The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995 02-07 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 17, 1995: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 24, 1995: (APPROVED) TABLED JANURY 17, 1995: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: (APPROVE AMENDED MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17, 1993;. APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH CONDITIONS) 2. TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO.2 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 21, 1995) 3. TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. S: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 21, 1995) 4. TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO.7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 21, 1995) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: (APPROVED) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE TEN FOOT ITERIOR SET-BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST: (APPROVE FINDINGS) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW RESIDENT MANAGER HOUSING UNIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED) 8. ORDINANCE#690 -ANNEXATION ORDINANCE -ACRD RIGHTAF-WAY: (APPROVED) 9. ORDINANCE #691 -VACATION OF FARMINGTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED) • 10. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 17, 1995 MEETING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO L-0 BY JOHN THOM: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES: (APPROVE FINDINGS; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A 3200 SQUARE FOOT VICTORIAN STYLE HOUSE TO BE USED FOR WEDDINGS, RECEPTIONS, OFFICE GATHERINGS, ETC. BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES: (APPROVE FINDINGS) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY PACIFIC WATER WORKS CO. INC.: (APPROVE FINDINGS; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY CAROL LOTSPEICH: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LOT FRONTAGE AT BUILDING SETBACK BY ROBERT TRUAX: (APPROVE; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 16. IDA-TRAN: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1450 N. HICKORY AVENUE: (APPROVE FOR 6 MONTHS) 17. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR HARTFORD SUBDNISION: (APPROVED) 18. PROCLAMATION: ENGINEER'S WEEK: 19. WATER/SEWERrfRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED) 20. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED) 21. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. BID RESULTS: FIVE MILE CREEK SEWER LINE EXTENSION: (APPROVE MASCO BID SUBJECT TO SIGNED DOCUMENTS FINANCIAL AGREEMENT WITH ST. LUKE'S) 2. BID RESULTS: EAGLE ROAD WATER LINE EXTENSION: (APPROVE MASCO BID FOR 6177,726) B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR DRY LINE SEWER IN AREA OF IMPACT: (SEND NOTICE TO ADA COUNTY TO DISCOURAGE REQUIREMENT OF DRY LINE AND RE- SUBDNIDING) C. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY: 1. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH JAMES BANDUCCI, JR. AND JUDY BANDUCCI: (APPROVED) D. MAYOR KINGSFORD: 1. RE APPOINT WALT MORROW TO ACHD CAPITAL INVESTMENT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: (APPROVED) MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 7 1995 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Ron Tolsma: MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Corrie: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Jim Johnson, Acting Chief Bowman, Lance Peterson, Tim Alexander, Jce Simunich, Sheny Rock, Angie Davies, Mike Davies, Wayne Foney, Arden Davis, Helen Alidjani, Mr. Baxter, Carol Lotspeich, Cindy Peterson, Dan Albach, Mr. Travis, Tim Alexander, Robert Truax, Tucker Johnson: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 17, 1995: Kingsford: Are there any corrections to those minutes? A motion to approve. Tolsma: Mayor, I move we approve the minutes of the January 17th meeting. Yerrington: Second Ingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the January 17th minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES FROM THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 24, 1995: Kingsford: Any corrections to those? Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move for their approval. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of the January 24th minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Discussion of the Council? Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 2 Morrow. I guess Mr. Mayor I need some clarification. What are we actually dealing with here, according to the agenda item it is the request for an extension of the Tumble Creek Subdivision. Kingsford: I think that after the numerous discussions that have been held is if the Council is comfortable with that plat then the issue is extending the thing. 1 sense that is the issue, John would you say that is fair? Mr. Morrow 4 Morrow. Okay, then if the extension of the plat is acceptable to the Council, then how do we deal with it. Is that the item that we are voting on this evening and my question would be is how do we deal with the changes or staff conditions that have been recommended since the question of whether it is a valid plat or not came up? Kingsford: I would offer a suggestion if that is what you are comfortable with, rf it is the Council's feeling that the pla# is satisfactory that you approve of the extension based on the conditions outlined by s#aff to that preliminary plat. Morrow: I guess my questions there would be is Gary has submitted comments and had replies back, I would like to hear your comments with respect to how you feel about the plat at this point in time. Kingsford: Gary, do you have this letter of this afternoon? Smith: Yes I do, I have met with John and Jim Stubblefield and have reviewed all of my comments. They submitted this response to my comments which I received today and I reviewed that. I think all of their responses are in line with what Jim and John Stubblefield discussed at our meeting. I understand there is a slight change of the plat back to the original submittal in that southeast comer where there was a short culdesac and it returns the lot alignment and the street alignment to what was originally submitted. I don't think anybody had any problem with that arrangement there on the original submittal. It was block length of slightly less than 100 feet so there isn't a problem with that. Morrow. I guess my other questions, well, on your comment number 5, the landscape easement as opposed to a common area lot. Do you have comments on that please. Smith: Counci-man Morcow and Council members and Mayor, the only thing that I was concerned about was a condition that existed on another subdivision that did not have any explanatory notes on the plat as far as where a fence line could be located outside of the property line. We did have a problem there with access to our sewer line easement in that particular case. I raise the question simply maybe from a standpoint of ignorance as far as how enforceable this non-fencing of this easement would be. It solicited a response Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 3 from the applicant's attorney as to how they felt, how enforceable they felt this easement was versus a common lot and the notes on the plat that would state where fences could be built etc. 1 just didn't want the City to get into a situation where we were trying to deal with homeowners and where the homeowners association was trying to deaf with individual homeowners if there was a problem as far as where the homeowners put the fence. So that was the reason I raised the question and we did receive a response from the applicant's attorney and I gave a copy of that to Wayne Crookston and to Will. So, I guess 1 don't have any other comment other than that. Morrow. I have no more questions for Gary. Kingsford: Other questions of Council? Tolsma: Gary, on the landscape easement again, have we ever instituted what they call a serpentine type easement which the variable (inaudible) from 15 feet to maybe 25 feet in depth so you come out with a standard 20 foot type easement or an overall 20 foot landscape. Smith: Councilman Tolsma, I don't recall an easement that was shown in any other geometry than a straight line. Tolsma: Well, I mean other, in the City of Meridian, have we ever done one like that in the past? Smith: No, not that I know of, I know that I have seen in other areas in the City to the east of us where sidewalks have a serpentine alignment in that landscaped area, but I don't' recall any around in Meridian. Tolsma: 1 have seen the sidewalks in serpentine pattern, I have never seen a fence in a serpentine pattern (inaudible). Smith: On the Vineyards Subdivision we have an area where the fence jogs in and out around trees, it is not a straight line. The tree is actually planted in line with the majority of the fence but then the fence jogs around the tree. 1 am trying to think, the subdivision across the street from the Vineyards Valeri Heights I think it is called, the masonry fence I think that has a curvilinear geometry to it also, it is not a straight line either I think. Kingsford: My other questions or comments? Morrow. My only other questions were directed to Shari and she is not here this evening, I had 3 or 4 for her based again on the same letter with responses dated today. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 4 Kingsford: Her indication to me earlier was, and I hadn't yet received this letter back, she was fairly confident with the discussions with the Stubblefields with her questions. Tolsma: I have one on Shari's comments, probably can answer on the 100 x 100 foot well lot, did you see Shari's comment number 9? Smith: Yes, this is similar to the conversation that I had with Jim and John Stubblefield on the well lot. I asked them to provide me with a drawing of the property to the north so that I could be sure that we do have good access to that property for water line or underground power which we need to serve a well for the well to serve our water system. 1 believe that John said that Arnold Stubblefield had the information ~ that property and that they would get me that drawing showing the dimensions and the location of the property with regards to Ustick Road. Kingsford: I might ask Arnold then, with regard to that as I just quickly surveyed that from the road, that the drain ditch immediately north of the road, how would we access that well? (Inaudible) Kingsford: From Meridian Road down the drain? (Inaudible) Kingsford: It runs parallel to Ustick. (Inaudible) Kingsford: Can I ask you to speak into the mike please so we have you on record? Is it right on the comer of Meridian and Ustick, does it not parallel closer there? Stubblefield: It parallels the ditch the drain ditch that goes along side Meridian Road, Ustick Road. Kingsford: My concern is a well lot is a nice thing to have but if you can't get to it, it doesn't do a lot of good. Stubblefield: We hope to develop that property some day. Kingsford: We would maybe want to have a well before you want to develop and that becomes an issue. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 5 ~, Stubblefield: We would provide you with that, we have all of that. Kingsford: Is the Council prepared to take action? 1 guess maybe I would ask Counselor to give advice as to how to deal with this since it is kind of an on going issue that there was some lack of clarity in the approvals initially. What would you see as being a motion that would cover what needs to be covered? Crookston: I think that the Council needs to approve the amended August 17, 1993 minutes to begin with. Then I think you can deal with the request that is before the Council now. Kingsford: Which meeting was that in August do you have that readily available? Crookston: August 17th, 1993. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, 1 would move that we approve the amended minutes from the August 17th, 1993 City Council meeting. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the amended minutes of August 17th, 1993 minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow. A bit of a discussion for a minute, I think that I have no problem with the extension, what 1 do want to make sure of and Counselor can help us out here is that we get within in the language of the motion the fact that a common lot area is mandatory and not be easements. City staff conditions from both P & Z and the City Engineer, deal with that. I want to be able to see how we can deal with the information with the well lot with respect to the well lot and tie that into this. So, those would be my primary concerns that I would like to see incorporated within the motion. I am sure that Max and Ron have some concerns of theirs. So I guess I am asking guidance from them and from Wayne is how to structure the motion. Kingsford: I think 1 would go a step even further than that and I know that this has been kind of a moving target, Stubblefields, that we see a moderately different plat virtually every time we talk with you. I appreciate that has been (inaudible) but I would like to see a finalized preliminary plat that we can put in the file and know that is what we agreed to. As 1 understand even as recently as this evening some of that on the western boundary has moved bade to what was originally approved from what we had tacked about at a later Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 6 time. Stubblefield: Let me try to explain, that was in response to comments from your staff, so we in correcting what they woukd like to have correct, the only change that, actually it isn't a change, it went back to exactly what that section was which you did not have a problem with that section at any time. Kingsford: I think all 1 am saying is I would just like to see a final drawing that isn't hand drawn so we can put it in our file and know that it is there so we can cxjmpar® that if you will against the final plat when vue do receive it. Stubblefield: We wiN do that, actually we will try to get that done tomorrow. If we were to have had the comment sooner we would have had that for you tonight. We will be happy to comply with that. Kingsford: Counselor, do you have a recommendation for Mr. MorrovJs concern? Crookston: I think that we can handle that, when you see the proposed final preliminary map and 1 can work on a motion. Kingsford: So at this point you are suggesting that just a motion to extend which is on the table today to extend the one year limitation on that plat conditioned upon the comments received to both Gary and Shari would suffice until we looked at the final preliminary plat? Crookston: I thought that what Walt and your statements combined were the essence of them were that you would not take any action tonight until you saw that final drawing. Stubblefield: If t may interrupt, I have what the final drawing would be that 1 can leave with you that we have gone over that will not change. I can leave this with you tonight and then provide the engineer (inaudible) exactly what this is. It will not vary. (Inaudible) As 1 say we would have tried to have that done but we didn't have the comments in time to do that. Kingsford: Council, what is your decision? Morrow. Quite candidly, I guess part of the question in my mind is that if it is the desire of the Council a majority of the Council to have mandatory common lot as opposed to an easement if that is the case there could be some change to that plat with respect to a couple of the lots along Linder Road. Kingsford: I think to get your lot sizes you would have a real problem having a common lot, at least the last time I saw that. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 7 n ~' Morrow. Along Linder Road, with respect to Ustick Road on the end lots, the proposal as I understand it is within or as was presented to me was within 8 inches of having the necessary lot depth, that is not a major issue in my mind. Along Linder Road the situation is 5 feet, to do common lots as opposed to easements. I am fairly adamantly opposed to the easement concept. So, somehow, if that is the attitude of the majority of the Council then there could be some sort of change with respect to the lots along Linder Road or there would need to be some sort of variance from the lot size for those 2 lots that are affected or 3 lots whatever it is. Kingsford: Well, I think as you get over to the west on Ustick Road there will be some of those that won't have the lot depth as well. Morrow. By 8 inches Kingsford: Is that all? Morrow. As it stands right now. (Inaudible) Morrow. I believe the best way to deal with this for the sake of clarity and that everybody is coming from the same page is to take off on your concept and have what we perceive as being the final drawing drawn and given to both Gary and Shari to review to make sure that we are all coming from the same area and then approve those issues next meeting. Stubblefield: If I might say, the changes that are in read there, we believe complies with what they asked for. 5o we think we have complied with that. Kingsford: I think the only issue Arnold, is I am hearing Mr. Morrow is whether or not they are satisfied with an easement for the landscaping or whether they want a separate lot. Stubblefield: That is a different issue, we had discussions this afternoon in regards to that and I think that is something that the Council has to wrestle with. We have voiced our opinion that every place that we work accepts the easements. We have a long record of no# having problems with them. I realize in talking with some of you, you have had some reservations in that regard. I think maybe it is a pro and a con, there are merits on both sides and you are going to have to wrestle that, I will say that we believe firmly that the easement provides the same safeguards. Like any horse race or argument there, I can appreciate you having the opposite view. However, if might just stretch it a little bit, we are concerned about fencing, I think about front yards and I suppose a guy could come in and says he owns that ground and he is going to put a 6 foot fence right out in front of his ~~ Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 8 yard. I don't think that is any more risk of that happening versus whether it is on an easement line at the back I think one is just as enforceable as the other one. I am giving you my view of it. I think when you put on a plat this is a fence line and that is where it is going to be and that is the size it is going to be 1 think it is pretty enforceable. You can argue it both ways, I will say that 99°r6 of the places we work throughout several states the easement is the favored instrument. I can't tell you all the reasons why, I know why 1 like it, but I have a lot of cempany from a lot of municipal cities and states that favor it. I really can't add anymore to that, your neighbor to the east, it is very acceptable, I think they would probably accept it the other way also, but they do accept it. So I really can't add anymore than I have added. Kingsford: Well, I think probably at issue since there are 3 of you folks here do 2 or more of you favor it being in one lot? Stubblefield: I think that Gary had said also, he can speak for himself, one of the problems have been where it wasn't clearly defined where the fence line was. Kingsford: Well, in my own mind having that called out on the plat, it really cleans up the problem of being able to enforce it. It is not a covenant then that wee are talking about it being a plat note and it is certainly more enforceable by us. I take exception to Amold's comment about the 6 foot fence in the front, everyone can go out and they build to the property line and (inaudible). Stubblefield: I am only saying it is the same type of thing, if someone does that neighbors, everyone is down on them. And I think the same thing happens in this other one, that was my point. Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure with regard to the easement versus the single lot. Morrow. I am sticking with the single lot. (Inaudible) Morrow. We have not had very good experience the last 9 or 10 months with easement stuff. And I would point out Elk Run, some sewer easements and some other things. Kingsford: I think given that Amold with permission vue have gotten the minutes cleaned up, we are clear on the preliminary plat. We are now dealing with the extension and 1 would suggest maybe that the Council would be wise to throw this back at you and you know the feeling now with the single lot. We need to deal with that then in this plat and Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 9 have that submitted to us in time for the next meeting. Stubblefield: What would the Council's feeling be on approving it as it is with the variance. Kingsford: For a variance we have to go through a hearing process. Stubblefield: Oh you do. Kingsford: We can't get way ahead of ourself to be looking at that. Stubblefield: You understand why I asked the question. Morrow: For the record did max agree with (inaudible) Kingsford: Max, 1 don't know whether he nodded off or just was still thinking hasn't said anything, but now we have some information. Don't waM to get too far ahead of Max there and appear like 1 am thinking for him I can see he is thinking pretty seriously himself. If that is your agreement then I would suggest that it be tabled and advise the developer that it is your pleasure to have a common lot for the landscaping. Stubblefield: That was going to be my question, could you approve it on the condition of the landscape lot. And we come with the variance at a later date. It doesn't affect the first project. Kingsford: Are you ready to move ahead with the first project? Stubblefield: The problem is going to be the same regardless we are going to have to come to an understanding so it really doesn't change. Kingsford: t would say that probably Wayne the Council could stilt approve of the extension based on a motion and conditioned on satisfying the Council with the common lot area, the well lot and the notes that staff had agreed upon. Would you oppose that? Crookston: I don't' really think that you need to deal with that with those separate issues if you were granting the extension because they still have time to work that out. And the comment by Walt that if the lots along Five Mile Drain change you may have to deal with those and if you approved a preliminary plat you have approved it in total. Kingsford: What would you say now, we have approved by the amended minutes we approved the preliminary plat in August 1993 which is different than this slightly. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 10 Crookston: You approved the minutes. tngsford: Which then state that vre approved the preliminary plat which vue feel that we did but that was a vague area in those minutes. So at issue Crookston: Excuse me, the motion or the minutes as I remember the transcript of the minutes and what I wrote down as changes I was not aware that those amended minutes approved the plat. Morrow. I think those amended minutes clarified the motion that Mr. Tolsma made which was clearly in terms of the tape. Crookston: Was just to approve the findings of fact. Morrow. To approve the findings of fact and not to approve the preliminary plat that was the intention (inaudible). So the amended minutes simply reflected that motion was as I understand it was to approve the findings of fact and conclusions. So if 1 understand that correctly we have never approved the preliminary plat, #hat is what we are doing now or are we granting the extension. Crookston: You are granting the extension. Kingsford: That doesn't make any sense to me Counselor because you can't grant an extension of something you have never done. This thing, it has stretched over so much time it is starting to baffle my mind a little bit. You can't extend something that has never happened. Crookston: That is true. Kingsford: So, what about if we approve this preliminary plat conditioned upon this, this and this? Crookston: You can do that so long as the problems around the Five Mile Creek are one of those conditions. Stubblefield: I thought we had everything settled around Five Mile Creek. Crookston: I thought we were talking tonight that if you use a common lot rather than the easements that may change the depths of a couple of the lots. Stubblefield; It really doesn't along Five Mile Creek, along Linder, it doesn't change on Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 11 Five Mile Creek. I don't see that anything changes, there is only one issue and that is the lots that 1 talked about a variance on. Nothing else, even to go a lot, like you had suggested it doesn't affect. Crookston: What 1 was referencing with the comments by Mr. Morrow that there might have to be changes that I guessed were on Linder Road not necessarily along Five Mile Drain. Stubblefield: I do not believe there will be from that standpoint. Morrow. Did we not discuss it if you have a common lot as opposed to an easement that the lots along Linder or a couple along Linder are basically 5 feet short. Stubblefield: Two lots were and that is what I had addressed, those 2 lots are 5 feet short. And that is what I said about an easement, but they are still 120 feet deep, that is incorrect,. they are 115 feet deep. Morrow. So the 20 foot becomes a common lot that means that they are short. Stubblefield: That is correct and that is what we tried to address this afternoon. Morrow. The resolution of that because the consensus of the Council seems to be that we want common lots as opposed to easements, so now those 2 lots are going to be short the necessary depth. Stubblefield: That is correct, but at the same time there are lots that are way over in that 2,000 almost 3,000 feet as being dedicated an extra 20 feet also. Over and above the 8,000 square feet. Morrow What does that have to do with these 2 lots? Stubblefield: It has a lot to do with it, I am suggesting that what the project is giving up in extra space. Kingsford: I think the reality though Amold is that those violate our ordinance, those 2 lots violate our ordinance. At some point in time that either needs to be cleaned up with a variance or a lot line adjustment. That would need to be a condition before final plat that a variance be approved and those become standard lots. Stubblefield: Let me say this, I agree with what you are saying, your ordinance, we are talking about ordinances now, your ordinance does not call for a separate lot. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 12 Kingsford: Corcect Stubblefield: I hoped we wouldn't get studs up by 5 feet on 2 lots versus an ordinance that you are enforcng on us that doesn't even exist. I think that is a pretty good trade off, you have no ordinance whatsoever that asks for a separate lot. That should be well on the record, you are asking us to do this and we are saying yes we will do this in cooperation and there is no ordinance that says vue have to do this. So 1 think in return that because of this and 1 went through why the 5 feet is short (inaudible) separate lot it wouldn't be 5 foot short and the ordinance doesn't ask for it, does not calf for it anyplace. So 1 think you have every grounds to grant this tonight on, with our cooperation and your cooperation because those lots are over sized for your ordinance and ws are willing to try to do that if that is what the Council wants. But right now as we stand before you. Kingsford: Let's not call them over sized let's call them more than the minimum. Stubblefield: As we stand right now they are, they are more than the minimum, if you say we want a lot instead of an easement then they are 5 feet short 2 lots. Md we might even wangle a little bit out of that somehow but as it stands right now. So I really think when you have no ordinance that asks for that and 1 say to you we will try to do that, that deserves some consideration. Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow. Well, I think my pleasure would be is that we get to a motion that allows the project to get set back where it needs to be and on line that also incorporates the common lot concept. It appears to me that the best way to maybe deal with this issue is to put it out there and however the 2 lots that may be a problem on Linder have to be resolved that is how they have to be resolved. Whether it be by a variance or whatever means. But I think I would like to see it go ahead and press foniward subject to all of the staff conditions and subject to common lots for the landscaped areas. Well lot data to be forward to the City and subject to a preliminary plat with all the revisions being submitted to the City staff very quickly so they can review and make sure everything we are discussing and the intent of the Council has been covered. Those would be the main. things 1 would like to see in a motion. Kingsford: 1 think if you put that in a motion that would cover it. Morrow. So let's make it a motion then is that acceptable Mr. C? Crookston: Do you want to play that back? You can do it that way. It is better to state it. ~J Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 13 Morrow. Alright Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant approval of the preliminary plat for Tumble Creek Subdivision subject to City Staff conditions, common lot areas for the landscape areas, resolution of the well lot information for the property that is north of Ustidc and the issue of the 2 lots on Linder and the new preliminary plat being submitted to the staff for confirmation within the next week. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the preliminary plat for Tumble Creek Subdivision conditioned upon the staff comments being met and approved, the common lot be required for landscaping, that the well lot issue be resolved in the north side of Ustick Road, that a final preliminary plat be provided to the City posthaste for review that the 2 lots that may be sub-standard be dealt with prior to their final platting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Stubblefield: The 2 lots that is prior to final platting? Kingsford: Correct Stubblefield: That gives us time to do that. Kingsford: That is well outside of your first phase. Stubblefield: That is correct, Wayne are we clear tonight? Crookston: As far as I can tell. Stubblefield: Thank you gentlemen. Kingsford: So what vae approved was a preliminary plat being as we never had one, that was finally approved, I think the intent was there. What we are talking about now an approval so the extension is a mute point. You now have one year to carry this forward to final plat. I don't want to see you for an extension okay. ITEM #2: TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: We did not receive a letter on that, I would move or recommend that it be tabled again, vue have no information on it. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 14 Morrow. So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table the Tuthill development agreement until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION N0. 5: Yerrington: I move for a table. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table the Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5 development agreement until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING NO. 7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: Kingsford: I see Mr. Tucker Johnson in here, did you provide us with some engineering stuff? You were going to as I recall get us some information, we had conflicting engineering reports on that size of tiling. Johnson: That is correct, we, as I reviewed the minutes (inaudible) everyone involved we were asked to meet with Nampa Meridian to discuss the issue at hand to determine what exactly was in the ditch. We have done so, we have met with Nampa Meridian on I can count of at least 4 instances between when it was tabled initially and their engineer. We met with the Board of Directors for the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, handed over the calculations which had been made, their resolution was we are no engineers so let's send it to our engineer and if he confirms then that is that. We passed that information along to them and they have since reviewed it. Let me encapsulate it for the sake of time since we all don't want to be here forever. Nampa Meridian has reviewed the data, they sent a #ax to us today, at the bottom they indicated they sent a fax to the City today, stating the following, Nampa Meridian is obligated to carry 50 CFS through the Kennedy Lateral, through that section. They have stated in that letter that a 48 inch pipe will carry 50 CFS, the problem with that and we can have Keith Jacobs address that more if you would like Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 15 who is the engineer who did the study. At 50 CFS because of the grade of the pipe, the distance of the pipe and other factors that pipe would be at capacity, would not accommodate any additional water so in essence there would not be any safety factor involved in that pipe. Nampa Meridian does not condone or any extra drainage water that may end up in that Kennedy Lateral, they are liable for their 50 CFS. We however know whether legally or illegally that the Interstate fora 1/4 mile drains into the Kennedy Lateral in addition to approximately 1 think it was 50 acres of the of the hillside south of the Interstate. 1 know this because I personally went to Idaho Transportation Department, I have cepies of their designs, their as built plans. I have walked it personally (End of Tape) and got my feet wet going through the biduct that goes underneath the Kennedy Lateral, underneath I-84 and found where the Interstate median does drain into the Kennedy lateral. From our perspective it is a safety issue, Mayor Kingsford as I recall from the original hearing the City and certainly no one wants to be in a situation of potentially posing a danger. You mentioned something about the northeast part of town where there are some piping problems that have caused some flooding and some additional. potential flooding. So it is true that the 50 CFS will be carried through this, can be carried in a 48 inch pipe under certain situations. Kingsford: Would you state that again, a 48 inch? Johnson: 48 inch, if it has enough head, it is going uphill slightly and so forth. The engineer, if you would like a Garification on that point could clarify that for you. That v~rould be at maximum capacity but we know there is storm water that comes off the Interstate. Any questions from the Council? Kingsford: We didn't receive that fax. Johnson: I can certainly make any of our comments available or the documentation. Kingsford: Well, I think still as we have pursued all along Mr. Johnson we would like to see that from Nampa Meridian, we want to try and enforce their desires and having not seen that 1 don't know whether certainly I would be prepared to direct the Council to act on it. Johnson: 1 understood that you had received it, my apologies if you have not. 1 received them today. Kingsford: It might very well have been an oversight on their part. Johnson: I received them today at approximately 2:00 and had been waiting for them for quite some time. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 16 Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow. I think Mr. Smith is checking to see if there might be a late fax in from Nampa Meridian. Kingsford: No late arrivals. Johnson: My apologies, I can make it available to you as well as all the information as I understood it. The comments from Councilman Morrow in the minutes refer to the fact that we have needed to come to some common ground, which we have with Nampa Meridian, we recognize that they for their legal purposes will only state 50 CFS in that ditch. Kingsford: And I appreciate that but still as nice a guy as you are and were in class and all of that I would still like to see something from Nampa Meridian. Johnson: That is fine, may I just pass along their comments to me on several occasions were they were not the ones making the determination. Kingsford: I think if they told the Council that is the very maximum they can deal with I think then Council can make some decisions. They have indicated in the past they can easily handle that 50 CFS so I would just like to see their comments. Other questions of the Council? Morrow. Gary Smith: Keith Jacobs has one if you would like me to make copies for you to look at. Ingsford: I am not real excited about it when we are at a public meeting and dealing with 20 some issues to try to digest whatever it is that showed up the same night. That is why we close out the agenda the Thursday before. Morrow. I think my preference then would be to table this until our next meeting. Johnson: May I ask when that is for my own knowledge? Kingsford: The 21st. Yerrington: I will second that motion. Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this issue to the second meeting in February the 21st, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 17 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Just for clarification then, we would like to funnel that through Gary. Kingsford: Through Mr. Berg, the court tells me he is the recipient and the care taker of the minutes of the City of Meridian, they were very emphatic about that, when I tried to take some over once. ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed those findings? Is there a motion on the findings? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we hereby adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the variance request for parking spaces for First Interstate Bank, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, based on the above findings of fact and contusions of law it is decided the application for the variance from off street parking is approved and the applicant shall construct and install and place 22 parking spaces which will meet all the requirements. Yerrington: Second Ingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 18 REQUEST FROM THE TEN FOOT INTERIOR SET BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST: Kingsford: Have you reviewed those findings? Morrow. Mr. Mayor I move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the REB Irrevocable Trust variance on zero lot lines, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow. Mr. Maya the variance is denied or granted depending on the circumstances as set forth in the conclusion number 9 of the above conclusions of law and that the applicant shall record a document which document shows approval of the document by the City in which reflects the above decision this recordingto inform all eventual owners of any of the three lots of this decision. That no building permit or permit shall be issued until plans for construction which show compliance with this decision have been approved by the City Building Director and the applicant has supplied to the City the required recorded document. Yerrington: Should #hat word director be changed to inspector? Kingsford: Well it says inspector on mine. Morrow By golly it says inspector on mine too. Yerrington: I will second that motion. Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision, alt those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 19 REQUEST TO ALLOW RESIDENT MANAGER HOUSING UNIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed those findings? Any discussion? Entertain a motion. Morrow. Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the variance request by Avest Limited Partnership for a variance request to allow a resident manager housing unit, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morcow. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law it is decided the application for a variance to allow a housing unit as an accessory use to the storage business is approved provided the applicant meets the conditions stated herein. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: ORDINANCE#690 -ANNEXATION ORDINANCE -ACHD RIGHT-OF-WAY: Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF SECTION 1, T.3N, R.1 W, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This is again annexing some ACHD property that was inadvertently left out. Is there anyone from the public that would like Ordinance #690 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion on Ordinance #690. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor I move for approval on Ordinance #690 with the suspension of the rules. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 20 Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of Ordinance #690 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: ORDINANCE #691: VACATION OF FARMINGTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE PLAT OF FARMINGTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 1 OF RECORD IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF IN BOOK 45 OF THE PLATS PAGES 3909 AND 3990 RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1978 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 7868376 RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance No. 691 read in its entirety? For everyone's information that is the property subdivision that has never been built on the east side of Eagle Road between Franklin and the freeway. Seeing none I would entertain a motion on Ordinance No. 691. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve Ordinance #691 with suspension of the rules. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of Ordinance #691 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 17, 1995 MEETING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO L-O BY JOHN THOM: Kingsford: At this time I will re-0pen that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Helen Alidjani, 2023 Turnberry Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Alidjani: 1 would like to rezone the old school plaza from R-15 to Limited Office and t would Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 21 like to clarify that Mr. Thom had noted that there were tenants going into the building that he had. I don't have any tenants secured. I don't have a phase 1, 2 or 3 plan and I don't have control over Lot 2. I do understand that if the rezone is given that the property must comply with Ciry ordinances and with the City departments when the remodel permit is taken out. Kingsford: So, Helen you are not requesting rezone then on Lot 2 which you do not control, you cannot rezone it. Morrow. Who controls Lot 2? Alidjani: Apostolic Church Morrow: That is a separate ownership. Kingsford: Any questions for Helen? Tolsma: Do you have any plans for it? Alidjani: To sell it. Tolsma: I am sure you have had some comments from the neighbors across the street, from the old school (inaudible) would like to have some idea what the plan was or if there was a plan for Limited Office. Alidjani: I am sorry Ron I don't have a plan, I don't want to make any promises. If it is zoned Limited Office then w+e will comply or the owner will comply with all the rules that the City has. 1 don't have a plan other than selling it. Morrow. I think Ron the better way to and quite candidly being in the industry it is a little tough to try to sell something with some sort of plan. I am sensitive to Ms. Alidjani's position from that standpoint. I am also sensitive to the neighbors concerns. 1 think probably the forum to deal with that is that we should reserve the right of design review within the pefiaps with the approval of the zone change or something. I am sure that would be agreeable to Ms. Alidjani. Alidjani: If you would explain it to me it probably would. Tolsma: His comments were not really against the Limited Office he was more for the Limited Office than the R-15 but he was just kind of concerned about what kind of limited office it was going to be there. There are several things allowed in Limited Office. ~ i Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 22 Alidjani: 1 am sure whatever falls under your ordinances. Tolsma: I think Walt's (inaudible) would probably be appropriate also. Morrow: Design review Helen simply means that say a developer of the building which could be you or Mr. Alidjani or anyone of a number of other people could come forvvard and say these are my plans and this is a rendering of what it is going to look like, these are the proposed tenants we would like to have your approval of these plans and the City staff would review that and say yes these are acceptable or if you are going to have Helen's Newspaper you need 3 parking spaces instead of 2 or something like that. Some minor modifications to the proposal to make it more acceptable to neighborhoods. Alidjani: Would that be at the time of the permit taken out for remodel or would it be at a time of ownership transfer or at the time of Kingsford: 1 think that would be a building permit issue. Alidjani: That would be fine. Morrow. It would be prior to that from the standpoint that when we issue the building permit the building permit would incorporate those changes. Alidjani: That would be acceptable, I have looked through a little bit of what you do and your planning agreement and I think that should cover it. That would be fine. Morrow. I have no other questions. Kingsford: Any other questions for Helen? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this continued public hearing? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council members. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kingsford: You have probably, Counselor correct me, not a whole lot of changes from the standpoint of substance but different ownership should that be amended findings then or can we approve these and amend those findings to (inaudible)? Crookston: I believe we have the same ownership we have a different applicant. They would need to be amended but I think you can approve them with that amendment to show a different applicant. I will change the findings. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 23 Morrow. A quick question in terms of that and since we are amending them to reflect the applicant change we can also amend them to incorporate the requirement of design review. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law subject to changing the applicant from the old applicant to the new applicant and also installing the design review requirement. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law conditioned upon the change in the name of the applicant from John Thom to Helen Alidjani, and to provide for design review in the new findings, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Mr. Mayor, could I ask a point of clarification on that? 1 was just wondering who would be involved in the design review process? Kingsford: Jim Johnson, Tim Hepper, Gary Smith, Walt Morrow Johnson: We don't have anything in our ordinance. Kingsford: We are aware of that, we have probably 3 or 4 of those and the first one that shows up you can bet that I am going to make some appointments. Smith: Thank you Kingsford: Or if it is after this year somebody else will make the appointments most likely. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I would also recommend that the Planning and Zoning has already installed this in their decision of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I would (inaudible) decision and recommendation the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission here by recommends to the City Council on the request for rezone of the land to Limited Office be approved that as a condition of the rezone the applicant meets the terms of the conditions of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the comments and requirements of the assistant to the City Engineer, the Planning Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 24 Director, water and sewer ordinance requirements, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Fire and Life Safety Code, Mechanical Code and all parking, lighting and landscaping requirements. A limited office construction shall be subject to design review and if there are irrigation canals, drainage or other means of conveying water on the property they should be tiled. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Did you want to direct an ordinance be prepared? Kingsford: Oh that is probably a good idea, you earned your big bucks tonight. Entertain a motion to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance of rezone. Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to have the City Attomey prepare a rezone ordinance for the Alidjani property, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-O BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES: ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A 3200 SQUARE FOOT VICTORIAN STYLE HOUSE TO BE USED FOR WEDDINGS, RECEPTIONS, OFFICE GATHERINGS, ETC. BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES: Kingsford: For the publics information I think I would like you to look at items No. 11 and 12 jointly, it is the same applicant the same request. One of them, we put them differently because they there are 2 things that need to be considered a conditional use permit to build a house on that particular property and the rezone issue. So if you direct your comments to both of those at the same time we will treat them differently but let's have the comments on both at the same time. So at this time I will open the public hearing on the Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 25 rezone request from R~ to L-0 by Michael and Angela Davies and also the public hearing for a request for a conditional use permit to build a 3200 square foot Victorian style house to be used for weddings, receptions, office gatherings, etc. by Michael and Angela Davies. At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or their designee to speak first. Michael Davies, 117713 West Edna Road, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Davies: Our request is to change the zoning from R-4 to L-O so we could build our building for a special event facility as stated. Kingsford: Any questions of the Council? You have that packet in front of you. Morrow. You have read all the comments by the various agencies and the City Staff and you are in agreement with those? Davies: Yes Kingsford: Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Davies, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing on that issue, Council members you have the findings from P & Z. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for the P 8~ Z. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and contusions of law as prepared for P & Z, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the recommendation? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the property described in the application be rezoned from R-4 Residential to Limited Office and that the conditional use be granted with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. C~ Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 26 • Yercington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: We need to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance on the rezone. Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance rezoning the Davies property from R-4 to L-O, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Next item then would be on the conditional use permit, you have the findings on that, I incorporated those together. Is that Gear to everyone, would anyone like to offer different testimony on the conditional use permit for the building? We had that public hearing, that is still satisfactory and no one wants to offer testimony on that issue. Okay, entertain a motion on those findings. Morrow. Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the conditional use permit to build a 3200 square foot Victorian style house to be used for weddings, receptions and office gatherings, even center, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Mr. Mayor, I move that we the Meridian City Council that the property described in the application be rezoned from R-4 residential to Limited Office and that the conditional use be granted with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. • Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 27 Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY PACIFIC WATER WORKS CO. INC.: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Dave Baxter, Pacific Water Works Manager, was sworn by the City Attorney. Baxter: We have applied for annexation, unless there are objections. Kingsford: Are there any questions for Mr. Baxter? I think it is clear what your request is. Anyone from the public that would like to offer testimony on this annexation request? This is for the audience in Commercial Court by Albertson's sundries, the area off of Eagle Road. No one else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Councilmen. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve and adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and contusions of law on the Pacific Water Works request for annexation and zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, the City Counci- hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Including that the applicant and property owners U Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 28 enter into development agreements or that the land be de-annexed, that if the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions of law and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Entertain a motion to have the City Attorney prepare annexation and zoning ordinance. Morrow. So moved Tolsma: Second Ingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare annexation and zoning ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Mr. Baxter those findings of fact and conclusions and the decision can be secured from Mr. Berg in the morning if you want to review those. I think you are familiar with that and the development agreement that they were talking about. ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY CAROL LOTSPEICH: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or her designee to speak first. Carol Lotspeich, 1032 East Cayman, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lotspeich: We are requesting this property be annexed and rezoned to C-G, this request is consistent with the current comprehensive plan. Kingsford: Any questions for Ms. Lotspeich? Okay, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 29 Sherry Rock, 52 West Davenport, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rock: I want to thank you all, this has been better than Johnny Carson tonight. I do want to thank you too. After living 6 months in the famous Elk Run subdivision how concerned you were with another sub development because there are so many unhappy ones in ours that it is good to know that the Councilmen do think about all the issues involved and weigh them. I was very impressed with Mr. Morrow and his concern because it is defiantly a concern. I think too many times the subdivisions get approved so far and then they are snowballing and then everything is left behind and they are trying to hurry and fix it. I think that is what we have sort of got into and we are very disappointed in that situation. But I would like to know what is planned for this property. I think as people that live close to this area we have a right possibly at this time to know what is planned for this, if they are going to change the zoning to commercial. There is a new subdivision if it is going to be zoned commercial or anything commercially intended I think it should be considered that our subdivision, the one across the street is it Willow Run or Running Brook all of those houses on that creek has not been built yet. Some are spec homes and until all those people that are buying those homes 1 think also have the right to voice their opinion on what is going to be built on there. Not only us but them also. So I would like #o know what is intended for this property. I think as people that live in this area have a right to know what is intended for this property. Is that fair? Kingsford: That is the intent of the public hearing. Anyone else from the public? Lance Peterson, 1943 South Gull Cove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Peterson: I would just like to say that I am against having this zoned commercial, mainly for the fact that it is too large a piece of property, too close to the residences nearby. It could become something like a truck stop or a car lot that is just too big and noisy and polluting for the neighbors. I would suggest maybe rezone the first 1 /2 acre or acre on the comer of Overland and Meridian maybe for commercial and the rest something else, not the entire 11 acres. That is all I have. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Cindy Peterson, 1943 South Gull Cove, was svuorn by the City Attorney. Peterson: I just want to point out to Mr. Morrow and Mr. Yerrington and also Mr. Tolsma that if there was a commercial development going in within 150 yards of your own home think you would want to know what was going in there also. When you do review this I want you to think of what you would want within 150 yards of your own home. This is our very first home and we are very excited to be here and it is very important to me what my • Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 30 neighborhood becomes. Thank you. Dan Albach, 1674 Country Terrace Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Albach: My concerns are the same as the rest, I don't mind the commercial zoning so much as 1 would the activity that would be involved specifically with a truck stop sort of activity. The noise and the confusion that would cause at that intersection would just be horrendous, we have already got a gas station, a little country store that is commercial. They are building a Texaco, so there are 2 gas pumps or facilities, if you go in and put in another larger facility that would be something to do with diesel I really, I am sure everybody with the noise and the other obvious things that come with a truck stop would be adamantly against it. So, the zoning as far as commercial would be okay if it doesn't involve that kind of an activity. Thank you. Ingsford: Just for your information, there is worse news yet, the northeast corner of that intersection is also zoned for and owned by a gas station. Travis Irons, 1997 Gull Cove, was swum by the City Attorney. Irons: I noticed that you said that the request for the change in zoning went along with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, but I was looking at the map and the majority of the bulk of the property is actually on the comprehensive plan is planned for single family residential. The northern most portion is the only section designated as commercial. I was also reading from the Meridian Ordinance book, it is section 2-416 paragraph K, the part that states general standards (inaudible) zoning amendments, I don't know if you want me to read the points to you or riot, but it is #1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12, all of them. Number 1 stating of course that the zoning must be harmonious to the comprehensive plan and number 4 stating that if there has been a change in the area that requires rezoning which 1 don't believe that there has been a change requiring rezoning. Number 5 states will the purpose be design, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious in purpose with the appearance of the existing (inaudible) character of the general vicinity. Well the general vicinity is mostly residential growing more residential all the time. With both Elk Run Subdivision No. 1 and 2 and Country Terrace and I believe it is Country Terrace No. 2 right behind it. Also, I am concerned with the amount of light that is going to be created by a large gas station type structure as well as noise and air pollution. That is about all I have. Kingsford: Any questions for Travis? Anyone else from the public? Tim Alexander, 1928 South Gull Cove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 31 n Alexander. I basically have the same concerns as everybody else. Our house backs up to Meridian Kuna Road, the first house in the subdivision. If that is zoned commercial one of our major thoughts is what will that do to our property value. Obviously it would decrease it. The second one is such truck stops, the noise, the pollution, the lighting, I don't so much mind the commercial zoning, I think it would just depend on what it was. That is all I have to say, thank you. Kingsford: I have to go back and jog my memory, I don't remember this truck stop was a big issue. I read through the findings that, I don't believe you have stated any intent for that. (Inaudible) Kingsford: I am letting this get a little out of hand, my apologies the public hearing is still open is anyone else still interested in giving testimony? Okay, I will close the public hearing, at issue and I think that it might be worth while to read the Planning Directors comment on this, I think maybe we will get some assurance to the neighbors. Due to the fact that the development plans are unknown at this time I recommend that the property be annexed and zoned but the development be subject to a conditional use procedure to ensure the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the City Ordinances be met and that adjacent property owners be notified of the development plans and all agencies have the opportunity to comment. One of the gentlemen talked about the issue of changing the zone, that would be a must for it to be annexed, we don't have the same zones as the County currently it is in the County. And in difference to what you said I am pretty sure that our Comprehensive Plan all of this property lies within that commercial request under our Comprehensive Plan. I could be wrong but I am just confident that is correct. Morrow. Read the first paragraph of Shari's comments, she alludes to that is part of (inaudible). Kingsford: Okay, also in her letter this parcel is of land is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being part commercial and part single family residential, the owner of this property is desirous of annexation and zoning to make a sale of the land more attractive and feasible. The applicant should enter into a development agreement with the City. Twenty foot planting strips are required adjacent to residential development, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan calls for pathway along Ten Mile Creek and 35 foot landscape setback along Overland Road and Meridian Road. Sidewalks will be required along Meridian Road and Overland Road at the time of development in accordance with City policy. So again some assurances as to what our ordinances require. There were a lot of questions and I can certainly appreciate that, we have the same thing when there is no use designated in advance it is property that has sat vacant for a long while and is something Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 32 of a hazard in terms of weeds and so forth. But there is a request before us on annexing it to the City and with that particular zone, now having closed the public hearing and those wondertul comments that I have just described if anyone else would like to offer any I would re-open it if you wanted to make further comment. Morrow. Mr. Mayor would this be the appropriate time to have Ms. Lotspeich maybe reply to the comments or the issues that have been raised? Kingsford: I don't know that she could, 1 think that they were all geared around something that she is not prepared to answer at this time not knowing what will be there. She is interested in selling the property and until there is a perspective buyer I think the conditions that Shari has recommended are certainly conditions that what I have heard everybody express might be very well able to live with. I think that would address the lighting issue, you are going to have a chance to shoot this again when actual development does come in. Morrow. Well, the other thing that might be helpful is for you folks is on the findings of fact and contusions of law there are some 15 pages typed written pages that addresses what the fads are and what the contusions were that were drawn by (End of Tape) and by the City Attorney and those things incorporate the concerns of our Planning and Zoning director. Kingsford: And also some of those concerns that you folks aired at the Planning and Zoning public hearing as well. Morrow: And unfortunately we can't make those public until we adopt them, it is kind of a catch 22 situation. Tolsma: (Inaudible) the way the planning and zoning has, or the findings of fact and contusions of law have been written that (inaudible) have been addressed basically in the findings and there is a lot of protection involved in these findings for the people that have voiced their concerns here tonight. Kingsford: Naving read those a while back Counselor, did you hear any substantially different testimony tonight that should be adopted? Crookston: You have probably read them more recently than I have. Kingsford: The one thing that I can't remember that was in there was with regard to this gentleman question about it being in 2 areas and I do stand corrected according to Shari, her letter does state that part of it is designed to be residential and so 1 stand corrected C~ Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 33 on your comment. • Crookston: I don't specifically recall the Planning and Zoning meeting, but this indicates that only Sherry Rock testimony was addressed. Kingsford: Was that testimony different than what we heard is the issue is it not? Crookston: She stated the same thing basically that she stated before Planning and Zoning. The other concerns are very similar to what she stated, I don't think it is necessarily appropriate, it may be appropriate but it is not mandatory that you change the findings. Kingsford: Well, what is your recommendation? Crookston: I would recommend that we amend the findings to add testimony that was stated. Kingsford: But would you say that if you weren't getting however many dollars an hour? Crookston: Well I would say it more willingly if I got a substantial increase. Morrow. So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the Ciry Attorney prepare amended findings and conclusions, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Those will then be considered at the next meeting, they will incorporate the testimony that was given additional this evening. I guess lighting was an issue and there were some other points, those will be considered then by the Council at the next meeting and if adopted they will be made public to everyone with interest. Thank you much. ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LOT FRONTAGE AT BUILDING SETBACK BY ROBERT TRUAX: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Truax or his designee to speak first. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 34 Robert Truax, 12058 W: Stillwater, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Truax: As it says here I am requesting a variance for the lot frontage at building setback on a lot in Fenway Park. Kingsford: This is a flag lot as I recall the issue. Truax: No it is not. Kingsford: The chord wasn't at the setback at the chord, is that the one or am I off on a different tangent? Truax: This is on a culdesac, a pie shaped lot and it has a setback line that runs between the property line somewhat parallel to the street that needs to be a distance of 70 feet. Morrow. What are the issues? What has created the situation here? Truax: What created the situation in the first place was the architect that I used drew up the plan and placed the house in the normal city setback which in this case is not the case. We submitted the plan to the Meridian Building Department it was approved, it got by him, we put our foundation down and we called for an initial inspection, a foundation inspection. Came out and it was approved, we continued on building the house, I went to get a loan, a construction loan on the house to pay off the lot obviously and cover the construction bills, Stewart Title came out and said that we were in violation of that ordinance, setback ordinance. Morrow: So the house is already under construction? Truax: The house is almost done. It was 3l4 completed prior to this being brought up. Morrow. And good relationship with Mr. Huchstep? Truax: Not particularly no. Kingsford: Do you know Mr. Spencer, we can maybe fix you up with somebody that will move it. Truax: For what it is uwrth we do meet and exceed the standard setback requirements in the City of Meridian. In this special circumstance of course we are applying for a variance because we do not meet the minimum setback in this particular culdesac. And it involves I believe 4 or 5 Tots. It has a special set back situation. It doesn't seem to affect the Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 35 neighborhood in any way. It doesn't show up as being out of place or out of ordinary. All other setbacks we have met side yards and back yard. 1 believe I went out and measured and we are approximately 22 feet from the property line setback from the front property line as it sits right now. Morrow. You referenced 4 other lots. Truax: It is in a culdesac and they all have this, (inaudible) they all have this similar situation. Morrow. And they have been built on? Truax: They have not. Kingsford: There is a map here in your packet that shows where it sits and the subdivision map is the one before that. Berg: This is in your transmittal, not in your comment packet. Morrow. So at any rate Mr. Truax have places been built on these other 4 lots? Truax: At the moment I am the only home in the culdesac being built. Morrow. Thank you. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Truax? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close that public hearing. Morrow. Can we have some comments from Mr. Smith. please? Kingsford: You can if you want. Morrow: I would like, Mr. Smith, can you bring us up to speed? Smith: I went out with our Building Inspector and Mr. Truax and there is an infringement on the setback as was shown on the plat. This subdivision was platted under our old ordinance that required a 70 foot frontage at building setback, that is the reason that the special set back lines were shown on the plat. Mr. Truax is correct that the building as it is located on the lot does meet the 20 foot front yard setback required by ordinance now. Also the lot does meet our present ordinance of having a 40 foot chord on the curve. So from the standpoint of the house meeting current ordinances it does for set backs, the Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 36 architect that placed the house on the lot drew the 70 foot frontage line on the site plan but then placed the house right over it. I don't know why exactly, but anyway. Kingsford: Probably a University of Idaho graduate. Smith: Gosh, I hope not, but that was one of the things that I wanted to bring up that it does meet the ordinance requirements. Morrow. A question of you, obviously if it meets the current ordinance requirements and if the variance is granted it should not in the sake of subdivision uniformity should not the other lots be granted the same leeway? I guess what I am asking here is if we are going to have this one setting way up and the others comply with what is done they are going to set way back. Kingsford: I think if you look at that (inaudible) it is not going to be all that noticeable. A corner sits up and violates all of that and I think when you are in that culdesac you are really not going to see that and it is not going to encroach on somebody else's view. Now if it does I think we should certainly be open to review of that to those other builders in there. And I would say that our Building Inspector probably erred and he didn't catch it, it is an issue that he measured on our current ordinance and didn't look at which he should have this particular subdivision plat. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I think that on the other 3 lots they will be looked at quite closely to make sure that they do comply with this. I think the only thing that should be brought out is the other 3 lots are a little deeper than the one that Mr. Truax built on. 1 think there is more room to located the building envelope on the lot within the set back line and not have the problem perhaps that this particular house had. Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Did you want to ask the attorney anything? Crookston: I am prepared to answer any. Morrow. He went to the same school as the architect, I know what those answer are. Crookston: Do you want to hear the fight song? Kingsford: Not particularly. Is there a motion? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the variance on lot frontage at building setback for Mr. Truax. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 37 Tolsma: Second Kingsford: I think we need findings. I would entertain a motion to withdraw the second. Tolsma: I withdraw the second. Morrow. I vvithdrawthe motion. Mr. Mayor, would you instruct the City Attorney please as a U of I graduate to prepare findings of fact better than his classmate prepared the blueprints. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the variance request for Truax Construction, alf those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: We will have those at the next meeting. (Inaudible) Kingsford: Will it be done before the next meeting, the 21st? (Inaudible) Kingsford: I don't think there is any question Mr. Truax about all of that, I think the issue becomes now to what we can legally do and that was your original question. Given Counselor that there was no testimony against can the Council not approve of that variance subject to those findings? How can Mr. Truax deaf with his approaching closing prior to the next meeting. Crookston: Well, t would have to know where he went to school first? (Inaudible) Kingsford: Well, that is going to change the vote a little bit then. Crookston: I think that under these circumstances it would be appropriate to grant the variance but you are still going to have adopt findings that will reflect the Council's decision granted. Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 38 Kingsford: Now if he had said he had 2 sons at Boise State where they ought to have been what would your opinion have been? Crookston: It would have been about 2 months away, not true. Kingsford: I entertain a motion then to that effect. Morrow. Do you want me to resurrect my original motion? Kingsford: We still have to have the findings prepared, we go with that, but I would entertain a motion to approve the variance and that will be finalized upon the approval of the findings of fact. To approve the variance but it would be finalized conditioned upon the approval of the findings. Tolsma: So moved (Inaudible) Kingsford: I think that once this motion may have been passed, and I am assuming here, that then the variance has been granted. We have to do a house keeping matter with regard to the adoption of the findings. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the variance request of Robert Truax on the set bads, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow. Point of clarification, I think the answer of your question may very lie with your banker and the title company. Kingsford: I think that barring your need othervvise, probably our minutes will be prepared within the next this week, if that meets with your approval you can get a copy of those. If you need that faster vme may be able to get the secretary to draw those minutes up for you. ITEM #16: IDA-TRAN: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1450 N. HICKORY AVENUE: Kingsford: Is there a representative from Ida-Tran? Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 39 Johnson: Let me start by saying it is always a pleasure to come to these professionally run meetings. I am here on behalf of Ida-Tran Freight Systems Inc. due to the growth in the economy in our area the business has grown beyond our expectations and we are in need of a remodel out there particularly to add some doors and some office space. We are requesting a temporary office building site in the form of a (inaudible) type trailer which I think you have a copy of a picture of one to be placed within the fenced area of Ida-Tran on a temporary basis until construction is completed. Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Johnson. Johnson: The location was highlighted on the original it may not be on your copy. Crookston: I want to let you know this requires findings and it will be 3 or 4 months. Kingsford: I don't think so. Crookston: I don't think he cheers for Idaho. Kingsford: I wnuld entertain a motion to approve of the temporary request for a temporary office. Morrow. So moved Yerrington: Second Ingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the temporary office for Ida-Tran as per request for 6 months, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR HARTFORD SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Has the Counselor reviewed those CC&R's? Crookston: Yes Kingsford: And recommended that they be approved? Crookston: Yes Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 40 Morrow. Mr. Mayor I move we approve the covenants, conditions and restrictions for Hartford Subdivision. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the CC&R's for Hartford Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #18: PROCLAMATION: ENGINEER'S WEEK: Crookston: Those are University of Idaho Engineers are they not? Kingsford: Be still, ws are going to get an engineering school at Boise State one of these days. This is a proclamation, Whereas, Engineering week is sponsored by the Idaho Chapter of The American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the various chapters of the Idaho Society of Professional Engineers, and National Society of Professional Engineers; and whereas, during this week the Idaho Chapter of ASHRAE will conduct special programs in our schools, emphasizing engineering education and careers; and whereas, the Engineer's Week activities bring to the public's attention the importance of the engineer's role in the technological growth of our nation; and whereas, it is appropriate to pay tribute to Idaho's and the nation's engineers for their contributions toward developing and implementing scientific and technical advances, as well as their leadership in establishing a high standard of moral and ethical conduct; and whereas, we can be proud of the contributions engineers have made toward the development of industry, agriculture, communications, construction, medicine, high technology, and higher education and to the key role engineering has played in these and other aspects of or society; Now, therefore, I, Grant Kingsford, Mayor of the Ciry of Meridian, do here by Proclaim the Week of February 19 through February 25, 1995 as Engineers Week in Meridian and all the surrounding lands, and I urge all to recognize the contributions made by this dedicated group of specially-trained citizens and commend and support them for their efforts to make our great city, our great state and our nation a better place to live. Arden would you come forward and receive this proclamation. Crookston: Arden, those pictures you were taking those will be on the University of Idaho Engineering pamphlet will they not? Davis: We are going to have bids out receiving it. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, point of information, when is Lawyer's week? Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 41 Crookston: It is every darn week of the year. Kingsford: Not in Meridian. ITEM #19: WATER/SEWERffRASH DELINQUENCIES: U Kingsford: This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right of a pre- determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. on February 7, 1995 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person and be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that your sewer/water/trash bill is delinquent, you may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on February 15th, 1995 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone from the public that would like to contest their sewerlwater/trash delinquency? Entertain a motion on the tum off list. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor I would approve the turn off list of $15,144.68. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of the tum off list in the amount of $15,144.68, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial Court pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal their water will be shut off. ITEM #20: APPROVE BILLS: Tolsma: Second Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the bills, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #21: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: Mr. Smith Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 42 r~ u Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, on February 3rd at 3:00 P.M. we had 2 bid openings in City Hall. I would like to pass out the results for each one of you to look at. As I mentioned there were 2 bids, one was for the Five Mile Creek Sewer extension and the other was for the Eagle Road water line extension. The sewer extension project we had 2 bidders and the low bid was presented by Masco Inc. from Boise, $619,278.70. The Eagle Road water line extension the low bid was also presented by Masco tnc. from Boise, $177,726. We are still in the process of obtaining the easements for the sewer line. The water line of course is being built within a public right of way so there is not a problem in pursuing that one immediately. 1 guess I would, based on the bid results I would recommend that we accept these bids and that a notice of award be made but I think the notice of award probably should be subject to our obtaining all of the easements and I believe there is also a funding agreement that is in process between the City of Meridian and St. Luke's that probably also needs to be approved before we proceed with any final contractual obligations between the Ciry and the low bidder. I guess I would leave that decision up to Wayne Crookston and yourselves. That would be my observation of it at this point. Morrow. And Gary that observation is only for the sewer line project, we can press forward with the water line extension? Smith: Yes Morrow. I would move that we award the bid for the water line extension in the amount of $177,726 to Masco Inc. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to award the water line project and St. Luke's to Masco Inc. in the amount of $177,726, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: do we need to ask the Council then to authorize me to sign those documents and the Clerk to attest them? Morrow. So moved. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and attest the award to Masco on the water line, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 43 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Mr. Mayor, would that also include your being able to sign the notice to proceed subject to all the contract documents and so forth coming back in acceptable form? Kingsford: Let's have a motion on that. Morrow: I will make a separate motion to allow the Mayor to sign the notice to proceed. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to authorize the Mayor to sign the notice to proceed to Masco on the water line extension, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Thank you Morrow. Now, with respect to the sewer line extension, 1 would move that we approve the bid submitted by Masco but subject, the notice to proceed and the signing of the contract to be based on the successful completion of the right of way negotiations and of the financial arrangement of the St. Luke's Hospital and upon completion of those that we authorize the Mayor to sign the contract, the City Clerk to attest the contract and the Mayor to sign the notice to proceed. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Beautifully stated, moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the Masco bid on the sewer line conditioned upon the right of way easements being secured, the financing documents being approved and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and attest the award and authorize the Mayor to sign the notice to proceed upon completion of those items, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Thank you Kingsford: Chief or Acting Chief Bowman, do you have anything for the Council this evening? Bowman: No sir Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 44 Kingsford: You did that beautifully. Mr. Johnson? Johnson: Nothing, thank you. Kingsford: Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Are you going to deal with the Banducci agreement? Kingsford: Well, I would assume that we need to. Crookston: That would be appropriate, I have an older agenda, I didn't notice it was on there. Kingsford: Any questions of the Council? Crookston: Let me just explain what this is Mr. Banducci applied for a rezone of 3 lots that were on Kingsford: The opposite side of Willowbrook from what we just approved for the Victorian house. Crookston: Right, it is west of Meridian Road across from the very north end of Albertson's and a little bit farther north. There was discussions when he went through the hearing the request for a rezone was denied and he had discussions with Wayne Forney and it was indicated he could go ahead and do the deve-opment of the property on the basis of a recorded survey. Subsequently myself and Shari told him he could not do that, he was arguing that the City had lead him to believe that he could. He lost a couple of lot sales, he kept creeping back and finally it was decided he could do a lot survey type situation that would be recorded and the lots would meet the R-4 requirements and the City would treat it as if a plat had been approved. Mostly in the nature of a settlement to prohibit any kind of legal action, he has waived his rights, it is probably appropriate to go ahead and do this. He may even be coming bads for another rezone because of the Davies request to put that wedding chapel in competition with the Mayor so we may see him again. But I think this is appropriate. Kingsford: What needs to be done then to approve of that agreement? Crookston: Approve it and authorize signatures. Kingsford: Questions of the Council? Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 45 Morrow. This property if I understand it is directly north. Kingsford: It is, as you drive into Meridian Manor 51 believe it is, you go in from Meridian Road and I believe the street name is Willowbrook. On the south side is the property that you discussed this evening for the wedding chapel, immediately to the north across the street is the Banducci property. Morrow. This property fronts on Willowbrook or does it front on Meridian? Kingsford: It fronts on Willowbrook, all 3 lots. Crookston: I thought the Davies property was farther north of this property? Kingsford: I believe that is the street, it is (inaudible). Smith: Banducci is on the north side of Willowbrook, the Davies property is on the south side. Kingsford: So I was right. Morrow. These lots are not going to ingress and egress on Meridian Road they are going to ingress, egress on Willowbrook. Kingsford: That is correct. Smith: There has been a record survey prepared for the lots, I believe Tom did that. (Inaudible) Kingsford: Entertain a motion to approve of the agreement. Morrow. Mr. Mayor I move that we approve of the agreement with James Banducci, Jr., and Judy Banducci and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest this agreement. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the agreement between the City and James and Judy Banducci and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and attest the agreement, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 46 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else Counselor? Crookston: Just to inform the Council, Bill Schwartz has had some discussions with some Boise City people unofficial which lead him to believe that there may be some retracting on the Magistrate's Court situation. ft is totally informal, this is just a discussion nothing has been stated. There is a little bit of comment that Mr. Trailer may be backing off some. Kingsford: Certainly one of the judges that signed that now is in a different area. Crookston: That is true, that is all I have. Kingsford: You guys are all in receipt of Shari's letter on the Comprehensive Plan requirement of dry line sewer in the area of impact, any discussion on that? And Gary's comments that I think that the life of that dry line may very well expire before it is utilized, do you guys have any thoughts with regard to that and the (inaudible) of the Ada County Comprehensive Plan with that in it. 1 have had probably 3 or 4 people that have talked to me about it, I know there are others that have concerns that they would be required to put in dry lines and septic tanks and with no assurance of when that might actually be in the City. Well I think at some issue is maybe during our lifetime the Ada County Commissioners are going to approve their Comprehensive Plan, we maybe need to make some recommendations to them along this line if that is your desire. Mr. Smith Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I guess my biggest concern with dry lines in the impact area is not (mowing where to place them vertically. The alignment of any subdivision is totally unknown and where we are starting typically the developments are occurring at the upper end of the sewer lines rather than starting at say the Waste water plant and proceeding upgrade where we would have some idea of what the alignment may be and what the elevation of the line may be. I think we could get ourselves into a lot of problem by requiring the sewer line to be put in. Now the water line is another issue and I don't' know if that is spoken to in the Comp plan or if it is just the sewer. Kingsford: My recollection is just sewer and they also speak to a potential resubdivision I believe in the Comprehensive Plan. Smith: The re-sub part of that is just Shari's (inaudible) but I just see a major problem with trying to locate a gravity sewer in the northeast part of our area of impact. You don't know how you are going to get there from Ten Mile Road and Ustick Road. Morrow: I think Gary the other part of the issue there really is also we have just completed Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 47 our facility study plan and we may be long term we may be expanding the sewer plant at a different site and that is part of what that facility plans says. I have 2 problems with these issues, one is I don't think it makes good sense to put a sewer pipe into the ground when you don't know for sure that A that is even going to be the facility that would handle it from that area and B the issue with respect to elevations. So I don't think we ought to be requiring that. I think the other thing that I don't think the County Comprehensive Plan does us a service with is this subdivision re-subdivision thing. I don't think that they ought to be subdividing it in the first place because if it is one of those issues where they have 3 one acre lots and one may have 15 acres lots and everybody wants to re-subdivide it at some point in the future. Then it creates nothing but problems for water and sewer hook ups an those kinds of things for the 3 one acres lots that obviously don't want to pay any part of that service. So, it would seem to me that the County would be well advised not to try to be the governing entity for subdivisions that are well within our impact area or Boise's or Eagle's or anybody else's from that standpoint because of the problems in terms of trying to provide these services. Smith: Mr. Mayor, there is a good example of this re-subdivision process that took place a number of years ago on the south side of the Interstate. Ted Hepper developed a project over there where the Treasure Valley Baptist Church is located on Terra Avenue 1 don't remember the name of the Subdivision, Timothy Subdivision. That subdivision was a large lot, I think were 5 large lot 5 acre lots and they were required at that time to show future re-subdivision of that subdivision into smaller residential lots including the street right of way. tt turns out that since they showed those future street right of ways on that plat that in order for them to do something different with those lots they have to vacate those future street right of ways. They have to go through a vacation process for those things. It has just been kind of a painful process to have to deal with that in that particular subdivision. Kingsford: I agree and I think in my own mind the County needs to be put the language a little bit more of a strong nature to encourage development to take place within the City in the first place. All you have to do is to look at what happened out in the Desert Fox area those those guys are scrambling trying to get somebody to go out and sewer something that is impractical at this point. But yet I think the County Commissioners want to be in the subdivision game because they don't want to turn anybody down or make any enemies. So, do we want to withdraw the or recommend that the County Commissioners that they withdraw the dry line resubidivsion portion of their comp plan? Morrow. That would be my intent, my motion yes. Tolsma: Just the sewer line or water line or both? tngsford: I think both, you put a water line in the ground that you don't use for some time Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 48 you have a contamination problem from getting that thing cleaned up and ready to use. Is there a second to Walt's? Tolsma: 1 will second that. Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to send notice to the County that we are not desirous of having dry line water and sewer and resubdivision in the area of impact for the City of Meridian. Morrow. And emphasize the resubdivision. Kingsford: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Ail Yea Kingsford: Anything Walt? Morrow. Very briefly we will need to schedule a public hearing to adopt our transportation task force plan for our next meeting. Have we had any feedback in terms of the minutes has everything been approved by all the committee members, no negative feedback? So we would like to present that on the agenda for approval by the Council, public hearing approval. Kingsford: 1 suspect that since we are onto that I can't remember what my requirements are but, Mr. MorrovJs term is expired on the Citizens Transportation Advisors Committee. Morrow: Capitallmprovements Kingsford: Capital Improvements, Citizens Capital Improvements Committee. (End of Tape) 1 have been asked by Mr. Nyman to consider allowing him to stay on that. I have visited with Mr. Morrow and he has graciously agreed that he would serve the City further on that committee and 1 think he has done a very admirable job. I would like to re-appoint him to that position with the Council's concurrence. Tolsma: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the Mayor's nomination of Walt Morrowfor another term on the ACRD Citizens Capital Improvements Committee of which he is chairman by the way, all those in favor? Opposed? ~ i Meridian City Council February 7, 1995 Page 49 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything Mr. Yerrington? Yerrington: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: No Kingsford: Mr. Berg? I would entertain that infamous motion. Yerrington: I move that we adjourn at ten minutes to ten. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to adjourn at ten minutes to ten, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: G NT P. KING F ,MAYOR ATTEST: ~6-.... WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., C RK ~ OR{GIf~AL BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW HOUSING UNIT AS ACCESSORY NW CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVE. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for hearing on January 17, 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 architect, Billy Ray Strite, 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 January 17, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 17, 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 the Applicants have requested a variance be granted AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 1 to allow an office/resident manager housing unit be constructed at the main entry to the already approved mini-storage complex located at the northeasterly corner of the facility on the land located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue; that the owner, Roger Allen has consented to the application and has requested this variance and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 4. The property in question is described in the variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 5. That the property in the area where the variance is requested is zoned G-C, General Commercial and Retail. 6. That the zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: 1C-Gl General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 7. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, residences are not specific allowed uses in zoning districts other than residential districts; that under 11-2-409 A, Residential, General Planned Residential Developments are permitted under a conditional use permit in the C-G district. AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 2 8. That the Applicant has not submitted an application of Planned Development. 9. That the proposed living structure is stated in the Application to be a 1200 square foot unit, two (2) bedroom, with a small office area. 10. That the Applicant stated in the Application that the home is to provide security to the benefit of the surrounding property used as a storage facility; Applicant additionally stated that, "Hardship would be two-fold: Lack of a 24-hour resident manager limits the ability to control security, sound, traffic and light for the facility and, just as importantly,m the surrounding neighbors. Secondly, to compete in this market, industry standard dictates on-sit management as a convenience." 11. That Tim Hepper, a Planning and Zoning Commission member, commented that the residence would require a two car garage in accordance with 11-2-411 H. 12. That houses in the surrounding areas are on land that is zoned R-8 Residential; that R-8 Residential requires a home of at least 1,301 square feet. 13. That the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, City Fire Department, Central District Health and the Nampa Meridian Irrigation were submitted and they are incorporated hereby as if set forth in full; that the comments of the City Engineer are forthcoming and will be incorporated hereby as if set forth in full. 14. That there was no adverse public comments at the public AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 3 hearing. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. That the City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 5. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council, are as follows: 11-2-419 C. FINDINGS "A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a public hearing) the Council makes a statement of supportive reasons based directly on the evidence presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have been met by the applicant and unless all of the following exist: 1. That there are such special circumstances AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 4 or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable; 2. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, other physical conditions or other conditions which are not self-inflicted, or that these conditions will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of this Ordinance; 3. That the granting of the specified variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; 4. That such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 6. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically concluded as follows: a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. That the strict application of the provisions of the ordinances that there be no residential use in non-residential districts would clearly be unreasonable where the residence is an accessory use to the primary use of storage and is only placed in the storage area for use by the manager. b. That strict compliance with the requirement that there be no residential use in commercial zones would result in extraordinary hardship to the applicants. c. That the granting of the specified variance would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated. d. That such variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 5 7. That it is further concluded that the housing requirements of the R-8 Residential district should be followed, including the minimum house size of 1,301 square feet and a two car garage. 8. That it is concluded that the Application for a variance to allow a housing unit as accessory use to the storage use, should be conditioned on meeting the findings and conclusions stated herein. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) DECISION VOTED i%~ VOTED VOTED / ,~,/'Qf"~` VOTED '~/'~~ VOTED Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is decided the Application for a variance to allow a housing unit as accessory use to the storage business, is approved, provided Applicant meets the conditions stated herein. APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 6 nA.Tf : ~.tk• 3 lR~tS 3:0o pM. j (~lJl\t1l~.GTOt2. TOTAL- 1~It~~.MauNT' a ~ ~ Z ~3~o~i ~t3k - 43'10 -- __ . ~~ ~~ o. A.a.~w. ~'7ZD~i G1~i- (o~ioo - 'YVt.cvi~ 9m,c 4850 Ile~rwu~• /1}`33105 ~3~2-IoIR~I~ ~ (~1,~Z.~o. 00 . ~~ a ~+~w`~ d. 3"il4 ~3~6 - 7240 ~ ZZ~ 30.00 1 Caws }vvu li,cv~ Vin. Yliv,c ~ Q. X3642 $$'1- "1"11 ~ Ro.!°~~ 3'lo't ~ 3~2- 2713 .~ `. £ ~ ~~ X3'1 t 4 ~ 343- `6742 yV~. 12. 'vvt,..ct,~.r t15~ lt~.-E~ $305 344-13~s"1 ~ 2~ ~ ~ Co~S . ~ Q.o.ltia~[~li 8331 ~~i2-4Rr~6.~ ~ ~~_tI ~ (~jGU^r G Www. ~1-tnt.~'t.ctti ll5"l E~'YVL~Nn. S3b4Z 884 -2140 L ~ ~ ~„ Ste. eo~.s . p . c o~eya-~. 1'24 Su.~ . t'"i'~=' ~t~?e . On+o,ri o , Dregox 9'~ C[ ("'! /J ~ ~ ~~ i X02 . ~ ~ l ~ Co'ZO . o O lb 12~~UL' ptzoJKT:~~ MILEG12EE1LG,EWEt2~~' (~Ot~l1~ GT012 'foTAL tai I~ 1~• MaU NT G~ta.EY Exca-va.T-oN po.t~X , $3103 `lam-43?0 -- - - t~l°IL~Y~Nh~+~dN 4g5o~ ENtz`r 3 0 ~ t,2-~~99) OWYNEE GoNh t}232 z 31t4 a~`- 2zgo h~MMalz coN~i1T2VGj10N 70. t~xA .836 2 ~ ~$~- E ~ Go NTUI*c.TO1zFi '8 3"t t ~ 343 • $742 ~ ~0 ~ Z~ ~. OO M.12 . M~t.1#R 1151 3 09 ~3QQ~-1397 po N DE~~ CO N~3(tZraG11oN pO' ~°x ~ t . 43L3t 3~2- 4q5~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 17, 1995: u~L'ro~ccC MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 24, 1995: U~U~prave ~ 1. TABLED JANURY 17, 1995: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: aiwen,~(_ ~~ ~7, ,'3.~~h . CC~~~ad¢ ~~M2etin~f`lcvuc%ZJb~L.h~lz~rce~2/oE-h/C.lo~uhb,~,t.fr'.b~~?tear 2. TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGRE~MEN~F~~TUTHILL y5;~o ESTATES N0.2 SUBDIVISION: ~~uht~i FQb.2iS7 3. TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: -f~~.,/~,~~ ccwfi7 Feb. L/s'I 4. TABLED JANUARY 17, 1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LANDING N0.7 SUBDIVISION BY SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT: ~a.~e ccvct~7 F~6 2lf% 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR FIRST INTERSTATE BANK: ~[~f-~ravC {/j~~~L a`.~iuoe GCeciS.t~ va~~w-~u a~ 22fsu-.E.h~~<,cP~ 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE TEN FOOT ITERIOR SET-BACK TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT BY REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST: 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW RESIDENT MANAGER HOUSING UNIT BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: a~~:~o-e ~~F ~ e/L a~f'o~e deed~o,~ 8. ORDINANCE#690 -ANNEXATION ORDINANCE -ACRD RIGHT-0F--WAY: /~PPrUV2 9. ORDINANCE#691 -VACATION OF FARMINGTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION: app ro~~ 10. PUBLIC F~~RING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 17, 1995 MEETING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FRO R-15 TO L-O BY M: l-~~'~en }1~~d/~n~ ~ppro~e ~i~xC~rzdeQ ~~f~e% a~,o~we ~e2.~,.~- c~~Fy ~f,yf° ~~y`~s,~e_ 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-O BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES: Q~wwe ~~~ ~C/L k~~io/e GlC'ci~ib~-~ City a~tbvi,rvJ (ro /y~.e~a-,f- re 2_.»,.e r~z~a.nv~ 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A 3200 SQUARE FOOT VICTORIAN STYLE HOUSE TO BE USED FOR WEDDINGS, RECEPTIONS, OFFICE GATHERINGS, ETC. BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAMES: r~~~rovr ~~f r CSC ci~/G'ro..,e GL~L Cr ?i o~: 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY PACIFIC WATER WORKS CO. INC.: 1 K~C~ho/t ~~~ e E~~ t.'PPro/~ rlX ei Ti'o+--~ Crr7 a ~L'i+K ~7 {~ Au_~M.e 07 CLs~n. L~,.c:Ci 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUE//ST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZJONI /NG BY CAROL LOTSPEICH: 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LOT FRONTAGE AT BUILDING SETBACK BY ROBERT TRUAX: Ci~N affbYr,t v1 l*~~~ e~c.~r- ~/f ~ C~C <Pproo-~~ ~.P /rt-viC.-x G<- Y-eG`aeJE~ 16. IDA-TRAN: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE BUILDING AT 1450 N. HICKORY AVENUE: !i~/7ro ve ,Gv ,, G rlo>,.ths 17. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR HARTFORD SUBDIVISION: aPprove~ 18. PROCLAMATION: ENGINEER'S WEEK: ~JrPJCn-t tv /,~Ydew- ~ci vi~5 C~ IC~4 h<~~cG/Pr ~~~_ 19. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: ~~~.o: e 20. APPROVE BILLS: G[~pP/vv2 ~ c.~~.i ~Jai.~v.: YS~ /ir. a5n o~w!~ 21. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: ,~e,„ Pwr wi.rr. c.~~~ A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: ~ - - ---- -- 1. BID RESULTS: FIVE MILE CREEK SEWER LINE EXTENSION: ~ 2. BID RESULTS: EAGLE ROAD WATER LINE EXTENSION: C<~c+/~~~vt Rww.d fn //1/l"r<o Fi~~ /?7~7Z6. y f m<~.vr ~c S~~-a~ B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR DRY LINE SEWER IN AREA OF IMPACT: se~u ha~~ tv tides ~~<wty rU Q%rr°~°~-~ YP~ee/1-e/n¢s.,t v ~ e(r~ /ihe .TC~/QP £` h~-~f<eGe(iViClih~ C. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY: 1. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH JAMES BANDUCCI, JR. AND JUDY BANDUCCI: approves a5reemen t ~vr /r~_a~or to s,~:2 ~. ~uy~~ /uhy,r~~ - /-e 4~~oi~ed G~/a/t ~blohr-ow f.e ~?Cf1.~'r/~C~aP~ta.Q ?hveJtme,.t C'i ~i ienS /*~e ~/SoYN CO,,.,..~~tee. T~ R Y'o'u-r ~, ¢tv~ feox-. HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY OFFICIALS A Good Place [o Live COUNCIL MEMBERS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICEIGASS,City Treasurer CITY OF MERIDIAN RONALD R- TOLSMA RoBERTR0. CORRE GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Englnear WALT W. MORROW BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAW CROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO SHARI STILES KENNY W. BOWERS, Flre CKlel " MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Planner 8 Zoning Adminishator W.L. "BILL GDRDDN, Police Chlel JIM JOHNSON WAYNE G.CROOKSTON,JR., Allornay Phone(206)886-4433~FAX (208)887613 Chairman-Planning BZOning Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 ~ y,y ~ Y7 ' GRANT P. KINGSFORD ." "` ""'" MEMORANDUM Mayor F • ~ . . TO: Mayor and Coun~i~~ ~~ CITY ~r f~i~~1L#~Ai', FROM: S~ -~an L. Stiles Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: February 7, 1995 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Requirement for Dry Line Sewer within Area of Impact Ada County has been having public meetings regarding their new Comprehensive Plan. In those meetings, several residents in our Area of Impact have expressed concern about our requirement for dry line sewer installation. These residents are generally in agreement with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, but are concerned about the prohibitive cost of providing septic systems and dry line sewers. As Gary Smith has indicated before, these dry line installations will probably never be used. They will either be of an age that their useful life is expired by the time the property is annexed to the City, the elevations at which the lines are placed will not fit design criteria when sewer connection is actually made, or the construction methods used may be questionable and therefore not desirable. I would like to reassure people calling in that the City will not require the dry line sewer unless connection to City sewer will occur within a reasonable time period. Please give this issue some thought and let me know how you wish to proceed with the issue. Thank you. ~ ~ ORIGIf~AL BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF FIRST INTERSTATE BANK FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-2-414 D AT LOT 1 BLOCK 1. CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE_PARK FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for hearing on January 17, 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 the architect, Leonard Ruff, 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 January 17, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 17, 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 11-2-414 A, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES, requires that no building or structure shall be FIRST INTERSTATE BANK - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 1 erected, altered or its use changed unless permanently maintained off-street parking and loading have been provided in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. 11-2-414 also requires that the parking be paved. 4. That Ordinance 11-2-414 E 2.b.(2), requires one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area; that the bank has 4,800 square feet of floor area; that the ordinance requires 24 parking spaces. 5. That the Applicants have requested that a variance be granted from the above Ordinance requirements so that they will not be required to meet the on-site parking stalls required by the City Ordinance of 24 parking stalls due to the size and location of the special landscaping easement; that only 22 spaces can be developed on the site. 6. The property in question is described in the variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 7. That the property in the area where the variance is requested is zoned G-C, General Commercial and Retail. 8. That the Applicants own the property. 9. That the Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles commented that provided employee parking is adequate and if no on- street parking occurs, she would recommend the variance; that the Ada County Highway District, City Police Department, City Fire Department, Central District Health and the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and they are incorporated hereby as if set forth in full. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 2 10. That the Meridian City Engineer, Gary Smith, submitted no comments. 11. That there was no adverse public comment at the public hearing. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. That the City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 5. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council, are as follows: A variance shall not be granted unless the Council makes a statement of supportive reasons based directly on the evidence presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned FIRST INTERSTATE BANK - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 3 standards and conditions of this Ordinance have been met by the Applicant and unless 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 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 have the effect of nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan. 6. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant if this variance is granted. 7. That regarding Section 11-2-419, 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 off-site parking requirements would clearly be unreasonable; there clearly is not enough land to place off-street parking on. b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this off- street parking 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. FIRST INTERSTATE BANR - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 4 d. That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the off-street parking Ordinance. 8. That it is concluded that the Application for a variance from 11-2-414 E 2.b. (2), OFF-STREET PARKING, should be granted. APPROVAL OF FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED VOTE VOTE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) DECISION VOTED / 'l VOTED//// Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is decided the Application for a variance from 11-2-414 E 2.b. (2), OFF-STREET PARKING is approved; that the Applicant shall construct, install and place 22 parking spaces which meet all of the requirements of 11-2-414. APPROVED:~~~ DISAPPROVED• FIRST INTERSTATE BANK - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page 5 ~ i ORlGi~IAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MICNAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CORNER OF MERIDIAN ROAD AND WILLOWBROOR MERIDIAN, IDABO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing December 13, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, Michael Davies, appearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone and the Conditional Use Permit Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December 13, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 13, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is not the owner of record of the property; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is owned by E & B Joint FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 Trust, W. B. Smith and E. L. Bews, Trustees, and they have consented to the application; that-the property is now zoned R-4; the area in which Applicant's property is located is developed as a R-4 Residential subdivision; that the property to the west, north and south is zoned for residential development; that Meridian Road is east of the property. 3. That this property, currently vacant, is 1.49 acres 4. That the Applicant requests that the property be re-zoned from R-4 to L-O Limited Office and be granted a Conditional Use permit for the operation of a facility to be used for weddings, receptions, office gatherings, meetings, anniversaries, and other things. 5. That churches are allowed uses in the L-O District; that clubs and lodges are conditional uses in the L-O District; that professional and sales offices are allowed uses in the L-O District; that the uses proposed by Applicant are not listed as specific allowed or conditional uses in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409 for the L-O District; however 11-2-407 D. 1. provides as follows: "When a use is not specifically listed as a permitted use, such use shall be hereby expressly prohibited unless by application and authorization (as provided for under Conditional Use) it is determined that said use is similar to an compatible with listed permitted uses. Such uses may then be permitted as Conditional uses.an allowed conditional use in the R-4 district pursuant to 11-2-409 B.the uses proposed by the Applicant are allowed uses in the L-O district with a conditional use permit; that there is property east of Meridian Road that is used for a grocery store and other businesses. 6. That the L-O District is described in the Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 i ~ Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: (L-O) LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the (L-O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L-0 District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 7. That the subject property has not been previously used and is now a vacant lot. 8. That the property is shown in the Application as having two access points on Willowbrook Drive; the property also fronts on Meridian Road, but the drawing shows no access to Meridian Road; that Meridian Road is listed as a Minor Arterial in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; the it carries a substantial amount of traffic. 9. That sewer and water is available to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. 10. The City Engineer did not submit comments, but if he does they shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. il. That Ada County Highway District submitted comments and its site specific statements were as follows: 1. Dedicate 42-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Meridian Road. 2. Dedicate a 20' X 20' triangle (or appropriate curve) of right-of-way at the corner of Meridian Road and Willowbrook to keep street improvements in the public right-of-way. 3. Construct a 7-foot sidewalk on Meridian Road. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 i • 4. Direct access to Meridian Road is prohibited. 5. The maximum curb cut widths shall be 30 feet. 12. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, commented that if a record of survey has not been completed it should be accomplished; that the L-0 zoning is compatible with adjacent development and provides a buffer from the more intensive uses across Meridian Road; that appropriate landscaping and buffering must be provided as part of development; that detailed plans of the landscaping and buffering need to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure adjacent residential property is adequately buffered and that a 35 foot landscape setback along Meridian Road is maintained. 13. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator also commented that the City council should consider placing restrictions on the hours of operation, e.g., 7:00 A. M. to 11:00 P. M.; that handicapped accessible parking spaces need to incorporate an 8' minimum access aisle. 14. The Meridian Fire and Police Departments submitted comments as did the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation district and the Central district Health Department and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 15. There were no comments given at the public hearing objecting to the application. 16. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been followed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 coxcsusxoxs 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants' property. 2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. 4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 5. That Section 11-2-416 A. states in part as follows: "When the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or zoning and development practice require, the Council may amend, supplement, change „ or repeal the regulations, restrictions, and boundaries or classification or property as well as the regulations and provisions of this Ordinance." 6. That 11-2-416 (R) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows: (a) The L-O zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The area was not intended to be rezoned in the future but there is commercial property to the east of the subject property. (c) The area included in the proposed zoning amendment is intended to be used in the fashion that would be allowed under the proposed new zoning if a Conditional use is granted. (d) There has been no change in the area or adjacent areas which dictate that the property should be rezoned. (e) That the property, is apparently to be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area, which is developed in the R-4 fashion. (f ) The L-O use would not be hazardous to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood. (g) The property, if developed in the L-O fashion, would be able to be adequately served with most public facilities. (h) L-O development would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (i) The proposed use would not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to any person, property or the general welfare of the area, however the traffic would be increased more than it would be under R- 4 use. (j) Development in the L-O district, and particularly as planned by the Applicant, would cause an increase in vehicular traffic over and above what the traffic increase would be if the R-4 use was continued. (k) That a rezone would not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 7. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 8. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the City Council concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the uses. c. The use would apparently be designed and constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the character of the general vicinity. d. That the use should not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that traffic will increase because of the proposed use over an above what the traffic would be if used for R-4 Residential development, but the traffic should not be a problem. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 ~ ! g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise, provided the conditions are met. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required and the parking layout in the Application shall meet the requirements of the City ordinance. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 9. It is further concluded that the comments, recommendation and requirements of the City staff will have to be met and complied with, specifically including those comments of Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator. 10. That the requirements of the fence Ordinance shall be met and the boundary separation between Applicant's property and any residential property shall be worked out to the least dissatisfaction of the residential property owners. 11. That the Applicant shall meet the parking requirements of the City Ordinances and shall have no access to Meridian Road from the property; that all parking shall be paved prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit; additionally, as a condition on the conditional use permit, the Applicant shall be restricted to the business hours of 7:00 A. M. to 11:00 P. M.; that handicapped accessible parking spaces shall incorporate an S' minimum access aisle. 12. That any signs placed on the property shall meet the Meridian Sign Ordinance and shall not be lighted so as not to shine in the eyes of vehicles traveling on Meridian Road or Willowbrook FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page S Drive; the Applicant shall meet all of the City Ordinances, including the Uniform Building, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fire and Life Safety codes APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OP FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SAEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED REC0140;NDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the property described in the application be rezoned from R-4 Residential to Limited Office (L-O) and that the Conditional Use be granted, with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED:` FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF DISAPPROVED: APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this 7TH day of FEBRUARY , 1995. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED VOTED VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) APPROVED~~ VOTED~~ VOTE %%//// DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - MICHAEL 8~ ANGELA DAVIES ORDINANCE NO. 690 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF SECTION 1, T. 3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: A portion of section 1, T. 3N., R. 1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginninq at the East 1/4 corner of section 1, T. 3N., - ~ -~ R. 1W, B.M., thence -r ., .. ~ - N. 89°27'21" w. 35.00 feet, thence N. 00°16'22" E. 587.62 feet, thence f}'~r N. 89°43'38" W. 130.00 feet, thence /, ~-rt ~~0.~> N. 00°16'22" E. 85.00 feet, thence r :. ~)' `~'~9°43'38" E. 130.00 feet, thence ~''-1~~ 1~~ N. 00°16'22" E. 27.98 feet, thence ;;[C , S. 89°27'21" E. 35.00 feet, thence S. 00°16'22" W. 700.60 feet to the point of beginning. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoned R-4 Residential; that the use is for Ada County Highway District right-of-way, access road, and drainage; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of ORDINANCE - WATERBURY #5 - ACHD RIGHT-OF-WAY Page 1 Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Planning and Zoning on the request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the conditions the property shall be subject to de-annexation, which conditions subsequent shall run with land and also be personal to the owner and Applicant. Section 4. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 7th day of February, 1995. APPROVED: i OR -- GRAN K O D ORDINANCE - WATERBURY #5 - ACRD RIGHT-OF-WAY Page 2 ATTEST: ~ ,~<>°~,,,..'~i~ `.y p/ y ~~~. CITY CLERK -- WILLIAM BE ~ ~+_:' 1*~,Yy +, .~ ~: ; STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM BERG, City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF SECTION 1, T. 3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE"~ passed as Ordinance No. 690 , b the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~~ day of February, 1995, as the same appears in my office. DATED this ~ day of Februar , 1995. City Clerk, City o Me idian Ada County, Idaho STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) On this 7~b day undersigned, a Notary Public appeared WILLIAM BERG, known t subscribed to the within acknowledged that he executed of February, 1995, before me, the in and for said State, personally o me to be the person whose name is and foregoing instrument, and the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. `,,H~`~±~"°rt_~":. _ ,' SEAL ,~`~ i' (}`s L: '~; ti[ Y. f: '.~ a ,.. ~ ~.. ; ~: ,e '''~~.q n"~n °°°p Lng at Meridian, Idaho GOM MSS S. On PK~•r~S ~r~o3/y9 - WATERBURY #5 - ACBD RIGHT-OF-WAY Page 3 UNPIATTED 560'27312 195,78' ~~ I UNPLATTED WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVI90N W. WOODBURY DRIVE ' WATERBURY PARK SUBDINSIDN W.. ~. ~, : ~ ~ , , •, warms I >em 0 rc z r i 1 i0. MLY CM I usr ,/a CONEI a SFL11aN ~ / T. J K L 1 W. lO,AC Y01pW 0+~f%~NY i CK'D. v,ACHD ANNEXATION R.B.J. DATE 2-17-94 PROJECT: R.B.J. SCALE t'=t00' WATERBURY PARK LEGAL: A PORTION OF NE 1/4 SEC. 1, T.3N., R.1W., B.M. BY: OF ORDINANCE NO. 691 AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE PLAT OF FARMINGTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION #1, OF RECORD IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, ACCORDING TO TAE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, IN BOOK 45, OF PLATS PAGES 3709 AND 3910, RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1978 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 7868376, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to vacate the plat of Farmington Estates Subdivision, recorded 12/27/78 as Instrument Number 7868376, records of Ada County, Idaho, thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: Section 1:: That pursuant to Section 50-1306A, specifically, and Title 50, Chapter 13, Idaho Code, generally, the City of Meridian, having held the required hearing and it appearing that proper notice of said hearing was given, hereby vacates the plat of Farmington Estates Subdivision, the official plat of which was filed in Book 45 of Plats Pages 3709 and 3710, records of Ada County, Idaho, recorded as Instrument Number 7868376, records of Ada County, Idaho. Section 2: WHEREAS, there is an emergency therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage, approval and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this Z day of ~~i zcah 1995. G T P. KINGSFO D, d Y R ATTEST: ,:~ ~~%" WILILIAM G. BERG, J ., ITY CLERK '° " ~~ rry 4: ~~44. J ~ Jl .. 1 i ~ T i Y"L4~ ~ } A ~~] ~? y F _u et ~.. J~3 e... ~ • SZ' t': i ~~ V~~~_ C~i w^~ J F~~s.,:, ~.Q!'l D~/~Il'( STATE OF IDAHO, County of Ada, ss. I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE PLAT OF FARMINGTON ESTATES SUBDIVISION #1, OF RECORD IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, IN BOOK 45, OF PLATS PAGES 3709 AND 3910, RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1978 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 7868376, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE." passed as Ordinance No. 691 by the Cit Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~-'~ day of .e5ruur , 1995, as the same appears in my office. DATED this y~ day of February, 1995. CITY CLERK, CITY O M IDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO STATE OF IDAHO, County of Ada, ss. On this ~ day of _ ~CbrKavti , 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. a '„ SEAL ~ „ - ,r. j V ~'~ t :" .,~ RY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO DING AT MERIDIAN, IDAHO GpM MISS iOy PX~~/PS a8/0$~9 s OR!GiNq~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACIFIC WATER WORKS CO., INC. ANNERATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF LOTS 2 AND 3. BLOCK 2 COMNERCE PARK SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing December 13, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., that Arthur Stevens representing the Applicant appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December 13, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 13, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 1 i • approximately 2.31 acres in size. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as M-1 Industrial; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned by Meridian I-L, Light Industrial. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used for industrial and warehousing uses. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That Pacific Water Works Co., Inc. is the Applicant; that Applicant does not own the land; that the owner of the land is DWBD Associates, and it has consented to the annexation. 7. Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Central District Health Department, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the site specific requirement of ACHD was that the Applicant dedicate 27.5 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Commerce Court abutting the parcel. 8. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact and the Urban Service Planning Area of the City of Meridian as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer, but the sewer and water lines will have to be extended to the property by the Applicant. 10. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a substantial PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 2 amount of growth; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural and other uses to be developed into commercial and industrial uses. 11. That Mr. Stevens, agent of the owner, testified that they had read the conditions that have already been submitted and agree and have already done all of them, that they had no problems with the comments of the Ada County Highway District, that the Applicant is a supplier of underground piping materials, water and sewer, that the plan is to have retail and warehousing of the materials. 12. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: A. Under the LAND, GENERAL POLICIES, section commencing at page 22, it states: "Encourage a balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desireable and self- sufficient community; and under the INDUSTRIAL POLICIES, it states in part as follows: 3.1 Industrial development within the urban service planning area should receive the highest priority. 3.4 Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. 3.5 Industrial areas should be located within proximity to major utility, transportation and services facilities. 3.9 Industrial uses should be located where discharge water can be properly treated or pre-treated to eliminate adverse impacts upon the City sewer treatment facility and irrigated lands that receive industrial runoff. 3.10 Industrial uses should be located where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection." and under the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review area it is stated as follows: PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 3 3.15 The City of Meridian shall encourage the development of a Technological park and compatible light industrial uses within the proximity of the Idaho. Foreign Trade Zone. 3.17 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to encourage and promote light industrial development in the Eastern Light Industrial Review Area. B. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal Statement Policies, Page 19 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 13. That the property is included within an area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Light Industrial area; the Comprehensive Plan states at page 17 that "There are two planned Industrial Review Areas addressed in this Comprehensive Plan. The Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review Area ."; the Industrial Policiea stated at page 24 of the Comprehensive Plan state in part as follows: "3.11 Zoning and development within each of the Industrial Review Areas should be analyzed to ascertain if there are potential problems or conflicts which would hinder the development of these areas by private industrial and business PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 4 interests. 3.12 All industrial proposals that pertain to the Industrial Review Areas shall be reviewed and monitored by the City Council or designated commissions or committees, so that approved uses are compatible with surrounding planned uses and preserve the integrity of the review areas."; that the specific policies for the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review Area include the following: "3.14 The character, site improvements and type of light industrial developments should be harmonized with the residential uses in this area. 3.16U Land uses within the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review area must be clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements." 14. That the requested zoning of the Light Industrial district is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. as follows: (I-L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I-L) Light Industrial District is to provide for light industrial development and opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location, topography, existing facilities and relationship to other land uses. This district must also be in such proximity to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited. 15. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 5 of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in development that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and business and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned .that the increase in commercial and industrial development is bringing in more population and is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population, and the housing for that population, does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students; that the increase in commercial and industrial which might locate in this annexation would be helpful. 16. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 6 of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 17. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 18. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 19. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 20. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights ~of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 7 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 21. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Desion Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." 22. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." 23. That the City is in the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that the present Zoning Ordinance provides for only one industrial zone which is the Light Industrial Zone and which authorizes all industrial uses if allowed; that one of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance is to reorganize the industrial uses and have a light industrial zone and a heavy industrial zone. 24. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 8 Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF S CL PAGE 9 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt va. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires pressurized irrigation. That the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, and L.; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no building permits issued or final plats approved until the requirements of this paragraph are met and the property shall be PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 10 subject to de-annexation and loss of City services,. if the requirements of this paragraph were not met; the Applicant shall also be required to meet the requirements submitted to the Commission by City Staff and other government agencies. 10. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. 12. The Applicant has stated its intention for development, which the Commission concludes is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that since the Comprehensive Plan states that the specific policies for the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review Area include that land uses within the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review area must be clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements, it is concluded that the use be clean, quiet and free from hazardous or objectionable elements; that the area is not in a mixed planned use area which requires conditional uses for development, so conditional uses should not be PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 11 required as a condition of annexation and zoning; that if the Applicant agrees to have the development meet and comply with the amended Zoning Ordinance, even though it will not be adopted until later, the property should be annexed and zoned as requested. If the Applicant is not agreeable with having his development meet with the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, conditional uses shall be required as a condition of annexation. 13. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be annexed and zoned Light Industrial (I-L) as requested in the Application, but the Applicant and all property owners must agree, prior to an annexation ordinance being passed, that all development shall meet and comply with the amended Zoning Ordinance, even though it will not be adopted until later. 14. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning the Applicant, and all property owners, shall be required to enter into a development agreements as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the. development agreement shall address, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11- 9-605 a. C, Pedestrian Walkways. b. G 1, Planting Strips. c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces. d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors. e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways. 2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City. 3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF fi CL PAGE 12 recreation services. 4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area. 5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city. 6. Appropriate berming and landscaping. 7. Submission and approval of any required plats. 8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines. 9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing development. 10. Addressing the comments from the City Staff, applicable at the time of annexation and zoning or at the time of development. 11. The sewer and water requirements. 12. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development. 13. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff. 15. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance states in part as follows: "If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject property. If a commitment is required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. ."; however, it is deemed that development agreements are more appropriate as the time of final plating or upon issuance of a building permit and therefore it is concluded that the land may be annexed and zoned but the land shall be subject to de-annexation if PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL acceptable development agreements are not agreed upon, and entered into prior to final platting or issuance of a building permit. 16. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian, but it is concluded that the property may be de-annexed if appropriate development agreements are not agreed on and executed by the City and the Applicant. 17. That the requirements of the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, the Assistant to the Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa ~ Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and complied with; that if the Meridian Planning Director submits comments they shall also be complied with. 18. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be subject to de-annexation. That pressurized irrigation shall be installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 19. That the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer, at its expense, and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreements. 20. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, owners and its assigns. 21. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL PAGE 14 annexation and zoning as requested in the Application would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 22. That if these conditions of approval are not met by the Applicant and the respective property owners, the property shall be de-annexed. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ,~'~ ROLL CALL ~w~~~j' COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED C/ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) RECONMENDATION VOTED~\ VOTED L~.. ~~~ VOTED The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the Applicant and property owners enter into development agreements or that the land be de- annexed; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into development agreements, the property should not be annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: PACIFIC WATER WORKS FF & CL DISAPPROVED: APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions this 7TH day of FEBRUARY , 1995. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED VOTED VOTED/1~~` COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) (INITIAL) ~~ APPROVED VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PACIFIC WATER WORKS CITY 0~ AAI:IZEIa~AFd HUB OF Y€~EA~~I~v '~A~.? E'~" 33 EAs'T !DAFIO AAERIDIAN; IDAHO 83642 NAME: PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET PHONE NUMBER: CITY OF dJlERlDlAF~ HUB 0~ TRE~i3Ui~c `~9AF.? E'~ 33 EA5'Ti lDf1El0 AAERIDIAN:IDAHO 83642 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ----------------- i BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF R.E.B. IRREVOCABLE TRUST FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for hearing on January 17, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, Roy Brown appearing on behalf 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 January 17, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 17, 1995, hearing; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the notice of public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. 3. That Roy Brown, appeared on behalf of the Applicant before the Council to explain the need for the variance; he stated FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK that he wants the City to grant the variance from the interior set- back requirement of ten (10) feet to allow a zero lot line development enabling him to develop lots 3, 4 and 5 as one parcel; that there would be a ten (10) foot set-back on the west side of lot 5; that there will never be access or easements from the back of this property to the residential property; he subsequently stated that Idaho Power Company has no power line easement across the property; that at least there is no easement recorded; that he understood that the Power Company has a right to access its power lines and that they have no problem with that. 4. That the ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND COVERAGE CONTROLS in Section 11-2-410 A of the Zoning Ordinance, under the C-N requirements, it is stated that the interior side set-backs are ten (10) feet. 5. That the property is zoned C-N; that the Applicant is the owner of lots 3, 4 and 5 of the Corner at the Vineyards. 6. That the Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department & Police Department have submitted comments and they are incorporated herein; that the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, and other governmental agencies may submit comments and they shall be incorporated herein if submitted. 7. That the Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles, submitted her comments; ahe stated that the Applicant should maintain the ten (10) foot side yard setback on the east lot line FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK of Lot 3 and west lot line of Lot 5; that the variance be granted for the lot lines between Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 3 and 4 only. 8. There was testimony from the public, opposing the Application. 9. Gary Farnsworth, testified that he is the owner of the Mega Car Wash, which is on Lot 2 that abuts on the east side of the lots that Roy Brown and Company own; that his concerns lay with the traffic flow and safety; that if the set-back were to be reduced, the customers may start to use the bays as a means of getting through to the back to use the vacuums; that may propose a danger to children who at times stand next to the pillars as people are washing their cars; that as it is now, he has no future plans to expand; that he is hemmed in now, but is happy with what he has; that 20 foot farther west of the car wash is still Mr. Farnsworth's property; that Idaho Power's line runs within one (1) or two (2) feet of his property to the west; that there is an easement with Idaho Power; that there would be a problem in working on the power lines should a problem arise because the proposed variance would allow a development to be right up against another existing structure. 10. That John Wasson testified that he lives in the house directly behind lot 3; that his concerns range from traffic behind the proposed structure, the noise level, the possible trespassing and liability concerns; he already has people crossing his property illegally; that a fence is not a deterrent to trespass; that he FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK n questions the type of project proposed and is opposed to allowing the variance until the Applicant states what kind of plan they have to build at the site. 11. That Hal DeGrange submitted testimony regarding his concerns with security and loitering; that he is opposed to this variance. 12. That there are, in fact, power line easements on lots 2 and 3, of Block 1, of The Corner at Vineyards; that the easement on Lot 3 is the easterly 7.5 feet of the lot and the easement on Lot 2 is the west 7.5 feet of the lot. 13. That Section 11-9-605 of the Subdivision and Development states in part as follows: "A MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED All plats submitted pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance, and all subdivisions, improvements and facilities done, constructed or made in accordance with said provisions shall comply with the minimum design standards set forth hereinafter in this Article; provided, however, that any higher standards adopted by any Highway District, State Highway Department or Health Agency shall prevail over those set forth herein. D EASEMENTS Unobstructed utility easements shall be provided along front lot lines, rear lot lines and side lot lines when deemed necessary; total easement width shall not be less than ten feet (10'). Unobstructed drainage way easements shall be provided as required by the Council. F LOTS Lots shall conform to the following: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK ~ i 4. Zero-Lot-Line Building Lots a. Yard Setbacks: In no case shall a zero lot line be allowed adjacent to a property line which is not part of the development application. A minimum distance of ten feet (10') shall be maintained between buildings or potential buildings on separate lots." 14. That no other comments regarding the variance were received. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. That the City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Zoning Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 5. That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK Application: 11-2-419 A. "The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for issuance of a variance. Variances shall be granted only where strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go to the Commission unless directed by the Council." 6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: 11-2-419 C. FINDINGS A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a public hearing) the Council makes a statement of supportive reasons based directly on the evidence presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have been met by the applicant and unless all of the following exist: 1. That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable; 2. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, other physical conditions or other conditions which are not self- inflicted, or that these conditions will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of this Ordinance; 3. That the granting of the specified variance FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; 4. That such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 8. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C 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 the applicable ordinances would clearly be unreasonable as far as the set back requirement on the east side of lot 3 and the west side of lot 5, since those lots are adjacent to the border property that is not owned by the Applicant and City Ordinances require that in no case shall a zero lot line be allowed adjacent to a property line which is not part of the development application. In regards to the variance of the set back requirements in relation to the lot lines between lots 3 and 4 and 4 and 5, if the Applicant constructs one building on all three lots, the set back is not required since the building would cover all of the property and there is no necessity for the set back. The City has granted such variances in the past. If there are individual buildings on the lots, the set back requirement would have to be met. b. That strict compliance with the. set back requirement of ten feet would not result in extraordinary hardship to the Applicant as a result of factors not self-inflicted, since the ordinance requirements were in effect at the time the Applicant purchased the property and the Applicant could have learned of the requirement, if it did not know. However, in regard to the set back requirement between lots 3 and 4 and between lots 4 and 5, as stated above, there is no necessity for the requirement if one building will be constructed on all three lots. c. That the granting of the specified variance for the lot lines between lots 2 and 3 and the west lot line of lot 5, would be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK C~ d. That such variance would have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the set back Ordinance or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as pertains to the lot line between lots 2 and 3 and the lot line on the west side of lot 5. 9. That it is concluded that the Application for variance should be denied as pertains to the lot lines between lots 2 and three and the west lot line of lot 5; that the variance of the set back requirement as relates to the lot line between lots 3 and 4 and the lot line between lots 4 and 5, should be granted if one building is built which totally covers the lot lines between lots 3, 4 and 5; that the variance of the set back requirement should be granted if one building is built which covers the lot line between lots 3 and 4 and one building is built which covers the lot line between lots 4 and 5; that the variance should not be granted where there are individual buildings built on each of the three lots, lots 3, 4 and 5. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON COUNCILMAN CORRIE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) APPROVED• VOTEDC~~ VOTED)%r W VOTED 7,~~~ ~~/ """ """ """ VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED• FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page S REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK DECISION The variance is denied or granted depending on the circumstances as set forth in Conclusion Number 9 of the above Conclusions of Law; that Applicant shall record a document, which document shows approval of the document by the City and which reflects the above decision; this recording to inform all eventual owners of any of the three lots of this decision; that no building permit, or permits, shall be issued until plans for construction which show compliance with this decision have been approved by the City Building Inspector and the Applicant has supplied to the City the required r corded document. APPROVED: DENIED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 REB IRREVOCABLE TRUST - VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410, SET BACK C~ JAMES E. BRUCE, President SHERRY R. HUGER, Vice President SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, Secretary February 3, 1995 The Honorable Grant Kingsford Mayor of City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 Re: ACHD's Capital Investment Citizens Advisory Committee Dear Mayor Kingsford: Walt Morrow represents Meridian City on our Capital Investment Citizens Advisory Committee and his term expires in February, 1995. The ACHD Commission authorized his reappointment to an additional four year term, providing it is acceptable to you. The Committee meets February 13, 1995, at 5:30 p.m.; if you are agreeable to his reappointment, I would appreciate it if you would call either myself or Alice Sinsel before that date. If you have questions or wish to discuss their role on the Committee, please give me a call at 345-7680. Very truly yours, ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT u..(~ ~ l~y~-,-~ Je~y D. Nyman, Director JDN:as ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680 Kingsford: This is ~ inform you in writ•g, if you choose to, .you. have the right to a pre-determination ~ieariear in per0on•to ~02/0~ before the Mayor and City Council to app be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the Citretain your water, sewer and trash bil'i is delinquent. yo2/15/95, counsel. This service will be discontinued on _ unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash delinquency? No 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 Cade. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is S_15.144~_ . ~.,:, cr~Y ck ~,z~~ir2l~•~ DELINQUENCY LIST TURN OFF LIST SCHEDULED FOR 02/15/95 ACCOUNT # NAME & ADDRESS AMT. PAST DUE 1---460 JOHN WARDLE 55.50 716 W. 8TH 1---750 RAYMOND HOPKINS 46.30 ~~ 607 E. BROADWAY AVE. 1---800 N. I. A. 129.22 423 W. BROADWAY AVE 1---890 STAN LANTZ 59.70 608 W. 3RD 1---930 MICHAEL STILES 48.60 223 W. BROADWAY AVE. 1-1280 TECO INVESTMENTS 56.12 809 W. 2ND ST. 1-1340 KATHERINE LUCAS 48.30 803 W. 3RD 1-3310 EMIL & ESTHER BRINCKEN 100.10 711 W. PINE AVE. ~• I-3510 EARL & K. BRINEGAR 1.20.00 205 W. PINE AVE. i-3520 KENT Fi_TI•IRMAN 207.30 830 W. 2ND ST. 2--70 CYNTHIA THOMAS 44.00 922 W. 2ND ST. 2--426 HOME ART BUILDERS 44.00 982 N.W. 5TH AVE. 2--466 WILLIAM & KELLY VICK 673 W. APPLEGATE ST. 2-680 AUSTIN L. YOUNG 918 W. 10TH ST. 2-1190 A.TERRELL & L. JOY 1324 W. 1ST ST. 2-1370 DEBRA LYNN WHITE 1607 W. 1ST ST. 2-1530 JAIME OBENCHAIN 1320 W. 2ND ST. ~~ 2-1560 DAVID DOMKA 1404 W. 2ND ST. 2-1730 DR. BARRY SAMS 403 W. CHERRY LN. 2-1970 KERRY L. CARSON 225 W. MAPLE 2-2180 DUWAIN SHEPARD 238 CHERRY AVE. 2-2240 TAMERA PERKINS 233 CHERRY AVE: 2-2280 RICHARD SCHERER 201 CHERRY AVE. 2-2320 RUSSELL L. MCFARLAND • 1217 W. 1ST. ST. 2-3180 WALTER RYAN •1131 W. 7TH ST. •~• 2-3570 D.J. STANLEY 1122 W.4TH ST. 2-4550 TOMMY VINCENT 1329 W. 13TH AVE. 69.80 67.10 72.10 82.70 75.40 52.30 88.00 92.10 145.60 74.00 105.40 96.80 83.85 274.50 81.00 4 2-4990 BRET LANE 74.70 1520 CINDER RD. 2-5160 JACK WARD 44.00 1407 W. 14TH ST. 2-5610 K.HOPKINS/G.L.ARCHULETA 108.00 1504 W. WASHINGTON ST. 2-5650 KENNETH WEATHERS 64.50 1527 W. WASHINGTON ST. 2-5740 MONA NI11~IlV1O 61.50 1327 W. CARLTON ST. 2-5840 GARY FRANK 63.80 1338 W. CARLTON ST. 2-5870 CONCHETA STALLIVIERE 175.70 1432 W. CARLTON ST. 2-5890 KAY FEII.. 44.00 1036 W. 15TH AVE. 2-6100 MARIE R. JACOBS 72.30 1114 W. 12TH AVE. 2-6160 RAYMOND MARTINF.Z 55.60 1125 W. 11TH ST. 2-6440 FREDRICK J. SHADDICK 89.50 1002 W. WASHINGTON DR. 2-6670 DAN FRASIER 102.10 1180 W. STATE ST. 2-6860 MARK CANNON 45.00 1090 W. STATE ST. 4-1754 MARK PRYOR 65.70 2553 W. SHERYL ST. 4-1786 JON & PATTY POWELL 61.90 2555 W. WILLARD ST. 4-1878 GARRY SHIRLEY 58.20 1472 N. TINA MARIE AVE. 4-1988 MICHAEL CRAGO 86.80 2139 W. SONOMA DR. 20-1618 JON & CAROLYN WAGNJLD 61.50 1740 INTERLACHEN WAY 20-1726 NANCY MESROP 106.90 2110 N. SCIOTO PL 20-1846 MICKEY L. WARE 104.90 3721 SEA ISLAND CT 20-1848 RONALD R. WILSON 60.40 2153 TURNBERRY CL. 20-1986 HERITAGE HOMES OF ID. 32.00 3759 QUAKER RIDGE DR. 20-1988 LIFESTYLES MGMT., INC. 251.30 3749 QUAKER RIDGE DR. 21-1068 JOHN HURRAY 55.20 2748 W.WHITESTONE CT. 21-1172 RICHARD FALK 95.60 2375 LEANN WAY 21-1174 DAVID TWADDLE 75.70 2492 W. CHATEAU DR. 21-1176 MICHAEL & J. ARMSTRONG 85.60 2510 W. CHATEAU DR. 21-1480 BETTS LESTER 746.90 2663 W. CHATEAU DR 21-1590 DAVID WHITTEN 55.20 2151 TODD WAY 21-1784 SHARRON ANDERSEN 88.60 2551 JEFFREY COURT 21-1820 MARK DAMS 54.90 2001 TODD WAY 21-1870 DOUGLAS SCHOPPELREY 67.50 2644 REBECCA WAY 21-1890 BOYD BOWER 71.20 2560 MISTY DRIVE 21-1920 KONNEL PETERSON 54.60 2512 REBECCA WAY 21-1928 BRUCE R. BAILEY 75.80 2590 REBECCA WAY 21-1938 DAVID & SHAWNA LONGO 84.60 2615 REBECCA WAY 21-2920 KEVIN & BECKY CROFTS 357.50 2931 W. ELK STREAM ST. 21-3004 SCOTT & K. HALDI 55.60 3102 W. FIELDSTREAM DR. 21-3070 KIMBERLY DECK 56.25 2921 W. JOUST ST. 22--312 STEVEN M. CANTRELL 83.70 1750 W. CHATEAU DR. 22-320 PATRICIA PETERS 141.40 1810 W. CHATEAU DR. 22--338 JEFF R. BURROUGHS 88.00 1861 TRACY COURT 22--922 RODNEY D. BRADY 52.90 2155 MONACO WAY 22--924 RONALD W. BENTZINGER 80.10 2135 MONACO WAY 22-1008 GARNETT BLEDSOE 73.40 2065 N. ASTAIRE WAY 22-1158 DAN CORKHII.L 77.80 2308 W. RAINWATER CT. 22-1220 THOMAS BAII,EY 99.80 2024 N. NYBORG WY 22-1288 LIFESTYLES MGMT., INC. 271.30 2065 LASHER COURT 22-1312 RODNEY BRADY 60.25 2057 MONACO WAY 22-1356 MARVIN L. KERBS 100.00 1983 HENDRICKS CT. 22-1412 MARTIN DUARTE 61.20 1803 W. MCGLINCHEY ST. 22-1420 DUANE DAVENPORT 55.80 1719 W. MCGLINCHEY ST. 22-1422 BLAINE HUNTER 97.30 1689 W. MCGLINCHEY ST. 22-1520 MICHAEL A. RUFFALO 131.50 1952 SANDALWOOD DR.. 22-1524 CARL L. KOCH 63.80 1994 SANDALWOOD DR. 22-1574 ROBERT D. TALBURT 69.10 1895 W. CHATEAU DR. 22-1596 PAUL GIAUQUE 85.90 1767 BEARDON CT. 22-1634 EVA LOUISE REED 51.90 2291 N. CINDER RD. 31--140 NICHOLAS CORRAL 64.80 1300 W. YOST CT. 31--538 ROBERT L. MILLER 100.10 1521 KINGSWOOD AVE 31--608 MICHAEL WALKER 102.10 1333 NEWPORT DR. 31--754 DAVID ZASTROW 52.25 1531 TANA DRIVE 31--818 THERESA FLOYD 46.30 2104 N.W. 12TH ST. 31--840 GERALD R. BARNOWSKI 122.50 1312 TANA DRIVE 31--848 PATRICIA G. BERNHARD 44.00 2240 N.W. 12TH ST. 31--866 VICKEE K. CARSON-POOLE 63.50 1328 W. CHATEAU AVE. 31-2230 TAMI WATTERS 65.80 2691 13TH ST. 31-2300 DOUGLAS S. HALLOCK 91.20 1532 COWRY ST. 31-2992 PAUL E. PARKER 106.00 2239 N.W. 15TH ST. 31-3002 DAVE CHRISTENSEN 86.90 2240 N.W. 15TH ST. 31-3018 FORREST F. SCHUSTER 137.60 2218 N.W. 14TH ST. 31-3022 GARY TIPTON 82.60 2240 N.W. 14TH ST. 31-3050 DEBRA FRENCH 44.00 1065 W. CHATEAU DR. 31-3060 DAVID BASTIAN 87.80 960 W. CHATEAU DR 31-3236 VICKIE HRUSKA 79.00 2267 N.W. IiTH ST. 31-3256 RICHARD C. GRIGG 51.60 1120 W. KINGSWOOD CT. 31-3364 ALLEN BURGESS 52.90 2282 N.W. 10TH AVE 31-3392 ARTHUR & M. BOYLE 56.20 1074 DELMAR DRIVE 31-3406 MARY H. ULIN 77.00 1111 FAIRWOOD CT. 31-3560 DONALD FICKES 106.10 1016 STOREY AVE. 32--230 LEONARD MCFADDEN 134.40 104 W. CHERRY LANE 32--458 THOMAS DANIEL HORNE 6].10 2130 N. W. 8TH ST. 32--566 BARBARA J. HICKS 154.60 1919 CRESTMONT DR. 32-1154 WEDNESDAY RICHARDSON 47.05 361 W. CHItISFIELD DR 32-1284 EDWARD WILLERT 50.30 428. W. WOODBURY DR. 32-1678 STEVEN HEZELTINE 62.80 121 W. WATERBURY DR. 34--366 RONALD PETERSON 65.10 1926 JERICHO ROAD 34--812 KARL & L. KAUTZ 51.35 2298 N.E. 10TH AVE 34-1036 RONALD LANDON 78.30 1288 E. HUNTER DR. 34-1698 DAVID RABEHL 78.70 2499 N. LARK AVE 34-1770 WADE & W. DAVIS 52.90 933 E. CHATEAU DR. 34-1806 ERMINE DAVIS 82.60 1014 CLAYBOURNE DR. 34-1852 KIM WORTHAM 72.10 1005 CLAYBOURNE DR 34-2044 WILLIAM G. MII.,LER 77.00 1855 TEARS AVE. 34-2104 HEIDI TYLER 52.90 1034 TAMMY ST. 34-2802 BRETT & M. DUNSTAN 77.70 1316 E. RINGNECK CT. 42-2102 STEPHAN WILLMORE 56.90 2286 N. WINGATE PL 42-2252 BRAD L. MCKINLEY 85.60 2220 E. CHATEAU DR. 42-2362 TIMOTHY TRUMBO 61.20 1812 E. GREENMEADOW CT 42-2404 PHOEBE ROSE 55.70 2277 N. LOCHNESS WY 42-2436 THOMAS C. LEONARD 75.70 1632 E. LOCHMEADOW CT. 42-2530 KELLY & T. KILER 70.40 2031 E. LOCHMEADOW CT. 42-2712 JERRY B. KNAPP 79.30 2581 N. LAUGHRIDGE AVE 46-326 CASEY MCDONOUGH 50.90 3582 E. EISENHOWER DR. 50--12 PAUL H. SMITH 59.90 29 E. STATE AVE. 50---30 E. E. BRINEGAR 54.90 115 E. STATE AVE. 50--90 ROBERT HENDRY 62.80 515 E. STATE AVE. 50--204 JERRY HOLLOWAY 64.74 416 E. STATE AVE. 50--354 ARDIS M. AGAN 114.90 416 E. CARLTON AVE. 50--464 ANTHONY STOPPELLO 64.10 1128 E. 5TH 50--726 C.F.I. INVESTMENTS 44.00 364 E. WASHINGTON AVE 50--728 C.F.I. INVESTMENTS 66.50 372 E. WASHINGTON AVE 50-1020 TECO INVESTMENTS 58.50 301 E. GRUBER 50-1332 DIANE LANG 50.90 1115 E. 1ST ST. 50-1392 ROBERT G. SPENCER 65.50 1326 E. 1ST ST. 50-1472 WHITE WATER SALOON 214.80 1646 MERIDIAN ST. 50-2384 HOME ART BUII.DERS 44.00 1372 N. SANDLIN AVE. 50-2444 STEVE MCNITT 44.00 1472 N. PENRITH AVE. 50-4478 MICHAEL R COLEMAN 89.70 532 E. PINE STREET 50-4506 BETTY B. JACOBSON 52.00 436 E. PINE AVE. 50-4582 CAROLE BARRIETUA 70.50 914 E. 2ND ST. 51--50 AMYX FAMILY LTD. 80.00 37 E. BROADWAY AVE. 51--306 MONIKA LITTLE 72.70 412 E. BROADWAY AVE. 51--518 KENT FUIIRMAN 54.00 509 E. IDAHO AVE. 51--738 KELLY A. GWII.LIAM 65.90 302 E. IDAHO AVE. 51-3234 GARY R. KNOX 100.00 205 E. 2ND ST. 51-3430 ROBERT D. STRASSER 44.00 218 E. KING ST. 51-3670 DALE E. BLAKE 78.50 55 E. ADA ST. 51-3930 STEUNENBERG SHELTER HOMES 181.40 402 E. 2ND ST. 51-3990 DANNY W. FISHER 52.60 116 E. ADA ST. 69--566 LAWRENCE CHURCH 60.50 1035 E. SHEPHERD ST. 69--568 ROGER JUDGE 64.80 1107 E. SHEPHERD ST. 69-752 R & M HOMES 57.00 1647 S. GOLDSMITH AVE. 72--204 THE DEVELOPMENT CO. 70.00 1962 S. RIPTIDE AVE. 74---80 RICK R. BURWELL 82.60 513 KEARNEY PLACE 74--94 RANDY WINWOOD 88.90 671 PENNWOOD ST. 74--372 LAURA YELTON 67.10 673 FULMER CT. 74--668 ROSA ROGERS 56.20 652 BARRETT ST. 74-1104 DONNA WIEBER 57.50 37 ROSE CIRCLE 74-2324 RALENE J GREGORY 128.00 1125 CRESTWOOD DR. 74-2458 LIFESTYLES MGMT.,INC. 383.90 1260 W. KIMRA ST. 74-2714 DARLENE GIVENS 92.70 1010 CRESTWOOD DR. 74-2834 MICHAEL MCCORMICK 79.30 1289 W. CRESTWOOD DR. 74-2876 TRACY USSERY 102.50 1345 W. MERGANSER DR 74-2988 PERRY ELIASON 85.60 1367 W. PI NTAIL DR. 74-3036 FRANK URATA 55.20 925 W. LOON ST. 74-3248 RICHARD GARNER 71.20 495 S. PELICAN WAY TOTAL DUE: $15,144.68