made the motion.
Kingsford: Any further discussion? Roll call vote
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: But now the result of that dissertation is that we won't be in that fix again, is that
correct?
Kingsford: Not necessarily.
1TEM #17: HARTFORD SUBDIVISION: PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Morrow: Can we have a presentation by the developers representative?
Merkle: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I am Jim Merkle of Hubble Engineering,
the representative for the Appticant Vijya Laxmi. The public hearing for the preliminary plat
was heard before you I think the second hearing in August a month ago. The issues, the
comments raised by Ms. Stiles and Mr. Smith regarding the preliminary in a written
response to both of them, I think you spoke with them during that public hearing regarding
that off site sewer and the connection to the east including the house, the existing Wilder
place within the plat which 1 have addressed and f have responded in writing to both of
them. I think that was the end of the public hearing, I am not sure there were any other
issues to be resolved to my recollection.
Kingsford: That sewer, that was going to be a gravel sewer?
Merk{e: Yes per Gary's request, the 20 foot separate fot (inaudible) owned by the
homeowners and maintained by the homeowners (inaudible) gravel access over the top.
Sewer will gravity to the west at some point (inaudible) Nine Mife Trunk sewer which we
have gone over with Gary. The final details have not been resolved yet we will do that
• ,
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 38
during the final design. Also, Shari wanted the 10 foot path provided up to your future Five
Mile Creek which we have provided in the extended subdivision. I don't think there were
any other outstanding issues.
Kingsford: Any other questions from the Council? Problems that either Gary or Shari have
with that?
Smith: Mr, Mayor and Council members, I guess really it is not a problem as Jim
mentioned we just have to work out some details on where the sewer is going as it leads
to the northwest corner of their subdivision. One other thing, I guess it kind of relates to
this subdivision but it also relates to Bramble Wood subdivision which is east of this
development and that is how Bramble Wood is going to get its sewer to the sewer line, to
aur sewer tine. It may affect this in o~der, and I am not sure and it may have to come back
to this subdivision at their northeast corner. So, there may be some, there would have to
be some allowance made there in order to get around Mr. Shaffer's property. It would
have to get into the Five Mite Creek right of way or property to the north of Mr. Shaffer's
property.
Morrow: Mr. Shaffer was the one that testified about he is on the west side of the Bramble
wood.
Smith: Correct, he is befinreen Bramble Wood and Hartford.
Morrow: And he is like a 5 acre parcel of ground.
Smith: 1 am not sure what the size is, something like that. He has some outbuildings that
preclude sewer line from crossing his property from Bramble Wood into Hartford. So the
sewer would need to go up out around the north boundary of his property and then come
back into Hartford in order to continue onto the west. So that is an issue that needs to be
worked out. I think that Jim and 1, I know that Jim and I can work and resolve that issue
that will need to be an access way coming into Hartford in an easement type of situation.
(Inaudibie)
Smith: The only other thing and 1 don't know how to address it other than I raise the
question and give (inaudible) location of the wastewater plant. Jim had addressed it by
saying the applicant will take precautions to ensure potential residents are aware of the
proximity of the treatment plant. I don't know what that means exactly, but.
Morrow: If I may c~mment on that, I think in the past what we have done with agricultural
uses and things like that is made it a requirement that it appear in the covenants and
•
Meridian City Councit
September 20, 1994
Page 39
i
restrictions that the prior usage does exist and 1 think that is also appropriate here. That
is the means that we have used before and that the real estate community is to be made
aware of that also. So that it was in fact part of the CC&R's.
Kingsford: We could require that perspective buyers be taken to the second T box at
Broadmore County Club. For your information that is right next to the Nampa sewer plant.
Smith: As I mentioned before on several projects we don't have a lot of problems with
odors but it is the nature of the business and every once in awhile there is. We treat
human waste out there and it is not a perFume factory.
Morrow: I am sensitive to that, my point is I think it needs to be noticed in those CC&R's.
Smith: I agree with you, that is an appropriate p{ace to put it. My concern again is that the
second buyer of a home for example isn't always aware of those CC&R's. As time goes
by those things kind of get lost. I really don't' know the answer to the question or to my
observation. I just don't' want to be recipient of a bunch of phone calls when that
development goes in and people are living there. I think that is one thing that was brought
up during the Comprehensive Plan formulation was to develop a buffer around the
wastewater treatment plant and not let people build right up to the boundaries of the plant.
of course this is not right up to the boundary of the plant, it is 1000 feet away. Still a
northwest wind blowing through there, we have sludge out in the drying beds, there isn't
a whole lot you can do with that. We have gone out and dumped believe it or not we buy
55 pound drums of perfume and dump in those beds in order to help alleviate the odor
problem but it is just the nature of the beast.
Kingsford: 1 thinkwe have it in the CC&R's, like you say you are never going to eliminate
it. But you can point to it and say you were given a copy of those we are sorry. It reminds
me of the foiks that built houses next to Meryl's egg farm in Eagle. The nature of that
business is a little bit smelly.
Corrie: I am curious, what did you mean by we will take precautions to ensure
(Inaudible)
Merkle: I am not sure what we can do unless we put a bil{board out there ar ~omething.
The CC&R's is the logical and obvious place. If a homeowner does not read their CC&R's
or take the responsibi{ity to what else can you do.
Kingsford: Most people don't but I agree it is their responsibility and if they haven't read
them.
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 40
Corrie: If they are there at the right time they will know.
Merkle: That was the intent to put it in the CC&R's.
Smith: I agree with Mr. Merkle, I don't' think the plat is the proper place for that sort of
thing. I have tried to limit notations on the plat to very specific things that deal with the plat
itself. It is after atl a survey document, we have a tendency to want to put a lot of things
on the plat that maybe don't' need to be there or shouldn't be there. I think the CC&r's
wouid be the appropriate place.
Kingsford: Again on homeowners, I don't think they look any more closely at the plat than
they do their CC&R's.
Smith: That is all 1 have unless you have other questions.
Morrow: You are satisfied then that the project is essentially in good shape and everything
is covered? With the exception of the name, how to pronounce it and what it means.
Smith: Yes
Corrie: I move that we approve the preliminary plat of Hartford Subdivision with the
approval of the city staff and their requests of certain items be covered.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to approve the Preliminary Plat for Hartford
Subdivision and subject to the approval of the staff requirements including all those listed
and including a development agreement, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #18: THE HOLLOWS: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Kingsford: Are we in exactly the same shape in terms of The Hollows and The Hollows
annexation.
Campbell: No, I own it and I am the applicant.
Kingsford: Do we have the development agreement? What stage is it at? That
deveiopment agreement met the criteria we were after?
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 41
Stiles: { believe so, Wayne Crookston has not reviewed it.
Kingsford: A requirement then would be subject to Wayne's approval.
Corrie: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Walt that we approve the development agreement
far The Hollows subject to legal counsels review and approval, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #19: ORDINANCE #671 - THE HOLLOWS ANNEXATION:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDtAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED
IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1
EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance #671 read in its
entirety? Seeing none I will entertain a motion.
Tolsma: I move we approve Ordinance #671 with suspension of the rules.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve Ordinance #671 with suspension
of the rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #20: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR TURTLE CREEK
SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Counselor have you reviewed those?
Crookston: I reviewed them one time and gave them to Will, he sent them to the devefoper
and the developer sent them back to me without any changes from what I had reviewed
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 42
the first time.
Kingsford: Move for table.
Morrow: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table the CC&R's for Turtle Creek
Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: TUTHILL ESTATES N0. 2 SUBDIVISION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Kingsford: I understand that has been requested for table, is that true? Entertain a motion
to table that.
Yerrington: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table the development agreement for Tuthill
Estates No. 2, a1{ those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #22: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR FAWCETT'S
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION NO. 1:
Kingsford: Counselor
Crookston: Those are approved, I have reviewed.
Kingsford: We need a motion
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the covenants and restrictions for
Fawcett Meadows Subdivision No. 1 as written as changed.
Tolsma: Second
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 43
L~
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the CC&R's for Fawcett Meadows
Subdivision No. 1 as finally approved by legal counsel, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #23: FIRELIGHT ESTATES SUBDIVISION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Kingsford: Shari, where are we at with that?
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: Did it meet with your approval, it met all the criteria that we were after in that.
Again I would entertain a motion on that subject to the attorney's review and approval.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the development agreement for
Firelight Estates Subdivision subject to legal counsel's review and approval, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #24: WAYNE CROOKSTON: ATTORNEY FEES:
Kingsford: I mis-spoke, I remember having reading those at the first budget workshop.
I think in response to Mr. Corrie I had said that the request was made by Mr. Crookston's
firm to do the police work for a~ year period and then it would be a no lose thing to the
City and in reviewing those again I mis-spoke. That it would be either $70,000 but it would
be reviewed after 6 months. And if that didn't appear it was going to be that much then we
could back track. Is that correct Counselor how those went?
Crookston: Yes
Kingsford: I had said that if it went over that, or if it was under that then it would be that
and I mis-spoke.
Morrow: You said that if it was under the $70,000 that is where it would be.
Kingsford: That is what I had said then but that is not what his request had been. I had
~
Meridian City Councit
September 20, 1994
Page 44
mis-quoted that.
Morrow: His request was that a flat $70,000.
Crookston: $72,000
~
Kingsford: Right, and then it could be reviewed and if it appeared to not be meeting that
we could go to the hourly rate.
Morrow: I see so the safeguard was that if we were doing less business than that then we
would go to the hourly rate at the point of review.
Kingsford: Right
Morrow: At the point o# review it would not go higher than the $72,000.
Kingsford: That is correct. What it gives us is a top end safeguard.
Crookston: Just to make a presentation for you people, at the time I prepared my submittal
to the Council which is dated July 12, 1994. I had computed the past 12 months there had
been 123.12 hours a month of criminal prosecution time which is $6,156 a month. I
anticipate growth in that, our population is increasing. The physical size of our community
is increasing, we are going to have (End of Tape) I anticipate that the hours on criminal
prosecution could reach the neighborhood of 1600 hours per year. Which at the $50.00
per hour rate which we are now charging comes to $80,000 and that is without any cost
that we charge for copies and long distance calls and things like that. The point that was
also not addressed in what the Mayor said at the budget workshop or after the budget
workshop or during the budget workshop was that we were willing to commit to continue
the work at $6,000 per month if the City was willing to commit to a 2 year use of our firm.
The $6,000 per month worked out to a$72,000 budget amount. As has been discussed
we would still keep track of our hours so that after 6 months the City could see if there was
benefiting the city for the $6,000 per month.
Kingsford: I have a legal question on that subject Wayne, given the nature of where we
are in (inaudible) can we commit a future Council to that 2 year. You are only talking
about a year and 3 months away.
Crookston: That issue has been addressed in the past. I have never, the City has
committed to things that have gone on past the Council's election period in the past. The
Council has used that as viable grounds for not doing things. I don't have a specific
answer to that and 1 would hate to address it in this issue.
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 45
Kingsford: In that I think the City and yourself needs to have a mutually agreeable escape
clause.
Crookston: I would agree to that.
Morrow: Which would be?
Kingsford: Which would be a 30 or 60 day notice or whatever I would think. That is pretty
typical isn't Wayne?
Crookston: Yes
Corrie: 1 think it is necessary to be in there because again I think the Council down the
line should look at an in house attorney. We have discussed this many times and I have
discussed it with our attorney so I think it should be in there in case we do agree that we
want to do that next year or whatever the case may be. We do need a clause in there I
feel.
Kingsford: It kind of minimizes your capacity but I make that offer.
Crookston: The offer comes fram the entire firm, I am going to have to address it with
them. 1 don't' anticipate any problems but it is something that I cannot commit to on my
own. On the City and development time, in the past 12 months for the civil law there were
674 hours on the development time, there was 434 hours. Most recent period of time there
is a substantial increase in both of those.
Kingsford: Wayne, does that include when we have, when you have had a conflict and
we have used other parties, do those hours include that?
Crookston: No, this is my time. I am now being paid $75 per hour, I have requested in the
proposal to have that increased to $77.50. l did not request an increase 2 years ago, it
was increased last year. I believe that the rate is less than other cities are paying. 1
cannot tell you what the other cities are paying. I know a situation where the attorney was
requested to represent Sun Valley and it was substantially higher than that, but that is a
different matter too, that is also Sun Valley. 1 am requesting that the hourly rate be
increased to $77.50, I am requesting one other increase and that is for the secretarial time
that I bill the City. It is now bilted at $10.00 an hour, I am requesting thaf be increased to
$15.00. The other charges, mi{eage, cost and things of that nature are exactly the same.
Kingsford: What is the impact of a$5.00 increase on secretarial time roughly in our
annual budget?
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 46
Crookston: Well, the secretarial time that I bill the City for my secretary roughly is about
$250 a month maybe to $300 a month.
Corrie: $100 more
Morrow: How do you figure?
Corrie: It would be a third more.
Kingsford: $150
(Discussion Inaudible)
Kingsford: Any question of Mr. Crookston? I asked him to put this on, traditionally if there
has been a request for an increase in fees we drug that thing on into December and then
granted a retroactive one. It was appropriate that we do this in advance of the new budget
year starting to act on it.
Morrow: The impact to us then is that, how much of these fees are a direct cost to us that
are not off set? We budgeted essentially for the criminal prosecution stuff, is that correct.
Kingsford: We budgeted for all of this, roughly, you never know how much litigation you
will have. We budgeted based on his calculations.
Morrow: I have 2 questions, one is how much is per hour are we paying substitutes like
when Jack Riddlemoser substitutes, what is his hourly rate?
Crookston: I do not know.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Kingsford: We have had Mr. Freeman do one deal, and I recall I think that was $85.00 an
hour, but I could stand corrected. I couldn't tell you, Jack has done most of the work for
us and I can't remember what the hourly rate was. I assumed it was billed out on Wayne's
rate but I am not sure.
Morrow: The next question would be that some of these rates are off set by development
interests and those types of things?
Crookston: You used to be able to charge back but we can't now.
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 47
~
Kingsford: What happened with that case with a certain day care center is that we have
to try and build those in. In terms of those development matters we hope we have met
them but we don't know that we do.
Morrow: And with respect to an annual basis what is the $5.00 going to amount to
approximately?
Kingsford: Well, if it is $150 a month that has to be what
Morrow: 1f it $150 a month it is $1800 a year but that is not what he said. That was my
example not his.
Kingsford: Didn't you tell us that you typically bill about $300 a month for her?
Crookston: I think it is roughly between $250 and $300.
Kingsford: So we are taiking about somewhere under $1800.
Corrie: For the whole thing $5400 with the $1800
Morrow: I don't have any problem with these attorney fees as presented, I do think we
ought to have the escape clause in.
Kingsford: We can approve it conditioned upon Ambrose, Fitzgerald and Crookston's
approval.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the attorney fees as presented,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #25: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Kingsfiord: Mr. Smith
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members, I have a couple items 1 need to bring
before you this evening. The first one is we finally received some bids on our parking {ot
i
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 48
•
on Broadway to construct that and I distributed a copy of the bid results in each one of you
in your pick up boxes, do you have that? Everything checked in regards to the bids that
were submitted, the low bidder is American Paving Company of Meridian, $45,028.25. I
would request tonight that the Council award of the bid to American Paving Company and
also that you subject to them returning the necessary bonds and certificates of insurance
and the signed contract that you authorize Mayor Kingsford and City Clerk William Berg
to sign a notice to proceed and that all of this be done subject to the Department of
Commerce approving this contractor and the final approval of the specifications and
contract documents.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob, discussion Ron.
Tolsma: This parking lot will be smoother than the one on 1 st Street.
Smith: I think it will be less noticeable because hopefully the speed will be much reduced
in the parking area. But it should be relatively, we wiil make sure there is adequate
staking and blue tar being done so they don't have any problems with the grade. I think
going back to East 1 st Street, there are a couple of problems that exist at the south end
of the project where we tied into the existing pavement and where they had to make that,
where we allowed them to make that patch back from one piece to another and then they
took out a piece that was bad and patched that back and that has caused a bump. But the
rest of the project that kind of rolling motion going through the intersections a lot of that
has to do with that bulb thing that was built. Because the slope of the asphalt from
centerline you just had less horizontal distance to deal with so you had a greater slope
in order to get to the gutter line.
Tolsma: I just had a lot of comments (inaudible)
Kingsford: Part of that issue 1 think was the engineering, you are talking about matching
grade. If they made it to the specifications, you have a substantial drop there.
Tolsma: Well, we have a bad one right here at the stop light, you watch cars go through
there and everyone of them bounce, at East Idaho.
Yerrington: Gary, I don't know if you remember or not, are gas pumps, we were talking
about when this project was, we talked about getting a little black top down there so our
poor old cops didn't get any mud on their shows.
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 49
Smith: I am glad you reminded me of that Max because we can tie the paving of that area
in. Bruce has some area down there that needs to be paved. So we will tie this pavement
into that parking lot.
Corrie: Can we #ear that part of that fire station front off there and do the same thing?
Kingsford: The one thing I have is I looked at these quantities and descriptions, Gary you
have a remove retaining wall, but I was looking what do we build back up there between
Bowers and the parking lot?
Smith: Nothing, what we build back up is a slope with about 6 inch of cobble rock on it.
That will actually rest against the back of the vertical curb and then just slope, and will be
hand piaced up that slope to the asphalt.
Kingsford: Should it be the requirement of Gem Fuel to put some cement blocks so that
those cars, are we exposed liability wise if one of those vehicles come down onto people
that park on that city parking lot.
Tolsma: There used to be a fence across the top of that, a chain link fence in there before
they tore that building down.
Kingsford: Walt and I have served that over a good thought that over in Sun Valley in that
parking lot you can drive right onto another persons car. But I am still concerned about
in terms of our liability.
Morrow: I guess the question in my mind would be since we are the ones that are below
grade is who's responsibility is it? We created the below grade situation.
Smith: I don't know that those bumpers are very expensive, maybe we should just figure
on putting some up there.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Morrow: You can buy those crash wall deals that are below highway grade standards for
$10.00 a lineal foot as opposed to $19.00 a lineal foot for highway standard stuff. That
makes each one of these things cost about $100 a piece isn't that what those things are.
Kingsford: Wef{, there you get into a situation where we are encroaching on Bower's
property and I don't' know that we could put something that wide there.
Tolsma: I think you could put it on the lower edge of the parking lot. (Inaudible)
~
Meridian City Councii
September 20, 1994
Page 50
Kingsford: Well, what that does to our (inaudible)
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: Well, I guess it comes down to we will
C~
Smith: We will work 5omething out up there along the edge. They have been really good
to work with because we had to place that curb right on the property line and we really got
into that slope a little bit. Forrey had been in contact with the owners in Nampa and they
were very eongenial. The other part of this, we are running an irrigation line along the
front of the parking lot down the east side of the parking lot and across the south side.
And we will have an entrance on the south side and into the alley that can be used but it
won't be the principle access. And there will be some landscaping, it is not incfuded in this
contract, the irrigation line is. We will have to go back in there and put some landscaping
because we don't want to violate our own requirements that Shari works so hard to
enforce. So we will have some landscaping on both the north and south part.
Kingsford: While we are on that subject of enforcing our ordinances, everytime I walk to
get in my vehicle I can't help but notice we have some bad weeds that we ought to be
taking care of. If we have access to guys, Chief, I don't' know do we have any bad guys
that can get doing community service.
Gordon: Not presently (inaudible)
Kingsford: If we can't do that pretty soon than we need to get those tumble weeds
knodced out of there along the property line and over by the railroad tracks. Moved and
seconded all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Yesterday we had a bid opening for an addition to our water works department to
the building. We only received one bid, we had 4 plan holders but we only received one
bid. We met with the architect, myself and Bruce and the contractor today to discuss the
bid with the base bid was $93,542. That added 684 square feet, this added a plan vault
area that would be concrete block with a concrete roof and a slab floor for storage of
record drawings. Ewing Company is the bidder and when we met with them today it looks
like we can, because this is slightly over budget we can pull about $5600 plus out of that
bid amount by doing some things differently than what the plans and specifications show.
Not compromising the quality of the building, I think that these things are changes to some
of the items that the architect had se# up where we can get quality materials and not the
same as what was specified. I guess at this point i don't know how comfortable you are
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 51
with this, I think, we have one concem and that has to do with the budget and what we can
do with a line item within the budget. We have to, I am trying to get a hold of the auditor
without any success to this point but she will be here tomorrow and we will be able to get
an answer to the question as to how we can handle it within the budget. And for this year.
I would like to get unless you want to wait, I would like to get the contractor started if we
can get some authorization to proceed as far as award is concerned that prior to waiting
2 weeks to come back to next Council meeting.
Morrow: Who is the architect?
Smith: James Shearer
Morrow: Why are we for 684 square feet why are we $93,542 for a block building? What
else goes with the building besides, 180 square feet.
Smith: There is some remodeling inside the existing structure. There are some walls that
are being built, there is a new heating and air conditioning system that is going in to serve
the addition plus the exiting building which was about $12,000 by itself. There are some
electrical revisions being made to the building, a new ceiling being put in, light fixtures.
So it is a combination of the addition to the structure as well as remodeling to the existing
structure.
Morrow: I guess the philosophical question here is we are about to spend $100,000 for
this project what is the life time of this $100,000 we are spending and how do we recapture
that $100,000 because quite candidly it seems to me that we are not real far off here and
I think we are just deceiving ourselves into thinking that these facilities that we are working
in and so on and so forth are going to serve much longer without having some sort of plan.
Mr. Corrie's is working on a deal for the fire department that is substantially expensive, so
my question, I guess my thinking here is that we ought to be looking at before we go off
to spend $100,000 we ought to maybe look at an overall master plan and in say 3 years
from now we are not going to have the water department there or have need for a vault
there for them. Are we getting the bang for our bucks, it looks to me that we need to think
longer term here than.
Smith: I understand your concern Walt, we, in terms of that existing situation down there
we built an addition to the shop building and an inside storage area for the back hoe and
dump truck to get them out of the weather 2 years ago.
Morrow: Let me ask you this Gary, how many thousand peopte will that facility serve, will
it serve 50,000 people, what size of water department do we have to have to service
50,000 people?
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 52
Smith: We are running 7 people right now, and we have 20,000 people roughly.
Morrow: So is there enough dirt there to meet the needs of a city that size for a water
department?
Smith: Well, there would be enough dirt there to meet the, as far as the administrative part
yes, in terms of a yard for supplies and maybe a maintenance portion of the business
would have to be moved to another location but I don't know. I guess we really haven't
researched that as far as projecting growth goes.
Morrow: I think we need to start looking at those things because obviously, we have done
a heck of a lot this year in terms of salaries for our folk and I happen to be one of those
that with a few exceptions thinks that those things were really needed. But when it comes
to capital facilities I think we need to look at them real strongly as to what direction we are
going to go and how we are going to spend those monies. How we recapture those
monies, for example is that facility a sellable facility the way it is currently. Can we
recapture our money because, and I am not a fan of having fragmented departments
because that leads to a certain inefficiency.
Kingsford: I think one of the things that I have held through this time Walt, I could be
wrong, but we have had a tendency to use privatization as much as we can in that
department. I don't know, maybe you Bruce can correct me, I don't see the size of that
water department increasing pursuant to our population increase. I have pushed and I
think we have been headed that direction toward some of those major things that we do
that we contract to do it. We don't need to have the (inaudible) and do it. We have an
emergency team that runs and maintains our system. I would like to see that possibly in
terms of your question for 50,000 maybe we do have 12 people or 10 people and contract
folks. I had envisioned that is probably where we would be, but I would certainly
acquiesce to better judgement and if in fact a study bears out different I am all for that. I
am for keeping that department to a minimum as other departments where we can
contract.
Morrow: And I totally agree with that, the hang up by god here is that we are running out
and trying to spend $10b,000 without having any of that figured out. One of the bitches
that I've got about government in general is that seems to be a way a lot of stuff is done
in govemment. And so what I am saying here is that is this part of an overall plan that we
put together taking those things into consideration. If the answer is yes then that is fine,
if the answer is no then I think given the fact that we have had one bid, it is $100,000 we
need to be looking.
Kingsford: I would suggest that you are probably right, that is an overall plan that is just
• ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 53
mine and I think Gary's and Bruce's, but I think it needs to be more deeply thought. I'm
sure they have contacted Ron on that too, or he has been a party to it.
Morrow: Why did we only get one bid?
Smith: I don't know, Gavin Construction had a set of plans, Rountree had a set plans and
Dave Aflen Construction had a set of plans, there were 4 plan holders, Dave Allen picked
up a couple of schools I guess last week so that is why he didn't bid because he didn't
have the forces to do it. The other 2 I don't know why they didn't.
Kingsford: We almost didn't get any, Ewing came in about one minute to three.
Smith: Yes, Ewing's bid showed up about one minute to three. So it is a little
disconcerting to take one bid and it is totally up to the City as to what the City does with
that one bid there isn't anything that says we have to accept it. Obviously there is no
comparison here so we don't know what the project is really worth. Part of this project had
to do with the ADA requirements, the Americans with Disabilities Act, we have to improve
bathrooms down there to handicapped status. Which was a major effort, moving walls and
stuff. We really don't have, I don't know if you have been down to the wa#er department,
but they are really cramped for space, there is a tremendous amount of storage
requirements and the addition was to get some of the stuff out of Bruce's office and into
the vault where it needs some protection. And to provide an office for Greg and an area,
kind of conference room area where they can meet with contractors and discuss plans and
projects. Now, all the people in the office, Greg and Chip and the secretary they are all
in one large room, it is a very inefficient use of the room. So it was an effort of trying to
modernize and make more efficient use of the structure that was part of it.
Morrow: I've got to tell you, based on the seminar I was just at the current management
techniques are that you don't have any offices at alt. You see I did retain something your
honor.
Kingsford: (Inaudible) you put the secretary's in the offices with windows and you put the
crew in the middle with no walls. I a not sure that this apply's to this particular endeavor
but that is general (inaudible).
Corrie: My question to you Mr. Mayor is this facilitate how long a period give you to, your
space, can you last 4 years with that and then you are needing it again. I am thinking, 1've
got some ideas in the back of my mind and so does Walt on what we need to look at down
the road in 4 years. We may be out of this building into something else much larger say
in 4 years would that $100,000 be well placed now and 4 years move everybody. That is
something going through my mind when we spend that kind of money. Because it is going
~J
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 54
to come up again.
~~
Morrow: You are going to spend $100,000 and move out in 4 years hell no it is not well
spent it $25,000 a year for 684 square feet.
Kingsford: That is very nearly what we did with the old city hall, we added on about 600
feet at that time under (inaudible) I think about $48,000 we weren't able to recoup at all,
we demolished it.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: Here is part of the thing and really consider this, if we don't do that and I agree
with everything that is being said, but you are stil{ going to spend $12,000 or a facsimile
there of on heating and cooling because we are out. There are some other things that
have to be dane down there including ADA stufF regardless of what we do on the addition.
You are not talking $100,000, we had better do that or we will be in violation of ADA this
year.
Morrow: To deal with ADA stuff there is some flexibility there.
Kingsford: That we have been getting deferments on for a couple of years. if I might
suggest, I don't' think Mr. Ewing would object to a deferral of this for 2 weeks if you guys
would feel comfortable in rooting around and see if you can come up with some
alternatives let's by all means do so and discuss this at the next meeting.
Morrow: I think I would like to have some more information to think about. I think we need
to look at what we are going to do long term and how we are going to go about it. And
then kind of pursue that path. And maybe some of the things when you pursue a path like
that some of things that you do short term don't seem to make a 1ot of sense but they do
come together long term. I don't' want to do it the opposite way. I don't have a problem
with fixing the heating and air conditioning and I don't have a problem with doing ADA
stuff. But there again that is $20,000 a long ways and within the budget, $94,000 or what
is backed out to $95,000 if the cut is $8,000. I think we need to make sure that is in our
best interest to do it that way.
Kingsford: I would suggest that we take a couple of weeks and root around in it.
Smith: Hopefully we can get that put together in a couple of weeks I don't know. It seems
like kind of a long range plan, I mean. If we are going to be moving location then that. I
certainly don't' have a problem with at the very minimum of postponing and coming back
to you in 2 weeks with as much information as I can put together.
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 55
.
Kingsford: One of the problems that Will is talking about and Gary alluded to at the
beginning is in terms of budget our, this was budgeted in our current year for most of it.
We are going to be a little short on that figure and it will carry over to the next budget year.
We are not budgeted to do this, if we don't get started on it this fiscal year that becomes
and issue as weff and we don't have another meeting between those times.
Corrie: It was budgeted for this year?
Kingsford: How much money did you have?
Smith: $61,000 budgeted for this year as a specific line item.
Kingsford: It wasn`t re-budgeted into the current year budget.
Morrow: Can't you handle that in a budget amendment or something?
Tolsma: The air conditioning and heating and bathrooms was budgeted.
Kingsford: I think he had that all in there, but it got more expensive when you get an
architect working. As I recall our discussion some time back that what we are talking
about here was (inaudible).
Corrie: We don't have time, if we wait 2 weeks we are going to be (inaudible).
Kingsford: Well the issue is that with the auditor is in terms of award.
Smith: I guess we want to make sure we have the most efficient use of our facilities and
our money. We obviously don't want to make expenditures that are not going to be long
term benefit to the City that is for sure. I hadn't really thought about a long term plan, I
guess because the water department has been down there since 1975, so it has been
there 20 years almost. And it really hasn't changed in size and scope untif the addition
was made 2 1/2 years ago when we built the addition onto the west end of the building.
But anyway, I don't think that, is that going to jeopardize this for the budget that we have
if we come back in 2 weeks then? Even if we went through a budget amendment?
Kingsford: If you go through a budget amendment requires that you have additional
revenue, we won't have additional revenue, you won't be able to stick this in there on that.
Morrow: (fnaudible) what happens to unspent money.
Kingsford: That is fund balance, we make an effort every year of not spending everything
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 56
necessarily as budget, it goes into fund balance.
~
Morrow: Okay so this $62,000 would go into a fund balance, how do you take monies out
of a fund balance to fund something?
Kingsford: A year from now when we are working on a budget if you have fund balance
and you choose to spend them then you budget those monies and transfer them in from
fund balance.
Morrow: There has to be some mechanism to solve this particular dilemma that is
relatively simple is there not?
Kingsford: Well, I would suggest that this might meet that need and it may not. I don't
know what Jo is going to say but 1 think it would come the closest to it. You approve of this
conditioned upon review of the needs of the water department and negotiations with the
Ewing Company on the building as Gary has outlined. If you guys come back after a little
determination and say don't sign that this isn't wise use of money then we wouldn't have
to spend it. But I think it would allow us then to at least get moving on it if you found that
before the first of the fiscal year which is a week and a few days away.
Corrie: I think that makes better sense. I will so move
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve of the water department bid subject
to a review hoping to review long term needs but a recommendation prior to the new
budget year starting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yeas, 1 Nea
Kingsford: Walt, I would ask you particularly and others interested to take a fook at that
and make a recommendation as soon as you can do so.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, the only other thing I have is a pathway on and the information that we
received from that public meeting that we had. I don't know if I transmitted that to you Ron,
I apologize. We had a public meeting September 14th here at City Hall. We had about
30 - 35 people showed up, residents that live out there and their properties backed up to
Five Mile Ditch. Almost to the person they were in general opposition of the pathway
being placed where we had shown it on the plan. coincidentally that same say we had a
visit from the Bureau of Reclamation person John Caywood, Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District requested that we be on the south side of the Five Mile Creek. So that is where
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 57
we located the pathway, Mr. Caywood from Bureau of Reclamation said that is our right
of way you can use whichever side you want. He came into Shari's office that morning and
talked to her about, I'm not sure what his visit was all about other than he was just
checking in. Out of that meeting came the afternative that we could place this on the other
side of Five Mile Creek and get it away from the homes. The section of Five Mile Creek
shown to the right on the small drawing that you've got, say from the center of the drawing
to the right, the creek itself hugs the south boundary of the right of way. Consequently
there is very little dimension horizontal distance befinreen the edge of the bank up Five Mile
Creek and the backyard fences of these lots. The other side there is probably 50 to 60
feet from the edge of the bank to the property line. This pathway is about 10 foot in width
and so there is quite a bit of room to maneuver over there and stay away from the property
lines. Even though curve lineal alignment in the pathway so it is not just a straight line.
Anyway, like I say, almost the #otal consensus of the people in attendance at that meeting
was that they wanted to see the pathway relocated to the north side of Five Mile Creek
until we get to the Tully Park area and at that point put the pathway on the Tully Park side
and it would require a pedestrian walkway over Five Mile Creek. Problem #1 is that there
is a preliminary design that has been completed for this thing located on the alignment
shown on the first sheet of these 2 sheets that I gave you. I talked to the Idaho
Transportation Department, John Collins down there who works with the local roads
representative and is kind of a coordinator of these funds that we are trying to secure for
this project. He said that the funding of the project would not be jeopardized, the funding
was actually moved into FY 95, I wasn't aware of that until today. So we don't' have a
problem with the funding, but there would be some additional cost that we would have to
absorb by changing the design, moving it to the other side of the creek. I don't' think that
the people out there would accept it where it is just based on the comments that we
received at the meeting.
Morrow: Why are they so negative about the south side?
Smith: Because it is right up against their fence, there isn't' any room between the
pathway and their backyard.
Kingsford: It has always been a concern Walt that somebody walking down there their
dogs will yap constantly because you are right up there against their property line.
Smith: With this 10 foot width of the pathway there is actually some area through there.
West of the 8th Street Park where they had to cut the bank down in order to get some
width so we had a little bit of a sag in the pathway going through there.
(End of Tape)
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 58
Corrie: The pathway, (inaudible) says on the south side, they are wanting to put it on the
north side except up to here right?
Smith: Yes, except up to the southeast corner of the park, tulley park and then we cross
over at that point and get into. We would be on the north side of the ditch to the east of
Tully park.
Corrie: And we can't do it is that what you say?
Smith: We can, that is not a problem in doing it. The only probiem is we are going to have
some redesign costs to absorb from the consultant, we are going to have to cross the
creek which is going to be another expense that we hadn't planned on. I don't know what
that number is. I just wanted to bring this before you tonight and fet you know where it is
right at this point.
Kingsford: (Inaudible) question of either you are Shari as you talked to Caywood, was
there a problem in a license agreement for that footbridge. Because again if Nampa
Meridian administers that they don't like crossing structures all along.
Smith: It seems like Caywood said there wasn't an agreement that we had to enter into,
isn't that what he said?
Stiles: Caywood's contention and they had their attorney draw up I guess it was an opinion
that Nampa Meridian has absolutely no nothing to do with it. And that they own that and
that a license agreement with Nampa Meridian isn't even required on that portion that they
own.
Smith: He said that the opinion that the Nampa Meridian's attorney pu# together, the
govemment's legal counsel completely refuted it and said that this property, this length of
this Five Mile Creek from Meridian Road west to a point where that arrow says current
planned alignment along the south bank of Five Mile Creek that property is owned by the
United States Government. It is not an easement it is an actual ownership, it is a right of
way. And as far as John Caywood is concerned they dictate what goes on within their
right of way within their ownership. They talked about wanting us to even investigate
constructing some kind of a linear park along the edge of that in the wider space Say 50
to 60 foot width along with the pathway. And I don't' know what that could turn into other
than we need to be careful of what we do in the linear parks because they are high cost
and maintenance items, they are hard to get to as we found out in Fothergill.
Kingsford: The police department would have to have a bicycle to ride out there.
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 59
Smith: The other thing, and I am glad you mentioned that Mayor, the other thing is Chief
Gordon wants and is encouraging us to try and get access to these things as often as
possible and Waterbury Park No. 5 it seems those people seem to be conducive to
pathway. I think we can work out an access from their subdivision onto this pathway which
would be pretty close to the center of the mile dis#ance between Meridian and Linder
Road. So there would be access at Tully Park, there would be access at about the middle
section line and from there to the east it is already subdivided.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Smith: Yes, I think if Simunich's property ever develops if they ever sell it for development
11th Street will probably cross Five Mile Creek.
Morrow: Which one is Simunich's property?
Smith: It is the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 1, it is that area right
above the word current. That runs north to Ustick I believe. So our funding for the project
isn't in jeopardy, I was glad to learn that today. It has been carried over the FY 95 and
John Collins said that the Board meets this Thursday to finalize the projects for next fiscal
year and this was one of them that was being proposed to be part of those projects.
Corrie: It is $180,000?
Smith: Yes, if we move ahead with it, it is going to require some redesign and it is going
to require a change order to our consultants contract.
Kingsford: Gary as you look at that up at Meridian Park on the North side and I know they
say they don't like that, but that appears to be a pretty wide strip there as well isn't it. We
could do it there and not have it real close to people's property couldn't we?
Smith: 1 don't know what kind of width we have there Grant, we have our sewer line over
there.
Kingsford: That was, we had a deal there where someone had planted right over the ditch
and, oh not that one that was another one.
Smith: They have their fences back along the boundary of the easement and I think in that
area it is an easement again. I don't' believe it is a right of way there. But we had several
comments from people iiving in Meridian Park that said they didn't want on that side
because it would be right up against their backyards too. I think this privacy issue is a real
valid concern of anybody that lives adjacent to these bike paths. I think as Grant has
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 60
u
mentioned before people that use these pathways once they start using them they do use
them. Whether it is roller blading or bicycling or jogging or walking there are going to be
a lot of people moving up and down that pathway and the peop{e that abut these pathways
are not going to have any privacy unless they have 6 foot fences.
Kingsford: Again, I recognize those guys didn't like it but if you go and look at places
where they exist they are right up against people's property and they don't seem to object,
they buy them there because they like that access.
Morrow: I have to beg to differ with you, the truth of the matter is that they buy there in
spite of the deal. What government perceives it to be a real advantage for the private
property owner is a real disadvantage. Anybody has been there and case in point is in
through the plantation and those areas (inaudible) they complain about trash, they
complain about people's dogs pooping their yards, they complain, and all of them are well
founded. I look at those over around Hewlett Packard again and they have built, after
those paths were in they built million dollar houses.
Morrow: I understand what you are saying but with time comes discontent is what we find.
Supposedly building on a lot next to a park is supposed to be awesome according to local
P& Z's and govemments and realtors, the reality is that local buyers detest the things. So
it is a negative thing rather than a positive thing from a builders standpoint in terms of
marketing.
Kingsford: What are you asking us for here to do the redesign and keep it away from
people?
Smith: That is the comment from the people that live out there and I think that is the only
way they are going to be happy with the project.
Kingsford: I suspect that is probably in our best interest, let's {ook that. We are going to
have an expense on the bridge but that may not be a bad thing either to have that bridge.
Smith: It is going to create a more foot traffic access to Tully park too. As Waterbury
develops all of those people will use that pathway to get to Waterbury Park rather than
driving around the hom in their vehicle so that is going to lessen the impact on the parking
problems in Tully park or it very well could. I think there is a big plus in having that
pedestrian bridge there.
Morrow: What do you need from us a motion?
Smith: I don't know whether it takes a motion or not, it is a general consensus.
•
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 61
•
Kingsford: I think it would be a good idea, let's have a motion to that effect.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of a redesign for the Five Mile
Creek Pathway for a bridge, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: While I was talking to John Collins I asked him about the railroad crossing on
Meridian for the Union Pacific Railroad and he said that is in their contract administration
department right now. It will be out in a couple of weeks, the money has been obligated
for FY 94 which means it is imminent for construction probably advertised for 3 weeks and
then it will under construction this fall. So we wilt have a new crossing at Meridian Road
that has been designed for several years waiting. It has been one of our priority items for
severai years but it will be constructed. That is all t have.
Stiles: I had just one item to let you know that the Seniors will be coming in the next City
Council meeting, they want to make a presentation regarding getting a community
development block grant for their Senior Center. They want to expand and they can't until
they get an entire sprinkling system in their. I haven't really committed myself to it yet just
not knowing what time I am going to have but I did offer to help them with the appfication
itself. That is just to give you a heads up on that they will be in next time and they are
going to be asking for some monetary contribution of the City to help with their match. It
could be either in my time as administration or whatever but they do have some matching
requirement that #hey would need to take care of.
Kingsford: Chief
Gordon: (lnaudible) wanted me to personally invite the Mayor and Council and City Staff
to an open house on October 1 st at the training center. They will have the swimming tank
open or the life saving tank. They will have the car in their to do demonstrations, they
have the skid cars the dogs, the horses, the bicycles. We do have 2 bicycles by the way.
We have used them on occasion, we have 3 officers trained to use them. These guys can
climb stairs, go over cars, through backyards, climb fences.
Yerrington: Can your girls use these bikes?
Gordon: No, these are strictly mens bikes. What they are is a couple of real nice
i ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 62
mountain bikes that we recovered out of the canals and nobody claimed them so we
brought them down here to Westby's and he cleaned them up for us. They are nice bikes,
they are in the summer time only or when we have special occasions or special problem
areas we use the bikes. They have come in real handy. Also Friday is Operation Life
Saver. And that is where the train runs from Boise out here and then back and they have
the crossing guards. So if any of you would like to do that it is this Friday. Just be there.
Corrie: What times?
Gordon: Correct me if I mess up Mayor, but I think the first one is at 10:00 and then it goes
or 11:00, 12:00, 1:00, 2:00. It is an interesting ride. It takes an hour, it comes down here
just past Meridian and then stops and then goes back. They have cameras on the engines
that shows the cars and every car has a N monitor and you can see people cutting across
and they will have State Troopers pulling them over as soon as they cross in front of those
trains.
Morrow: Where do you get on the train at?
Gordon: At the Morrison-Knudson Santa Fe depot downtown.
Corrie: You get on there and get off there.
Gordon: It comes down it stops, it goes right back. It is really interesting.
Morrow: So this is on Friday all we have to do is show up on the right time any kids of
invite or credentials?
Gordon: No sir, if the Mayor stills has the flyer it will give you the exact time. The open
house at the academy on the 1 st that is the building way in the back there.
Kingsford: Counselor?
Crookston: Garden City Attomey and myself have been dealing with the court order to
have Garden City and Meridian a court facility by October 1. I have sent letters to Judge
Schroeder asking what direction we should go. Who we should direct our request to, we
have filed a motion with the court that the order by delayed or withdrawn. It is a real
difficult issue to deal with because the petition by Ada County and the City of Boise was
couched in the civil judicial rules asking that a speciat master be appointed pursuant to
rule 53. The court order however specifically says having reviewed the petition and then
it orders the cities to have the court facilities but it is not couched, it is not a judicial order.
It is definitely signed by the judges but it is not an order that is out of the civil rules of the
• •
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 63
court. So it has been hard to determine whether we are deafing with a court problem or
whether we are dealing with an administrative problem. Judge Schroeder when I talked
to him said that the petition was presented to him and he wasn't even really aware of it but
he did sign it. Agair- we have had no response to our motion, we have had not, I wrote
Judge Schroeder and asked him how we should proceed and who we should direct our
questions to and I have not received a response to that letter. I had a discussion
yesterday with Jack Briton and he had not had any response. He has communicated with
John Trailer the Court Administrator and the Court Administrator has sent a letter stating
what he thinks should be required.
Kingsford: I thought that was from Dave Navarro in the court, wasn't it?
Crookston: Part of it was, but the letter itself was from Trailer. The Garden City Attorney
had some discussion with Judge Schoreder's clerk and apparently there is, this is not
official in any means, but apparently there is some order or document circulating amongst
the judges to at least delay it. We have not received it yet, and October 1 is only 11 days
away.
Kingsford: Here is an interesting aside that I picked up over in Sun Valley, sometimes
(inaudible) totally different than what you went to meet on, but according to the Mayor's
political affairs advisor over there Suzanne Burton there is a court room in Boise that has
never been used as a court room that serves only as a store room because they don't have
staff to fill it. Judges or staff to fill it, why are they asking cities to provide a court room to
meet their standards why don't they use that one. I think that is a response back to find
out if that in fact does exist. The whole ploy is they want (inaudible) they don't' want us
to provide a court room they want to come out here.
Crookston: I want to apprise the Council that we have that order, at this juncture we have
not received a response to our motion to delay or withdraw. Come October 1 and we do
not have a court faciiity prepared for a judge to sit there is a possibility.
Kingsford: Under the laws of the state we are going to have to get an architect and put it
out to bid and gosh it could take us a while to get that for them.
Crookston: That is the real problem in what was issued and not knowing whether it is a
judicial order under the rules of civil procedure or whether it is an administrative order
because if it is a judicial order we can be held in contempt. Under contempt we could be
spending time. It is hard for me on just what has been done, it appears as though it is an
administrative order and not a judicial order. But if the court takes the opposite position
contempt is a viable sanction.
~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 64
•
Corrie: Do you think that is even possible that they would do that. Would that be kind of
a stupid move.
Crookston: I would never try to guess what a judge will do.
Kingsford: Anything else Counselor?
Morrow: So what is the issue?
Crookston: The issue is, I mean I just have to present it to you the way I have. We have
received a letter from Trailer that indicates what he desires. If the City wanted to comply
with what Mr. Trailer desires you are looking at a substantial amount of money. He has
told Garden City that their facilities are not capable of handiing and becoming a court
room.
Corrie: He hasn't told us yet.
Crookston: I don't know that he has been out here.
Corrie: I think we still have some leeway.
Crookston: They want a jury room with separate bathroom facilities for men and women.
Kingsford: Anything else Counselor?
Crookston: Nothing
Morrow: My only question is what has gone on with the driving range thing since we fast
talked if anything?
Kingsford: You are talking about the driving range out on Overland.
Crookston: I don't know the status of the development, I have received a development
agreement. Did you discuss that with the attorney for the Playground? He called me
yesterday and I told him that needed to be run through you regarding the development
agreement.
Stiles: I just looked at is this aftemoon and he has taken some stuff out and I really hadn't
had the item to review it. I said I was going to talk to you about it. He is going to be here
at 9:00 in the morning to go over that. The main thing was the bonding, they had a
problem with the security interest in the land covered everything and I said especially in
~~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 65
~
this case I didn't think we could have enough safeguards in the agreement. So f would like
to leave the bonding part of it in. But if you think we are covered with the security interest.
Morrow: What do you mean by security interest?
Stiles: It states in the development agreement that they grant the City of Meridian a
security interest in their property to secure the placement of the improvements that are set
forth in the development agreement. But nothing is recorded.
Morrow: We are better off with Cash Bonds rather than a security interest than anything.
And the general way of doing business in my business and these kinds of deals is with
cash bonds. So why are we not requiring that as opposed to security interest.
Stiles: ! wasn't suggesting that didn't inc{ude in this case particu{arly I think we need to
ensure we have every kind of coverage we can get.
Crookston: We don't normally require bonds.
Morrow: You don't require completion bonds or protection bonds to protect our interest?
Crookston: We haven't
Morrow: That doesn't seem to make good sense to me that (inaudible)
Kingsford: Depends on what it is
Stiles: In this case we probably want to do it for tiling, for the landscaping, for the paving.
Morrow: All the capital improvements
Stiles: Yes
Morrow: Generally speaking those bonds can be anywhere from 100 to 150% of the
value. At least anything that I have been involved with for example in the City of Boise if
you are going to occ~py prematurely and even have a temporary occupancy (inaudible)
which doesn't exist as I understand here, you have to bond for the improvements and that
bond can be 150% of the value of those improvements up to 150%. So, the issue is that
you are operating legally and you are operating with a temporary occupancy and you are
bonding until you completed those things and it is signed by the City of Boise or Ada
County or whoever it might be. So I think we are really at risk here because quite frank{y
from his position is that he gets halfway through the project, he is already upside down,
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 66
that is why we are in this mess. He gets halfway through the project and decides he can't
make it any further his bank pulls his line of credit he walks away from the project. Our
security interest means that we get to finish this and pay all these expenses to the tune
of a couple $100,000 and then no way to recapture them. That doesn't make sense to me
that we put ourselves in that position.
Stiles: These devetopment agreements they have been being approved, I don't know if
we have any recorded yet. But the bonding is that something that is typically in place prior
to them recording the development agreement?
Crookston: It should be if we are going to require the bonds yes. The City has never
required bonding for the sewer, the water things like that.
Stiles: Those things you know are going to be done pretty much if they want to sell their
lots.
Crookston: There are no occupancy or building permits until it is done.
Morrow: They are already occupying it and they are already open for business in this
particular case.
Crookston: The last time I was out there they did have the driving range open and there
was a user on it when they were out there.
Stiles: I have seen several cars parked out there. They don't have a parking lot they are
parking in the dirt.
Corrie: They are supposed to do the blacktopping in the next 2 months it is all supposed
to be done at the same time.
Morrow: t think guys my position here is that this deal out here is far enough out of hand
that we are going to end up upside down here and my biggest concern is that if we take
a security interest in it I think this deal is real border line and our security interest very well
may be as we get it. I don' t know what the strength of the man's determination is but once
he gets any further into trouble than he already is. But if he makes the judgement call to
bail than we got it.
Corrie: How do we know he is in trouble? That is an assumption.
Kingsford: Let's take the worst case scenario and he does (inaudible).
~ ,
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 67
Morrow: How are you going to pay the outstanding contractors, let's assume he bails and
he has $100,000 worth of liabilities and you have a proprietary interest in the property.
Kingsford: Well, do we really, what is our liability responsibility?
Morrow: I am asking I don't know.
Kingsford: If he doesn't build it than it doesn't go are we out anything? Whoever picks it
up is going to have to come along and do the water and sewer and those things.
Crookston: We may certainly have an obligation on the water and sewer because there
are going to be users. East property to the east of him that need that water and sewer,
that is where the sewer is going to come from for St. Lukes.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Kingsford: But in any event the only thing that happens then it is not that stage further
whoever wants to develop it on up has to take it past the property if they want to develop.
I don't think we have any problem with it really.
Smith: As long as they get the water installed in accordance with our standards and we
accept that than they have fulfilled their obligations to the City as far as the public portion
of the project is concerned. What happens on their property doesn't, I don't know legally
how that affects the City of Meridian, but if they don't complete it what their creditors can
do as far as the City of Meridian is concerned.
Morrow: The thing of it is, let's take the thing a step further than you have the
development agreement and you have a proprietary interest in the project. And let's
assume that they don't for whatever they don't complete the development agreement but
they have completed a portion of it. Let's assume not doing the asphalt and a couple of
other things and then at some point in time we end up back with it and we take a
proprietary interest instead of a bond. We got it back and we got the obligation to pay
those expenses for those improvements that have been put off on that property is that
correct?
Crookston: No, we are just the secured party.
Morrow: So then the stuff goes through and if we had a bond to complete than all we do
is see that it is completed?
Crookston: If that is the City's desire. I just think we are better off with bonds than
,~
Meridian City Councii
September 20, 1994
Page 68
proprietary interest.
i
Kingsford: Well, let's shoot to work that in then. Anything else Walter?
Morrow: No
Kingsford: Max
Yerrir~gton: Yes, last night down at the City Park the City employees did well. Our score
was 9 to 3 a hard fought battle all the way.
Kingsford: The Mayor risked life and limb and was wounded.
Yerrington: That is right the Mayor fell and I thought we were going to have to call 911.
We had a few department, namely one of them was the police department, we had a few
of them that didn't participate and I just want to say they missed a he11 of a nice evening
and a hell of a victory. I hope they look at the trophesy and wish they had been a part of
it but maybe next year.
Crookston: I was wondering when you swore in the 2 new officers if that was going to be
a requirement of their job that they had to play in the whiffle ball game.
Kingsford: I am still trying to evaluate whether it was that Geisier wasn't here coaching
us is why we did better or why it was the license department and police department didn't
show up. So I am going to evaluate that a long term goal and see which it is we need not
to do, but it was a lot of fun.
Kingsford: Thank you Max, you were an excellent official. Bob
Corrie: Just one thing, the Ada Planning Association gave me a notice here that in
Congress right now a telecommunications bill which prohibits local governments from
collecting franchise fees from cable companies. If that goes through that is going to take
care of a lot of franchise fees for the city.
Kingsford: That is if it is a utility like the phone company.
Corrie: Right, but it says also that the bill also prohibits local governments from collecting
franchise fees from cable companies who use their lines to provide phone service. So
they are trying to do that here. I witt give each one of one of these. Look at if you want
to notify your senator or we can do it as a body it doesn't make a difference. I think we
might take a look at that. I don't know how much we get from the impact fees. Do we get
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 69
much?
Kingsford: The cable franchise is in excess, well right at $20,000 this year.
Corrie: Well, it might be worth something to look at. I will get it in your box and you can
look at it and we will (inaudible).
Morrow: And the cabte franchise fees would be subject to that?
Kingsford: As I looked at that I think here what they are talking about most of the phone
companies around the country are trying to get into the cable distribution system because
they have phone lines in everyone's house. Here TCI, that is not the case, I think you mis-
read that Bob. They do use their lines and pay them a pole fee but I don't think that would
mitigate our fee. iN fact 1 visited with Wayne Mossman up in Sun Valley and suggested
to him, we have been talking about moving our from 3 to 5% and he is very interested in
doing that as they did with Nampa. I think what it amounts to is there is a real entrance
into that market from phone companies. That is what this speaks to I believe.
Crookston: We don't get money for franchise fees from the phone companies.
Kingsford: There is an effort now that there is a deregulation of cable television that the
phone system they anticipate are going to get into that business.
Corrie: Well, I will put in your box and see what you want to do. That is all I have.
Kingsford: Ronald
Tolsma: Nothing
Kingsford: Mr. Clerk?
Berg: No
Corrie: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to adjourn, a11 those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 20, 1994
Page 70
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:12 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
~
MA OR - GRANT KINGS OR
ATTEST:
,/~~~`~',~' .
WiLLIAM G. BERG, JR., { CLERK
~ .
ORD I NANCE NO . ,~Q~_
.~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE
SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of
said City to annex to the said City real property which is
described in Section 1 below:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
Section 1. That the real property described as:
A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of
Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described
as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of Section 31, T.4N.,
R.lE., B.M., Idaho, thence S 89°58'42" W 1,324.63 feet to
the east 1/16 corner for Sections 31 and 6, the Real
Point of Beginning of this description;
Thence N 0°22'35" E 714.94 feet to a point;
Thence S 89°58'42" W 365.99 feet to a point;
Thence S 0°00'00" W 714.93 feet to a point on the south
line of said Section 31;
Thence along said south line N 89°58'42" E 361.29 feet to
the Real Point of Beginning of this description.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned R-3
Residential; 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.
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - BOND CAMPBELL/THE HOLLOWS Page 1
i •
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-
annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements:
a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and
sewer mains will serve the land.
b. That the development of the property shall be subject to
and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted
January 4, 1994.
c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be required to enter into a development agreement as
authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2,
K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
of Meridian and other matters.
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.
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 September,
1994.
ANNE7CATION ORDINANCE - BOND CAMPBELL/THE HOLLOWS Page 2
~ .
APPROVED:
~
MAYOR -- GRANT P. KINGS ORD
ATTEST : ,. •.~~~''~~;~ .
!°'~~ ~ ~ ~+ s _ ~ , •,
~ax '~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~rx`v~
~ ~ .~7~'~z t-1> ~-,t'.
~ i V y "°~ ;}, ~~P .
.J t
9 . { ~, \+t tOV,Zi~ ~~,~J~~d'~
,~,~~ ~.~~ ~ ~ ~ f ~~~ ~~~:
,} ~;. ~t,u ;~; c ';3
~:, .:. ,
```^ r.) l F .-~ {.}
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. -- CITY CLERK ~~ ~~r ;~,~_ ~~: ~l„~ w„ t~;hr ~
a~.~_ ` t;... `~i a
' ~ r'.. s^} ~~ . '{
< ~. . ~, -~ ^r.
~Y e~ ~'j`%~ ~~I F
~~ '~+~y.,;,.,;;rb.r~ t ~~, ~ 1`1
STATE OF IDAHO, ) ~'~~ ` ~ ~ +f M~I
., *
~ .S .S • ~yd 1I y ~ Y ~ ' y'~ * `#F~,~v/~r
~ :F
County of Ada, ) ~~~ w~, ~-•f~
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 THE SW
1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. ~ 7/ , by the City Council and
Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the 2t~ ~~ day of September,
1994, as the same appears in my office.
DATED this L~d ~` day of September, 1994.
~~:~~i~~~ i
City Clerk, City f eridian
Ada County, Idaho
ANNE7CATION ORDINANCE - BOND CAMPBELL/THE HOLLOWS Page 3
• •
STATE OF IDAHO,)
. ss.
County of Ada, )
Sept.
On this o~Qfh day of-~x3e; 1994, 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.
ary Public for ~da
iding at Meridian,
Commission Expires
Idaho
0~/QID/99
C;~.,,~., -, -;;-
.. . t ;., `: __~ , { ~i`
~~
~~'uC-/ 't ~d.lQ/1~
, r „ , , ,_
~I .i~i; ~t .
,
Ii~i ~~ ,J.:~
e
~~
}_ ;J _~_. .,
t"~CG~., _.. - .
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - BOND CAMPBELL/THE HOLLOWS Page 4
~
_-
- ------
f?~~------ _bRN~---
g
Z\ ' D
~
~ ' (~ I
p ,
~~ ~
~ N
~; rn
~ ;; N
~~
~
~
~ _
I j ? P
I ~
1 ~ • ~
I
~ ~
N m
D
N
~'oo" W.'It4.9aS
o1f~1-J~.u~lv1 ~ ~
"'('!4E N~oWS ~i
~
N.~`2Z'~' E 7~4.`f4~
~
,
rs
~~
~
.
~s~ ~t4aVE l~ob.
~
,:
i • RlGINAL.
0
BEFORE TAE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF GOLDSMITH CHARTER
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605 M TILING OF DITCHES
FINDINGS OF' FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on September 6, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock
p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appearing through Mike Shrewsberry
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 September 6, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the September 6, 1994, 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 DITCAES, requires
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 has requested that he be granted a
variance from the above ditch piping requirements and be allowed
not to pipe the Eight Mile Lateral; that the Eight Mile Lateral
would require tile of greater than 48 inches; that Mr. Shrewsberry
stated the Applicant would do what Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District wanted as far as fencing; that he imagined that there
would be a home owners association to take care of the canal; and
that there would be a maintenance agreement with Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District.
5. That in a prior application for the Applicant for the
same variance the City Council recommended that a chain link or rod
iron fence would be more acceptable than a wood fence; typically
over a period of years, cedar fencing wouldn't provide a good
safety net; 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.
6. That the Applicant, Mr. Goldsmith, in the prior
Application was in agreement with changing the material of fencing.
7. The entire property in question is described in the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2
i •
variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
8. That the property in the area where the variance is
requested is zoned R-4 Low Density Residential District.
9. That the Application states that Goldsmith Charter is the
owner of the property but from some of the Application documents it
appears that the Applicant does not own the property, but the
prospective buyer is Stephen L. Renberg. The owners of the
property are shown to be DeWayne Bailey and Millie Bailey.
10. That no other testimony was heard at the hearing.
11. That the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District,
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District or the Central District Health
Department may submit comments and they shall be incorporated
herein if submitted.
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
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3
CJ
judicial notice.
n
U
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 provisions of Section 11-9-605 M,
PIPING OF DITCHES, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance are
noted which are pertinent to the Application:
"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
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 considering changing the
Ordinance regarding the piping of large ditches; that the Ordinance
may be changed.
7. 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
Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4
~ ~
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
or objectives of this Ordinance.
c. That the granting of the specified variance will be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the
Idaho code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying
the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
8. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit,
economic gain or convenience to the Applicant if this variance is
granted; however, to require tiling of the ditch would cause
extreme hardship to Applicant, and the Council is considering
amending the ditch tiling ordinance so that ditches of this size
would not be required to be tiled; the City has previously granted
variances where the size of the tile would be greater than 48
inches.
9. That the requirement of tiling ditches is a health and
safety requirement; that by reason of the size of this di.tch, it
appears that to require tiling of this ditch would not achieve the
safety purpose for which tiling is required in the Ordinance.
10. That the irrigation district affected has not demanded
that this ditch be tiled in one other subdivision.
11. 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 - Page 5
• !
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.
c. That the granting of a variance would not 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 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.
12. That it is concluded that the Application for a variance
from 11-9-605 M, PIPING OF DITCHES, should be granted.
13. That since the piping of the ditch is not going to be
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 must fence the ditch with either chain
link or rod iron and provide gates which will be locked according
to the standards of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District.
14. That the Applicant shall, before the variance is granted,
supply proof that it is the owner of the property or that the owner
consents to the variance.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopts
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6
~ !
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
DECISION
That it is decided the Application for a variance from
11-9-605 M is granted under the conditions stated herein; that the
ditch shall be fenced with either chain link or rod iron on both
sides on the right-of-way; that before this variance takes effect
the Applicant shall supply proof that it is the owner of the
property or that the owner consents to the variance.
APPROVED•
7`
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7
~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
•
TUESDAY, SEPTE~IABER 20, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SWEAR IN TWO NEW POLICE OFFICERS: T~"",y TP~O'~'
/~ir~y vo/%ev
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994: a,~PrL~~~
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 1994: a~op~~~~
CLAIRE BOWMAN: APA -"UPDATE ON DRAINAGE BILL LEGISLATION":
2. TABLED: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5, REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY INTERWEST
DEVELOPMENT: ~~~y ~f~~~ ~ r''~~°G"~- ~
3. TABLED: FINAL PLAT - THE LANDING NO. 8, 48 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE
CORPORATION: ~jpP~v-e. ,Am~~"~-. ~~~ ~~~~~~
4. TABLED: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
ON TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: ~u.~x t~ ~ f~-~~
5. TABLED: FINAL PLAT: TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1, 73 LOTS WITH
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY STEELE AND SON: a,r~/~~v'~-
6. TABLED: SCOTT SWANBY: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY TRAILER AT 1901
E. LANARK: ii.e~CCa.ea t- t~, b-e-- ~i.f~.. UGl-a.ur~
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF 1~4W FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR FAWCETT MEADOWS NO. 2 BY RONALD HENRY:
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRAMBLE WOOD
SUBDIVISION BY HARDEE CONSTRUCTION:
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCtUSiONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION:
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR RONALD VAN Ai1KER:
11. ORDINANCE #674 - AMENDED FIRE pRD1NANCE: a~,o~o~ed°
•
•
12. FINAL PLAT - CANNA LILY ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 14 LOTS BY FLOYD
AND VICTORIA MADSEN: ~pPrm~~ ~-~~- ~~'` ~"~'~'~""s
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION
NO. 1 AND 2 BY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP:
L~c~y ~c~~~ ~ ~-p~-~ ~~ ~ ~ c /G
14. DON FiSHER: ISSUES CONCERNING MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
CITY OF MERIDIAN: ~~p~z~.u- ~- c"-~ o~C- e~a:z,e.~, aw~.~-e-~-a---Q-'
~,.~. 9~T~-~f c~i~~p`7~.~-~ - ~LDw-,~ f-.L.C.~~,,-t. ~ ~+~C~ Q-G~~
15. HARTFORD SUBDIVISION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
ltX~.~- a fU ~i~n-..~G~c> --- G~c,~-~^,a.e- L~v~r.l'",lv~~1'`'°''r' ,t~e~
16. ORDINANCE #6~0 HARTFORD ANNEXATION AND ZONING: ~~p~~~
17. HARTFORD SUBDIVISION: PRELIMINARY PLAT:
18. THE HOLLOWS: DEVELOPMNET AGREEMENT:
19. ORD{NANCE #671 - THE HOLLOWS ANNEXATION:
20. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR TURTLE CREEK
SUBDIVISION:
21. TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
22. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR FAWCETTS
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION NO. 1:
23. FIRELIGHT ESTATES SUBDIVISION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
24. WAYNE CROOKSTON: ATTORNEY FEES:
25. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER
1. BtD RESULTS - BROADWAY PARKING LOT:
~t~' L U 1~~~
~ • CIT~ f~~= a~~:r~j~~~i~~~
CIl'Y OF ~llE#~I~tl~N
HllB OF TRE~S~1~E V~~~~ d~
33 EAST lC~AHO PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NlER~DIAN, IDAHO ~3642
NAME: PHONE NUMBER-
- C~e r~~~ ~~ ~ Z7~~
, ci'' .
-~~-!--- -- --_~~= ~ _ --------------------------- ~~~ --= ---3 J ~-1------------------
. ~~ ^ .
. ,
/~~lFa s~.~ ;~~~-t~- -~,r/~ ~7~ 7ov ~
.
~~ ~ ~~
SEP 2 0 1~~t~
~~ r ~ ~~ ~~~.~ ~ i ~ . • C~,~:.Y ~~' ~~i~~i~~~eiV
~~1~~~~
F~l~~ ~~ T~~~~~~~ a.~~.~..~~~: `E`
~3 E~S~' ~~~~~
~IE~SDIA~I, IDAF~Q ~36~2 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME:
PHONE NUMBER:
'~L Y1 avJ n t~- ~at.. ~ ~ e ~/~Tt~ CY ~ 7- 6// d
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ ~~Or~ Gc
-/
i - '
. ~ • : ~ : ^ .
~ ~ n ~o ~~ •
:
~ • ~ i . ~ . . .
~ • ~ ~ s a r
~ • • • IC7 t~ ~~I
• f ~ •' . ~ ~^
` ~ •
i ~ , y
3 a ~
i ` ~ a • •/\~• ~ ~ •
~ ~s wQ /
i r--rr ~ .
n
~
~
~
~
o~~~a
^
.
r
~ • -
~ • ~•
Y ,
~
t
. _
. .
~ ,a...r.
~
t
~
~
ITT- ' 1
~- , ,
,.
~
...~ .
= _ • .
~
.
: ,
~
_ . •
~~
~ ~
.
~ ~
~
~
~
~ ~
0~T
N
=m
W~
x~
OZ
'~ m
~v
~
~~
~Z
~
m
n~
~
m~
x
O
Z
~
~
~ t t
~~
~
M
~
i
~
n
~
:
~
:
~
. ` . - e
~ . z
~ - .
: , ~i • 4 $ ~
i f *` ~
~ ~ • ' /~• ~~s.~ R ~ m
C I ~ ~ t ~ ~~ +
, ~ ~
N
. ~ ~. • ~ ~ ~ ~
. ;
•'~- '~'.~ ~
~
~
~ ~
mr
~ m
~ n
D ~
Z t'T1
V ~
.~ ~
0
D ~t7
O ~
S
~
~
J A,W
R,E
I I ~ (~ I
H V1 i ~lN ~. ~
' w W N N
° ~
b R Iv ~ ~
Q ~-+ O
'
~ ! W
~ ~ W
~ ~;
~
,`p o 0
- 0 ~
,~ p = o
W o , ~s .
- ...~
~ ~
~ n
~
a
a
~
~
~
~
~
~
=
~
C
~
~ w
~o
~ -
~
~ °
r
cn Z3s ~
S a
= ~
~ F
~ ~ _`~j- ~
,~', ~ Q o
- o
'~ 0 3
n fS+ ~ b
~ ~
~ H
S ~ ]t ~
o >
t W
v
`'
~
s
~
'
.
~
~
s ~
~ ~ .~
~ n
~
~ ~ Q
F
~,,
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ y,
S ~
~ Q
~ n~
~
~
a
- ~
'.
~ o
~ o Y
~` '~° ~ z
a ~ ~
~ ~ ~
a ~ ~ a ~ ~
~. , a ~ ~ ~ ~
'1 ~ ~ Z
~ ~ ~
~ a g
a ~'
' ~ 1
.~
~, ~ ~ c~
~ S ? .,a ~ ~ ~
i1 S>
r
`
~ ,~ ~
~ ~ s v
O
~ ,~ S ~i a
_. ~.
~ ~ .1.
~ ~. ~ a ~
3 '
~ ~ T +
~ -
e a
S. .~
~ ~ ~
~
a ~ s~
° s
-~ ~
h ~ s. y . :~ °
c~ ~O ~ ty ~ ^ ~
~o
~
A ~
~ ~
~
L~
~'
Q ~
.
.. ~
~t ,
'~` ~
~
r
.
w
Ct~
~
N
~
~
~
o
~
v
'a
o
~1
~
o
w
~''
,~
~
N
~ ,
' ~
~
'
1`
~
Z
~ ~~ ~ o h t~
~ ~ N e.
~c ~ -~ N `•.,
-c ~-
~ `'
`~ ~
'^
x o
'^
-c. w
~ ~ .s a a .
i
cr~
w
o
~~'
o
~
N
_
w
•3
t~t
~
~
o
~ cN..
~
~ti
~.i
lcl N
~~}
w
°
~
~
~o
~
o~
oN
~
u~j
N
o p
°~ N
~c
~
~
w.Z-j ,A'~
~-V]
~i
~ ~ ~ ° h ! ~ ,~
` C C J ~ t~i~ ~ N GJi t~i~ p~ ~ ~ .~p N I~.Z ~ cWtl ~ ~ N a0 t~t $ ~1 m p N
~ ~
~
~
I~ N O
' b
' (Nj{ O
~~ O
,~ Cf~ J
~ ~ tJ~
1
~ ~
1 „p
•i -~i
• C
~ O
• ~
' p
' ~
~
$ ~ Z
-1 uI
~i 1 ! 1 I ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ j 1 ~
~ O
~~ ~
7= ~,i,
~ t~Nt
° -~ p~p
~1 ~j C11
`~
~ N
I~ N
~ W W
°p w
~'~' W
~h •'p
~ ~
c~: W
c~ s
t~ ~
~~ ~_
w,~ '61~
~
~
~ ,~ .
n
' o $ Q ,
j I ~ l~ c
i• ~ ' e
C (
~ ~
O ~
~ ~*
~R t~a
a ~
~ -C
O w
N N
O ~
~ H
a c~.C*
i~ ~o
~ c
oZp ~
~ N
;P ~
6~ ~
~ `.L~'1
lS~ . a
~ w
; ~I ~
(~ N ^ o
O C ~
~
6~ ~'
\ ~
a` ~ ~ I~ ~ 0
~ l -
O
'~ '~ ~o '~ ~ ~ ° e ~ ~ N v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .'
°~ ~ I
W
~ I
e~ I (o -P ~ ~U
j I
~ l
~
~ ~
a~
oei ~
N
O
C1~
N
~ N
~
6'
•~~
~
~ 1
m
`
N
•~~
~
w S
~
~ w
V
~' ~`'
,~~ 7~=
A'~ '~4
~
~
+~ o
•~ ' ~ '' 9 ~ '' '~ g v I ' '' 4
c C C ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ N ~
O ~O
~ ~ ~ ~ (V~1 ~ a N (.1
{~ ~
o l ~ W C V1
O N J ~G
~ .Q
\ \ \
b'~
(°
~ O
~~
~l
~ N
'~ 0
.~ C
~1 O
~~ H
•1 ~
•~ ~
.~ ^
i~ Q`
h ;~
~~- Oo
~~ O Q ~ ~ ~ N
~
~c
-z
w'+
s
•;
_o
oc
-
z
~
~c
w~
s'
s;
_o
vc
z
~
~$ c
w'+
s
m;
_o
v=
~
~c
-z
w=~
>
^;
_o
~~
~ ~
.~ 7C
~
~
~
~
G.1 ~ n
~ ~
V'o ~
~ Xl'`C
2 O
L1D~1
~
~~ s ~
~ ~~~
~o
~
~ y
s
e,oo
ERS
yq t~~q,r,!
v,,,
rhe ~Q'`a • '
h~
~h
tiA, ~ .
~~°°~ ~`~
.2'~a ~ drl
C O
~,~~~,~J
dg~
'~ve/ `rGh~7' ¢`
/!, ~~ i
{ ~~, ~ ~C~
~pqJ
` :~4~
'~~~
.
i~ t ~ y
~ ~ ~~ ~~ .
~
i ' (~ .
d
r `
4~ ~
,~
•
~
~ ~h
~ ~ ~
r ~
. ~ ~ : -~ .
~ • I
.`~.. .~. . ,rF
* ~ ~Sh
~• t
.. ~.
.~;,
'~ ~ ' .
'~ - Q
N ~. -+~ ~~.,s "1
. ' y
. ~ /
• ~' ~
'~,~.
~)
~ ~°'-N=
, ~ ~,
t
~;
~ A~..
'~
~
~v~
~~
/
{ r
S
• ~t
a ~
~ r
~,
i ~
~
.~ ~
! ~`"`~
I ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~~
~ ~
~~
+tx~, .~
E ~
( ~
`, ~
~ •,
i
1
1~ r
r _ _
~ ~
i
-
~~ T
. ; . ~' J I
~\ `: ~
. ~ '~~
• • i' ~ •
• • }r
' . . '
, . ~ .Y, - ~ x, , I
r~
1 ~~~i f
,y -, ~r-. - ~
~ , ,t ,~. , ' f~ ;.F~
~,, "„r ~'- M ,
^' 4' ~ ~
~'~~;': - ' ~
i. ~
-`~'• . • i
h, r
y .
~. ~`~ `w
~~
~ . _ ~,~-
~ ~ ~~ :~_ ~,
~. ~_ _ ~
'~~~~`'~„y ~ _' ~ '~ ~.
' . ~~ i
' 1~
-, !7 i v
~~
ti ~
~ ~- ~
~•.
ti~
k3 P
.f ~ ,
. . F ' 1' ~
~
' ~
2=
, , rw .. ' .
~' `~_y. -_:~,
r_._ R
.r ~ c
~.
`~ .~ ~ • ,
~t:~ , ,
~~,~i.. . ~ . ~
:~
~ ' . 1, 1~
I, ~
. ~ \. .
~ • ~
~ ' 1
J •.
,~ ' I.
~
. .t~ , . 1 ~~~~ ~~ f'y .• ~
~ ~ - ~1/!~i:
. t r . . ~:'
1 ~ .'~
, .1 .~Y ~+~;-~. ~~ ;-` r~
• ! y~,
. . ~ •.. ~aT-~~~.
'~ ~«. .;~= • _ i'L • .
;±. '~~0~0~'.
.~:am'~~w
' ~ ~7' ~~`n~w~~
• ~ \';a~)~qAw~~yC'~~5.~[~
_ ~y
; ~~ ~t: ~.:~~~.,c'~LZi,1 i
~~
':.a .~., y ..:•
~ ~~ ~Y~ ~. tR,~
~ ,. ~ ~%a~~'~~~
, ' ,_, ~~y~ ~j,~~. ::~
, ' ' , ~,wiP!"~'' y.>","~R"p+~„~°•"i
,, ~Q ~ ~~r' 't r.
• ''~y ~.
' :~
~t `r _ ~ .
,• I
<s ~,~ ~t .y~ ~-~
~~' „ /
. i~ . ' ~a ~ =j~
~i ~
~/: :~~; i
a +
,:~t •',.-„~'~,~
~ . f 4 K _ N ~~~
~~.
nL ~ S' t ~:.~.
•. ~
1~S . '1w~ ~~ . ~ ~~ ~t'i~~5.~ ~~r
/ ~
~' ~ '
, + ~~1- ~~;
."
• : ~
~,;..
~ ~
~~
~
. -r ~
i ~~
y.~~~~
~ '
~ 1'1
- I~/
. 1 ~ i,
~~. + -!.
L '~ r
i~, .~ ~~~ ! ' r~:.:-!.. . ~t.
1
c.
7
~
t i~~~'~ ~ S~ ,
~~~~ ~ s;~.
I~S
;{~ ~.~k
.~
~
a ~i
,
' ~
L .
V
~ t
~ 5 ~~.
~
~
~
d ~ i1 ~.
~ ~~p, ~
~ ,
~
~ ~
~
~ ~.~,
~ .; T t
. i
~
~
~ ~ x
~ ,
~~
'
^
`
•~ `~ .
\ . .. l
Y-
~ ~ a..
~ ~ ~ ~iiy
. ~
~
^ y i:.
}~~•
+
,
~
T
.
4 i'~
i
+
~~.•
' ~
1
'#'
',~ 1~{~
~~
:
~ ~
. .
t , ~
`
y.
\ • ;1~1 ~
~
; ~', ,. ~ 1~~~~ :
~,
~
~
~
~ ~
,~ h ~~~
~
` ~
~ ~
~{~~
. . ti ~`
~ ~
ti
~L
+
+
1~~,'~,
~ ~ ~
~ r 7 t ~ ~ ~
~~
` y.
~~•
,
~ ''~i'~"~c ~~ *~s.
~y~ t
~WH ~ ~.
~
F'.~S S. ~. a~! '~ ~~~x • '-
.~~ ~~z~^, ~ + uI ~
~ ~ •3 Y i ~ R t~~1j~i
~ ~ T..I~ ~~~I
, ~ ~.'.~~ ..~.
y F . .~~
• ~N ` ~
' ~
~
~ :I' J ,
.,r t ~ ~„~! . ; ~
.i '~ ~~ ` ~ ~ ,~
~.` .. .... .
.; . . . ~~,7"
' ',`. ' ., . ~y~
~t ~~ ~ G','
, + /~~ ~ d• ~ ~~"{3,~
t ~ ~'
~ ~ ? ~ YI
;~ ~ ~ . ,` ~, .t~
~! ,. ~'~' .V ~.
1 !~ ' F.~
~'
f~~ rr, ;
~, f
', ~
~~• v 4
x~kJ~.
~ ~`~~J ~..-~
~.
.~
7
~
1
' ~
~ ~
~
. ~
~
1 '~.
1 ~
~
t'.
4 *~
. "f Y _
[
~
~
0.
' ~
t
` ~
`
~`. . ~ .
i
~' j
~
^
~~ ~ ~
~
.. . ~fi
~ i
,~'~~G
~ ~.
2~ _
~
' {'
.
E .
' ~ ~F M'~~'
. ~4
1 ,
: ~ f ^.:.
.
~.e~
.. t i'~ .. ~eR~
f
.
~ R~ .
~`* y
,
~ ~ ~ ~ p~~4 ~ Ss
h'~ ~
'~u~
~f°y~.^! 4 ~~ ~~
~. \
~ J
'~3' ~~~~
~
r'~~
~ ~\ .
{ ` ~ . ~ ;
w;'•
•\ ~~'
, ~i
~3 }~,t ~."~ r
:, "`r• ~
`
i
~ ~.
~~ ~
~~.
~
• ...
~ ,
' #
~
-
'.
"
. ~.y
.
~
~
F$~5:4 j Y~
~ b`I 3~ . ~ ~~ ~~.
"
~
~'
~
~
~:
f Ys
.
~ F ~
~~ .f
Y.. ~.+
` ~
~
~ ~~~ ~~~`
~.
.
$
S
'
1
~
"'
, 1 Y .
q`~" "
~'` t ~ ~f.~ _ 3 r
~
~' ~
~ -;w Z
~ , ~~~x ~,
,c~ „, ,
a.t~~' ~
~
~
y-. 7p~kd-y~
,~~ `
.:
<f~,. ~ _ 1~SSa f` •~TRu
'
~
~
.~ S
V
~
t' ~ A ~ ~^
~
i L~s
}
~~_~ ~ ~
.
f
~
~
~
k ~j ,il
~k
k'\~ f+(~'C
~u
~
'
~
;M'~S (
"y+;~I
S
:- ~ ~
~d~
~
,
{
~~~!~~ ~
Y
- ~~{..~ . ~ ~..~i.
.
G.!= »q ` r}
!
~" ~p1~ II
"
'
a
~
'~ t
= r
~
~
~~~
~. ?
"r~~ t
; <
:
~
4~ F~`
;.~
} fi L
~`
f ~' ~;;._ ~a
~
*
Y
p
4:'Y
S
~
' f ~f 9
R{i
x
=
T~
.. B . ~ . ~,
, ~~~- . .
' ._..,..,..~
, . .... .
,`~'^-~-^ . .:... :°,,,; ,~ -
-- _,,. . _ _ `__
- _.-~
~ '_ ~~ ~~,~~ - ' , y.
,~~~~;~- ..
r
' '~t~
~
;~ .£
~
ra a k~~ -
~
~ ' a
~~:
+
~
'
5 $
}w 3 s
~ ~'d ~~„IS,~Y "::
+
~'`
* t 5 ~i_#, y~~ h.~~'~
]
~~ r;
~i~r;~` ~ ~
~ ;~
~ ~ r.~~ ~.~~.t F ,
t
. ~ ~~t.
~,
~.a
~
Y~
_~
~ N
~
.
x, a
~.~ ~~
r
~ ~~~'`
.'~.
4 :` .
c
'~.4 y~°'y :'.
v
.
.
~: { ~~:~ u
'
~.~
~
~~ ~ ~
•
! pa
•
k
F
T
..5~{
t
~ ; ~~
~
4
. . . _ .'~4.. '
~
~ ~
~
,~
.~
x ,s~
.3
~ ^
~ ~ ~
~ j
I
~~
~' _ _ _ _
~~ .
~ ~ ~•
. •"
~.
~ f :\c,
. R ~~ ,~`r. ;
.
'C
~ ~x
~ ~ +'~ ~ ti Y~=
«`
wr.
.. . 4 ,~;
, ;~,.,'
„ ~ r
y
~
}~~
,
~/~
~
r z ~ ~~
~.~:-
:~ ~ , 't'~(,
~ , '
'~
.~ ,
*~ F
. • ~ ~i ~~ ~~~
.
~ i '
~ ~ • ~ f
9
;
!~ 1V ,
,,~
'
'"~~ . ' 1 (. ~
. ,
M~Y
.
.
r
,~ii
t~
~
1
` ~
,
~
,~ ~;.
1`.
4
,
~
~K: z . ~
~
C
~
, (•
~
~;ti,~~,~ i
~
^~~ ;
~ ~ r ~' 4~~
k'+~yt
r
.
.:
~ y
~' `.~. .
°
~ ~ ~~
~ t
:i ~ r~ "~
'
;;~~
~ s
,: ~~.
~
~ ;,~
t
_
, ~
,r .
R
T
~'
~
t,y
,
~ ,.
ik3:.
;j!
x
.?
'
i ~
~ :~"k ' i _
~ ~ +. ~',~~" . .
K.. n. ~
. ~
~~f ~~•~
.,~ ~ ~'~~"~
~
y~
`r.~l•.:.'2r
„
,
,. ,5:: R.9
~i
`
~~
~~*+
v t
~
'
.
~y,~ `
' T ~i
~~. ~
~~,'~
~
~ ~ ~° ~ ~~
,
T
.
r ~ ~, . ~ ~ Y
~ ~;~';~~
.. ~"
l+
~'
.,,~
~ . ~ ... ~
~• `4
f
i
` :~,~ ~
,
'~ M'~ y~ . ~.~ ..
L b
`~
~
~
'..~.. ...
~ ~,
~~
~1"~,f_
.
,~ ~ .114...F
~
~ ~'~ ,
l
~~ t., y
,
, `x'~~-
r
.
' `r ~
N
C ('~ ~ i
~
r
i~
` ~
r • Y
~~~~
.t
~¢~ ~
,
~
`i~^`:
~
~:. . 1.~ . _ . F' i
~~~~~.
~~ ~ '..~~
~
t~e
~~• ~
~b
~
4
~
~`
. ~/ ~
~: , ,
~
G
7
~ :
~ .
~
~lh
~~~
. ~
.~,7~
~ ~
~~~
P. ~~
r~~~'
• ~ .
~!
~
i
~~ ~ ~..
1
~
~,;~
~. . ` ~~'". r
~"~, ~t+rc ~'~
~+ i ~ ~
`' ~i '
V °~ ~ R-Y`,~~
~~y':~ 4
'~,a-.~-. ~~ ry r
i ~~
'~b ~ .
r k ~
~ t4~i • ~'. F ~
S4
~' ~~"^ ~
.i` ~
~t i
~'~t. ~ 1 M.~,
~~i =7;.~'~i
~' j M Y s, ~ ~
~ ti4
t,
, ~ .~~
' ; ~~~~
~ ~~ .>~
ti1 ~,
~~
. ,-!
~ ~
~, a
~ ~~ ~ ~~.. . . ~
k ~ ".,~~~~
a ~
4M ~ ..~,~ .,~t~<:.
v
~~~~ ~ ~*~
'r } „'~~°~
~5 ~~) ~
~ ~:
~~ ~ ~
~ i ~ ~~~
~ N
ry `; ~..' c
~ .. ¢~~ 1~,": `
~"; ~ ~, ~~,..
} y '~' M ) ~w ':
~ ~;~"~„ #~
,
~.r~ ~
~ #~~~r ~
,M~ ~ .
~# ;,~~' ~~ ,u
~
,# ~ ~ `"~~i, ~ ~ ~
*~. ~
~ ~ ' ~.
- ,._ ~ ~ .i ' .. - ~ ~~ II
. {{ P d
~ ~ M I
' _.: ~' .~+~ 'I
„-
;
+:s
~.`-
~
.
,, ~ t ~ ~^~
~ ,+. ~:` ~~ i ,/: ~ ~ i~
~
~, ~,
#_
g '
a ~~p kt ~^ '
:
~T R ` Y
~. G. ~,~f k
.,
~sv/'' ~~ '~ { ~ y . .
F . ' s
.
1f „~.
T ~ .. ~ .
~..~ .,~ 'P~,L`~`
~ ~ . . . ~
i ~~
~~ ~
~
; '
~~ ~ ' -
:
~
kk~ x
r
' x
i ' ~ ~*
+
` ~A
T '1'k tiy" ~ .
..
~
4..
~~.. ~e ,
. x
.~ k M
~
A
~t..
~~"_t2 iTfx~I'
(iJY.,
kr`~E .
~• :'~~ ixaa 8[nt~ h~A blF':- .-
~
.~
i
~ '
l `
~ `:i
i ~ ~
~ °~
\
~
~
;~;
,
,~;
~~:
;'~ ;
/ ~.
~ ~
~':
; '
'i~
~- ~
~ a R~~ ~ ~
~ '. y ~.~~ A~' • .
~~iV~~~ .~~ ~~YYh ~- .
• R .. . . .. . . ..... . ~ . .
~. ~"~~~ . ~~ ~~ . ~ .
,w:
~ . ,~
~
`
,
~
F~
~ ~
~
~ ~
.. ,
~ ' r'
t ` ~ + a f
t..d ~~
~R.
~°
a
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
,
Y A ~ry~6+~+!'~
~y
. ~+r
~:..
~ `~~
i
~
'.y7i~' ' ,
l
4
..~
~ ~
~w 4
w
+ ~
}i
''
:"Aj. ~
1
r ~.~ ' 3 ~
'' ~ ..~ ~
:~ ! ~''~`t
~ ~ ,~~~ ~~~.
R
~
~ `~
~ # „ 5
~ ~
* y
G i ~
.
U I ~ ,~~
~§~~': :s
~
. Y• l;~~; . ,
~
~
~ ~" '1
~
a.
~ ":~ .C~ . S
t' C
~
~ +
~G'
;
^
~,~
~ ~
e" ~'
,
~
0 .
~
,eM i~
•. ~ ~ M~~
~ .. *~
i -t+
^ ~
1^ t. ~
3` ~ ..+,~`'~ ~ ~ ~ ) ~.
~
•
~ ~ F
~
. v,.i~~
p ~T~ S~ f
'~
~' ~r.
« .;~,
a:~ ~ .
~ .~...' ~~:`~ r !~•: .;a
i~
.
~, ~~ , ~~
. ~ t ,
',
'
~
~ . ~ ~y
..
' L
~
~ ~ ~ a .
4 ~~. F~.~ a~
~~
~ 4 •
-
i~
`
,
~
~
~
« d a
~
~~F~~~`
~
~~•~~~
` / • .~
Y~,6 .
j
!
~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~
• ~~ -~ i
.•
..
•
.
. .., i
~ "~ 1 r
y~~
i~ ~
.~ ~ ~~~~
}
S
~ ~ ~ } . '
~ y}
~ ~+,~E`Y+ X~+ ~,i•
` ~ ~ i.
~dM '" `1 ~y r
f ~
~; :
• r "i
• ~ Y ;
f
"~
~ y
~
~ IR ~i
~ ~~ ~ t
~• ~ n J
.
~
~r ~
.' Y +~ k'
f; f ~ i
~
C
~
~ r ~
~
~
. I~ ~
.. ~
~.A ~~~ ~~
`_
~
~
;..
y
.
• ~
~~ 1
• i ~
y~. .
•~
_.
1
.
w
~ ''~ ~
r ~
.. •
a '"
~ ~ ~ :9 ~r
~.,' '~~_
'~ ~ 1 ~
~ ~
.. ^'_~ ~~ t'
~
, ' ~~
~ e . i
~
w
,
+
+~ ~ ~
,
~ :
A~
f ~,
~.. S
•
t
. ~ '~~'~
• ,
, . x
, ;~." y, .
. ~
,
s ~~ ~
. ~` . , ~"
~ ~
~ ~
"
~
~ ~}~-
~f'f' ~~
~ K
.. ~ f .m~ ~:~
_
}~.
}
. ~ ~ .. 5 ~~.~~
:k. ~ '.
~
~'
~ . ~i.N,.~ ~ I
~~ ~~, ~
~ ~ ~
~
\ ~~
~'
~
-s- ,~,,
~~ _ ~
~
~ ,;. , ~ • ~s
- w: ~ a
~ ~~ ~ ,: .~
~ r!`r~~~f~f~~ ~3
•q
~~ r ~ ' ~ ~Z J' ~•~p~ ~ ~ i
~ i ,~ ~~~~~,m.,~~~r~" ,~ -
,~ ` ,~ ~ ~t ,~. .. ;~ ~~ ~...
. "~ ~e~.' Ki;' , , . ~" . . ~:~" e.~~~"~.. ~;`~..i
a
-.•,3
~ , ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~~
~ , ~ ~ `i. ~~'r~ ~
'
~
;
~~~
~
~
t ~ ~ .F.6t~~
....
~
~ ,
~
;
~.
,- -~~` *..
~~~Y ~ ~~~~~
;
y
s.n~
jNW, ; , ~
ir~*
~ ,,,
~:. ,
.. ~`~~ .fi~;
P
~
~ .
~ '~ / , yR•,~`+~ :b •
? ~,•~'i'~ ~ .I
4
Y ~ ~
~
f
!
~ ~ /
lA .
~
1
~
l
f
I .} A
~a 'F i
~ t'
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ .
~ t ~
~ f ~ ~ ~•-
i
' ~'~... yr - ~- ~ ~. . ~
~~~. ~~ r
:~~:i ,' ~ . - ~ ~/ 1~ ~.
~.
~
:~
~ "'~1~".:
~~,.' ni.:
r~c~e~~~~ ~ /'~ ~ t- .
~ ~- ~~ .~~
BACKGROUND INFORMATION- PROPOSED LEGISLATION
ADA COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT
August 1994
Introduction
No single entity is presently charged with overall drainage responsibility in Ada County: Multiple
agencies and entities attempt to manage selected portions of the drainage system based upon what they
perceive as their statutory responsibility. This has resulted in an inadequate, fragmented, and often
inconsistent handling of drainage issues. Rapid development, a need for coordination on drainage issues,
and new environmental laws aze reasons why something must be done now. A County Wide Drainage
entity for Ada County has been determined to be the best approach to resolving our cunent problems.
Anal~sis
Major issues are now converging that make the need for the formation of a County Wide District a
necessity.
Boise River VJater Quality:
After the completion of Lucky Peak in 1955, the community took a renewed interest in the Boise
River. The river, once used as a dump for sewer, rendering plant effluent, and car bodies, began
to be viewed for recreation and aesthetics. A considerable clean up effort was put forth and the
Greenbelt was started. This transformed the river into an urban amenity and it became a major
amaction for the area, attracting more people and thus development to the area. Unfortunately,
neither new development nor the existing drainage systems in place were designed to address
water quality, and now aze contributing to the degradation of the quality of the water of the Boise
River. Portions of the lower Boise River (Star to the Snake River) have been proposed for listing
as Water Quality Limited by the Department of Environmental Quality. The Clean VJater Act
requires urban/suburban stormwater systems with populations greater than 100,000 to develop
and implement stormwater quality programs and obtain permits from EPA for stormwater
discharges and activities.
2. Development:
Nature provided Ada County with a vaziery of channels and streams that drained the land. When
man first started developing the area for farming, some of the streams and natural drains were
converted or augmented for inigation supply and drainage. Additionally, an intricate system of
waterways were developed that supplied inigation water to farms and cazried away irrigation
waste water and stormwater. The system functioned fairly well and occasional flooding was not
highly detrimental because the majority of the land was farm land. As the rural azeas transitioned
into urban and residential areas, these drainage systems became overloaded.
The rural land was mostly pervious, which allowed a large part of the stormwater to percolate
into the ground and rechazge the groundwater table. Urbanization replaced much of the pervious
areas with impervious surfaces such as rooftops, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks and
roadways. These impervious areas contribute more water to the drainage system than the natural
tenain or farmland.
In addition, urbanization of rural areas very often occurs up to the banks of the natural and
manmade drains. When the drains exceed their capacity, the resuiting flooding may inundate
residential and commercial areas resulting in considerable property damage.
~, .
6-28-94 DRAFT
RS00000
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
_ __
rece~~v~C C'C~' ~if~.
i ~ ~=zo-~~ ~,~'~
LEGI3LATURE OF THE 3TATE OF IDAHO
Fifty-second Legislature second Regular 3easion -- 1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE
BY
BILL NO.
AN ACT
RELATING TO SINGLE COUNPY-WIDE DRAINAGE DISTRICTS; AMENDING TITLE 42, IDAHO CODE,
BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 43, TITLE 42, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE R
SHORT TITLE, TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE INTENT, TO PROVIDE PURPOSES OF COUNTY-
WIDE DRAINAGE DISTRICTS, TO DEFZNE TERMS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE AUTOMATIC
CREATION OF A DISTRICT, TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZATION OF R DISTRICT, TO
PROVIDE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT, TO PROVIDE FOR THE NUMBER OF
DISTRICTS IN A COUNTY, TO PROVIDE FOR DISSOLUTION OF EXISTING DISTRICTS OR
SYSTEMS AND TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND FUNDS, TO PROVIDE FOR
ASSESSMENTS, TO PROVIDE FOR OBJECTIONS TO ASSE3SMENTS, TO PROVIDE FOR
APPEALS, TO PROVIDE FOR USE OF DISTRICT REVENUES, TO PROVIDE APPLICATION TO
I,ANDS OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, TO PROVIDE FOR AN ASSe'.SSMENT ROLL, TO PROVIDE
FOR ASSESSMENTS ENTERED AS TAX LIENS, TO PROVIDE FOR USE OF NATURAL
WATERCOURSES AND PREVIOUSI,Y CONSTRUCTED IRRIGATION WORKS, TO PROVIDE THAT
THE DISTRICT SHAI,L NOT BE OPERATED FOR PROFIT, TO PROVIDE FOR RPPORTIONMENT
OF THE COST OF MAINTENANCE, TO PROVIDE FOR LEVY OF AND LIMITATION ON
A5SESSMENTS, TO PROVIDE FOR AN AD VALOREM TAX LEVY, TO PROVIDE FOR SALE OF
PROPERTY, TO PROVIDE FOR USER FEES, TO PROVIDE FOR ISSUANCE OF BONDS, TO
PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAI, AUDIT, TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCE.*+fENT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR
SEVERABILITY.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
SECTION 1. That Title 42, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended
by the addition thereto of a NEW CHAPTER, to be known and designated as Chapter
43, Title 42, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
CHAPTER 43
SINGLE COUNTY-WIDE DRAINAGE DISTRICTS
42-4301. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be known and cited as the "Single
County-wide Drainage Distzict Act."
92-4302. POLICY OF STATE. It is hereby recognized by the legislature that
the protection of life and property from water run-~ff, seepage or floods,
whether natural or man-made and whether arising from surface water or ground
water, is of great importance to this state; that such adverse consequences can
be caused or aggravated by otherwise beneficial deveiopment; that adequately
maintaining water quality in public waters of the State of Idaho requires a
systematic, coordinated effort among local governments; that it is appropriate
I ~ • •
6-28-94 DRAFT 2
1 to consider multiple uses of public waterways even when planning for the
2 protection of life and property. It is therefore declared to be the policy of
3 the state to provide for the protection of life and property from such water run-
4 off, seepage or floodinq in a manner consistent with the conservation and wise
5 development of both our land and water resources; to maintain adequate water
6 quality; to comply with environmental laws and regulations; to provide
7 appropriately for multiple uses of public waters; and, thereby, to protect and
8 promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of this state.
9 42-4303. PURPOSE OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT. The purpose of a district created
10 pursuant to this chapter will be to provide a single county-wide authority able
11 to exercise powers now exercised by several types of districts in order to
12 provide a coherent system of flood control, drainage, watershed protection and
13 improvement; to balance and provide for multiple uses of drainage waterways; to
14 maintain adequate water quality flows in drainage and flood control waterways for
15 return to the public bodies of water; to comply with environmental laws and
16 regulations, including, but not limited to, the National Pollutant Discharge
17 Elimination System; and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare
18 on a county-wide basis.
19 42-4304. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter:
2p (1) "Board" means the board of co~nissioners of a single county-wide highway
21 district.
22 (2) "Commissioner" means a member of the board of commissioners of a single
23 county-wide highway district.
29 (3) "District" means the single county-wide drainage district created
25 pursuant to this chapter.
26 42-4305. AUTOMATIC CREATION OF DISTRICT. A single county-wide drainage
27 district as set forth in this chapter is hereby created in any county in this
28 state which has implemented a single county-wide highway district pursuant to
29 Chapter 14, Title 40, Idaho Code.
30 42-4306. ORGANIZATION OF DISTRICT. The board shall have responsibility for
31 and control of such district. To advise the board in its conduct of the affairs
32 of the district, a drainage consultation council composed of a representative of
33 each of the incorporated municipalities of population of less than 50,000 located
34 within the district; two representatives of each incorporated municipality of
35 population of 50,000 or more located within the district; and one representative
36 of the board of county commissioners, shall be created. The portion of the
37 annual budget dealing with drainage projects shall be prepared with the advice
38 of and in consultation with the drainage consultation council.
39 42-4307. POWERS AND DUTIES. In addition to its other powers and duties,
40 the board shall have the following powers and duties with respect to the
41 district:
42 (1) To provide for the drainage of lands within the district, for the
43 protection of said lands from water run-off, seepage or floodwater damaqe, to
44 prevent erosion and sediment damage to lands lying within the district and,
45 subject to the limitations of this chapter, to provide that lands within the
46 district comply with appropriate state and/or federal regulations.
47 (2) To employ such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the purposes
48 and objects of the district.
• •
6-28-94 DRAFT 3
t3) To sue and be sued in the name of the board, to make and execute
contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its
power.
(4) To manage and conduct the business and affairs of the district, both
within and without the district.
(5) To prescribe the duties of officers, agents and employees as may be
required.
(6) To exercise the right of eminent domain to cause to be condemned and
appropriated and to make just compensation for both private and public property,
whether real or personal when such property is reasonably necessary for the
construction and maintenance of a system of drainage including, but not limited
to, drains, canals, sluices, bulkheads, water gates, levees, embankments, holding
ponds, pumping plants and water treatment facilities.
(7) To acquire or exchange and to hold by purchase, condemnation or any
other legal means, the right of way and the right to take material for the
construction of all works necessary for the accomplishment of the district's
legal purposes.
(8) To construct or acquire, by purchase, exchange, condemnation or any
other legal means, and to operate, maintain and keep in repair all works
necessary for the accomplishment of the district's legal purposes, whether within
or without the boundaries of the district.
(9) To dike, improve, enlarge, widen, deepen, straighten or remove any
natural obstruction from the whole or any portion of any water course or river.
(10) To provide by contract for the performance and payment of all or any
portion of the work requisite or necessary to accomplish the district's purposes,
or to enter into any contract whereby all or any portion of the cost of such work
shall be paid, assumed or undertaken by such district, and to do all things
requisite or necessary to accomplish the district's purposes. Work for the
drainage of said lands may be performed either entirely or partly within the
limits of the district.
(11) To compel adequate provisions for drainage on land which is to be
improved as a condition of allowing such improvement. All subdivision plats
required to be submitted for acceptance and approval to cities and the county
under the provisions of Chapter 13, Title S0, Idaho Code, or any conditional use
application, design review application, or other similar permit application,
shall be submitted to the district for consideration, acceptance and approval as
to drainaqe.
(12) To enforce, at the discretion of the board, public and private drainage
agreements as though the district is a party thereto, and to compel the execution
of duties arising pursuant to drainage easements, regardless of whether said
easement was created by agreement or by operation of law, as though the district
is in title to either the dominant or servient tenement.
(13) To sell, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose of any property of the
district or any interest in property in furtherance of the purposes and
provisions of this chapter.
(14) To receive income from the sale, lease or disposal of property and to
expend such income in carrying out the purposes and provisions of this chapter.
(15) To require owners of record of real property within the district either
to keep drainages over said property free from obstruction or to provide and
maintain adequate alternative methods of drainage either to replace or supplement
said drainage. The option to keep the drainage free from obstruction or to
provide and maintain adequate alternative methods of drainage shall rest with the
owner of record of said real property.
• •
6-28-94 DRAFT 4
(16) To construct, operate and maintain structural works of improvement for
the prevention of floodwater and sediment damages, and the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of water as provided for in the act of the
congress of the United States known as the watershed protection and flood
prevention act (U.S.C., tit. 16, sections 1001-1008) and acts amendatory thereto.
(17) To take over, administer and maintain pursuant to any agreement or
contract with local authorities, the United States or any of its agencies, or the
state of Idaho or any of its agencies, or any combinations thereof, any flood
control or drainage project within or without the boundaries of the district.
(18~ To accept donations, gifts and contributions in money, se=vices, o=
materials, or otherwise, from the United States or any of its agencies, or the
state of Idaho or any of its agencies or any combinations thereof, and to expend
such moneys, services or materials in carrying on its operations.
(19) To compromise or settle disputes or lawsuits.
(20) To adopt and enforce ordinances, rules and regulations not repugnant
to law for carrying into effect discharging or enforcing all powers and duties
conferred to the district.
(21) To convey rights of way and easements for highways, public roads,
public utilities and for other purposes, over district property, as shall be
determined by the board to be in the best interest of the district.
(22) To create local improvement districts for construction or
reconstruction of drainage facilities. The organization and operation of which
shall be as nearly as practicable as prescribed in Chapter 17, Title 50, Idaho
Code:
(23) To levy assessments and assess user fees and impact fees in furtherance
of the purposes of the district.
(24) To levy ad valorem taxes for the construction, repair or maintenance
of drainage, watershed improvement or flood control facilities.
(25) To construct, operate and maintain structural works of improvement for
the purpose of water quality improvements as may be required by law or determined
by the board to be in the best interests of residents of the district.
(26) To promote and enforce compliance with state and federal urban
stormwater and drainage disposal statutes and regulations.
(27) To gain access to and across private property for drainage or flood
control purposes.
(28) To issue tax anticipation notes or warrants as provided by law.
(29) To exercise all other powers necessary, convenient or incidental to
carrying out the purposes and provisions of this chapter, including those powers
granted in Chapters 28, 29, 31 and 37 of this title.
40 42-4308. ONE DRAINAGE DISTRICT IN COUNTY -- DRAINAGE POWERS OF CITIES IN
41 COUNTY ABOLISHED -- LAWS IN CONFLICT SUPERSEDED. Once existing districts
42 affected by this chapter are either dissolved or surrender drainage functior.s
43 pursuant to section 42-4309, Idaho Code, only one (1) drainage district shall
44 operate within a county. No municipality included within a district shall
45 maintain or supervise any facilities or works related to drainage, flood control,
46 or watershed improvement or protection, or levy any ad valorem taxes for the
47 construction, repair or maintenance of facilities operated pursuant to this
48 chapter. Wherever any provisions of the existing laws of the state of Idaho are
99 in conflict with the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of this chapter
50 shall control and supersede all such laws.
51 42-4309. DISSOLUTION OF EXISTING DISTRICTS OR SYSTEMS -- TRANSFER OF ASSETS
52 AND FUNDS. In any county wherein is created a district, any existing drainage
. ~ • •
6-28-94 DRAFT 5
district created pursuant to chapter 28 or 29, title 42, Idaho Code, any flood
control district created pursuant to chapter 31, title 42, Idaho Code, and any
watershed improvement district created pursuant to chapter 37, title 42, Idaho
Code, shall, if it is located entirely within the district, be dissolved. If any
such district is located in two (2) or more counties, the geographical boundaries
of such district, system or project shall be amended to exclude the area lying
within the district. Any irrigation district created pursuant to the provisions
of title 43, Idaho Code, which exercises drainage district functions within the
district pursuant to chapter 3, title 43, Idaho Code, shall surrender exercise
of non-agricultural drainage functions to the district. Any city or municipality
lying entirely within the district shall surrender exercise of drainage functions
and convey drainage works to the district.
Dissolution of districts and surrender of drainage functions and conveyance
of works by irrigation districts and cities, all as set forth in this section,
shall occur ninety (90) days after the effective date of this chapter. All
districts, systems or projects to be dissolved pursuant to this section shall
convey all assets and transfer all funds used solely for drainage, flood control,
or watershed improvement purposes to the district. The responsibilities of the
district shall commence ninety (90) days after the effective date of this
chapter.
21 42-9310. ASSESSMENTS. The board shall assess or cause to be assessed all
22 of the lands lying within the district. The amount assessed shall be based upon
23 the benefit provided to the tract of land being assessed arising from the
29 construction, operation and maintenance of drainage, flood control and watershed
25 improvement facilities and compliance with state and federal environmental
26 statutes and regulations.
27 Within a reasonable time after creation of the district, the board shall
28 conduct at least one (1) special public meeting to determine the method or
29 methods by which the benefit to tracts of land lying within the district shall
30 be measured. Once the assessment appropriate to every tract of land in the
31 district has been initially determined, regardless of objections that may be
32 filed, the board shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general
33 circulation in the district a notice that all the lands in the district to be
34 assessed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter have been so assessed.
35 42-4311. OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS. The board shall, upon notice published
36 at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in said district, conduct a
37 public hearing to consider objections to assessments. Said objections must be
38 verified by affidavit provided to said board before or at the time of hearing,
39 setting forth the nature of the objection and providing some objective evidence
40 that the objection has a basis in fact. The board shall not hear any objection
41 to assessment not supported by such an affidavit timely provided. Any party in
42 interest to the tract of land being assessed may object to such assessment and
43 provide the necessary affidavit. The affidavit must disclose the nature of the
44 interest in the land claimed by the objecting party.
45 42-4312. APPEALS. Any party in interest to an assessed tract of land
46 aggrieved by the decision of the board relating to an objection to assessment may
4'l appeal to the district court for the county in which the tract of land is
48 located; provided, a party in interest to the same assessed tract of land
49 previously appeared before the board after providing an affidavit as required in
50 section 42-4314, Idaho Code. The appeal shall be taken and perfected in the
51 following manner:
~ •
6-28-94 DRAFT 6
1 (1) The appellant shall cause notice specifying the grounds of appeal to
2 be filed with the court within thirty (30) days after a copy of the final
3 decision of said board shall have been deposited in the mail. The grounds of
4 appeal specified in such notice shall frame the issues for such appeal.
5 (2) Appeals shall be heard and determined by the court without a jury in
6 a trial de novo on the issues raised below. The court may affirm, reverse or
7 modify the order, direct the board to refund any assessments found in such appeal
8 to be erroneously or illegally assessed or collected or may direct the collection
9 of additional assessments in proper cases.
10 (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to suspend the payment of
11 assessments pend.ing any appeal. Payment of assessments while an appeal hereunder
12 is pending shall not operate to waive the right to an appeal.
13
14 42-4313. USE OF DISTRICT REVENUES. Except as otherwise specifically
15 provided in this chapter, district revenues derived from the collection of ad
16 valorem taxes, fees or assessments as provided in this chapte= shall not be used
17 for any purpose other than district purposes_
lg 42-4319. LANDS OF GOVERNMENT RGENCIES. Al1 federal, state, county,
19 municipal, school district, or other lands belonging to other public corporations
20 or political subdivisions of the state or federal government shall be subject to
21 the provisions of this chapter, and such corporations and political subdivisions,
22 by and through the proper authorities, shall be made parties in all proceedings
23 herein affecting said lands.
2q 42-4315. ASSESSMENT ROLL. Upon determination by the board of the assessment
25 proper for each tract of land the board shall, as soon as practicable , prepare
26 or cause to be prepared a transcript which shall contain a list of all lands
27 which are so assessed and shall certify the same to the auditor of the county
28 in which said lands are situated and a statement so certified shall specify the
29 amount of the assessment upon each tract, parcel or governmental subdivision.
30 42-4316. ASSESSMENTS ENTERED AS TAX LIENS. A transcript prepared pursuant
31 to section 42-4319, Idaho Code, duly certified by the board, shall be filed with
32 the auditor of the county who shall immediately enter the same upon the tax rolls
33 of his office, as provided by law for the entry of taxes, against the land of
34 each of the persons named in the list, together with the amounts thereof, and the
35 amount so designated shall be added by the auditor to the general taxes of the
36 person, persons or corporation, according to the transcript, upon the assessment
37 rolls in his office, and collected therewith and the assessments shall be subject
38 to the same interest and penalties in case of delinquency as in case of general
39 taxes and shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as real
40 property taxes and subject to the same right of redemption.
41 42-4317. USE OF NATURAL WATERCOURSES AND PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED WORKS. The
42 whole or any portion of any natural watercourse which drains any district
43 established pursuant to this chapter, or the whole or any portion of any ditch
44 or drainage system already constructed or gartially constructed prior to the
95 passage of this chapter, or which may be constructed subsequent thereto, may be
96 improved and completed as a system under the provisions of this chapter.
47 42-4318. DISTRICT NOT TO BE OPERATED FOR PROFIT. Any drainage district
48 organized under the provisions of this chapter is not to be conducted or operated
•
6-28-94 DRAFT ~
•
1 for profit or with the view of paying dividends, but solely for the benefit and
2 welfare of the residents and property owners of said district.
3 42-4319. APPORTIONN~NT OF COST. The board shall, on or before the third
4 Monday of September of each year, make or cause to be made an estimate of the
5 cost of construction, operation and maintenance of the drainage system
6 constructed pursuant to this chapter. Such estimate shall be made for the
7 succeeding year, and the amount so estimated shall be certified by the board to
8 the auditor of the county in which such district is located, on or before said
9 date, and the amount thereof shall be apportioned to the landowners in the
10 district benefited by said improvement in proportion to the maximum benefit
11 originally assessed, and such amount shall be added to the general taxes of the
12 landowners and collected therewith.
13 42-4320. LEVY OF AND LIMITATION ON ASSESSMENTS. The board may also levy
14 assessments for any expense necessarily incurred by them for construction,
15 maintenance, repair, administration or any extraordinary reasons, and also may
16 add to said assessment sufficient to pay any deficiency occurring the preceding
17 year or any other unpaid warrant indebtedness, if any, or to pay any outstanding
18 warrants.
19 92-4321. AD VALOREM TAX LEVY. The board is empowered to make an ad valorem
20 tax levy as applied to the market value for assessment purposes within the
21 district in an amount not to exceed one-tenth percent (.1$) of market value for
22 construction and maintenance of drainage, flood control, and watershed
23 improvement facilities. Such levy shall be in accordance with and governed by
24 Chapter 8, Title 40, Idaho Code.
25 42-4322. SALE OF PROPERTY -- PROCEDURE. Property, real or personal, of a
26 district may be sold or exchanged by the board whenever the board finds and by
27 resolution declares that the district no longer has use therefor.
28 42-4323. USER FEES. In the event it is or becomes necessary for the
29 district to treat water in order to maintain or improve water quality before
30 discharge into a natural drainage or watercourse, the board may impose user fees
31 or impact fees, directly or indirectly, upon those who discharge the water or use
32 the water for recreational or commercial purposes. Where contami.nants or
33 pollutants prohibited by either federal or state statutes or regulations are
34 introduced into either surface waters or ground waters in the district, the board
35 may impose a fee upon the party or parties introducing said contaminants or
36 pollutants, said fee to cover the cost of either treating the water so
37 contaminated or polluted or to prevent the contaminants or pollutants from being
38 introduced into the waters of the district. Said fee may be imposed either
39 directly or indirectly.
40 42-4324. ISSUANCE OF BONDS. The district is granted authority under Article
41 VIII of the Idaho Constitution to issue bonds in accordance with the terms and
42 procedures of Chapter 11, Title 40, Idaho Code.
43 42-4325. ANNUAL AUDIT. The district shall have an annual audit made of the
44 financial affairs of the district as required in section 67-450B, Idaho Code, by
45 the first day of December following the close of the fiscal year.
` !
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
6-28-94 DRAFT 8
42-4326. ENFORCEMENT.
(1) The Board may implement the purposes of this chapter by the adoption
of regulations and ordinances. The Board may provide that any person determined
to have violated any such regulation or ordinance shall be liable for a civil
penalty not to exceed the amounts specified in ~ 39-108(5), Idaho Code.
(2) The Board may request the adoption of criminal ordinances by the
county in which the district is located and by the cities located within the
district, and the county and cities are hereby empowered to adopt such
ordinances. Any such ordinance duly adopted by the county shall be enforceable
county-wide by the county sheriff and may be enforced by a city police officer
within the boundaries of the officer's city. Any such ordinance duly adopted by
a city shall be enforceable within the city limits of such city by the county
sheriff and by any city police officer. The county sheriff may deputize
employees of the district to enforce such county ordinances. The police chief
of any city located within the district may deputize employees of the district
to enforce such city ordinances.
92-4327. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to
be severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstances is declared invalid for any zeason, such
declaration shall not affect the validity of remaining portions of this chapter.
• • OR~GI~~
BEF'ORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF RONALD SENRY
FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SET-BACR REQUIRLMSNTS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on August 6, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m.
on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and taken oral
and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for August 6, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15 )
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the August 6, 1994, 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 Ordinance 11-2-410 A, ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND
COVERAGE CONTROLS, requires that residential structures be set back
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1
~
•
on the side yard lines 5 feet per story from the property boundary
where the structure to be built.
4. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a
variance from the above side yard set back requirement and be
allowed to leave the structures in the same place and not relocate
them.
5. The property in question is described as lots 9 and 10 of
Fawcett Meadows Subdivision No. 2.
6. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential.
7. That the two properties have older structures and were
not constructed as part of the subdivision; they have been in the
position that they are in now for some period of time.
8. That the Applicant owns the subdivision property and
Sherri Norman, Harlow Minegar and Leonard Reed own the property
where the structures are located.
10. That the Meridian Fire and Police Departments, Central
District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District,
and U. S. West submitted comments and they are incorporated herein
as if set forth in full; the City Engineer, Ada County Highway
District, the City Planning Administrator may submit comments and
they shall be incorporated herein if submitted.
11. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the City Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2
•
•
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
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 provisions of Section 11-2-419 A, of
the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is 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
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3
•
•
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 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 there does appear to be a specific benefit or
profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant in that the
Applicant would not have to relocate the structures that are now on
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4
. ~
the property which were in existence at the time the time that he
purchased the property; however, the people that are living in the
structures have lived there for a substantial length of time and it
would be a hardship to cause them to be related; it is not
unreasonable to grant the variance.
8. 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 set back Ordinance would clearly be
unreasonable since the structures have been there for
some time and relocating them would be a hardship.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the
set back Ordinance would not result in extraordinary
hardship to the applicant as a result of factors not
self-inflicted but it would result in extraordinary
hardship on the persons living in the structures, and
they apparently still own the land that there structures
are on.
c. 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.
d. That such variance would not have the effect of
altering the interests and purposes of the set back
Ordinance or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That it is concluded the Application should be granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5
~ ~
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 MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
APPROVED • •I~
DECISION
DISAPPROVED:
It is hereby decided that the variance of the set-back
ordinance is hereby granted and the Applicant shall not be required
to relocate the structures on Lots 9 and 10 of Fawcett Meadows No.
2.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6
i •
ORlGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
DAN HARDEE
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
A PORTION OF THE SW lI4 SW 1/4,
SECTION 35, T.4 N., R.l W., B.M.
NORTH OF USTICK ON USTICR ROAD
BRAMBLE WOOD SUBDIVISION
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on August 6, 1994, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and
taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing
through its engineer, Ted Hutchinson, and having duly considered
the matter, the City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two ( 2) consecuti.ve weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for August 6, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to saa.d hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the August 6, 1994,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
made available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
~ •
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 4.38 acres .in size; it is approximately 1,600 feet
east of the intersection of Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road; the
development would include 13 lots.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County R1
(Estate Residenti.al); that the Applicant has requested that the
property be zoned R-4 Residential and stated that the use proposed
would be for R-4 Residential development.
4. The present land use has one single family residential
home and three accessory detached build.ings with the remainder of
the property being used for pasture; that the Applicant's
application for subdivision approval, submitted with the
application for annexation and zoning stated that they have
approximately 3.10 dwelling units per acre, that the houses would
meet the ordinance requirement which is 1,400 square foot homes;
that the Applicant's representative testified that there would be
improvement placed along Ustick Road and that the property owners
would maintain them and that there would be landscaping of lawn,
trees, and shrubs, that the irrigation ditches would be tiled, and
that they will fence the road stubbed into John Shaffer's property.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property
but the owners of record, are Willis R. Nelson and Elaine E.
Nelson, have requested the annexation and consented to the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
~
Application.
•
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the entire parcel of ground requested to be annexed
is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning
Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
9. That there were two people testifying at the hearing,
other than the Applicant and his engineer; that John Shaffer, the
owner of the property to the west, testified at the Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing, but also stated at the City Council
hearing that he wanted a wood fence between his property and the
subject property and a fence at the dead-end of the road; he
questioned the flood plain and sewer in the flood plain and
irrigation to his property; he also stated that he desired that the
subject property have a home owners association; that Stacy Tulley,
a person that did not testify at Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing, testified that she owned the property to the east of the
subject property, that the property was bare ground and is not have
a residence and three detached accessory buildings, that she
desires sewer to her property, that she wanted a fence between her
property and the subject property, and that she desired that the
subject property have a home owners association. The City of
Meridian has required mandatory home owner associations with the
ability to assess dues as a condition of annexation in other
annexation applications.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
~ •
10. The Ada County Highway District, Central District Health
Department, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer,
City Police Department, Idaho Power, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name
Committee and City Fire Department did submit comments and such are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
11. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, submitted comments and he
stated that restrictive covenants need to be submitted, that the
highest seasonal groundwater elevations need to be determined, that
a portion of the property was in a flood hazard area and he
questioned whether the should be a berm/landscaped lot along lots
1 and 13 to provide privacy and sound protection for those lot
owners.
12. That the Planning director submitted comments, some of
which were similar to those of the City Engineer, but also that a
development agreement was required as a condition of annexation and
that a link to the proposed bike path on Five Mile Creek was
needed. She also commented that the sewer plant is to the
northwest of this site and the prevailing winds carry odors on
occasion to this property, that all adjacent agricultural uses must
be protected, that 20 foot landscaped lots maintained by a
homeowners association should be provided along Ustick Road, and
that a development agreement was required as condition of
annexation.
13. The Meridian School District's comment on this annexation
request was that the subdivision proposed for the land would mean
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
~ ~
20 elementary aged children, 17 middle school aged children and 20
senior high aged students; that Linder Elementary School is at 137$
of capacity, Meridian Middle School at 129~ of capacity and the
Meridian High School at 116$ of capacity; the District went on to
state as follows:
"There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries
since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity.
Before we could support this subdivision, we would need land
dedicated to the district or at least made available at a
minimum price for a school site in this area. The site would
need water and sewer service available. In addition we would
need to pass another bond issue for the construction of
schools."
14. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area.
15. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
16. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
17. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer, but the sewer may be a problem because a lift
station may be required and it is the policy of the City to avoid
lift stations if at all possible; another means of sewer service
may have to be investigated.
18. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
~ ~
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four ( 4) dwellings units per acre and requires
connecti.on to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.";
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone.
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, town houses, apartments,
condominiums, etc. ) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densi.ties as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided ..
.'
21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and High density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
• •
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, town houses arrangements), ..."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
23. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
24. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that
annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement
including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to
impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by
the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that
such comment is equally applicable to this Application.
25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
• •
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots
in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
• •
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."
29. 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;"
30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to 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 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:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shal.l consider
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
• •
the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada Countv (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the City Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian 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 of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the City Council has judged this annexation and
zoning application by the provisions contained in Section 50-222,
Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City
Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice.
4. That a11 notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the City Council may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
• ~ •
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation
a.s not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. 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, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements af 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L; that the development
agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the
Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or
personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
• •
or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no
annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if
necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss
of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not
met. The development agreement shall also address the landscaping
along Ustick Road, and maintenance thereof, by a mandatory home
owners association rather than the individual lot owners. The
Applicant shall adopt Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as a
condition of annexation and they shall require a mandatory
homeowners association which can assess dues and fees.
10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer and
of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire
Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the
Meridian Planning Director and City Engineer and these Findings and
Conclusion shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement.
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to
install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12
• !
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance.
14. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that the house size of
1,400 square feet must be met.
15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
16. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
17. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED
COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED _
DECISION
The Meridian City Council hereby approves the annexation and
zoning as stated above for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13
~ ~
and Conclusions of Law, specifically including the adoption of a
home owners association with mandatory dues and fees, and that the
Applicant and owners are specifically required to tile all ditches,
canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system as
conditions of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
development time requirements and enter into the required
development agreement, and that if the conditions are not met that
the property be de-annexed. That no annexation ordinance shall be
prepared or adopted until the Applicant submits the development
agreement referenced above.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14