HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 10-03
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 19, 1995:
(APPROVED)
TABLED SEPTEMBER 5, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
(TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 17, 1985)
2. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: CC&R'S FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION:
(APPROVED)
3. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDNISION:
(TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 17, 1995)
4. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDMSION
NO.5 BY RAMON YORGASON: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
5. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 17, 1995)
6. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL
OCTOBER 17, 1995)
7. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 17, 1995)
8. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: ORDINANCE #713 -LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 ANNEXATION: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER
17, 1995)
9. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL
OCTOBER 17, 1995)
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE
PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED; APPROVE DECISION)
11. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
NO.5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW)
12. ORDINANCE #717 -THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 8 6: (TABLED
UNTIL OCTOBER 17, 1995)
13. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 8~ 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 17, 1995)
14. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH: CONSTRUCTION AT TEN MILE AND
CHERRY LANE: (APPROVE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/
ZONING)
15. BARBARA MYALL: CONCERNS ABOUT D & B SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT:
(REPORT BACK NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
16. TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY
MODULAR BUILDING: (APPROVE BUILDING FOR TWO YEARS)
17. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED)
18. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED)
19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. BID RESULTS FOR WATER & SEWER VEHICLES: (DEFER UNTIL
OCTOBER 17, 1995)
B. MAYOR KINGSFORD:
1. PROCLAMATION: CRIME PREVENTION MONTH:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: a~,frrz.-ecL
ivE"lCoe.u_ f~~~,Ju-vUC'Ti+.~<~G~; ~i2 Furfiyreirrc~°~.,,.~
1. TABLED SEPTEMBER 5, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
f~~/~ ura f~% ~JCf, l fin= ~~~,
2. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: CC&R'S FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION:
3. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION:
~r-,~, tvtz~hZ ~'cf, /7~~ i'3t fit„
4. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: FINNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDMSION
N0.5 BY RAMON YORGASON: C'i?~~ a fain-~~ ~z~ce~ce~ F%L ~ c/L
5. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDMSION N0.3 BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS:
6. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION N0.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
7. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION: ~~~ w,,.hZ
Gcf- /?'~' f~re%,
8. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: ORDINANCE #713 - LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION N0.3 ANNEXATION: ~ ~- wn ~7 opt, i~~ ~~~,
9. TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDMSION N0.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE
PARTNERSHIP: up ~~~-~ ~/{ ~ ~~/G
~~~F~i~v~;, 11,~'Cr7i~
11. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHER Y LANE
NO. 5 8< 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: ~`P/ u vP ~~L ~c/L
L~~''~Oi 9v~ (~,' C'i Ji v-.~
12. ORDINANCE #717 -THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 8~ 6:
13. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 8~ 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
14. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH: CONSTRUCTION AT TEN MILE AND
CHERRY LANE: ~i~~~rc~ve. ~ ~/%c~ vii f~h~.( L'~~~t'.~ibn~(' w~-e-
f7L/Llrtr~ ~zCln in,/c
15. BARBARA MYALL: CONCERNS ABOUT D & B SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT:
Px~;esdzczr_J,t._:,,.,,s-rFty/~eatJ'frt~1'/ev~e~i?c7/~j -ren~•ch~:~k-~/0~.8~~fz~,
16. TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY
MODULAR BUILDING: ~; ~ ,rove- ~e ~f'~ X07 ~~ c~~~
17. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
G~~~r~. z ~~n -o/f %~ ~-
18. APPROVE BILLS:
u/.~rov
19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. BID RESULTS FOR WATER & SEWER VEHICLES: ~~ uwh7 pit, r7'~nzf~"
B. MAYOR KINGSFORD:
1. PROCLAMATION: CRIME PREVENTION MONTH:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 3, 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Brandie
Hazen, Scott Thomson, Wayne Forrey, Dan Steenson, Doug Campbell, Marty Goldsmith,
Jon Jaques, Gary Dodge, Frank Graham, Bill Gregory, Rod Sanders, Ed Schernk, Chuck
Noll, Chief Gordon:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 19, 1995:
Kingsford: Any corrections to those minutes? Is there a motion?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the minutes of September 19, 1995.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve of the September 19th minutes, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: I would like to welcome Boy Scout Troop #83 with us from East Meridian, good
to have you gentlemen here.
ITEM #1: TABLED SEPTEMBER 5, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
Kingsford: Counselor reviewed those issues?
Crookston: To my knowledge the reason it was tabled was the City was desirous of
having a new plat prepared. I have not seen a new plat on this. We did get a letter from
Mr. Johnson requesting that property be annexed, but I don't see that they have complied
with what the City wanted.
Kingsford: My recollection was that they were tabled pending their agreement to the items
in the findings of fact. Mr. Morrow, comment?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, on page 29 of the Findings of Fact, paragraph S, it states that if a plat
is presented that is acceptable to the City Council, the annexation and zoning of the
property designed for residential development would be in the best interest of the City of
Meridian that no action should be taken in the annexation and zoning of the property to be
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 2
zoned residentially until or at the same time an acceptable plat is approved by the City
Council. In Mr. Johnson's letter indicates that he agreed with the conditions of the findings
of fact and conclusions of which he was given until October 3rd to agree with those, but
that there is no plat before us tonight as per the findings of fact and conclusions. There
is also the issue of Comprehensive Plan amendment for the limited office space. I think
if I understood his letter correctly there, he was essentially agreeing to the conditions of
the findings of fact and conclusions as per the time that the Council gave him to agree to
those conditions and then to proceed on from this point there would have to be certain
steps instituted on his part to move forward, is that correct.
Kingsford: Well, as I read that paragraph of the findings that would be true. Mr. Forrey,
do you represent Mr. Johnson on this issue? You have reviewed then and your client,
those findings and conclusions?
Forrey: Yes we have.
Kingsford: And you are in agreement, you understand you have to present a plat in order
for it to be annexed and zoned?
Forrey: We do, but could I ask for a clarification? There was some confusion as we read
the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Our initial reaction was that tonight the City
Council would be expecting to see a preliminary plat designed around the framework of
those findings of fact. As we got into that and started the design process I contacted the
City, well first 1 contacted Shari Stiles and she indicated that would be fine but let's make
sure it is here at City Hall by Friday noon in order to get it in the packets in time for the City
Council review. Then she mentioned that she was leaving for the rest of the week on
Wednesday I think of last week, I had an additional question so I ended up calling the City
Attorney and I got from that conversation that the City Council was not expecting a plat
tonight that had to come back through Planning and Zoning. I has been tabled at the
Planning and Zoning level, the preliminary plat and the conditional use. They held the plat
there forwarded onto the Council the annexation request only. So my recollection is that
we were to agree or disagree with the findings of fact as presented in writing and then go
back with a revised plat to the Planning and Zoning, essentially a new plat, go back to
Planning and Zoning get neighborhood involvement, new agency comments and let it
come up the flagpole so to speak to the City Council at some future date. So that is why
there was no plat submitted tonight or even a concept rather, just the letter. I hope I didn't
misunderstand the conversation.
Crookston: 1 think that is correct, but there has been no plat presented to P & Z either or
to the City at all has there?
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 3
Forrey: No, we are tabled at the Planning and Zoning Commission level at this point. We
do agree with the findings of fact and conclusions of law fully. It is our intent to actually
submit a new revised, updated plat and we would like to submit it to the City at your next
cut off date which is I believe October 13 and that would give the City time to reprocess
right back through the agencies again to get fresh comments again from the Highway
District, School District, fire, police, parks, health authorities, etc. Because we anticipate
some very significant changes to the plat because the findings offer some very significant
changes. If we can't make the October 13 deadline, rather than cram this together we will
make the November cut off so that there plenty of time for City staff to have input on the
preliminary plat before it gets to Planning and Zoning Commission review. We want this
to work very smoothly. The letter that Westpark submitted today is a culmination of
several months of working with the Meridian School District where they have now
indicated they intend and desire strongly to purchase a site within Highlands Ranch for a
new school facility. We would hope tonight that the City Council could conditionally
approve the annexation request so that the School District and Westpark could
consummate that real estate transaction. Westpark could then commit to provide a
developable site to the Meridian School District and together we work on this plat. The
configuration of the school site, the buffers, the conditional use permit that would be
required for the high school site all working together in the coming months and then get
to Planning and Zoning Commission as a complete package. The School District is
desirous to move on this and I think the School District met with the Mayor or at least they
indicated to us that they would try to this week to express, this is a sincere desire on their
part. The findings of fact are very specific and we think we have a very good partnership
there and we will make this work. You will be very proud of Highlands Ranch. We won't
do anything that we won't be proud of looking at the end. If it is something you see a
problem we would expect that you would take action to de-annex. You have that authority,
it is a legislative authority, well founded in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, so
we think the safeguards are there but hope that we could have something that we know
we could move forward with the School District, City staff, all of the agencies for review
comments and then onto P & Z and ultimately onto City Council. Probably that plat would
come before the City Council in March, February or March at the earliest in 1996. The
School District wants to move much quicker than that. That is the reason for the letter
today. I would be happy to answer any other questions.
Tolsma: Does the School District have a time frame when they have to make this decision?
Forrey: The indicated, I was in the meeting with Greg Johnson when the two
representatives from the School District spoke and they indicated in 21 days, 3 weeks.
They wanted a decision on this real estate agreement. It specifies quite a number of
things. They have learned from experience purchasing property in the Eagle area that they
want a truly developable site.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 4
Yerrington: How many acres are the School District looking at?
Forrey: Fifty-five acres and part of that, it would all of the Eagle Road Frontage but it
would also penetrate into the west portion of or penetrate to the west on the Eastern
potion of Highlands Ranch so it is a total redesign in that area.
Kingsford: To expand a little bit on what Mr. Forrey said, the School District, the monies
for purchase of that site were a part of the bond issue that built Eagle Middle School and
High School and there is a time frame on the use of those funds.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) possible school site will that still be set aside?
Forrey: Yes, and part school and park site, correct. That is a donation to the City and that
is specified in the findings of fact and conclusions of law which we have agreed to.
Kingsford: Any other questions of Mr. Forrey?
Cowie: Mr. Mayor, Wayne, I guess, let me make sure I have what you are asking, you are
asking that we approve the annexation tonight conditioned upon your submitting a revised
new plat, an acceptable plat, and approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments?
Forrey: Yes
Kingsford: So if I understood you Wayne you very graciously went around that whole
circle, you said that you agree to the findings and then back doored by saying you would
like to have the annexation done, that particular portion.
Forrey: Yes, that is correct, there is a paragraph, there is a paragraph in the findings that
says you would not annex until you see an acceptable plat. We are hoping that it could be
annexable conditioned upon our promise and pledge to work with you to produce an
acceptable plat. We are not going to risk de-annexation, you do have the authority to de-
annex it at any point you are unhappy.
Morrow: I think the other thing here in terms of consistency with what we have done with
other areas is that you are taking about a park site within that that is going to be deeded
to the City. Historically prior to the execution of any ordinance we have required that deed
be deposited with the City. Are you prepared to do that?
Forrey: Yes
Morrow: That would happen, there would be no annexation until that happens.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 5
Forrey: Yes, I understand.
Morrow: What do you mean by conditional annexation?
Forrey: Well, a motion an understanding that if at any point the City is not pleased with this
plat, that the City Council could desire to de-annex the property conditioned upon, we are
in a situation where we could have a revised a very good preliminary plat to you in
February or March four or five months from now. The School District wants to move much
quicker than that and we want them part of this plat they need to be part of the plat,
integrated into this planned development. Greg, Westpark Company can't make
commitments to the School District to sell this property until he knows this property has a
future can in fact be annexed. That is the dilemma we are at.
Kingsford: Mr. Forrey, is all the School Site then in this annexation?
Forrey: It could be but we are looking at an adjacent piece of property.
Kingsford: It would need to be annexed as well or is it already in?
Forrey: It would need to be annexed as well, but I have to tell you I can't tell you the name
of the property because it is a real estate negotiation and the School District has asked us
to, if that falls through then we are prepared to sell and we can configure an acceptable
55 acre site totally within the Highlands Ranch annexation and within the preliminary plat.
That is a fall back position that the School District has said is acceptable to them. They
would like to have a little more frontage on Eagle Road than we currently provide but if that
can't happen than make the site deeper.
Kingsford: Any other questions of Mr. Forrey?
Morrow: I think from the City's standpoint if I understand what you are saying correctly you
wish us to annex the property conditioned upon that if we are not happy with the plat that
you may bring forth some point in the future we can de-annex. In the mean time you have
already sold 55 acres to the School District committed to sell so we would be hard pressed
to de-annex anything.
Forrey: We should and will make the City whatever position you would like to be in that
real estate contract make sure that the School District understands that is a condition fast
and firm. Let your legal counsel figure out a way to be a party to that agreement or a
condition or stipulation in that agreement or an attachment.
Kingsford: Would your client be willing to bond for construction of sewer and water to the
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 6
school site if the rest of it were de-annexed?
Forrey: I don't know.
Kingsford: That would be of some interest to me.
Forrey: I don't know Mayor.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think from my perspective and these are some fairly new things that
are being brought to the table very candidly I would like to see some input and some
proposals here from both the developer in terrns of this and from our legal counsel Wayne
Crookston as to how this might be put together and how it may work. What I expected
based on my packet and by their response of the letter was is that at this juncture tonight
we were going to agree in principle that Mr. Johnson was going to go forward with
agreeing to the conditions in the annexation, in the findings of fact and conclusions of law
that there wasn't a plat brought forward and some of these issues that Mr. Forrey is
bringing are fairly complex and have legal ramifications and I would like to see us maybe
sit on this until next meeting so we can get more input to make the right decision.
Kingsford: Well, with the new wrinkle in, with regard to the schools, I feel compelled to
notify the Council that I have a conflict of interest. You need to decide whether I am going
to preside over this.
Morrow: Is that a reference to today's article in the paper?
Kingsford: And a lot of other articles prior to that.
Morrow: Well as far as I am personally concerned, the conflict is not real serious in nature.
So you are not off the hook.
Kingsford: So if this doesn't come out right I can just look for work.
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: Under code I have to notify you and you tell me if the conflict is substantial.
Morrow: It is of my perception that it is not a substantial conflict, and I will so move if that
is appropriate.
Yerrington: Second
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 7
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max that the Mayor's conflict of interest is not
substantial and 1 would preside, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Walt, the school has put another wrinkle in this and I would
be hard pressed to de-annexation something that the school is going to put a school on
and suddenly we could de-annex the property. I would like to have the Council look into
it a little further with a bond because I am not comfortable with it tonight to give you that
decision. So I would agree with Mr. Morrow that we should get some answers first.
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I really tend to agree with Walt and Bob somewhat. The school is
hard pressed for sites and to try and find sites and where around housing subdivisions is
very hard to come by or really very atrociously expensive. If I am not for sure that the cost
of this ground is going to be out there but with a school site to be another school site to
be inside the Meridian City limits will possibly aid the school district in future developments
and they are also putting it in the middle of development in this area not on the out skirts
such as Eagle was. Which shows possibly a little more fore thought in their planning.
have a little trouble with the legal ramifications that possibly Wayne could allude to
especially on the bonding procedure for the water and sewer. I think that was, if that was
in there where they don't run into the same problem they did over at Eagle on the water
and sewer. 1 don't think I would have a problem annexing this without a plat. Being as they
have 3 weeks is that going to put in a critical factor two weeks from now?
Forrey: No, that would be fine, I think that is good, it would be healthy.
Tolsma: Could we have a bonding something or other on the bonding of that or see
whether he is willing to go along that route?
Kingsford: I think that is up to Mr. Johnson whether he is going to bond for the issue.
Would like you to involve the School District so they are on board with just where the issue
stands and so forth.
Corrie: That other property you are talking about could give us another look at this.
Forrey: We will know probably by the end of this week. If that is your decision thank you.
Kingsford: Well it isn't yet they have to make one but we will try to move them along
Wayne.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table the Highlands Ranch Subdivision by Gem
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 8
Park II Partnership to our meeting of October 17th.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this issue until the October 17th
meeting, question for I guess Mr. Forrey, you say they have a 21 day window if the Council
puts this off for 14 of those days then typically we would ask the Counselor to draw an
annexation and zoning ordinance so you are talking another 14 days, does that represent
a problem?
Fon'ey: I don't think so we will meet with Mr. Carbury and the School District officials and
make sure that is not a problem. We have two weeks now to iron those kinds of difficulties
out and find out exactly. As of last Friday afternoon they indicated three weeks, but it
could be four or five. It was something they wanted to get on schedule and get moving I
do know that, but I don't see that as a problem.
Kingsford: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Having said that would it be the Council's prerogative to draw that ordinance
in case of, if that does represent a problem, is that something you would like to consider
or not?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor I was under the impression from the letter they were really looking for
an answer from us if they were going to do that. The time frame wasn't that important as
long as we (inaudible). I agree with you and the Mayor both so it doesn't make any
difference to me. That is the way I took the letter that as long as we agreed that was going
to be happening.
Kingsford: I don't think we can agree (inaudible) Counselor?
Crookston: The parcel that is not, the parcel of land that is not part of this application
could not be annexed.
Kingsford: And it may not be a part of the school's desire either ultimately.
Crookston: Wayne do you have a legal description for the property, I haven't looked at the
file recently? Do you have a legal description for the Highlands Ranch?
Forrey: Yes we do.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 9
Crookston: I could draw it in preparation if that is the Council's desire.
Kingsford: Go ahead Walt, you had a question.
Morrow: I had a question of Gary with respect to the legal description of Highlands Ranch
is accurate or certified to by a licensed surveyor?
Smith: Councilman Morrow, I am not sure, I was just asking myself that question. I would
need to get back in the file, it has been a while since I have looked at it. It would have to
be if it isn't.
Morrow: I would suggest that Wayne that is something you guys research also because
quite candidly if it is not done by a licensed surveyor it can't be part of the ordinance.
Forrey: We hired JJ Howard Engineers and early meetings with Shari to have several legal
descriptions of the different zoning districts, all the different land parcels and one large
perimeter including the public right of ways. So I am confident we have the appropriate
legal descriptions, but we will double check.
Crookston: Well, with regard to the zoning, the various zones, I am not sure that you even
know at this juncture what land you want to be zoned R-4 or R-15, L-O.
Forrey: I believe we do, atl R-4 except for the sliver, the triangular piece along Locust
Grove Road as Limited Office.
Crookston: You are foregoing the Limited Office that was on Eagle Road?
Forrey: Well, it may not be required in the school scenario, it may that R-4 is totally
acceptable and proceed with a conditional use permit for the actual school site approval
in the R-4 zone.
Morrow: Well, in our findings of fact we have R2, R3, R4 zones within this, am I
misunderstanding something here?
Forrey: Yes, I think so Councilman, unless I am, the way I read the findings of fact the
base zone was R-4 and then the lots that we were to place in those configurations where
R-2 size, R-4 size, R-3 size lots in the R-4 zone because of the planned development.
didn't envision little strips of R-3 zoning and little pieces of R-2 zoning it was that lot
configuration with the planned development Rol zone as a base zone. That is the way
interpreted the findings.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 10
Morrow: Well that clearly points to some of the issues that need to be resolved maybe in
the interim if the school district is of the mind that they need some reassurance some of
us can meet with the school district also if that is part of the issue.
Kingsford: You moved and seconded and voted to table this issue until the next meeting
October 17.
ITEM #2: TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: CC&R'S FOR SALMON RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Counselor, what is the disposition?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I still have some questions about the CCi3~R's, they have prepared
amendments to the CC&R's to both Salmon Rapids and Los Alamitos. Just a question, the
bigger question is with regard to the square footage that the house square footage, a
portion of the Salmon Rapids, their covenants state that they require 1500 square feet, the
property was annexed in Salmon Rapids as requiring the house size of a minimum 1400
unless it was within 500 feet of Meridian Greens. But their covenants state that it is to be
1500, there is an amendment proposed in what was submitted to me most recently that be
changed to 1400 unless it is within 500 feet of Meridian Greens. So really it is a question
of how the Council wants to go forward on that square footage. I have met with Brian
McCall and discussed it. He states that the property was annexed requiring house size
of 1400 square feet unless it was within 500 feet of Meridian Greens, that is correct. The
covenants however state that it is 1500, there were applications on the plats that said
1500, in one case the application for plat or not the application for plat but on the plat it
said 1800 feet. I am not sure what the Council approved when the plat was approved so
I think there are still some questions regarding the square footage. The rest of the
covenants I think are fine. And the same is true of Los Alamitos.
Kingsford: The square footage issue was the same on Los Alamitos?
Crookston: That property was annexed stated that it was required to meet the Rol
requirements which is 1400, well I believe that their covenants again require that 1500 was
requested, not a request but their proposal is to change the covenants to move that down
to 1400 square feet. Many of the same issues are involved in both subdivisions.
Kingsford: Well I guess I am not clear, we have CC&R's to approve, those CC&R's as they
exist for our approval are they 1400 or 1500?
Crookston: They state that they are adopting the existing covenants which require 1500
square feet, but there is a proposal to amend those covenants to only require 1400 feet
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 11
in regards to Salmon Rapids unless it is within 500 feet of Meridian Greens for Los
Alamitos it is just a flat 1400 feet change from 1500.
Kingsford: You didn't answer my question, are we being asked to approve the
amendments to those CC&R's or are we being asked to approve the 1500?
Crookston: Well, it is difficult to answer Mayor, I am really not sure because the letter from
Brian McCall says CC&R's for Salmon Rapids were recorded January 25, 1995. They
contain an annexation mechanism, they restrict house square footage to 1400 feet plus
square feet, they restrict square footage to 1400+ square feet except within 500 feet of
Meridian Greens where the minimum is 1500. He says then a supplemental declaration
of covenants and conditions and restrictions has been prepared imposing on Salmon
Rapids No. 2 the existing CC&R's which then would require the 1500 feet if it is within 500,
that is exactly the same as they have now. It says both Salmon Rapids 1 & 2 comprise the
property that the City Council and required in its findings of fact and conclusions of law
that the square footage be 1400 square feet except within 500 feet. They are doing the
same thing with Salmon Rapids that is existing now, but what the City has done is require
1500 feet in Salmon Rapids No. 2. Mr. Goldsmith, would you like to address this?
Goldsmith: Yes, if I may I would like to see if I could shed some light on that. The Salmon
Rapids CC&R's No. 1 were 1400 square feet as you stated and the preliminary plat
application and final plat application and the ordinance for that alt. stated 1400 square feet,
that is for Salmon Rapids.
Kingsford: For Salmon Rapids No. 1?
Goldsmith: And No. 2, myself and Shari have done extensive research on these phases
and maybe she will help shed some light there as well.
Kingsford: Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, what we basically reviewed were not what was said on the
applications and the plat it was the minutes and the ordinance itself that was discussed.
Kingsford: And that was 1400?
Stiles: Yes, the minutes and the preliminary plat showed 1500 square feet, the application
showed either 1500 or 1800, however when the ordinance was prepared annexing the
property it only mentioned 1400 square feet and then 1500 within 500 feet of Meridian
Greens for Salmon Rapids.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 12
Crookston: That is correct.
Kingsford: What does the final plat say for Salmon Rapids No. 2?
Crookston: The final plat application says 1500 in what was on to my knowledge the plat
map said 1800. I don't know where that stands whether or not that 1800 was put on what
was recorded or not.
Goldsmith: It was not put on what was recorded.
Kingsford: What was recorded Marty?
Goldsmith: 1400 square foot in Salmon Rapids No. 1 is what was recorded and Shari and
I have worked through there. There really wasn't any difficulty there that I recall.
Kingsford: But now she is saying on the plat that it didn't say that?
Stiles: Correct
Goldsmith: I have copies, I called and asked for copies of the preliminary plat and
application, the final plat application and the minutes of the meetings and the ordinance.
They all stated 1400 square foot in the case of Salmon Rapids.
Crookston: And that is within 500 feet of Meridian Greens.
Goldsmith: Absolutely correct so I did as much research on that as possible and I did
review the applications and plats that were submitted.
Stiles: Mayor, the plat submitted for Salmon Rapids Subdivision No. 2 shows a minimum
of 1400 square feet and the houses within 500 feet of Meridian Greens 1500 square feet.
Just for the record I did prepare some calculations on the existing houses out there in
Salmon Rapids I believe the average house size is about 1700.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? As I understand the letter from Mr. McCall you
are being asked to approve the CC&R's with 1400 square feet.
Crookston: That is correct, unless it is within 500 feet of Meridian Greens.
Morrow: So then we are comfortable then with the paperwork that is following up the
conflict no longer is going to exist (inaudible) 1400, 1500 and 1800?
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 13
Crookston: I think that is correct. They are doing changes to the existing covenants to
allow that.
Morrow: So for our purposes tonight then everything is fine with respect to these two
CC&R's, Salmon Rapids and Los Alamitos, or Salmon Rapids.
Crookston: Yes
Corrie: And also in accordance with our ordinances.
Crookston: Yes it is.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the CC&R's for Salmon Rapids Subdivision No.
1 and 2.
Come: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the CC&R's for Salmon Rapids 1
and 2, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION:
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, it is very much the same question in Los Alamitos, the covenants
there require 1500 square feet. They are proposing an amendment to change that to the
1400, Meridian Greens doesn't apply on Los Alamitos so that doesn't come into effect. I
think that the covenants are fine if it is the City Council's decision to change to the 1400
from the 1500.
Kingsford: Shari, all the same things apply there with regard tot he differential between
1500 and 1400 square feet.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, yes I believe as far as the ordinance and the findings that were prepared
they did not specify 1500 square feet minimum.
Morrow: Same on the plat?
Stiles: The plat on Los Alamitos it was a similar history gong from 1500 to 1800.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 14
Morrow: Their final recorded plat then was 1400?
Stiles: 1400
Crookston: But those covenants did state 1500 square foot requirement.
Morrow: As they are written now?
Crookston: Yes to my knowledge is that right Marty?
Goldsmith: We are dealing with Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2, and the history as I have
researched it with Los Alamitos Subdivision No. 2 is the ordinance was prepared for 1400
square foot. There was a preliminary plat application and a final plat application that we
all worked with and they were all at 1400 square foot. The CC&R's should reflect 1400
square foot in Los Alamitos No. 2. The existing CC&R's for Los Alamitos phase No. 1 are
at 1500 square feet. And I did that because I was asked to do that.
Kingsford: So you are not asking to change those, we are just dealing with No. 2 this
evening?
Goldsmith: I am asking to go from 1500 on Phase No. 1 to 1400 as per my application and
ordinances and such on my second phase. So this is an amendment to the existing
CC&R's. The existing CC&R's phase No. 1 at 1500 square foot.
Kingsford: How many lots are sold in Phase No. 1 Los Alamitos?
Goldsmith: There is like 3 left out of 23 lot phase.
Kingsford: Have you gotten approval from those lot owners to amend the covenants?
Goldsmith: No, I have not.
Kingsford: If they are at all standard they require a substantial percentage of the owners
to amend the covenants.
Goldsmith: I am aware of that and I am trying to think, would you prefer to see 1500 square
foot out there, I know it doesn't really matter to the builders and 1 want to be flexible on
these issues with you guys.
Kingsford: If you are going to amend the CC&R's I think I want to see that you are meeting
the letter of the CC&R's that is the percentage that are ownership are agreeing to. We
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 15
can't unilaterally amend CC&R's when the CC&R's require typically 70% or 75%.
Goldsmith: Okay, when we have an existing phase 23 lots and we are bringing in another
phase, the owner of the second phase is the developer. There is a mechanism as Wayne
called it in the existing CC&R's that multiplies the voting right. Are you familiar with that
Wayne?
Crookston: Yes I am, I am not sure exactly how that works where you add another portion
to the existing portion whether or not that changes your percentage requirement for
approval of amendments to the covenants. That procedure is in the covenants to add an
annexed area.
Goldsmith: So if there was 47 lots in phase No. 2 and I owned 3 in phase No. 1 then that
would be 50 lots as opposed to 20 we wouldn't even need that mechanism.
Kingsford: I would say that we have approved CC&R's for Los Alamitos No. 1, those apply
to Los Alamitos No. 1. I don't think that adding, you are not adding more to Los Alamitos
No. 1, I don't think what you are suggesting applies at all.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, from my perspective and experience the covenants or CC&R's for
each phase stand on their own. If phase No. 1 if there is 20 lots of 23 sold it is up to the
discretion of those folks that bought those houses underneath those existing CC&R's
whether they want them amended or not. I think clearly the issue before us here then with
the do we approve the CC&R's for phase 2 at 1400 square feet. The issue with 1500
square feet on phase 1 is between you and the property owners in phase no. 1.
Kingsford: Counselor, the CC&R's that we have then before us to vote on tonight, are they
one package, 1 and 2?
Crookston: They are a proposal to
Kingsford: Include all of no. 1 for no. 1 in them (End of Tape) Well given that 1 would
strongly advise the Council that you defer action on that until you know exactly where you
stand on the disposition of the lot owners in No. 1.
Morrow: I clearly think from my position they have to be separated. And so therefore if
they are combined now I couldn't vote for those CC&R's for phase 1. I would move to
Kingsford: I would have no problem with them at 1400 in phase 2, I can't cram that down
phase one's throat.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 16
Morrow: No, so therefore in order to separate those out you have to have some time to
get that done so we need to table until next meeting to resolve that issue. So I would so
move.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table the CC&R's for Los Alamitos until the
next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Are we clear on the issue Marty?
Goldsmith: Yes, thank you very much.
ITEM #4: TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY
RAMON YORGASON:
Kingsford: He has submitted a letter to us I believe on that issue, no excuse me that was
on Crossroads. Entertain a motion to table Waterbury Park until the next meeting.
Corrie: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to table Waterbury Park until the next meeting.
Smith: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, I think the letter the developer wrote had to do with the
tabling request for Crossroads reimbursement rather than Waterbury No. 5.
Kingsford: We have an updated letter on that. Council members have you reviewed the
letter of October 3rd, is that in your packet?
Morrow: Well, it was but I can't find it. But 1 thought it did address Crossroads.
Corrie: It did.
Kingsford: Well, there is one on Crossroads but there is also one on piping the Cresson
Lateral, Waterbury Park No. 5. To Gary Smith, we received it October 3rd.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 17
Crookston: That is the report of Gene Smith is it not?
Kingsford: Yes, your comment Mr. Smith, Gary Smith, pardon me, what is your view
point?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I made a trip out to the site today after lunch and
observed the water flow in the various ditches. Today the water in the Creason feeder
which is a ditch that connects Five Mile Creek with the Finch Lateral formerly known as
the South Slough was flowing from the Finch into Five Mile Creek rather than from Five
Mile Creek into the Finch. There were no build up boards in the build up structure in Five
Mile Creek that would force the water in the other direction. After reviewing Gene Smith's
calculations or his employees calculations and Gene wrote the cover letter to send those
over. There appears to be about six square miles of drainage area that according to Gene
is uncontrolled by the irrigation district from the point where it leaves the Ridenbaugh
where the Finch Lateral leaves the Ridenbaugh near Maple Grove and Franklin Road.
Based on their calculations as is evident by the copy of the letter that you have, the ten
year storm is going to exceed the capacity of a 48 inch diameter pipe. The capacity of a
48 inch diameter pipe will be at the slope that exists and the Finch Lateral will be 40 CFS.
The engineer for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, John Sharp, has verified that is the
case, that pipe will carry 40 CFS. The question before us is how much water is going to
be in the ditch. Based on the flood analysis, the flow analysis that Gene Smith did and his
employee Lonnie Fox who is a hydrologist the ten year storm is going to produce in excess
of 40 CFS. And it is according to Gene's calculations in an uncontrolled area that is an
area that the irrigation district cannot control the flow, the diversion of the flow. Gene also
made a reference to FEMA and their requirements that on a flood control stream it is to be
analyzed without the use of flood control measures and that of course is assuming that you
are not able to get to the stream and make the controls or adjust the controls needed. I
guess that is one of the concerns is how fast the irrigation district would be able to respond
and what effect it would have on the homes that are in that area on the basis of their
response time. I also looked at the condition of the ditch upstream from Waterbury Park
No. 5. I think the developer Ramon Yorgason has done an outstanding job in landscaping
that stream, the bank adjacent to the subdivision. It is all in grass area, it is sprinkled, he
has constructed a chain link fence that allows the homes to view the landscaped area.
think it is in very good condition and it is very aesthetically pleasing for the homes that are
built along there. I guess my attitude is that the questions before us create enough of a
question in my mind as to whether or not piping of the ditch would serve a useful purpose.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, Gary, when I toured that and I had the observation that due to the
grates and the way that upstream landscaping had been done that really what it created
or partially created was a natural overFlow situation so that if there were a major storm that
area would drain those properties. The north bank appeared to me to be some five or 6
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 18
feet higher than the elevation of the stream as it exists. So, from my perspective it appears
to me that we may be tampering with an natural drain to try to cover that pipe system. If
we put that pipe in would it create a natural drain more to the south along towards where
the fence and the back yards of the property owners now are?
Smith: Walt, Councilman Morrow, it certainly could. Especially if the flow in the ditch
exceeded CFS. Because a 48 inch pipe if the slope that the Cresson Lateral has will not
carry any more than 40 CFS it is just the hydraulic calculations will not allow it to carry
anymore than that. Obviously if you put more head on it you could push more water
through it to a point. That is a full pipe flowing at the slope that the Creason Lateral has,
naturally has right now is 40 CFS. Just another note, the Highway District requires a flood
frequency or a design storm of 25 year frequency. Which will produce 175 CFS and the
ten year storm was producing 75 CFS which is almost twice what the 40 CFS capacity of
a 48 inch pipe is. I think another thing that came up at one of the past meetings was the
down stream farmer Joe Simunich who questioned the piping of that ditch because of the
purpose that is serves right now and that is as drainage as a drainage ditch. We saw the
situation in Cherry Lane Village where they piped a drain with a solid pipe and raised the
water level, water table level. So, I think there is some peril involved in piping a ditch such
as this. For years this ditch was considered the South Slough, it was so named the South
Slough and the name alone to me implies a drain.
Kingsford: Well, we have a motion and a second, there was a lot of discussion. Withdraw
the second?
Corrie: I withdraw the motion.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure with regard to the request for a variance for
piping. There are findings of fact first.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law for the Waterbury Park variance.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the Attomey prepare findings of fact
and conclusions of law for a variance on piping of Waterbury Park No. 5, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED FfNDINGS OF FACT AND
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 19
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR SALMON
RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: Councilmen, your view of those findings?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, has there been prior to in our last meeting there were several items
concerning these things that were tabled so that there might be resolution of existing
problems. And those issues have been satisfactorily resolved?
Kingsford: Well I think there are some issues still with regard to the alignment of the road
that was discussed and there was some discussion with regard to a pipe and I think Mr.
Smith has reacted to that, have you not with regard to the bonding issue and so forth?
Smith: Mr. Mayor that would be on, the pipe issue was on Los Alamitos.
Kingsford: So the road issue particularly. Also, for the record Mr. Shipley's concerns about
the well that is discussed in the findings.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor is this where the truck went into the ditch?
Kingsford: Precisely, that again, my concern about the road alignment. When we met with
Mr. Goldsmith and his attorney on Thursday, I was unaware of that being in there but we
discussed the safety issue. I guess that pick up went in on Friday.
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I went out there and did some measuring on that and on the
Goldsmith side of the property, approximately 60 feet from the edge of the canal bridge on
the west side which would be Mr. Goldsmith's property side there is a power pole there.
I assume the drive way is supposed to come out to the south of the power pole the way
they have it laid out. Approximately where the middle of that drive way would be which is
about 100 feet south of the bridge from the east side into the pavement (inaudible) 12 feet
more you are in the water of the canal. So if you come out that driveway to make a left turn
you possibly could be in the ditch. It is the Ridenbaugh Mr. Shipley
Shipley: Eight Mile Lateral
Tolsma: Eight Mile Lateral, there is a lot of water in that ditch. But the (inaudible) runs
at such a steep angle across there that you have to go about clear past the exit way of
Salmon Rapids before you get any clearance at all through the canal otherwise you are
within 10 or 12 feet of the water just as soon as you get off the pavement. Also, 1 talked
to Mr. Forrey about this because they were talking about the Highlands Ranch access
being off there and they were talking to Mr. Shipley about possibly buying his property
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 20
which is below the bridge on the opposite side. I talked to Mr. Forrey to see if he might
be willing to talk his client into (inaudible) with Salmon Rapids which that way he could
possibly the that whole section through there and Gose that up with a bridge but that would
have to worked out with ACHD.
Kingsford: Well, certainly again one of the issues we discussed with Mr. Goldsmith and
his attorney was the road alignment that needed to be clarified. ACHD had to sign off that
was a safe road. 1 guess maybe even dissolve us of liability.
Morrow: I think clearly for the record we also need to state that contact was made by Gary
Smith with Larry Sale concerning some input from ACHD on this issue before us tonight
and that input was not forthcoming today. So we do not have that input from ACHD, is that
correct Gary?
Smith: That is correct Councilman, I was not able to get to make contact with Larry Sale.
I did refer back to the comments that the Highway District had submitted to you on their
preliminary plat review. They indicated in their comments that structure carrying Eight Mile
Lateral under Locust Grove Road was designated for replacement FY 2000. That
additional right of way would probably be required on both sides of the road in order for
the stream to cross the road at a 90 degree angle. That was their comment in their
preliminary plat review. But I was not able to make contact with Larry Sale. I made a
couple of phone calls but I didn't receive any comments back.
Morrow: So where does that leave us Mr. Mayor?
Kingsford: Well, again in our discussions we had with Mr. Goldsmith and his attorney we
wanted a resolution to that road. I guess we have asked Marty what he has done in that
regard.
Goldsmith: Mr. Mayor, my engineer who is not here, Dave Roylance, I asked that Christina
be here, she did speak with Karen Gallagher at ACRD. With regards to the road that
comes out there, it was just, she said that is what they came up with on the preliminary that
the road layout was approved. But I want to put out a good development for you guys and
am receptive to your ideas there. We could potentially run the traffic back through and
cross the Eight Mile Lateral which is how we originally came in with the plat. But it was
changed by ACRD.
Kingsford: I think Marty I would certainly like to see a resolution to that road issue. When
Mr. Morrow and I went out and looked at that a person wouldn't have to be nodding off or
anything to end up in that canal. I think the pick up driver may have been going a little fast
and gone through the barricade but I think you can end up in that canal without too much
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 21
effort. I think it is an unsafe condition that we need to see is remedied. So I guess when
Mr. Morrow asked me where we are at as much as I am against tabling I think we have to
resolve that issue before we can move forward and that would likewise be true then of the
plat. So, if the Highway District's amenable to running a bridge across Eight Mile within
your current subdivision I would have no quarrel with that. But I have some real problems
with dumping that out on Locust Grove Road and into that ditch.
Goldsmith: So what would your resolution be then a letter from ACRD or what are you
looking for there?
Kingsford: I think I want to have some letter from ACHD saying that yes this is clearly safe,
we are not into traffic here. But I have to tell you that I drive on streets and I am a little
nervous about that one.
Goldsmith: We have worked on that and we will continue to work on that.
Morrow: I think from my perspective that with this situation even though it is dangerous in
the summer when water is in there. More importantly the closeness of the quarters there
when its winter and slick you don't have to be very wrong to be in the ditch. So I think that
I share the Mayor's concern I would like to see ACRD respond to our concerns and if they
come back by either oral testimony or letter or both and say they are totally convinced it
is fine and they are going to accept the responsibility then there is not a lot we can do
about that. I would like to see that documentation from my perspective.
Kingsford: So I guess where we are at Marty is we will need to table those two issues until
we get a road alignment resolution.
Goldsmith: That did clarify it, thank you.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table the preliminary plat for Salmon Rapids
Subdivision No. 3 by Farwest Developers pending the receipt of testimony verbal or written
or both from ACRD concerning the traffic issue.
Kingsford: Would you also include the findings of fact there as well?
Morrow: Yes, okay on the findings of fact in terms of the decision. Let me start over here.
These are two separate issues on the agenda, on the findings of fact its believed that we
have discovered an error in the decision and recommendation and I would ask the
attorney.
Kingsford: Well I am not sure Walt, again if I could offer some advice here. We have
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 22
discovered that it may not be, if the Highway District concurs that is safe then we wouldn't
need to amend those. I would suggest that we table items 5 and 6 until we get clarification
of that.
Morrow: Okay, it was a different issue that is in error in the findings of fact and.
conclusions. I will move then that we table items 5 and 6.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max that we table items 5 and 6 to the next meeting,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: It has been asked to be tabled as well on the lot development fee, I think Mr.
Ramon Yorgason wrote you a letter requesting that.
Yerrington: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table item 7 to the next meeting, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: ORDINANCE #713 -LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 ANNEXATION:
Kingsford: Do you have that ordinance? AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A
TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THEN 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 20, T.3N,
R.1 E, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have ordinance #713 read in its
entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion on #713.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question with respect to this, this is Los Alamitos No. 3, was
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 23
this not the property in which there is a portion of a school park site?
Crookston: Yes
Morrow: And has the City received the deed for that property as of yet?
Kingsford: It is not platted, so that plat has not conformed to it.
Morrow: Then my next question would be, historically, we've held annexation ordinances
until we have received that deed.
Kingsford: We can't have a deed until there is a plat and we have a legal description, you
are in a catch 22.
Morrow: I understand that, my question is how do we solve that catch 22?
Crookston: You can solve it in one of two ways, you can require the property be deeded
to the City by a meets and bounds description prior to pertorming the annexation. You can
require the property be annexed subject to receiving that deed, it is almost a situation that
as long as the plat is there that the deed could be prepared and given to the City at the
time that the annexation is done that it would be recorded and then the City could record
the deed for the property.
Kingsford: So, what is your remedy?
Crookston: I just mentioned the two alternatives.
Kingsford: Well I agree there are iwo alternatives the Council needs to decide what they
want to do.
Morrow: My remedy would be not the meets and bounds description but the property be
annexed subject to receiving the deed.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: You have that motion and a second, moved by Walt, second by Bob, now you
still have a problem, you can't receive a deed on an illegal subdivision. You are either
going to do it meets and bounds or you going to de-annex it if you don't get it.
Crookston: The deed can be prepared and not recorded until the plat is recorded.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 24
Kingsford: Okay, if that is your pleasure then. All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Okay, so we sit on the ordinance until we get that. Mr. Goldsmith?
Goldsmith: Mr. Mayor if I may, how does this, can you give me some clarification on what
you just did?
Kingsford: What the Council just did was to say that they will annex it conditioned upon
receiving deed to the property that you promised. So, (inaudible) it won't be recorded, it
can't be recorded because it would not be a subdivision yet.
Goldsmith: I have that set up in a contract for the school to pick up when they need.
Kingsford: The requirement was if you, at the time that we first heard this it would be a
deed to the City of Meridian.
Goldsmith: Okay, so you guys have annexed the property and will de-annex
Kingsford: No, but we have said that we will annex it conditioned upon receipt of the deed.
As soon as we receive the deed we will read the ordinance and print it. Am t right
Counselor?
Crookston: Yes
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the deal is that I would like to move that we authorize the Mayor to
sign and the City Clerk to attest the annexation ordinance upon receipt of that deed.
Kingsford: With suspension?
Morrow: With suspension of rules.
Crookston: That is not a good idea.
Berg: I was hoping Shari or Gary would speak up since it is better from them than me, but
we will have a problem from Ada County, correct is it Ada County, when they go to plot this
peice of parcel and there is no annexation recorded with Tax Commission or the
Assessors office.
Kingsford: He is not going to record it though Will.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 25
Crookston: What 1 am suggesting is that the deed to the property, to the school park site
would be executed and issued and given to the City. The City then would act on the
annexation ordinance, the annexation ordinance would then be recorded then the deed
can then also be recorded after the plat was recorded. All we are asking for is that the
deed be given to the City prior to the annexation.
Kingsford: What are you saying then?
Berg: How are they going to describe that parcel then?
Crookston: They know how the plat is going to read.
Kingsford: They know what they are going to give us, it just won't be recorded.
Crookston: Right
Kingsford: In essence it would be a meets and bounds description
Goldsmith: So simultaneous recording would work.
Crookston: Basically yes.
Goldsmith: So it is semi approved and all we have to do to get it approved is to take the
two down and record them at the same time.
Crookston: Yes
Goldsmith: That makes sense, thank you.
Kingsford: However, the Counselor has said it is not a good idea to authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk sign and attest. Follow up on that?
Crookston: We can do it basically all at the same time, the deed would be given to the
City, capable of being recorded, then when the City takes action on the annexation
ordinance the next day we could record the annexation ordinance and record the deed.
Kingsford: You have to publish the thing first, the ordinance.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, you are talking about a meets and bounds description still?
Crookston: No
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 26
Stiles: How can you do that before the plat is recorded?
Crookston: Because they will know what the plat is going to state on the plat, they can
recite it as block number even though it is not recorded, it won't make a difference
because we are not going to record the deed until the plat is recorded.
Stiles: Okay, so you are not talking about recording it at the same time the annexation
ordinance is recorded. You were talking about recording the deed at the same time the plat
is recorded.
Kingsford: To get where we are at with regard to Mr. Goldsmith's question is we have
approved it, that is not so. This body then will have to vote on the ordinance, it will have
to be published and then recorded. That would take the next meeting, space would have
to be in the paper for it to be published, after it is published then it could be recorded. So
that is where it would be Marty.
Goldsmith: I think I understand that. But, so what Shari just said that when the plat is
recorded the deed is recorded, that is not right, right?
Kingsford: They are going to be recorded simultaneously.
Morrow: But we would have the deed.
Kingsford: We would have that deed in our hand.
Morrow: So in other words what you need to do from here is go have your folks prepare
deed for that property, deposit that with the City. At the same time when that is done then
our next meeting we will approve the annexation ordinance, publish it, the Mayor will sign
and the Clerk would attest and you would be off and running. Then your preliminary plat
would go through the final and all of that stuff and when it is recorded then we would
execute and record the deed. But in the interim we would have that as an insurance policy
within the City.
Goldsmith: Alright
Morrow: So it is not quite as confusing as it seems.
Kingsford: It is as difficult, you can't record that when annex the ground until you have a
final plat.
Morrow: I said that, I said we would record at the final for the deed.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 27
Kingsford: So you are basically giving approval of at least that portion of the preliminary
plat at this juncture.
Morrow: What we are doing here is simply getting the deed to the park site.
Kingsford: We are doing what you wanted to get accomplished, you are making sure you
have a deed to that site.
Morrow: That is correct, and once we have that deed which he can have prepared and in
City Hall in the space of a couple of days. Then we approve the annexation ordinance,
that deed stays in City hall until such time the preliminary or the final plat is done. When
the final plat has made its way through the hearings and is accepted and recorded the
same day that it is recorded which might be 6 months from now we would record that
deed.
Kingsford: Right
Morrow: So that is what we are doing, so I would withdraw my motion for the Mayor to
sign and the clerk to attest.
Kingsford: No one seconded it so it died.
Goldsmith: Is there a chance for consistency sake that we did this just like the well lot that
prior to final plat recording I provide the deed.
Crookston: By meets and bounds description that is fine.
Goldsmith: Prior to the final plat recording, I would provide you guys with a deed on that.
Kingsford: I think that the Council would like to have the deed in now. So I guess what we
need to have is a motion to table item 8, the ordinance and it has to be to a time certain
so I guess the next scheduled meeting.
Crookston: Do you want to direct that the ordinance be prepared though for annexation.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, 1 would move that we prepare the ordinance for annexation of Los
Alamitos Subdivision No. 3.
Kingsford: Lord, we have got it in hand, I read the heading on it. What you need to do is
table that ordinance until the next meeting.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 28
Morrow: So moved to October 17th.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table item 8 until the next meeting, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: TABLED SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION N0. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: Likewise table #9.
Yerrington: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table #9, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE
PARTNERSHIP:
Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed those findings?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I would move we approve the variance request or the findings of fact
and conclusions of faw.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for the variance request for Whitestone Estates subdivision, roll call
vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 29
Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, the motion (inaudible) 11-905 E which variance would allow a block
length greater than 1000 feet is hereby granted.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, seconded by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 & 6 BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT:
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I think I have a conflict on this.
Kingsford: Mr. Tolsma has indicated that he is a relative and may have a conflict. What
is the is Council's desire?
Tolsma: I also have a contract with Steiner Corporation for various manufacturing of
goods.
Kingsford: Does the Council think that is a significant conflict?
Yerrington: Well, we turned you down why don't we turn him down?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, the conflict is you did business with them and what is the other?
Kingsford: The other is that he is related to the people selling the property. I think it is
substantial, I hate to see you put him in that kind of position.
Morrow: I would agree.
Kingsford: Step down Mr. Tolsma. Has the Counselor reviewed those amended findings?
Are you prepared to take action?
Corrie: I guess Mr. Mayor, we have to fill in some blanks here it looks like.
Crookston: That is correct.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 30
Morrow: The first blank is on page 17.
Cowie: So we are talking about the strip next to the R-4 in number 3, this first part, is that
correct?
Kingsford: Yes, that portion I believe that abuts Cherry Lane Golf Course number
whatever.
Crookston: This first blank is because there was concern by Planning and Zoning that the
property along and abutting Cherry Lane Village they were concerned that could be a
conflict with our zoning ordinance which says that properties being annexed should
conform to and be I guess friendly with the property adjacent to it. The particular
ordinance is sited in the findings and conclusions.
Kingsford: What is your desire for (inaudible) on that?
Cowie: Well I think Mr. Mayor, that since it abuts that it should be an R-4 along that
section. So I would put R~
Kingsford: I think you need to have a vote on each of those blanks.
Cowie: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: What is the rest of your feelings?
Morrow: I have no problem with that.
Yerrington: What is the size of those lots?
Crookston: R-4 requires a lot of 8,000 square feet, R-8 requires a lot of 6500 and there is
no minimum lot size for R-15 excuse me other than 2400 per dwelling unit.
Cowie: It was 1500 square feet, do you remember what the minimum house size of that
R~ in the Cherry Lane No. 4 was?
Crookston: It was 1400
Cowie: So I guess that would be 1400 square feet, (inaudible) is that 1300 in R-t3?
Crookston: It is 1301
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 31
Kingsford: Is one of you ready to make a proposal?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor (End of Tape)
Morrow: A conditional use permit being applied for and have a design based on that
conditional use permit at that time. Under paragraph Q, how could we specify a minimum
lot size of X number of square feet and a minimum house size of X number of square feet
shall be met in the R-15 district. Is that the R-15 district, is that referring to the R-15
district in terms of the two parcels for conditional use? The condominiums and the patio
homes in concept?
Kingsford: That was the only place you had R-15 was on those two yes. I think most
appropriate would be to scratch from your findings in item O.
Morrow: You scratch item O or you scratch the portion of item Q referring to item 14?
Because item O it says the proper and adequate access to the properties available and
would have to be maintained that a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and a minimum
house size of 1400 square feet shall be met in the R-4 district; that a minimum lot size of
6500 and a minimum house size of 1301 square feet shall be met in the R-8, and then it
should be period and strike that a minimum lot size of square feet and a minimum house
size of square feet shall be met in the R-15 district. 1 think I would like to see that sentence
struck.
Kingsford: Does the Council agree with that?
Corrie: It would be our intent then that small strip along there is an R-4 and the rest of it
is (inaudible}.
Morrow: And the R-15 as presented to us was those two plots of ground would be
designed specifically for some future development and the proposal would come back
before the P & Z and the Council as a separate proposal.
Kingsford: Is that in the findings however?
Morrow: Well in the decision it is requested to be zoned R-15 shall be annexed and so
zoned on the condition that a conditional use permit be applied for and granted.
Kingsford: Okay, that covers it. So, looking at page 17, you are talking about the first
blank should be zoned R-4 right? Under Q you are talking about the first blank 1400
square feet. Second blank 1301. Period after R-8 district, strike the rest of that.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 32
Morrow: Well, we are striking that in terms of, it should be a comma after R-8 district and
then the final portion would be that all homes in the R-4 and R-8 district shall be single
family dwellings.
Kingsford: Right, just strike it here. Is everyone clear? Is there a motion on the findings
amended?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as
amended.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as amended, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea,
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the Meridian City Council hereby decides that the
property requested to be zoned R-4 and R-8 shall be annexed and so zoned and that the
property north of Sagehen Drive as shown on the preliminary plat requested to be zoned
R-15 shall be annexed and so zoned on the condition that a conditional use permit be
applied for and granted showing more specifically how the land is to be developed. That
a conditional use is denied that the property shall be de-annexed and that the applicant
shall grant the land for a fire station that he said would grant to the City. Enter into the
required development agreement and submit a new preliminary plat for the land to be
zoned R-15 and for the land south of Sagehen Drive that is additionally decided that the
applicant meet the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law
specifically including the adoption of a homeowners association with mandatory dues.
And that the applicant and owners are specifically required to the all ditches, canals,
waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system as conditions of annexation. That
the applicant meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including the
development time requirements and enter into the required development agreements and
that rf the conditions are not met that the property not be annexed or if it has been annexed
that it be de-annexed.
Yerrington: Second
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 33
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the decision, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: ORDINANCE #717 -THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6:
Kingsford: Mr. Berg? AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND
ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND
THE SE CORNER OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T.3N, R.1 W, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone that
would like to have Ordinance #717 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a
motion on #717. Gary did you wish to say something?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, I just need to make a comment. We received this morning some revised
legal descriptions for this ordinance. We have not had a chance to review those. I don't
know what the revisions were.
Crookston: I don't know what they were either Gary, I think that was brought to us from the
City and we prepared the ordinance from that. I have no knowledge as to whether or not
you or Bruce Freckleton had reviewed it.
Smith: We have not.
Kingsford: So what we have here
Crookston: The reason that the ordinance was prepared was because that is what the
motion was to do the findings if they were required and to prepare the ordinance. So I
prepared the ordinance.
Kingsford: And so Gary you are suggesting that the legals on this ordinance might be
incorrect?
Smith: I don't know what the revisions were Mayor, we just didn't have time to check them.
We got them mid-morning today.
Kingsford: What is your advice Counselor?
Crookston: I think it would be appropriate to have those legals checked and if they are
correct then we could use this ordinance, rf they are not correct then 1 can prepare another
ordinance. I think we need to have correct legals.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 34
Kingsford: I buy that because if they are wrong we have to reload again. Entertain a
motion to table the ordinance.
Yerrington: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table Ordinance #717 until the next meeting,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Kingsford: The preliminary plat then, what is your desire to do with it? You can't act on
it unless it is annexed.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Kingsford: What is your advice Counselor?
Crookston: I think that the plat needs to be changed because of that change from a portion
of the R-15 to R-4 and that needs to be included in the platting for the R-4. The
conditional use that is apparently going to be applied for the town houses and
condominiums that is going to be under the conditional use but you have that R-4 strip.
Kingsford: Entertain a motion to table.
Bradbury: I am Steve Bradbury, I don't think there is any reason why the preliminary plat
needs to be, first of all I have to say that I haven't seen the findings of fact and I am not
absolutely certain I know what we are talking about. I am gathering that what the Council
has decided to do is to zone a strip of land along the south border R-4 rather than R-15
as was requested in the application. With that in mind, it seems to me that because what
we are talking about on that R-15 lot is one great big lot is a portion of that thing could be
zoned R-14 and a portion of it could be zoned R-4 and we work it all out when we come
in with the subsequent plat and conditional use permit. I don't see that, Steiner
Development doesn't propose to put single family residential lots which are going to be
attached to that R-4 portion of the development. Rather that would be an R-4 zone
contained within the senior citizen complex and I guess meet R-4 requirements. In other
words I don't think you need the preliminary plat needs to be changed in order to
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 35
accommodate the R-4 zone along that perimeter.
Kingsford: Well, the preliminary plat that we have does not contain 8,000 square foot lots
in that area.
Bradbury: The preliminary plat that you have doesn't contain any lots in that area
remember, the preliminary plat you have has one large (inaudible)
Kingsford: What we are saying is that large 10 acre lot needs to have some 8,000 square
foot lots along the southern perimeter.
Bradbury: Which Steiner Development would propose to you when it comes in for its
conditional use permit on the senior complex in that area. You are not suggesting that
Steiner Development is required to use that strip of ground other than the senior citizen
complex are you.
Corrie: You can use it for what you want.
Bradbury: Exactly that is my point, we can use it how we want and we can incorporate it
into the senior citizen complex and it would simply be an R-4 zone in the greater perimeter
of that complex with R-4 type lots but it would still be encompassed in and integrated into
the senior citizen complex. In other words the preliminary plat that you have before you
can be exactly the same because we are still going to have the one big lot in that area and
later when Steiner comes in with the conditional use permit and a new preliminary plat for
that lot for the senior citizen complex it shows 8,000 square foot lots in that area. It shows
lots meeting the R-4 zone.
Crookston: I think that Mr. Bradbury is probably correct, the only problem that I see is if
that property is zoned R-15 and not zoned R-4 then people have the ability to do different
things on R-15 land than they can on R-4 land.
Bradbury: But my understanding is the findings of fact you adopted just a moment ago
indicated that property would be zoned R-4.
Crookston: That is the other problem is the description that we have did not include that
as being R-4. It included it as being R-15.
Bradbury: I understand that.
Kingsford: We are not talking about the annexation ordinance now, we are talking about
just those lots.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 36
Crookston: Right, but with that ordinance being passed that land is zoned R-15.
Kingsford: We didn't pass the ordinance.
Bradbury: That ordinance was tabled, you folks decided you didn't want to pass that
ordinance I thought.
Kingsford: Because a question on legals I guess that would be more of the question.
Bradbury: So all we are talking about now is the preliminary plat which doesn't need to
change as a result of what you folks have decided to change in terms of zoning. We
simply come in with the conditional use permit later and show a project that meets the R-4
requirements in that property that you want to see zoned R-4.
Kingsford: I don't disagree with that Steve, still the problem in my mind is and why I said
that originally is we can't grant a prelimnary plat on something we haven't zoned or
annexed and zoned. You have to table this until the next meeting because it is not in the
city we can't grant a plat on something that is not in the City limits. I don't disagree with
your premise with regard to that lot.
Bradbury: I understand your problem without the annexation ordinance having been
adopted technically the City doesn't have the authority to approve a prelimnary plat.
Kingsford: Mr. Campbell could probably visit with you about the similar situation just to the
west of there.
Bradbury: I think I know what you are talking about.
Crookston: I would ask that you have a legal prepared for those lots along Sagehen that
are adjacent to Cherry Lane Village so we can include that portion that is (inaudible).
Bradbury: So we can have the right legal description attached to you annexation ordinance
and get it done. That is fine, I understand your concerns with the preliminary plat, I just
didn't want to have to go back and redraw a preliminary plat that (inaudible). We are so
far along the process now I would hate to go back to square one. And we know we are
coming in again but at least we can get the existing R-4 and R-8 portions done and going
without having to redraw. Thank you very much.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, I would like to get a point of clarification from the applicant on the plat.
We have several editions of the plat, I have several editions of the plat in my file and I
would like to know which plat we are dealing with. The last date, I have a preliminary plat
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 37
r~
for Cherry Lane Village, the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 & 6 it has a received date on it
August 8th, it has a revised date on it of 8-8-95. It shows a plat for the entire 40 acres lots.
I have a preliminary plat that has a revised date of 3-8-95 that shows the platted lots for
those areas except for the R-15 areas as I have noted on here. I have a concept plat that
is dated October 3, 1995. When I read the findings 1 know I have to read them more than
once to understand what they said.
Kingsford: Max I would entertain your motion.
Yerrington: I would like to make a motion that we adjourn for about five minutes for
pleasure.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to take a five minute break for pleasure, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
Kingsford: The issue on the preliminary plat, at agreement with Steiner and Council let's
come back and revisit, there is still yet an issue they want to present on that. With
Council's permission and move to #14.
ITEM #14: SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH: CONSTRUCTION AT TEN MILE
ROAD AND CHERRY LANE:
Kingsford: Would you state your name for the record?
Dodge: My name is Gary Dodge, Mr. Mayor and Council we would like to, I believe you are
in receipt of a letter from Mr. Kite to Mr. Berg here indicating our request to ask that the
conditional use permit that we believe was a part of the annexation of the approximately
4.75 acres in 1988 be either re-established or at least recognized so that the church can
begin construction on their site that they have at the corner of Cherry and Ten Mile. We
are now proceeding to go ahead with construction and when we talked with Shari here we
indicated that was R~4 zoning and we had to go through a rezoning process and we would
just like to ask your indulgence to recognize or at least give us the conditional use permit
which we thought was in effect with. the property at the time of the annexation.
Kingsford: Shari, what was your finding then?
•
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 38
C~
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this property was annexed I believe in 1987, at that time a
church was permitted in the R-4 zone with a conditional use permit. In researching the files
I did, although the conditional use permit was granted there were no drawings or any site
plan or anything of that nature. When they came and asked about a building permit now
the zoning ordinance has been changed to prohibit church in the R-4 zone. In talking with
Counsel he was also not really sure of where we stood because they do have a
conditional use permit. Also as a part of that annexation and zoning they are required to
submit for site plan review before the Council. I guess, 1 hated to tell them no you had to
go through the rezone if the Council will agree that with a site plan review they could
proceed on their approved conditional use. It was kind of a new thing that I hadn't gone
through before and the fact that the sign has been there probably for all of those 7 years
also future site of this church I don't think it is a surprise to anybody, but it is just another
detail due to a change in the zoning ordinance and I need your direction on it.
Kingsford: Well, Counselor, wouldn't that be just like even though it isn't built, the property
was annexed, zoned and conditional use for it, as long as they do what was annexed
zoned and conditional use permitted for nothing has changed from the original annexation
am I not right. If it was built there it wouldn't be an issue.
Crookston: That is correct.
Kingsford: The fact that it wasn't built there 1 don't think changes the issue. It seems to me
like all they have to do is submit a site plan for Council approval.
Crookston: In my discussion with Shari to me it was a question as to whether or not they
could proceed just as it was. Then there is the question that our ordinances have been
changed, we have in our ordinances requirements that time requirements be met, we
don't, such as in, where somebody has requested a building pennit rf they don't do it within
in a year it lapses.
Kingsford: But they hadn't requested a building permit.
Crookston: No I know I was saying that is in our ordinance. I felt that it was appropriate
to bring it before the Council to decide whether or not you wanted them to proceed on
what they had been annexed on and their conditional use granted or not or whether you
wanted to go back and commence under our new ordinance.
Morrow: Question, is there not some grandfather rights here, is that an issue?
Crookston: No it is not an issue and there are no grandfather rights because nothing is
constructed. You don't have grandfather rights unless there is a use on the land.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 39
Kingsford: Well, the use on the land is for a church.
Crookston: It has to be an existing use not a planned use.
Kingsford: Do you know that they haven't gone out there and had some prayer from time
to time.
Crookston: Well I drive by there everyday and I haven't seen them praying out there.
Kingsford: I know 1 have done some serious praying across the way on that number 5 tee
box. I don't see any kind of a change there, I think if the Council at the time requested a
site plan and review of the Council I think that should still be forthcoming. 1 don't have a
problem with, I think very clearly their sign has been up and we had the public hearings,
people knew that. We discussed issues such as covering the ditch as I recall, about the
sidewalk. There is a little range of things we discussed at the time of annexation. Certianly
it is not circumventing land use planning act in any fashion. I think that they are personally
on board with what we have outlined for them. I would like to see the site plan.
Crookston: I think it can be a Council decision but I don't think it is a decision that Shari
should make on her own.
Morrow: I agree with that, 1 think the site plan ought to be forthcoming.
Kingsford: And is in fact in there.
Dodge: We are prepared to move ahead and I believe some has been submitted to you
and they are looking at beginning construction early Spring, no later than March 15 and
we would certianly modify our plans which would be acceptable with the Council here.
Morrow: You also understand that you will be required to meet current building codes not
those that (inaudible).
Dodge: That is correct, we are prepared to move in that direction and our architect has
been working under those understandings. We just needed clarification whether the
conditional use permit is still available to us or whether we had to go through the process
of asking for that conditional use under the current if the zoning changes didn't allow that
to be carried forvvard.
Morrow. Speaking for myself I think the existing (inaudible) part of this Council at that time,
I don't have any problem with that.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 40
~~
Kingsford: You were here Walt (inaudible). I would entertain a motion of the Coucnil to
allow the zoning and conditional use permit for the Seventh Day Adventist Church to stand
as it did when it was annexed.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of zoning and conditional use permit
for the Seventh Day Adventist Church on the property at Cherry Lane and Ten Mile as per
annexation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: If the audience wouldn't mind, maybe we can take up #16 too, that might be
something that will move a little quicker and then come back, is that a reasonable issue?
Does the Council have a problem with that?
ITEM #16: TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY
MODULAR BUILDING:
Kingsford: Is there a representative here? Frank would address that issue for us please?
Graham: Frank Graham is my name,
Kingsford: Are there any questions of the Council for Frank?
Tolsma: Just north of that awning structure is where you are planning on putting that,
between that and the freeway?
Graham: Right, yes sir, right straight north of it.
Tolsma: I was there the other day and looked at that and (inaudible).
Kingsford: Does the Council have any other questions?
Morrow: I have none.
Kingsford: Is there a motion to that effect?
Yerrington: I move for its approval.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 41
Kingsford: What kind of a time period?
Graham: Two years.
Kingsford: You have typically granted them for a year with an extension but you have a
request here for a specific time so it is up to you.
Graham: The reason I say two years is because we are halfway there for the money for
the addition onto, you see the building there to the, and that is the building you see we will
come back to you probably within a year or at least a year. We would like it for two years
so it will cover that period.
Kingsford: There is a motion is there a second?
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve of the two year or the request for a
temporary modular building for two years for Treasure Valley Baptist Church, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Kingsford: Okay, let's fall back to #13, Mr. Campbell and his client have called to my
attention Coucnil maybe needs to be aware of the problem that exists of creating an R-4
zone specifically will completely require a new map of that. They don't know what the
depths would be, the widths would be. What they are asking is could the Council consider
having R~3 requirements along that boundary but now an R-4 zone. For them to come up
with a specific legal description for that zone is going to have to require the whole thing
to be re-done. Questions of Mr. Campbell or his legal counsel?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, the only concern that I have is to zone that R-15 then allows people
who purchase that land even though they do it an R-4 or to R-4 standards a subsequent
purchaser if it is zoned R-15 could then do whatever is allowed in the R-15 zone.
Kingsford: True, but you can say and not necessarily have a legal description but just say
that the portion on the southerly boundary shall all be R-4 without a legal description then
you have certain depth, width and square footage requirements.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 42
Crookston: But even after that is done, let's say the lots are 8,000 square feet with 80 feet
of street frontage someone who purchases that land they are after if there is not a house
on it or even if there is a house they can come in and put in multi-family dwellings on it.
Kingsford: Not if it is called out to be R-4 but you just don't have a legal description for it.
Crookston: If you have deed restrictions on it that is correct.
Bradbury: Plus the limitations could be on the face of the plat and in any other peice of
paper that you want to sign and record.
Kingsford: You see their problem, I think you can all see is you have to have the complete
plat of that and then plat that portion separate of the big or you don't have a legal
description for it.
Morrow: Let me ask you this if it is done as a conditional use for that R-15 can all of those
things be stipulated in the conditional use? And then add an additional stipulation the
conational use might very well be deed restrictions on those lots that are adjacent to the
existing Cherry Lane.
Crookston: That can be done as long as there are deed restrictions.
Kingsford: Well let's cover that then when you (inaudible). Is the Council in agreement on
that? Okay, we are after the same purpose I think that is just a vehicle.
Morrow: What method do we use to get to that from where we are at now?
Crookston: Well, you have before you a zoning ordinance that zones that property, R-15
along with all the other R-15 would be appropriate to adopt that ordinance.
Morrow: That is the one with the legal that we don't know about right?
Kingsford: He is saying the legal is correct, it just hasn't been checked. (Inaudible) R-4
along the southern boundary.
Crookston: Right, that is included within the R-15 that is within the ordinance that you do
have. So what I hear you saying is go ahead and adopt it that after Gary and Bruce
Freckleton check it to make sure that the legal is correct it would be then annexed at R-15
but there would be requirements that they have to meet the R-4 zone and have the
required deed restrictions.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 43
Kingsford: Are you comfortable with that?
Bradbury: It seems to me in order to get to there you need to amend those findings of fact
and conclusions of law that you have adopted. Because of course I haven't seen them but
I think that those findings of fact and conclusions of law you've indicated that (inaudible)
R-4 zone. So we have to go back and fix that.
Corrie: No we didn't, we took that section out of there and (inaudible).
Kingsford: No, we didn't take that out, we included that in there.
Bradbury: There was that one blank, I think the first blank was filled in with an R-4.
Kingsford: It says R~ and stipulated the building size and lot size.
Morrow: I will read it again Bob, that it is concluded that the property requested to be
annexed and zoned R-4 and R-8 should be annexed and zoned. Let's get down to where
it counts here, that (inaudible) as shown on the preliminary plat should be annexed and
zoned R-15 conditioned on an application and granting a conditional use permit showing
more specifically how the land is going to be developed. The land south of Sagehen
which has been requested to be zoned R-15 sha11 not be zoned R-15 but shall be zoned
R-4 and shall meet all the requirements of that R-4 zone. That was referencing the strip
that was adjacent to the existing Cherry Lane. So to get to where we need to be first thing
we have to do is strike that portion from the findings of fact is that correct.
Corrie: I agree.
Morrow: Alright, so then I would move
(Discussion Inaudible)
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it has been suggested by Counselor that since we have those other
items coming up that we have to do that we could table this, he could make the change
and we could do with these in conduction with the other items.
Kingsford: Let's not worry about tabling it and just have amended findings prepared along
with the annexation and zoning.
Morrow: I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare amended findings of
fact in conjunction with the annexation and zoning ordinance.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 44
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the amended findings of fact and
conclusions of law prepared along with the annexation and zoning ordinance for The Lake
at Cherry lane No. 5 & 6, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: BARBARA MYALL: CONCERNS ABOUT D & B SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT:
Kingsford: At this time she or her representative (inaudible) state your name please?
Steenson: My name is Dan Steenson with the law firm of Ringert Clark (inaudible) I
represent the Myall's who can't be here this evening. We had a long night and I don't want
to take too much more of your time. We submitted a packet in that packet I provided a
letter from me explaining the situation, a letter from the Myall's, a letter from John
Anderson who works for the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, he as a favor of the Myall's
took a look at the ditch situation and made some observations, photographs of the
conditions that we are concerned about, correspondence that pertains to this matter that
has lead to this point. And a summary of provisions from the findings of fact and
conclusions of law, the development agreement and the ordinances which apply here.
The, what we are talking about is D & B Supply I'm sure you are all familiar with that on
Fairview. In back of D & B Supply there is Wilson Lane and on the south side of Wilson
Lane there is a home site or Myall's home, their home of 30 years where their folks lived,
Barbara Myall's stepfather took care of the irrigation system around there. D & 6
development went in this past year on the north side of Wilson Lane in front of their
property. The problems that have arisen during the construction process include and I
would ask you to tum so that, because as they said in that OJ Simpson trial a picture tells
a thousand words, the photographs. The things that we are concerned about include the
first page you see photographs of a ditch, a trespass ditch that was constructed on the
northwest corner of the Myall property which took water from a relocated drain ditch. The
primary concern is the relocated drain ditch, that is shown at pages and the photographs
six through 11, that ditch was located on the boundary of Wilson Lane and the D & B
parcel and was relocated without authorization from ACHD or without consent of the ditch
users to the south boundary. It was an open ditch and it was relocated to the south
boundary, the south side of Wilson Lane on the front of the Myall property. What you see
in these photographs is the ditch, it is a drainage ditch that serves the property to the east
of the Myall property. Where you see water is of course is when of course there is
irrigation going on. In some of these photographs at the bottom right of page seven you
can see the front of the Myatl's house and the new ditch. That house is as I say it is
leased, it is leased to a family now that has three small children, the youngest child is the
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 45
tenants say attracted to play in that ditch. If you look at page nine, there has been some
installation of pipe to provide access to the Myall shed by D & B in response to requests
of the Myall's and ACHD. If you look at page 11, that shows, at the beginning of last
month the down stream and one of those pipes it is after a month of so, over half silted in.
So, and John Anderson has been out there looking at that and looked at the pipe that has
been installed. I asked him to come out and take a look and tell us whether or not what has
been done is adequate. That pipe that is there isn't adequate to serve the drainage water
and the storm water that drains into that ditch. As you can see it is backing up now. Sooner
than later it will back up into the MyalPs front yard. That is one of several problems that are
occurring there at the Myall's property. There is again to refer you to the photographs
there is on page 3 you can see a large parcel with dirt that was excavated from the site
where the D & B building went in and that is still a large open parcel with open dirt on it.
at page 4 you can see an open trash bin with debris coming out of it and looking out from
the Myall property you can see the back of D & B, you can see the screening that was
provided. Many of those arbivida are dying as you can see. So we have outdoor storage
of commercial products, we have inadequate screening, screening which was required by
your findings of fact and conclusions of law. These conditions as I say I have outlined in
my letter. Each of these conditions poses a real problem. The biggest problem is the ditch
and what I havejust handed to Will Berg and he has handed to you is a letter from ACRD
as of the end of last week, I received it yesterday. ACHD is demanding that the open ditch
be relocated out of the right of way. ACRD didn't approve of it, City Council didn't approve
of it, Planning and Zoning Commission didn't approve of it. So they are requesting that per
their conditions that the ditch be relocated out of the right of way because Mr. Wynkoop
has said it is a hazard. The reason we are here before you tonight is that the Myall's and
with my help beginning in July have worked over the course of four months writing letters,
having meetings with Larry Sale of ACHD, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith. I have talked to
Wayne Crookston recently about it. Shari has in turn written a letter requesting that these
problems be resolved. You can see what Larry Sale is requesting to be done. And the
response has been with respect to the ditch at least that the relocation of the open ditch
and leaving it as an open ditch was approved by ACHD and the City. Which I can't find
anyone that has confirmed that. I can't find any document which grants a variance of your
City's very clear requirement that irrigation ditches including drainage ditches be tiled and
piped. So, we are at the end of the first part of a road I guess you take when you try to
have a problem addressed when you work with staff. You don't come to a solution, so as
I stated in my letter we are coming before you to ask, to bring this matter to you attention
and to ask that you determine what an appropriate response would be and take action to
correct these problems because they do violate the development agreement and your
ordinances and the conditions of approval. As to what action to take, there are perhaps
a variety of options but I wouldn't presume at this point to determine what to suggest to
you what the appropriate action would be. What perhaps could happen is that (End of
Tape) you make a decision about how to address this problem tonight or direct staff to
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 46
spend a reasonable period of time within which to have this matter resolved. Table the
matter tonight and then come back within a month say and see what resolution has
occurred. With that I would open it up to questions.
Kingsford: The pictures with the, regarding the open dumpster, if 1 am looking at those
correctly and the dates, that dumpster is now in the back of a chain link fence is that
correct?
Steenson: Right, if you are looking at the bottom of page 4, the bottom right photograph
that is correct.
Kingsford: So that is remedied?
Steenson: Well, it is still open and exposed.
Kingsford: Well, but there is a fence on the outside of it that would contain that trash am
I right correct?
Steenson: Well, as I understand the ordinance it requires screening for aesthetic
purposes. Shari can address that, that is not the greatest concern it is the ditch.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: Counselor, could you look at page 2 and explain to me what that picture
represents, the sunken lawn as you go up to that doorstep, what are you telling us with
that?
Steenson: These are photographs during construction. One of the things that happened
as a result of the construction process was that the Myalls lost their tenants at that time
and had an unleased home there. These photographs show some of the things that
occurred. I believe this was the installation of sewer or water, this lower photograph. The
upper photograph there were two planners there, one was destroyed, removed by the
construction workers and it was later replaced. But this is to show some of what has been
endured during the construction process. I didn't, the Myall's didn't want to
Kingsford: The bottom part though you are not suggesting D & B did that are you?
Steenson: I am not sure who did that work.
Kingsford: Well, it looks to me like they are making a service line to that house am I
wrong?
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 47
Steenson: I am not sure exactly who did that work. This was in part to chronicle the
construction process and where the property sits today. That photograph does not the
problem that the Myall's are requesting to be remedied at this time.
Kingsford: Any questions for the Counselor?
Morrow: No, is there a representative here from
Kingsford: That is just what I was going to ask, D & B do you wish to make comments on
each of these? Would you state your name for the record please? First off I would ask you
if you have seen these pictures.
Gigray: If it please the Mayor and the Council, first I will identify myself for the record, my
name is William F. Gigray, III, and I am here representing D & B Supply Co. Inc., for
purposes of the record I would also advise that Mr. Rod Snyder who is the manager of the
Meridian store for D & B Supply is also here in the audience but we don't wish to belabor
this if it is unnecessary. I have seen black and white xerox copies of many of those
pictures which were supplied me along with the packet which I believe was supplied to
you. Those pictures are kind of hard to interpret and it is a little difficult.
Kingsford: They are color pictures, they don't look that bad counselor.
Gigray: At this point, 1 would like to say I did send a brief letter because at this point I am
a little confused with regard to what procedure we are following at this point. I think that
some of the issues that were presented by this particular complaint by the Myall's presents
some engineering and other issues which would take a fair amount of time to put on a full
case with regards to our position on it. What we feel and what our intent is to work with
your staff and we still have to resolve our differences if we can with the Ada County
Highway District over the waste ditch. It is our position and it is my clients positions that
they have hired Hubble Engineers who worked on this project who prepared the plans and
specifications, went through the approval process and our position that we relied upon that
approval process and that it in fact was approved and that we were allowed to locate the
ditch where we were. And we have stated our position to Ada County Highway District,
they have recently stated their position to us in a letter which was recently sent by their
attorney. In order for us to see whether or not we can reach some neutral ground about
a resolution of this problem I think we are going to have to meet us with the Ada County
Highway District with their people, with their engineers, their attorneys, your planning and
zoning staff and certainly the Myall's if this involves public situations can be represented
in those meetings as well to see whether or not there could be some kind of solution to this
problem. Our position is this waste ditch was in the right of way at the Ada County
Highway District proceeding the development of this property and remains so to this day
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 48
and that the issue was addressed in the plans. But at this point I know what their position
is, I think it is worth a stab at trying to see if we can't resolve an impasse on that particular
issue. And clearly in terms of the expense that is the most formidable issue involved in
these complaints that have been raised by the Myall's. As far as the other matters are
concerned first of all I think that the record is clear by the materials that you have before
you and that is the Myall's are not here, they are in California. And to the best of our
knowledge the renter of the property across the street who is a Dixie Amold has not raised
any complaints with our people about the operation there. In fact I can have Mr. Snyder
say that he has in fact talked with her about our operation there and that there isn't any
complaint coming from the renter. Be that as it may we do want to honor our obligations
under the development agreement and it isn't D & B's position that isn't intending. to do so.
We are in the process now of putting slats in the chain link fence that surrounds the area
that the dumpster has now been put in the loading area so that it is out of the sight and is
fenced in and the slats should further obstruct the view of that dumpster. As far as the
landscaping across the south portion of the property, it is true and the pictures do depict
that there are some of the arbivida there which are dying. At this point we are trying to
determine the causation for the dying because it is, there are a few that have died there
are some that parts of them have died and not all of them. Until we figure out what the fix
is we have to figure out what the cause of the vegetation problem is. As far as the storage
of the commercial material complaint is, we recognize that we have to address that issue
and I think we have to address that issue with the staff of the City of Meridian to see what
is the best possible solution. Sometimes hurried recommendations end up with actually
more visual blight and obstruction that what exists at this point in time. So how that is done
I think has to be carefully determined but it seems in order to try to discuss these matters
within a one month period would be ample time to see if we cannot get all of these matters
resolved. As far as the claim in the trespass is concerned 1 am not, it isn't our position that
a trespass has occurred here. We can take another look at that particular issue there.
think this has to do with the concern of the property owner to the east of our development
who had concern about his ability to access his field to the east. So we did go in and
accommodate the request so he could access that field with his equipment. I think that is
what that issue as to deal with. As far as the dust is concerned I think the evidence in this
particular case and I would with your permission could show you some photographs that
were taken of existing conditions at this time if you feel that this is necessary my
preference would simply be to deal with your staff about this. It has been done in a very
good and workman manner, it is level, it is neat, it is clean, as far as dust is concerned I
think if one notes the development across the street from my client and a very large
development of the Fred Meyers area, there is a fair amount of dust being created in that
situation right now. We understand that is the process of development, my client is willing
to take a look at a possible planting solution of some kind of drought resistant grass or
something that might provide even more coverage of that area. We would want to be able
to put something in there that doesn't become unsightly, a weed problem or a maintenance
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 49
problem. But this may be something that could be worked out to eliminate that problem as
well. So, I would say the long and the short of it from our position is we would like to try
another stab to see if we cannot resolve our situation with the Ada County Highway District
on the waste ditch issue. As far as the other matters are concerned I think that we would
try to work with your staff on a solution to those things.
Kingsford: Well if I am hearing correctly, Counselor, you are saying roughly the same
thing.
Steenson: Yes, 1 think (inaudible)
Kingsford: Let's look to see some sort of remedy by the first meeting in November of this
year.
Gigray: Well, I think by that point in time we should know whether we can remedy the
situation or not and I know that the Myall's may not think that D & B's answers is what they
want to do but at the same time my client has hired engineers who drafted plans, have
incurred costs and have put in a development and now there has been a suggestion or a
request by the Ada County Highway District that would if it required replacing that waste
ditch or retiling clear underneath the whole southern portion of the D & B property which
has already been developed could be of considerable expense to D & B. This of course
is a serious matter to my client. I have met with the engineer about these complaints, we
have stated our position and now we know theirs. So now 1 think we are in a position to
move forward to see if okay we have said what we think our positions are can we come
to some neutral ground. I think that is the best course for everybody involved if we can get
her done.
Kingsford: Let's see an update in one month.
Gigray: I think that is very reasonable.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) just east (inaudible) wind blows the bark dust covers his patio and his
house and his living room and everything else. I told him he should go out there and meet
with the manager or somebody out there and discuss that problem. I seen the other day
there were some blue tarps, I think covering those pits that were out there. But I haven't
talked to Ray since so I don't know, (inaudible).
Gigray: I would tell you the manager is here and I assume that he has heard everything
you said.
Kingsford: Well I think it ought to be something (inaudible)
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 50
Snyder: Council and Mayor, my name is Rod Snyder, I am the manager of p & B and that
particular issue. He did come over and speak with us about it and we remedied that
immediately and put tarps on top of all of those. From what t hear from him that has
remedied that. Unfortunately, there is a home very close to it, a very large business, one
of the largest businesses that is here. We are trying our best to remedy all of these
problems. We have remedied I believe most. So we will continue to do that.
Tolsma: That was the only thing he had, he said other than that you were good neighbors.
But he said the dust come up one day and it blew (inaudible).
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I would question the attorney's letter from the state, ACRD is there an
occupancy permit in this program? What is the occupancy issue status?
Stiles: Councilman Corrie, Mayor and Council, there is a temporary permit that is issued
in order to let them occupy the building prior to all of the improvements being made. Ada
County Highway District has never signed on the final portion of that occupancy which
means that we cannot release the final official certificate of occupancy. The fact is they are
occupying the building and I don't think it is in anybody's interest to try to stop any
occupancy. I don't believe that is what Mr. Steenson is really asking for.
Steenson: (Inaudible) What we want to see is the problem fixed. The location of the ditch
prior to relocation this is a drawing that was provided and the only lines that show the ditch
show right here on the boundary, right here on the boundary. And your ordinance with
respect to tiling of ditches says where the ditch under consideration is on the boundary
between the land being developed and adjacent land here ACHD's fee right of way that
they own in fee not owned by the developer or the owner of the land being developed or
is in fact the boundary, the ditch shall still be tiled. The ordinance goes on to say that the
developer shall attempt to obtain the permission of the land owner for tiling the ditch, and
shall attempt to obtain the adjacent land owners consent to share the cost of tiling the
ditch. But if they don't obtain that consent they shall still the the ditch. That is what really
brings this within the jurisdiction of the City. It is also within the jurisdiction of the ACRD
that happens to be concurrent jurisdiction here because ACRD does have authority over
its right of way. The annexed parcel does go to the center line of Wilson Lane. Which
includes this area.
Kingsford: I think we are clear on that counselor. Again one month let's see if we can't get
that remedied. I would be surprised if ACHD wouldn't let you the that in the right of way.
They the them themselves.
Steenson: (Inaudible)
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 51
Kingsford: The first meeting in November would be November 8th.
ITEM #17: WATERlSEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
Kingsford: This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to a pre-
determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. October 3, 1995 before the Mayor and City Council to
appear in person and defend the claim made by the City that your sewer, water and trash
bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be disconnected on October
11, 1995 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone that would like to contest your
sewer, water or trash delinquency? Seeing none I would entertain a motion to approve
the turn off list.
Tolsma: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the turn off list, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have this decision of the City
reviewed by the Fourth Judicial Court pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal
their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list this month is $26,917.96.
ITEM #18: APPROVE BILLS:
Tolsma: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to approve the bills, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #19: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Kingsford: Mr. Smith, bid results?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council I would like to have that item postponed for two weeks
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 52
please to the next meeting.
Kingsford: Shari, do you have anything?
Stiles: I have one thing Mr. Mayor and Council, the Borup's, Borup Construction,
Creekside Development at Finch Creek has asked if you would consider that they be given
one building permit prior to their plat being recorded. I know this has been done in other
cases and I don't know the process for that or what problems it might cause Gary but they
would like to be able to get started on one home.
Kingsford: What do you see as a problem with that Gary, are you familiar with that they
are asking? I think the Council's position is we want to support whatever it is you feel is
in our best interest. So I guess I would entertain a motion that we acquiesce to Gary's
judgement on that issue.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to allow Gary to determine on the question of
the Borup building permit, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Thank you
Kingsford: Also determine in terms of safety and those sorts of things if we can get the
response people out there.
Tolsma: Does he want that decision?
Kingsford: Well, I don't think we have a problem here Gary, if it doesn't look like a good
thing you (inaudible). Anything else Shari? Chief?
Gordon: Approximately two weeks ago businessmen in the downtown area met with the
police department and Mayor Kingsford and Councilmen Corrie and Yerrington. They
were wanted to discuss the problems that were having in the downtown area and luckily
were able to clear all of those up prior to that meeting with the exception of the one
burglary and that was J & J Sports. Lieutenant Musser just advised me that they have two
suspects in custody and all the property recovered for J & J Sports.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 53
Kingsford: Juveniles again?
Gordon: No sir, these are adults. So hopefully the business people in downtown area now
are a little bit of justice has been done. The citizens on patrol academy starts again on the
10th, here at the police academy, we have 18 people signed up on this one. One of them
being Councilman Yen'ington. We would welcome any and all the rest of you to show up
or become part of the program.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Gordon: Also the police activity league Saturday mornings down in Story Park if any of
you are around at 10:00 (inaudible) and that is 3 to 5 year old kids. It is really a hoot if you
are looking for something to lift your spirits a bit.
Morrow: Do we have a mixed doubles league for the very young and very senior members
whose talents ought to be about commensurate with each other.
Kingsford: I had a meeting scheduled with the guy from Intermountain Outdoor Sports and
he never showed, I don't know what the disposition of that was.
Gordon: On the police activities league?
Kingsford: Yes, Will put him on my calendar and he didn't show up, was that Tuesday, no
it would have been Friday. I don't know whether it was a miscommunication to him but
I was sitting there waiting for him and he didn't arrive. If he wishes to still meet with me
(inaudible) if there was miscommunication. He more or less started up that program on
the youth activities league. Counselor?
Crookston: Yes, the only thing that 1 have is this is the time that I bring up the budget I
proposed. I did not mention that to the Mayor of the Council for, do you want to discuss
that now, I do not have copies with me, do you want to wait until the next meeting?
Morrow: What is the discussion concerning?
Crookston: The discussion concerns the rate increase from $77.50 to $80.00, there is an
increase in the secretarial cost and that is really all.
Morrow: Didn't we cover that in the budget hearings?
Crookston: We did but to my knowledge it wasn't approved. I didn't know the rates were
approved.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 54
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor I move we table this until July 1st of 1996. Withdraw the motion.
Morrow: Well wait a minute I am thinking about it.
Kingsford: What is your pleasure, do you want to act on it, you have had that for some
time.
Morrow: I thought we discussed this and made it part of the budget apparently (inaudible)
Kingsford: No, it was there of course Wayne's fees have always been, he budgets and
says we will need so many hours and bases a budget based on this particular hourly rate.
We don't have any idea just how many hours he is going to spend. In the past and I
wouldn't be surprised, I wouldn't say that you are wrong, in the past we have approved
specifically his hourly rate changes separate of that. We have typically done that around
this time, the new budget year.
Morrow: Well, I remember the presentation in our budget workshops, he made the
presentation at that point in time.
Kingsford: That is correct, I guess at issue if you feel like you have made that adjustment
do you want to vote on it now or do you want to table it to the next meeting?
Morrow: Well, I guess from my perspective I don't have a problem with tabling it and
revisiting the issue but I think from my perspective that as we went through the budget
workshop although there was not as I recall a specific vote taken with respect to those
rates I think maybe it was assumed that they were okay.
Kingsford: I think, at least to be consistent with what you have done in the past it would
warrant a vote.
Morrow: Well, then why don't we have them make a presentation with his paperwork at the
next meeting to formalize and make the vote then.
Kingsford: Are you guys in agreement? Okay, next meeting Counselor? Anything else?
Crookston: No, thank you.
Kingsford: Walter?
Morrow: Only one thing, I have here before me a letter to our guys at the sewer plant that
I wish each of us to sign. They just recently did their NPDES compliance inspection and
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 55
got really high marks and did a really nice write up. I thought it would be appropriate if we
sent the boys a letter signed by the five of us showing our support for a job well done.
Having said that I will sign at the bottom and pass it down the line.
Kingsford: Anything else Walter? Max?
Yerrington: No
Kingsford: Bob?
Corrie: Nothing
Kingsford: Ron?
Tolsma: Yes, I have (inaudible) planter boxes and I think it was Troop 78 Eagle Scout
Troop sponsored by the LDS church here in Meridian that they had a ton of kids out there
and adults that went through and put new bark around all of our tree planters and put the
screening in the bottom of the planters. Generally it was overseen by our Parks
Superintendent Mr. Dennis Summers. He spent all day Saturday out there with the kids
and the parents doing this job. I thought I should mention that. Also we have
Morrow: Wait a minute, did we send him a thank you letter or anything?
Tolsma: That might be a good idea (inaudible).
Kingsford: Let's send them a thank you.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: Will will find out the names and cut certificates for them, we will do that.
Tolsma: The other thing was the occupancy license that was in your box, I think a copy of
that that Skip put in there. What we are trying to do is prevent what happened over here
back of the (inaudible) blew up and caught fire because nobody knew what was in that
building and it had never been inspected or electrical inspected or building inspected or
anything. He is trying to pursue this to try and keep this from happening again. So it gives
the enforcement officials a little something to shut them down if they haven't got an
occupancy license. But he put that in your box it is a license that comes from another city.
He will make comments on it or make changes or (inaudible) but took at the thing and
(inaudible).
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 56
Morrow: Ron, the issue there is that clearly we are not doing the job we have got now. And
so the issue is that the person that is going to change occupancies doesn't want to have
a license and doesn't come in and get one. It is not going to solve the problem, the
problems is going to be solved when we have the zoning compliance officer hired. I
personally don't see any reason to create another level of bureaucracy today that we can't
handle because we have no staff with which to handle it. If somebody doesn't want an
occupancy permit and clearly we don't need an occupancy license. We have within the
building code and with the P & Z stuff on board already the mechanisms for occupancy
certificates any time that there is a change in occupancy. So that is clearly a building
department function that would happen within the building department. There is further
check out of that stuff done by your zoning ordinance officer (inaudible) covered from two
perspectives. We don't have the staff to look at those no matter how many things that you
write you are still not going to get to where you need to be. We are currently trying to
implement or trying to get hired a zoning compliance officer and so from my perspective
we got to take that stuff and run with it from there. The second question that t would throw
out is that part of the responsibility for that lies with the annual commercial inspections the
fire departments are supposed to make. Very candidly when they go in and do their
inspection for fire extinguisher and exit signs and blocked exits and so forth they should
be recognizing that a use is there illegally and calling that to the attention to the zoning
compliance officer and or the building department. They should also be checking for fire
proof container storage cabinets and all those kinds of things. The long and short of it is
all the rules to accomplish those things exist already. Clearly the problem is that we have
not had the staff or the direction of staff to be able to approach and do those things. We
still don't' have the people to accomplish that stuff. We are trying to do it now but the
solution of the problem is not creating another ordinance or another level of bureaucracy
when we have got the mechanisms to solve the problems already on the books, we just
don't' have the people. We are trying to remedy the things in terms of the people. A god
example is Boise City, do you see anything licensed over there in terms of business or
occupancy licenses, the answer is no. It is all done with occupancy certificates.
Corrie: Then where is the problem (inaudible) building department then. They don't know
what is in there, we don't know, the fire department doesn't know for sure, they haven't
inspected it in a year (inaudible)
Morrow: (Inaudible) Bob you have the same thing, you have the zoning compliance officer
and he goes by and sees Bob Corrie and Walt Morrow automotive and he looks at his deal
and says gee wait a minutes this approved (inaudible) who the heck is Walt Morrow, Bob
Corrie cabinet shop. So then (inaudible)
Tolsma: But we had this Sonrise Heating and Cooling that materialized in that building
over there and got well established, we had Val's Appliance service that (inaudible) right
• •
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 57
on main street.
Morrow: Ron, I am not (inaudible) all the bureaucracy in the world and if you don't have
people to do the checking those things aren't going to get done. We have got the
mechanisms by which to do all of that stuff we simply haven't had the people to do it. The
solution to the problem is not to create yet another level of stuff the solution to the problem
is to get the people on board and take care of the stuff that we have already got there.
Because you just don't need more rules and regulations when you can accomplish what
you are after with the ones you have got.
Corrie: Do we have an ordinance that would stand up on something like that at this point,
(inaudible) do we have an ordinance (inaudible).
Morrow: In the case of this one we certainly did because we approved a conditional use
for Moffitt (inaudible) we never approved a conditional use for (inaudible)
Corrie: You are right, but do we have an ordinance (inaudible)
(Discussion Inaudible)
Morrow: We are trying to get the manpower.
Tolsma: No, but I mean do we have the enforcement? Right now it is not a law that you
have to (inaudible) it is not an ordinance (inaudible).
Morrow: Any time you make a commercial change you have to have an occupancy
certificate.
Crookston: The zoning ordinance requires that.
(Discussion Inaudible}
Corrie: Well, does the fire department have the power to do that (inaudible
Morrow: Well, he would under the life safety codes would he not?
Crookston: I haven't looked at the life safety codes. The fire department has the ability just
as you said Walt, they have the ability to commercially go in and have a fire inspection
every year.
Tolsma: I get inspected every year.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 58
Morrow: Well that is my point in terms of this (inaudible) we are trying to get from point
A to point B clearly in this case based on the information given you had an illegal
occupancy and we never had anybody to find that out. Because we had approved not long
ago, how long ago did we did the Moffitt (inaudible)
Tolsma: (Inaudible) with the manufacturing plant (inaudible) commercial area that needed
a conditional use or something like that to even be in there. And yet they are (inaudible)
moved in, what do you tell them move back out again?
Kingsford: Well you guys, we can make this until the second coming and I have to rise
early. Would you give a little thought to this process (inaudible) fine tune it. I guess one
of the things that I think about with regard to your comments Walt is I agree with you. At
issue still is the building department if there is a change in occupancy wouldn't necessarily
know what we have approved. They are going to have to spend a little time and I agree
that could happen. When the fire department goes out they are not going to know what the
zoning is and what they have been approved (inaudible). So it needs to be a little
coordination and I think we need to fine tune that. I think we are rummy enough that we
will never get that done tonight.
Morrow: That would be through you zoning compliance officer, that is his or her function
that we are trying to get hired now.
Yerrington: We would probably catch a lot of them with the water bills though wouldn't we?
Kingsford: I guess maybe that we could use that with the ordinance officer with regard to
if we see a change in name that ought to maybe be a trigger to take a look.
Crookston: What about just a business license?
Kingsford: Well, again a business license.
Crookston: Then at least we should know who is coming and going.
Kingsford: My bet is you are still going to have 50°~ of them that will be operating without
a license and how are we going to know it? It becomes an issue of us looking, big brother
you know. I don't disagree I think we just need to look at what is the most reasonable thing
for us to do. I have 3 or 4 things that I would like, just take a few minutes. First off I would
like to thank Ron maybe get you guys to give him an atta boy. Ron was out and mowed
the well lot at Meridian Greens, a lot of people have told me that Ron was looking good
out there on the lawn mower. So I think, also along that line a got a fax from Mr. Forrey
who noticed Ron out mowing the lawn he was one of several that mentioned that to me.
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 59
Morrow: How big is this lawn?
Kingsford: It is pretty good size, it is the well lot over there at Meridian Greens.
Morrow: That is a park isn't it?
Kingsford: Or a well site. So at any rate Mr. Forrey exactly what we have been talking
about, the Meridian Greens people were advised that would, if we did the planting and so
forth that would be their homeowners association to maintain. That he would be glad to
meet with the homeowners association and go over that again because he was City Clerk
at that time. I have asked him to write that letter and be prepared to go. Again I think that
we don't want to get into a high maintenance issue out there. You are going to have it in
every well lot that you accept. So, I think we either do that or we look at sterilizing that as
per mine and Gary's letter. Sterilize it and make it a low maintenance well lot like the rest
of them.
Morrow: So the point is that either they maintain it or we sterilize it?
Kingsford: Yes, I think we need to, and I am convinced that those folks probably want it
that way and would be willing to work on it. I think it is just a matter of not (inaudible)
Tolsma: The people that stopped by that didn't even know what that building was or what
that was there. (Inaudible) or what it was even.
Kingsford: So anyway that was just point of information. Chief I have had several people
that said now that Cherry Lane is five lanes and got big wide sidewalks and so forth that
it might be reasonable to look at a higher speed limit. I think that might be the case after
Ten Mile and Cheny Lane is done. I concur with that certainly as I have piloted around the
Phoenix area that where everybody except Walt and myself are over 80 those people are
moving 45 to 50 on those section line roads where they are that wide. So give that some
thought. The issue was brought to my attention by Mr. Tucker Johnson with regard to
piping Kennedy Lateral out there that there is some issues. He wrote us a rather lengthy
letter, did you make copies for the Council? I will have him make copies for Council on
that. One of the issues is that between #4 and #5 Landing, excuse me Landing #7 and #4
there is a common line that goes along there that the Kennedy Lateral is common to. We
didn't require #4 to be piped, I think I was probably under the assumption maybe the
Council was as well that was all the same developer. It is not the case, it was California
money, the people that developed #4 is the Brighton Corporation, son in law, but is was
a different deal. We didn't require them to pipe that thing and I don't know I have asked
Will to research that. Now we are asking Skyline Corporation because they are doing #7
to pipe that whole thing as per our ordinance. Their contention is why didn't we under our
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 60
ordinance why didn't we make Brighton do it when they did 4. I don't have any answer but
anyway we are looking at that. The second part of that issue is then their piping along the
common boundary with Gary Fors that we have required. They are suggesting that under
our ordinance if it borders their property under our ordinance it says they have to pipe it.
They are saying and 1 think justifiably so not only in this case but in many others that we
ought to look at a latecomers agreement with them. If in fact Mr. Fors let's say in this case
sells that property or decides to develop he is going to enjoy something of a freeload and
I don't see that being any different from a water or sewer line extension. If those parties
are interested in entering into a latecomers agreement with us I don't know why we
shouldn't adopt that just as we do a sewer and water line. Your guys' reaction?
Morrow: I agree with that, I have no problem with that.
Kingsford: I think there are several cases that this occurred on and 1 think it ought to be
a policy that we incorporate, again if they want to. Our ordinance I don't think we need to
amend I think we just need to say yes we will latecomer it if and in the prescribed time limit
somebody comes in and develops that then they are going to have to pick up some of the
tab.
Morrow: That is the ten year time frame?
Kingsford: Correct.
Crookston: You would have to at least make a reference to it in the tiling ordinance.
Kingsford: Correct, so if that is your pleasure I guess we need to reference that in the tiling
ordinance and move along. I think that the Skyline Corporation will be very appreciative
if you would do that. Also, a little thought about the other issue between those two
subdivisions. I know I thought it was all Skyline. I signed a proclamation, that is enough.
Entertain a motion to adjourn.
Tolsma: One more comment for the Chief, the neighbors down there really appreciate
getting those stops signs up at 11th and State Street. And also that one that comes off of
12th Street back (inaudible).
Kingsford: I entertain a motion to adjourn.
Corrie: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Meridian City Council
October 3, 1995
Page 61
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:43 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
t,..~ ~ µ.
GRANT P. KINGSF , I YOR
ATTEST:
G^--
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., TY LERK
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Grant P. Kingsford
Mayor
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the vitality of our city depends on how safe we keep our homes,
neighborhoods, and businesses, because crime and fear diminish the quality of life for
all;
WHEREAS, people of all ages must be made awaze of what they can do to prevent themselves, their
families, neighborhoods, and workplaces from being harmed by violence, drugs, and other
crimes;
WHEREAS, the personal injury, financial loss, and community deterioration resulting from crime
are intolerable and need to be addressed by the whole community;
WHEREAS, effective crime prevention programs excel because of partnerships among law
enforcement, other government agencies ,civic groups, schools, and individuals as they help
to rebuild a sense of communal responsibility and shared pride; and
WHEREAS, crime prevention initiatives are more than self-protection and security, but must
promote positive alternatives to delinquency and drugs among young people and emphasize
the power of youth to better communities.
THEREFORE, I, Grant P. Kingsford, Mayor, do hereby proclaim October, 1995 as
CRIME PREVENTION MONTH
in Meridian, Idaho and urge all citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, and
businesses to increase thew participation in our community's prevention efforts and thereby promote
good citizenship.
Dated this 3rd day of October, 1993.
Grant P. Kingsford, ayor
PROCLAMATION COMM~TI~~iT
Whereas, the vitality of our city depends on how safe we keep our
homes, neighborhoods, and businesses, because crime and fear
diminish the quality of life for all;
Whereas, people of all ages must be made aware of what they can
do to prevent themselves, their families, neighborhoods, and
workplaces from being harmed by violence, drugs, and other crime;
Whereas, the personal injury, financial loss, and community
deterioration resulting from crime are intolerable and need to be
addressed by the whole community;
Whereas, effective crime prevention programs excel because of
partnerships among law enforcement, other government agencies,
civic groups, schools, and individuals as they help to rebuild a
sense of communal responsibility and shared pride; and
Whereas, crime prevention initiatives are more than self-
protection and security, but must promote positive alternatives
to delinquency and drugs among young people and emphasize the
power of youth to better communities.
Therefore, I Grant Kinosford, Mayor, do hereby proclaim ®~k®b®f~
Il~~3 as Crime Prevention Month in Meridian, Idaho and urge all
citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions,
and businesses to increase their participation in our community's
prevention efforts and thereby promote good citizenship.
Honorable Mayor Grant Kingsford
DECLARATION OF CRIME PREVENTION MONTH 1995
October 1, 1995
Mayor Grant Kingsford has .proclaimed October as Crime Prevention
Month, a time to empower individuals with knowledge to protect
themselves and persuade them to take collective action to make
Meridian safer and more vital.
The national theme for Crime Prevention Month 1995, is "Crime
Prevention Starts at Home: Setting the Stage for Community
Action". Crime Prevention not only focuses on the basics - good
home security, self-protection skills for children and grown-ups,
drug prevention, and neighborhood watch, but also on Meridian's
newly formed programs Police Activities League and Citizens on
Patrol. It also addresses complex issues such as violence in the
media, family violence, and dangers posed by the proliferation of
handguns. It calls on all of us to look for ways to settle
conflicts without violence in our home, workplaces, schools, and
neighborhoods. It urges everyone to contribute to the
communities well-being by volunteering and exercising good
citizenship by reporting crime.
During October, a rich array of activities will demonstrate crime
prevention's power to mobilize citizens and promote community
partnerships. These events include the second "Citizens on
Patrol Academy", a Crime Prevention Fair at the Boise Town Square
Mall, neighborhood block parties, and events organized by the
"Meridian Police Activities League".
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBL~ MEETING SIGN-U~HEET
0
~~ ~-~
!i ~ ~~ ~L~/y~i /~ /SC t L ~~~ - 2 ~ 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP~HEET
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: OCTOBER 3.7995
APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 17
REQUEST; WATER/SEWR/TRASH DELINQUENCIES
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
COMMENTS
r .~ ~'
,~ 1~
v/~~
. ,,
~~~~~~~
i
vt
T ~~~
/~i
V~,~
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Kingsford: This ~ to inform you in wr~ng, if you choose to,
vnu have the right to a pre-determinatio hearing at 7:30 P. M.
10/03/95 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to
be- ~~u 9 d on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that
your water, sewer and trash bil'1 is delinquent. You may retain
counsel. This service will be discontinued on 10/11/95
unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone prese?t wNo
wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash delinquency.
response.
Kingsford: They are hereby informed that they may appeal- or have
the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District
Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal, their
water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is
5 26,917.96 ,
~_
DELINQUENCY LIST
TURN OFF LIST SCHEDULED FOR 10/11/95
ACCOUNT # NAME & ADDRESS AMT. PAST DUE
1----90 LEONARD MCFADDEN 49.00
710 W. 2ND ST
1---170 RICHARD & K. LOYA 107.85
721 W. 3RD ST
I---220 MILDRED JOHNSON 43.00
330 W. BROADWAY AVE
I---930 MICHAEL STILES 50.00
223 W. BROADWAY AVE
1--1040 JOE & H. AZEVEDO 51.20
110 W. RAII,ROAD AVE
1--1280 TECO INVESTMENTS 67.80
809 W. 2ND ST
1--1960 CURTIS E. CHANDLER 142.10
437 W. IDAHO AVE
1--2010 RICK S. WISDOM 96.80
323 W. IDAHO AVE
]--2420 BARBARA HENDRICKS 88.70
1586 W. BIDDICK ST
1--3130 ALLEN PEENING 97.00
935 W. PINE AVE
1--3200 MARYANN NEWKIRK 50.00
847 W. PINE AVE
2----80 DALICE PLUMBING 112.80
921 W. 2ND ST
2---180 RHONDA DUNN 91.80
921 W. 3RD ST
2---402 ANDREW & D. LUBACKY 110.00
912 NW 7TH AVE
2---466 WII,LIAM & K. VICK 117.40
673 W. APPLEGATE ST
2---486 THOMAS FISCHER 158.80
676 W. APPLEGATE ST
2---650 AUSTIN L. YOUNG 86.20
906 W. I OTH ST
2--1050 BILL GRAU 258.00
820 N. CINDER RD
2--1190 A.TERRELL & L. JOY 89.30
1324 W. 1ST ST.
2--1250 ELIZABETH WEAKLEY 90.20
1528 W. 1ST ST
2--1290 KEITH & D. MITCHELL 60.00
1624 W. 1ST ST
2--1370 DEBRA LYNN WHITE 97.00
1607 W. 1ST ST
2--1510 MARK MANWARING 67.20
1305 W. 1ST ST
2--1690 E. RALPH NASH 80.20
1616 W. 2ND ST
Z--1721 DR. BARRY SAMS 48.00
SPRINK./DR. SAMS
2--1860 H. LARUE BEVINGTON 139.00
240 MAPLE AVE.
2--1870 LARRY PIPER 61.20
306 W. MAPLE AVE
2--1970 KERRY L. CARSON 141.00
225 W. MAPLE
2--1990 RICHARD NEWBERRY 74.20
1337 W. 2ND
2--2030 VIRGIDIIA MEYER 55.00
230 CAMELLIA AVE
2--2280 RICHARD SCHERER 96.60
201 CHERRY AVE
2--2460 LISA L. COX 51.00
1230 W 4TH ST
2--2470 EDWARD L. BAUGES 50.60
339 CHERRY AVE
2--2500 ELLEN BAILEY 61.00
338 CHERRY AVE
2--3570 D. J. STANLEY 318.70
1122 W. 4TH ST
2--3702 E. E. BRINEGAR 61.20
1635 MERIDIAN ST
2-4240 DAVID L. SHAFFER 103.20
1208 W. 12TH AVE
2--4520 PATRICIA R. WII..LIAMS 90.20
1409 W. 13TH ST
2--4800 JUDY L. TODD 97.60
1400 NORTHGATE AVE
2--5130 RUSSELL SMITH 98.00
1433 W. 14TH ST
2--5160 JACK WARD 47.00
1407 W. 14TH ST
2--5170 JILL RODRIGUEZ 115.80
1401 W. 14TH ST
2--5600 SANDY WATERS 222.00
1436 W. WASHINGTON ST
2--5670 JAMES R. RANSOM 124.40
1017 W. I STH AVE
2--5850 PHILLIP A. DUPEROUZEL 93.25
1406 W. CARLTON ST
2--5890 KAY FEII, 67.00
1036 W.15TH AVE
2--6440 FREDRICK J SHADDICK 119.20
1002 W. WASHINGTON DR
3----10 MIKE ENGLISH 142.80
770 N. ABERNATHY WY
3----54 RICK FISHER 135.20
705 N.ABERNATHY WY
3---308 MICHAEL BITTNER 69.20
2065 W. SNYDER DR
3---318 KIMERY DECKER 82.70
694 N.ABERNATHY WY
3---388 LESLIE BRUNTON 81.00
1968 W. SLATON DR
3---420 RICHARD THURBER 151.80
674 N.TALL PINE PL
3---670 WAYNE HURRAY 112.00
1625 W. PINE AVE
4--1412 RODNEY PLUMLEY 72.20
2826 W. LEONARD CT
4--1754 MARK PRYOR 116.00
2553 W. SHERYL ST
4--]776 BUD LANSING 110.80
2628 W. WILLARD ST
4--1778 BRIAN THIBADEAU 104.00
1360 N.STUCKER AVE
4--1914 SYLEU SINGKHAOPET 68.60
1445 N. TOKAY WAY
5---168 JACK & C. LAYWYK 77.60
3953 W.PARK CREEK DR
5---214 DWAYNE SESSIONS 164.40
3848 W.PARK CREEK DR
5---696 HANSON HOMES 83.00
3416 W.ELM CREEK DR
20----8 DON EVANS 94.00
4349 W. QUAKER RIDGE DR
20---32 KENT JOHNS 109.40
1835 N.WHITE OAK WY
20-1396 DAVID & M. OGILSVEE 115.80
3300 W.WOODMONT DR
20-1492 DENNIS TRAMPLEASURE 125.10
3565 W. TUPELO CT
20-1830 RODNEY BRADY 134.20
3840 SEA ISLAND CT
20-1846 MICKEY L. WARE 238.60
3721 SEA ISLAND CT
20-1874 PAM WALKER 89.80
2024 INTERLACHEN WY
20-1880 JON D. ROHOLT 178.20
2050 INTERLACHEN WY
20-2054 FREDRICK C. RUTH 170.00
3419 SUGAR CREEK DR
21----4 WALKER FAMILY TRUST 125.80
1632 TODD WAY
21--582 MARJORIE CHANCE 109.40
2606 W.PEBBLESTONE CT
21--996 DAVID GOURLEY 232.50
2723 W.PEBBLESTONE CT
21-1018 KENT BARNEY 128.40
2782 N.FIELDSTONE WY
21-1052 KENT BARNEY 195.80
2989 N.FIELDSTONE WY
21-1144 LESLIE SISIAM 92.00
2333 N. MAXIS WAY
21-1172 RICHARD FALK 191.60
2375 LEANN WAY
21-1658 R & M HOMES 57.00
2150 TODD WAY
21-1734 DAVID YOUNG 77.00
2053 KRISTEN WAY
21-1766 RICK K. COFFMAN 96.00
1960 MARIANNA PL
21-1770 YVONNE DESIND 109.20
1941 MARIANNA PL
21-1868 DAREL D. PEDERSEN 131.20
2638 REBECCA WAY
21-1894 CLINTON BARNHART 131.60
2580 MISTY DRIVE
21-1928 BRUCE R. BAILEY 134.80
2590 REBECCA WAY
21-1934 DARICE BEHRENDT 79.20
2612 MISTY DRIVE
21-2006 MARK & T. ROSE 63.80
1732 N.MORELLO AVE
21-2060 MICHAEL D. MACHOS 58.20
1679 N. VICTOR AVE
21-2070 MICHAEL A. ANKENMAN 62.30
2993 W. ANN ST.
21-2116 ROBERT L. GILBERT 50.60
2891 W. GEMSTONE DR
21-2254 DAWN ANDERSON 53.00
1957 N. SWAINSON AVE
21-2260 MATHEW & S. BREWSTER 97.40
1893 N. SWAINSON AVE
21-2262 CLINTON MINER 94.40
1869 N. SWAINSON AVE
21-2758 MICHAEL & B. THOMPSON 123.60
2444 N. VICTOR WAY
2]-2768 RICHARD THURBER 134.00
2566 N. VICTOR WAY
21-2920 KEVIN & B. CROFTS 143.90
2931 W.ELK STREAM ST
21-2984 TOM & DEME MOHR 97.60
3138 W. MIltAGE CT
21-2990 HUBERT & A. PRICE 202.40
3133 W. MIRAGE CT
21-3080 CREEK CONSTRUCTION 130.00
2895 N. MORELLO AVE
21-3160 DOUGLAS & J. PETERSEN 57.20
3087 N. THAMES AVE
22--338 JEFF R. BURROUGHS 115.40
1861 TRACY CT
22--924 RONALD W. BENTZINGER 100.80
2135 MONACO WAY
22-1060 WILLIAM & D. HAWKINS 132.60
2052 N. SPARKLING PL.
22-1216 ROBERT WHEILER 112.20
2208 W. HENDRICKS ST
22-1326 ADELAIDE CARTER 115.80
1905 MONACO WAY
22-1350 GAYLEN & S. COWGER 136.60
1956 W. MCGLINCHEY ST
22-1356 MARVIN L. KERBS 106.90
1983 HENDRICKS CT
22-1376 RANDOLPH LEE 125.00
1944 HENDRICKS CT
22-1384 PETER MICHNO 56.00
1947 W. SANDALWOOD DR
22-1412 MARTIN DUARTE 79.80
1803 W. MCGLINCHEY ST
22-1420 DUANE DAVENPORT 93.20
1719 W. MCGLINCHEY ST
22-1482 LYLE D. ANDERSON 131.60
1723 SANDALWOOD DR
22-1504 RANDY L. SIMPSON 101.40
1764 SANDALWOOD DR
22-1520 MICHAEL A. RUFFALO 245.40
1952 SANDALWOOD DR
22-1524 CARL L. KOCH 131.80
1994 SANDALWOOD DR
22-1596 PAUL GIAUQUE
1767 BEARDON CT
22-1634 EVA LOUISE REED
2291 N. CINDER RD
31---66 TEDDY KII,DOW
1250 W. CHERRY LN.
31--140 NICHOLAS CORRAL
1300 W. YOST CT
31--142 MARY VANDEVENTER
1330 W. YOST CT.
31--190 BRET & D. STEPHEN
1965 NW 12TH ST
31--516 SHARON JARRETT
1542 STOREY AVE
31--520 BARBARA ROOT
1562 STOREY AVE
31--538 ROBERT L. MILLER
1521 KINGSWOOD AVE
31--608 MICHAEL WALKER
1333 NEWPORT DR
31--726 JASON & L. NITZ
1324 NEWPORT DR
31--822 JOHN MCKAY
2132 NW 12TH ST
31--834 TED DUMONT, JR
2219 NW 12TH ST
31--840 GERALD R. BARNOWSKI
1312 TANA DRIVE
31--866 VICKEE K. CARSON-POOLE
1328 W. CHATEAU AVE
122.40
57.60
128.20
69.80
159.60
81.40
58.40
49.00
131.60
156.60
80.60
126.80
110.60
141.80
118.80
31-1002 COE KIEBERT 85.60
1571 CLAIRE ST
31-1028 NANCY LOGUE 79.20
1341 DARRAH DR.
31-2218 JOYCE GASKELL 109.60
2664 NW 13TH ST
31-2238 MARK TUBBS 81.80
1310 DARRAH DR
31-2254 RAYMOND TURNER 79.65
1402 DARRAH DR
31-2266 VINCE & M.TRAINOR 92.20
1433 CLAIItE ST
31-2274 FAYE WILLIAMS 81.20
1312 CLAIliE ST
31-2300 DOUGLAS S. HALLOCK 158.80
1532 COWRY ST
31-2982 ROBERT & J. KING 105.10
2240 N. CINDER RD
31-3002 DAVE CHRISTENSEN 118.20
2240 NW 15TH ST
31-3016 HARRY DAMS 58.32
2217 NW 14TH ST
31-3018 FORREST F. SCHUSTER 112.10
2218 NW 14TH ST
31-3022 GARY TIPTON 127.80
2240 NW 14TH ST
31-3032 KENT BARNEY 72.80
1321 W. CHATEAU AVE
31-3050 DEBRA FRENCH 77.00
1065 W. CHATEAU DR
31-3058 DOROTHY L. HARBOUR 126.20
940 W. CHATEAU DR
31-3060 DAVID BASTIAN 20b.10
960 W. CHATEAU DR
31-3242 DAVID E. MCGOWAN 136.60
2211 NW 11TH ST
31-3294 ROD T. WERLE 79.30
1061 W. NEWPORT CT
31-3368 DONNA GARDNER 53.60
933 W. CHATEAU DR
31-3394 PHILIP R. CARROLL 107.40
1080 DELMAR DR
31-3406 MARY H. ULIN 112.00
1111 FAIRWOOD CT
31-3414 DAVID J. STINGER 76.80
1053 FAIRWOOD CT
31-3504 LINDA PADDOCK 133.80
1643 NW 11TH ST
31-3528 JACK TEATER 113.60
1938 NW 11TH AVE
32--566 BARBARA J. HICKS 207.80
1919 CRESTMONT DR
32--602 JUDITH LOLLEY 196.80
1720 CRESTMONT DR
32--780 MARGIE BODINE 180.50
460 W. CREEKVIEW DR
32-1168 ANTHONY & P. GULBIS 130.60
285 W. SPICEWOOD DR
32-1678 STEVEN HEZELTINE 67.80
121 W. WATERBURY DR
•
33-4344 MARK CIRELLI 150.80
2557 N.LARCHMONT AVE
33-4578 DOUG & M. RHINEHART 120.80
2553 N. RICHTER AVE
33-7616 BRAD MICHAELSON 125.80
128 E. EASTBROOK
34--342 RONALD & T. DARCO 109.20
1686 JERICHO ROAD
34--504 RONALD ERICKSON 95.00
2096 N. SAPPHIRE PL
34--548 JOHN F. JANSON 152.20
2100 N. AMETHYST PL
34--592 TODD & D. ELLIS 69.00
2328 N. AMETHYST PL
34--726 TAMMIE BRESHEARS 223.60
2276 N. ZIRCON AVE
34--812 KARL & L. KAUTZ 103.15
2298 NE 10TH AVE
34--860 BENJAMIN J. FLYNN 94.00
980 E. BROWN BEAR CT
34-1036 RONALD & M. LANDON 139.40
1288 E. HUNTER DR
34-1760 T. ROBERTS/T.KAUFFMAN 96.00
2235 N. LARK AVE
34-1806 ERMINE DAMS 155.40
1014 CLAYBOURNE DR
34-1880 SHANNON JOHNSTON 112.40
2062 N. LARK PL
34-1884 ANTHONY GARDiJNIA 77.00
2112 N. LARK PL
34-1976 MARJO LACROD{ 88.12
1028 CLARENE ST
34-2048 BENNETT AHLSTROM 114.80
1811 N. TEARS AVE
34-2104 HEIDI TYLER 59.60
1034 TAMMY ST
34-2126 DANA K. GRIGG 132.00
1015 CLARENE ST
40---60 CASTLEWOOD HOMES, INC 83.00
1963 E. SUMMERPLACE CT
42--468 KYLE HILL 108.20
2561 E. GRAPEWOOD DR
42-1860 THEODORE ROY 98.60
2043 N. WHITTIER PL
42-1966 CLAY A. BARRY 152.20
1960 E. MEADOW WOOD ST
42-1990 JAMES PETTERSON 253.40
2215 N. MEADOWROSE PL
42-2024 ROBERT V. STEEN 104.20
2149 E. CHATEAU DR
42-2038 COMFORT ZONE HOMES 64.00
2305 E. CHATEAU DR
42-2252 BRAD L. MCKINLEY 140.60
2220 E. CHATEAU DR
42-2404 PHOEBE ROSE 95.00
2277 N. LOCHNESS WY
42-2530 KELLY & T. KII.ER 96.40
2031 E. LOCHMEADOW CT
42-2712 JERRY B. KNAPP 89.00
2581 N. LAUGHRIDGE AVE
s0----2
s0---12
50---28
50---s4
s0---90
50--218
50--262
s0-2410
50-2444
s0-3734
s0-3746
s0-4490
50-4634
s 1--482
51--486
TOM & R. ELLIOTT
16 E. PINE AVE
PAUL H. SMITH
29 E. STATE AVE
RONALD YANKS
930 E. 1ST ST.
ROBERT BURKETT
221 E. STATE AYE
ROBERT HENDRY
s 1 s E. STATE AVE
FARRIS GRAHAM
312 E. STATE ST.
SCOTT MURRI
12 E. STATE AVE
DAVID & C. REED
1433 N. PENRITH AVE
STEVE & T. MCNITT
1472 N. PENRITH AVE
CHERYL CZARNECKI
907 N. RALSTIN PL.
TIMOTHY & H. ORR
988 N. SCRIVNER WY
LILLIAN FUHRMAN
614 E. PINE AVE
BERT LEE
909 E. 4TH ST
RICHARD HURRAY
319 E. IDAHO AVE
KATHERIPVE KEELS
325 E. ffiAHO AVE
1 lo.so
51.90
14s.80
46.70
68.60
60.00
136.60
76.20
69.00
124.20
95.20
44.00
69.40
66.40
165.80
51--514 DAVID & S. MARTINEZ 78.80
503 E. IDAHO AVE
51--758 ELITE CLEANERS 114.40
140 E. IDAHO AVE
51-3222 RYAN WHITE 60.00
204 E. 2ND ST
51-3310 MILDRED ROGERS 42.00
226 E. 2ND ST
51-3320 TIMOTHY P. ZIIVINIER 130.20
234 E. 2ND ST
51-3350 STEVEN GREGORY 44.00
225 E. KING ST
51-3400 DAVID W. SLAGLE 68.80
310 E. 3RD ST
51-3800 DAVID W. SLAGLE 57.60
318 E. 3RD ST
69---46 DAVID WII,LIAMS 204.00
1877 S. GOLDSMITH AVE
69--466 CHARLES & L. PAGE 132.50
1728 S. SPORTSMAN WY
69--522 DOUGLAS PORTER 62.12
1118 E. PEACOCK ST
69--566 LAWRENCE & D. CHURCH 133.80
1035 E. SHEPHERD ST
69--568 ROGER & S. JUDGE 99.20
1107 E. SHEPHERD ST
69--654 VAN & J. WAGGAMAN 167.90
1320 E. PUFFIN ST
69-1590 M.PAUL & J. JONES 463.40
1706 SE 3RD WAY
74---18 ALFRED & J. HOCKLEY 61.90
43 SW 7TH AVE
74---80 RICK R. BURWELL 107.50
513 KEARNEY PL
74---94 RANDY WINWOOD 128.30
671 PENNWOOD ST
74--338 RODERICK S. YEAGER 100.80
685 HANOVER CT
74--344 SHIIZLEY HOOK 95.40
635 HANOVER CT
74-1014 JERALD HOLLOWAY 202.80
64 ROSE CIRCLE
74-1260 ROBERT & E. MAYFIELD 202.60
305 S. MERIDIAN ST
74-1312 ALAN LEE & D. CENTERS 195.40
325 S. MERIDIAN ST
74-1316 NORMAN FULLER 101.00
417 S. MERIDIAN ST
74-2324 RALENE J. GREGORY 183.00
1125 CRESTWOOD DR
74-2368 FLOYD ELDRED 91.20
1014 CRESTWOOD CL
74-2390 BRIAN & R CURRY 72.80
1058 W. LOUISVII.,LE CT
74-2442 JOHN NESMITH 136.60
112 SW 12TH AVE
74-2524 THOMAS LOVELL 111.00
1353 W. KIMItA ST
74-2540 LONNIE GAMMEL 66.00
1207 W. KIMRA ST
74-2638 CARMEN BIItD 150.60
447 S. OUTFIELD WY
74-2644 SHARON HOUSE .139.80
877 W. PENNWOOD ST
74-2832 KEVIN MOONEY 93.80
1319 W. CRESTWOOD DR
74-2834 MICHAEL MCCORMICK 146.60
1289 W. CRESTWOOD DR
74-2846 ROD MEDLEY 85.60
479 S. SPOONBII.L AVE
74-2876 TRACY USSERY 55.00
1345 W. MERGANSER DR
74-3216 STEVEN & R. WII.LACY 120.90
926 W. GREENHEAD ST.
74-3248 RICHARD & K. GARNER 86.80
495 S. PELICAN WAY
74-3250 ROBERT & F. PENNER 122.80
519 S. PELICAN WAY
74-3300 DONALD L. MOORE 58.20
1244 W. GREENHEAD DR
235 Total Accounts Total Due $ 26,917.96
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF RAMON YORGASON
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605 M TILING OF DITCHES
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on August 15, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock
p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Ball, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant's representative, Gene Smith,
appearing, the matter having been tabled to gain more information
on the matter and tabled at the request of the Applicant, 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 15, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the August 15, 1995, hearing and at subsequent
meetings; 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 DITCBES, 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 Creason Lateral; the Applicant states in his
Application as follows:
"This lateral is only partially located on the applicants
property and would require a pipe larger than a 48" CMP which
would cause financial hardship for the applicant".
5. That present land use is agricultural; that the property
is intended to be developed with 47 single family residential lots
and 5 common area lots.
6. That the Creason Lateral runs along the northern boundary
of the Waterbury #5 Subdivision project; that in the Application it
was stated that the dimensions of the water flow in the lateral
area were approximately 9 feet wide at the surface, 2-3 feet deep
as an average, and traverses approximately 730 feet across the
property.
7. The Applicant stated in his application that the Creason
Lateral is an extension of the Finch Lateral which tuna along the
northern boundary of the previously platted Waterbury Subdivision
phases; that during non-irrigation months, the lateral continues to
flow due to groundwater in the area; that the Creason Lateral has
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY #5
Page 2
also been designated as a potential future greenbelt area by the
City Planner.
8. The Applicant further stated that he is proposing to
leave a corridor open along the Creason Lateral to allow for future
use as a greenbelt; that in previous phases of Waterbury Park
Subdivision, Applicant has provided a fenced future corridor for
pedestrian use; that the circumstances involving Waterbury Park
Subdivision No. 5, are that the Lateral is isolated to the northern
boundary, that fencing would be good for the purpose of limited
subdivision access and such is a more viable solution; that the
granting of this variance will not detract in any way from the
purpose or meaning of the Comprehensive Plan; that this would allow
the Applicant to develop the property in a similar manner to
surrounding properties without creating excessive economic costs
which would inhibit development; that the applicant will not create
excess profit by this variance but will make the development more
economically feasible; that the Applicant is providing over 2 acres
of open space to enhance the quality of the subdivision, including
an area designated by the City for a bikepath along the Five Mile
Drain.
9. That the property in the area where the variance is
requested is zoned R-4 Low Density Residential District.
10. That the Application states that Ramon Yorgason is the
owner of the property.
11. That Meridian City Assistant Engineer, Bruce Freckleton,
submitted his initial comments; that hydraulic calculations for the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY #5
Page 3
Creason Lateral, received by his office on July 25, 1995, from Gene
Smith, engineer for Applicant, indicate that a pipe greater than
48" diameter would be required to transport the anticipated flows
generated from three contributing sources during a 10 year flood
event; that the information compiled in the report was from field
surveying, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and from a FEMA
Flood Study performed by Runz Engineering; that the calculations
exhibit a necessity for a pipe of 72" in diameter to adequately
carry the anticipated flows; that at the hearing, in response to a
question, Gary Smith, City Engineer, stated that the Engineering
Office's comments were based on the information that had been
presented to them and that they agreed with the information that
had been presented.
12. Gene Smith, the Applicant's representative, testified
before the Council that the Creason Lateral runs across the north
end of the project; that there are three sources of water for the
Creason Lateral where it crosses Applicant's land, the Creason
Feeder for 40 CFS, the Finch Lateral for 40 CFS, and a small drain
for 4 CFS; that there is potential from these three sources of
receiving 84 CFS and calculating a 10 year storm, which has a 108
chance of happening in any one year, adding an additional 20 CFS to
that, we have 104 CFS that the ditch could possibly see; that based
on 104 CFS, the pipe that would be required would be 72 inches in
diameter; that the Applicant has piped the Creason Feeder with 48
inch pipe; that to the the Creason Lateral would require at least
66 inch cmp pipe or maybe 70 inch pipe; that this lateral is only
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY N5
Page 4
partially located on the Applicants property and would require a
pipe larger than a 48" cmp pipe which would cause financial
hardship for the Applicant. In response to a question from
Councilman Morrow, who had stated that the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District had stated it need to review the calculations
to determine whether a 48 inch pipe will be adequate, Gene Smith
stated that the Applicant had not requested Nampa & Meridian to
review there calculations.
13. That Nampa Meridian Irrigation District submitted
comments and stated that the Cresson Lateral flows at the maximum
of 2,000 miners inches or 40 CFS; that they have not seen or
reviewed the flow calculations that were used to determine that 48"
pipe (which the City of Meridian requests) will not work; that they
need to review the calculations to determine whether 48" pipe will
be adequate; that the request for variance of the lateral may be
premature.
The engineering information submitted by Gene Smith was
forwarded to the District and Nampa & Meridian submitted additional
comment dated September. l9, 1995, which is incorporated herein as
if set forth in full; that John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent
for the District ended the comment by stating that he believed that
a 48 inch pipe would be more than adequate and that it should work
quite well and that if the pipeline is installed according to
approved plans, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District will assume
all responsibility for the operation and maintenance.
That in response to Nampa 6 Meridian's comment Gene Smith
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY #5
Page 5
submitted additional comment, which is incorporated herein as if
set forth in full; he stated again that a 48 inch pipe was
inadequate to handle the flows that could possibly generated in the
Cresson Lateral.
Nampa & Meridian submitted an additional letter, dated October
13, 1995, which indicated that there is a 48 inch pipe under Linder
Road which to his recollection has never been under water from the
Cresson Lateral, that the District is not regulated by FEMA but if
it is determined that the District is-under FEMa the district would
have to reassess their policy, and that manipulation is the only
way the District can accept storm run off.
14. That the Meridian Fire Department submitted comments and
they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the
Meridian City Police Department and Central District Health
Department reviewed the application for variance and made no
comment.
15. That at the public hearing question by Mayor Grant
Kingsford was asked of Gene Smith as to how many CFS would the
ditch handle before it flooded, could not be answered by Mr. Smith;
that the photos presented to the Council by Mr. Smith showed that
on August 12, 1995, the day the photos were taken, shows the water
within approximately 6 inches of the top of the 48 inch diameter
pipe at the Cresson feeder; that Nampa Meridian Irrigation provided
the Applicant with the flow quantities and since the decision to
pipe the lateral is a requirement of the City of Meridian and not
the irrigation district, no request was made of the Nampa Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY #5
Page 6
Irrigation District to review any calculations; however, as stated
above the information was provided to Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District.
16. That Joe Simunich testified stating that the Creasan
Lateral goes through his property for about 700 feet; that between
Meridian Road to Linder -Road it is more like a creek than an
irrigation ditch; that some engineering needs to be done as to
whether this should be a perforated pipe so it can drain these
lands as we have a high water table here in Meridian; that
installing pipe could be stopping the natural flow and eventually
elevating the water table on the north side of Meridian.
17. There was no other public testimony given.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon which it may take
judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERHURY #5
Page 7
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That since Nampa 6 Meridian stated in its initial
response that it had not seen or reviewed the flow calculations
that were used to determine that 48" pipe will not work and that
the District needs to review the calculations to determine whether
48" pipe will be adequate, it was permissible and lawful for the
City to allow Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District the ability to
review the engineer data and to submit comments after the public
hearing; also it was similarly permissible to allow response to
Nampa & Meridian comments by the Applicant.
6. 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. ."
7. That the City Council is considering changing the
Ordinance regarding the piping of large ditches; that the Ordinance
may be changed; that the City has allowed variances from the piping
requirement where it has been shown that the pipe required would be
larger than 48 inches.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY #5
Page 8
8. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that
must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows:
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing,
that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would be clearly
impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the
subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as
to the specific provision or requirement involved;
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this
Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the
subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature or
condition of adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions that make strict
compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the
circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of
this Ordinance will result in inhibiting the achievement
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.
9. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit,
economic gain or convenience to the Applicant if this variance is
granted; however, the fact that there are three sources of water
that do flow, or could flow, into the Cresson Lateral prior to the
locations where the Cresson Lateral would have to be piped in
Waterbury #5 Subdivision, they include drainage ditches in addition
to ditches that are used to transport irrigation water, and it is
unknown, very difficult, or impossible, to determine the exact
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY #5
Page 9
amount of water drainage that there could be, make it reasonable to
not require tiling of the Creason Lateral.
10. The testimony of Joe Simunich that between Meridian Road
to Linder Road the Creason Lateral is more like a creek than an
irrigation ditch; that some engineering needs to be done as to
whether this should be a perforated pipe so it can drain these
lands as we have a high water table here in Meridian; that
installing pipe could be stopping the natural flow and eventually
elevating the water table on the north side of Meridian is
significant and supports the granting of the variance.
11. That sufficient information and data has been provided by
both the Applicant and the Nampa ~ Meridian Irrigation District to
reflect that the total possible amount of water that the Cresson
may have to carry is unknown and may be incapable of being
determined; that the Nampa 6 Meridian Irrigation District has
indicated that it desires that the ditch be tiled since it believes
it could be accomplished with a 48 inch pipe; but it has only
stated that it would assume responsibility for the operation and
maintenance, and did not state that it would accept total
liability.
12. That the above conclusions support the granting of the
variance as does that fact that the City has previously granted
variances where the size of the the would be greater than 48
inches.
13. That the requirement of tiling ditches is a health and
safety requirement; that by reason of the size of this ditch, it
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY #5
Page 10
•
appears that to require tiling of this ditch would not achieve the
safety purpose for which tiling is required in the Ordinance.
14. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2., regarding the
tiling of ditches, it is specifically concluded as follows:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of
the provisions of the ditch tiling Ordinance would
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.
15. That it is concluded that the Application for a variance
from 11-9-605 M, PIPING OF DITCHES, should be granted.
16. 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY #5
Page 11
APPROVAL OF FINDINCiB OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR RINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED
VOTED N
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
That it is decided the Application for a variance from
11-9-605 M is granted under the conditions stated herein; that the
ditch shall be fenced with either chain link or rod iron on both
sides on the right-of-way.
APPROVED ~z~1-~'+-
DISAPPROVED'
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - WATERBURY $5
Page 12
~ ORIGIfvaL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF WNITESTONE PARTNERSHIP
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605 E.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on September 19, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock
p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appearing through its
representative, Charles Eddy, 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
on September 19, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the September 19, 1995, hearing; that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
3. That Ordinance 11-9-605 E. requires that blocks shall not
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP Page - 1
be less than five hundred feet nor more than one thousand feet in
length; that 11-9-612 A 1. states as follows, pertaining to
variances of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance:
Purpose: The Council, as a result of unique circumstances
(such as topographic - physical limitations or a planned unit
development), may grant variances from the provisions of this
Ordinance on a finding that undue hardship results from the
strict compliance with specific provisions or requirements of
the Ordinance or that application of such provision or
requirement is impracticable.
4. The entire property in question is described in the
subdivision application and is incorporated herein as if set forth
in full.
5. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property
but the owners of record are J. Perry Kelley and Sally R. Kelley,
Weiser, Idaho, Evaline Humphreys, Meridian, Idaho and the Florence
and Harlan Family Trust, Carol VanHees, Trustee, Meridian, Idaho
and have consented annexation and development of the property.
7. That the Applicant has requested that it be granted a
variance from the above requirements and be allowed to have a block
length of greater than 1,000 feet for one (1) block, Block 8, which
is lying in the southern half of the subdivision and stated in its
Application the following statements:
"This property's shape is similar to an upside down L. This
property is approximately 1,700 feet long North/South and
1,300 feet East/West. This configuration does not provide for
a typical block layout. We are requesting a variance from the
maximum block length specification in the subdivision
ordinance. Whitestone Estates currently has one Hlock, Block
8, which is in excess of 1000 feet."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP Page - 2
"A stub street has been added to Block 2 to create Block 8.
Adding stub street brings Block 2 in compliance with the
subdivision ordinance. However, Block 8 exceeds the 1,000
feet maximum by approximately 300 feet."
"A favorable decision concerning this variance would allow the
applicant to retain the current lot configuration and save any
costa associated with building a stub street. Profit and
convenience are not the sole reasons for this variance
request."
7. That Charles Eddy testified that the Applicant
understands the maximum block length requirement is to allow for
safety of the lot owners within the subdivision as well as to
promote interaction in the subdivision between neighborhoods; that
emergency vehicles will generally take the least restrictive route
to an emergency; that Block 8 has two access points, one from
Linder Road and two directly from Waltman Lane.
8. That Glen Rosenthal, of Primrose Subdivision, just on the
south side of this property, testified that the neighbors concerns
is in the entrance onto Waltman; that Waltman is a dead end street
that is only about a half mile long; that any emergency vehicles
are still going to come up Franklin and Linder; that we are really
concerned about the additional traffic with such limited access
onto Linder; that there are just too many homes without access onto
Franklin.
9. That Jay Atwood and John Jaques testified regarding the
traffic issue; that 145 new homes is going to add over 300 hundred
additional vehicles to the area; that Mr. Jaques questioned what
kind of impact is this going to have on our schools, shopping, well
water and whether any studies have been done; that Mr. Jaques asked
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP Page - 3
regarding the water and sewer and how that was coming in and that
this will tear up Linder Road again.
That Councilman Walt Morrow, head of the Ada County Citizens
Advisory Board for the Ada County Highway District attempted to
answer Mr. Jaques' concerns regarding the traffic question; that a
design for a five (5) lane rebuild of the intersection at Franklin
and Linder has been done; that the budgeting process of ACRD has
caused the project to be delayed until 1998; that the City Council,
in looking at the plats of the proposed subdivisions, sees the need
for stub streets and the City we requires the subdivision to have
stub roads to that when those other properties come along then it
doesn't impact other areas; that in the future for this area there
is an on/off ramp on Ten Mile and the freeway; that overpasses are
planned for each road that doesn't have an on/off ramp. That Gary
Smith answered Mr. Jaques' question regarding the sewer; that the
sewer will cross Linder and go back into the Landing Subdivision,
but that it won't go down the entire length of Linder.
10. John Maebitt, 1135 Laurel Court, testified that notifying
people within 300 feet is not sufficient; that his personal
experience is the road services on Waltman and Linder are really
substandard road services; that unless these roads are completely
rebuilt with a better surface, sidewalk, curbs and gutters, then
there is going to be a real problem.
11. Richard Taylor offered testimony that maybe the cart was
before the horse and that the streets should be improved prior to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP Page - 4
that subdivision coming in; that stub streets have been turned down
because of inadequacies and that these people that live out there
now, are being asked to sacrifice what they moved out there for;
that safety is a factor that must also be considered as, with more
traffic, you have more speed.
12. That the City has not received the comments of the Ada
County Highway District, the Planning Director, and City Engineer's
Department and if they are received they shall be incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
13. That Central District Health Department and the Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were 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 has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances; that 11-9-612 B
1. a. states that the variance procedure shall follow requirements
contained in 2-419.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP Page - 5
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 City Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That the following provision of Section 11-9-612,
Variances, of the Development Ordinance is noted which is pertinent
to this Application:
11-9-612 A. 1. PURPOSE
The Council, as a result of unique circumstances (such as
topographic - physical limitations or a planned unit
development), may grant variances from the provisions of this
Ordinance on a finding that undue hardship results from the
strict compliance with specific provisions or requirements of
the Ordinance or that application of such provision or
requirement is impracticable.
6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-9-612 A. 2. FINDINQ~S
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing,
that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or
unreasonable; in such cases, the subdivider shall first state
his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or
requirement involved;
b. That the strict compliance with the requirements of this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP Page - 6
Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the
subdivider because of unusual topography, other physical
conditions or other such conditions which are not self-
inflicted, or that these conditions would result in inhibiting
the achievement of the objectives of this Ordinance;
c. That the granting of the specified variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the
Idaho Code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying
the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
7. That there does appear to be a benefit, profit, economic
gain or convenience to the Applicant in that the Applicant would
ultimately have less road way to construct and pave and would be
able to possibly have an additional lot in the subdivision.
8. That there were people testifying at the public hearing,
but there testimony did not address the variance and did not object
to the granting of the variance; some of the testimony did address
traffic, but the traffic within the subdivision does not appear to
be affected by the granting of the variance.
9. That regarding Section 11-6-612 A it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable,
but the Applicant has provided a stub street to the property
to the east and the property to the east has access to Linder
Road and to Waltman Lane.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this
Ordinance would not result in extraordinary hardship to the
Applicant as a result of factors not self-inflicted, but there
is no need for access to the property to the east.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP Page - 7
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 if this variance were granted it would not mean that
the property to the north would not have the ability to have
an access route to public streets, because it has frontage on
Waltman Lane and Linder Road.
10. That it is concluded the Application should be granted
and the variance would be in the best interests of the City.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
APPROVED : ~~
V V1L~L
DISAPPROVED•
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP
Page - 8
DECISION
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Application of
WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP for a variance from 11-9-605 E, which
variance would allow a block length greater than 1,000 feet, is
hereby granted.
APPROVED:~J~ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
VARIANCE REQUEST OF WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP Page - 9