The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994 11-01~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~ AGENDA TUESD~Y, NOVEMBER 1, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1994: (APPROVED~ MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 26, 1994: (APPR4VEDj AMENDED MINUTES FOR AUGUST 17, 1993: (TABLED) BECKY PETERSON: PRESENTATION ON AIR QUALITY BOARD: (AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SfGN AMENDED AGREEMENT) 2. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ON TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 17, 1995) 3. TABLED OCT08ER 9$, 1994: DEVELOPlVlENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVtS10N: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 15, 1894) 4. TABLED OCTOBER 18, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISfC~N NO. 2: (TABLED UPITIL NOVEMBER 15, 1994) 5. TABLED OCTOBER 18, 1994: ORDINANCE #675 - HAVEN COVE NO. 5: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 15, 1994) 6. TAgLED OCTOBER 18, 1994: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE N~. 5: (TABLED UNTiL NOVEMBER 15, 1994~ 7. AMENDED ORDINANCE #654 - AVEST ANNEXATION: (APROVED) 8. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR AVEST: (TAB~ED UNTIL NOVEMBER 15, 1994) 9. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR NEB-i COMPANY (D & B SUPPLY): (APPROVEDj 10. ORDIIdANCE #677 - NEB-i COMPANY ANNEXATION: (APPROVED) ~ 1. CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT F(JR NEB-i COMPANY (D & B SUPPLY): (APPROVED) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY MARTELL PROPERTIES: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; CITY AT NEY TO PREPARE ORDINANG~ 13. STEINER DEVELOPMENT: PRESENTATION ON CONCEPT PLAN FOR CHERRY LANE AT THE LAKE NO. 5& 6: 14. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED) 15. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED) 16. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. CHANGE ORDER REQUEST: BROADWAY PARKING LOT (APPROVED) 2. CHANGE ORDER REQUEST: FIVE MiLE CREEK PATHWAY PLAN (APPROVED) 3. CONCEPT PLAN FOR TULLY PARK: (APPROVED) 4. TEMPORARY PARKING LOT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT: (APPROVED) B. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY: 1. LID FOR GLENNFILED: (LID DR4PPED) 2. LID FOR DOWNTOWN PHASE 2: C. WALT MORROW, CITY COUNCILMAN 1. OCCUPANCY REQUEST FORM: 2. HISTORICAL COMMISSION: D. MAX YERRINGTON, CITY COUNCILMAN: 1. LETTER TO SCHOOL DISTRICT: (APPROVED TO SEND LETTER) E. RON TOLSMA, CITY COUNCILMAN: 1. VALLEY SHEPARD YOUTH CENTER PARKING LOT: . • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 1. 1994 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was cailed to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Marlene Eborn, Viola Teter, William Teter, Walt Casey, Brian Smith, Chad Kinkela, Wayne Forrey, Doug Campbell, Brent Bareig, Becky Peterson: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1994: Kingsford: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions to those minutes? Is there a motion to approve? Yerrington: I move we approve the minutes of October 18, 1994. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of the October 18, 1994 minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEET{NG HELD OCTOBER 26, 1994: Kingsford: Any corrections to those minutes? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved as written. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to approve of the special meeting of October 26, 1994, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea AMENDED MIIVUTES FOR AUGUST 17, 1993: Kingsford: Counselor, would you explain the amended minutes of August 17, 1993? Crookston: Yes, this pertains to the minutes of the public hearing on the Stubblefield annexation and zoning and on the preliminary plat. There were some amended minutes prepared and I have listened to the tape. What I am proposing is the amended minutes for • . Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 2 that agenda item, not the total minutes for that meeting. That is of the Stubblefield Construction annexation and zoning that was held on August 17, 1993. The reason that I think they need to be corrected is because the minutes that we initially adopted were not totally clear on what happened. There is no doubt that there are still some items that cannot be heard on the tape and those are set forth on the minutes as they now read, but I think what has been prepared now is more accurate and since w~e are dealing with the Stubblefield Construction which is the matter on #2 of your agenda sheet we need to have those corrected to reflect what actually happened at that hearing and the action thereafter. Kingsford: Does the Council have questions of the Attorney on that issue? Morrow. I guess my question to him would be what effect that has on the Stubblefield presentation, but they are not going to make a presentation as per their request until sometime in January. So I guess tonight meeting wouldn't serve any purpose to have him answer that question. Kingsford: Counselor, I am not sure ! have a rea! comfort level with changing minutes of a year ago without personally going back and reviewing that tape. Is this via you and Anna in these minutes and they are verbatim minutes from the tape? Crookston: They were changed by Anna approximately a month and a half to 2 months ago. I wanted to make sure that they were totally correct and I reviewed it myself and I made some additional changes, but I think it is probabiy very appropriate for the Council to review the tape before you approve of the amended minutes. Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow. I move that we table the approval of the amended minutes for August 17, 1993 until each Councilman has had the opportunity to review the tapes. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table the amended minutes of August 17, 1993 until the Councit has an opportunity to review the tapes and compare those with the amended minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRiED: Ali Yea Kingsford: Let me welcome Boy Scout Troop #135 with us tonight, welcome gentlemen, good to have you here. ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 3 • ITEM #1: BECKY PETERSON: PRESENTATiON ON AtR QUALITY BOARD: Peterson: As a representative for Meridian on the Board of Air Quality we would just like to add an addition to the Joint Pow~ers Agreement. The line shail read, and I will just leave a copy for you, I just need the Mayors signature on this for your review. Number 3 is the Purpose of the Board, we would like to add, "in addition, the Board v~ould act as an advocate of clean air in Ada County and may promote measures which it deems would improve air quality." What w~e vwutd like to do is educate the public more on our air quality and especially as many new~comers who come into the area let them know that we are very accessible and just get the w~rd out a little more through writing articles with working with the Statesman writing articles. We have put together a public relations committee so calls can be referred to us and we can put together programs which will be totally funded through funds the Air Quality Board has. And just becomes a little more of a positive ~~• public image. So the only amended on here is in addition, the Board wouid act as an advocate of clean air in Ada County and may promote measures it deems would improve air quality." Kingsford: Any questions or comments for Becky? Anyone feel uncomfortable with the Mayor signing the Joint Powers with that amendment? Corrie: Would you need a motion for that Mr. Mayor? Kingsford: Yes Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I will move that we accept the addition wording for the purpose of the Board's addition on the Air Quality Board and direct you to sign the document. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to allow the Mayor to sign the amended version of the air quality joint powers agreement, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Thank you Becky. ITEM #2: TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ON TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISIOPI: Kingsford: We have received from Stubblefield a request to table that until January 17, 1995, is that right Will? Is there a motion to that effect? u Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 4 Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second CJ Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table the Stubblefield Construction request until the January 17, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED OCTOBER 18, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Maybe Gary, if you wouldn't mind I would ask you to or Shari to update the Council on the meeting that was held on Tuthitl. Stiles: We held a meeting today, the Mayor, and myself and Brian Smith from Hubble Engineers representing the developer. They have taken issue with the requirement for pressurized irrigation. Because of their Tuthill No. 1 not having the requ.irement they don't want to do it in Tuthill No. 2. Also, the perimeter fencing, they agree with their requirement along the creek, but they do not want to do it in the rest of the subdivision. They have agreed at least verbally to the need for temporary construction fence to keep construction debris from the adjoining properties. But basically those are the 2 items they have taken issue with on that agreement. Kingsford: Mr. Brian Smith, do you have any comments on that from our discussion? Have you visited with your client since our meeting. Smith: I made a telephone call to Mr. Tuthifl this afternoon but was unabie to speak to them further about it. I would like to if I could have a chance to expand on Shari's comments. Maybe just add a little background to the situation. What we are looking to do fully is in Exhibit B of this development agreement there are a couple of items. Shari mentioned the pressurized irrigation and the fence. The fence item 1 think there was a misunderstanding to begin with, I think the intent of the fence ordinance is to ensure that debris from the construction site does not fly everywhere and get into people's yards or fields or whatever. I think there was a misunderstanding between myself and the developer over what type of fence w~ould be required. As Shari mentioned we will provide a non-combustible permanent fence along the Nine Mile Drain to keep the kids out of the drain. During construction I see no problem in providing a temporary construction fence to ensure that our debris created from the construction is not harmful to anybody or get into their yards. Item #4 and item #7 on Exhibit B deal with Ten Mile Road and certain requirements of Ten Mile Road. Ten Mile Road fronts Tuthill Estates No. 1 which is platted • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 5 • and recorded and the improvements that are mentioned here dedicating land necessary from the centerline of Ten Mile Road for public right of way which is item #4 was, that has happened. And #7, provide a 20 foot landscape strip along Ten Mile Road, if you drive out there, there is a nice berm with a fence, it looks very nice. So those 2 requirements were met as part of the first phase. ltem #8 I think is a big issue right now, as Shari said, I met with the Mayor and herself just to discuss this issue a little further. I think some background on this subdivision is in order. Going way back to May 11 th of 1993, there is a public hearing held with the Planning and Zoning regarding the originai preliminary plat for Saddleview. That original preliminary plat was a rectangular shaped piece of property, it was approved or the findings of fact any way were prepared, the City Council approved it on January 9th. In the interim of the time period there is a 5 acre triangular piece just to the east that would have substantially been landlocked had that development proceeded. The developer talked to the owner of that piece of property and they agreed to terms. After the first phase of Saddleview which ended up being called Tuthill Estates No. 1 was platted he requested we submit an additional preliminary plat for the previously annexed portion of ground as well as the additional 5 acre piece that I discussed. And that is where Tuthill Estates No. 2 comes from. Tuthill Estates No. 2, the preliminary plat for it went before the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 11, 1994. The main item that was discussed at that meeting was the requirement that we comply with the comprehensive plan by providing an area for a bike path along the Nine Miie Drain, t think that is also an item in the Exhibit B as well of this development agreement. The Planning and Zoning members recommended the findings of facts be prepared. They were sent to the City Council on April 5, 1994, where the City Council recommended approval of the final plat for Tuthill Estates No. 2. In the meantime during this process we had prepared construction plans for Tuthill Estates No. 2 and had submitted them to the City and on April 22, 1994 those plans w~ere approved by City Staff for construction. In our discussion today we reviewed the findings of fact for both Saddleview the original one and Tuthi!! Estates No. 2, w~e review~ed all the minutes of the Planning and Zoning meetings as well as the City Council meetings and went through all the documents that we could find. And we are unable to find mention of the requirement for the pressurized irrigation system. The first mention of this system was when this Exhibit B was delivered to our office roughly a month or so ago. Once we received this exhibit as well as the remainder of the deveiopment agreement we sent that copy to Dick Tuthill, the developer in California. He had some questions as to his main concem was the pressurized irrigation system as to why it wasn't discussed before. I didn't have a good answer for him to tell you the truth. He asked if they were on the development plans, and I said no they weren't a part of the developmenfi plans and told him those plans were approved without that. The conclusion I think of our discussion today and the Mayor may correct me on this, it seems that this subdivision falls within a time period where there were some transition. And that transition was the Council's view of not waiving the pressurized irrigation requirement in lieu of that well development fee. The main concern the developer has is late notice of the requirement • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 6 • in his mind the late notice of the requirement and the fact that it was not brought up to his attention or mentioned in any public format or findings of fact. He has asked me to come before you tonight to request a change of this condition #8 for the pressurized irrigation system so that he instead of being required to install this pressurized irrigation system witl as he did in phase 1 of this development pay the well development fee as required by the City. This condition would then be consistent with the public hearings as well as the findings of fact that were presented to him. With that f appreciate the time that you have allowed me to speak to you and would like to attempt to answer any questions if 1 could. Kingsford: I think that what Brian has stated is a fair representation of what took place in my office this afternoon. As we reviewed that file we could find no mention through the hearings and the final plat and all of that with regard to pressurized irrigation on this one. It seems to me that it fell in that time period when were in transition between allowing a well development fee and going to demanding to all pressurized irrigation. I could find nothing on it. My comments to Brian I guess were 1, I don't have the power to waive that, that would be up to him to ask the Council for that due to the time period in which is was transmitted. The other thing I asked him to discuss with his client was to look into the possibility of doing the entire project. Going back and retrofitting Tuthill .1 with pressurized irrigation and petition the Council for a refund of those as we have done with a couple of developers. My opinion and I guess my recommendation to the Council and of course your Attorney may give you different advice and you may have different viewpoints but given what I was able to research in that file I think we would be on pretty shallow ground to at the point of development agreement to demand a pressurized irrigation system having it never come up before. Any questions that the Council might have of either Brian or myself. Morrow. I would question rather was there a request of waiver by the applicant for Tuthill #2 with respect to the pressurized irrigation system? Kingsford: I think the answ~er to that Walt is that in going through the process at that point there was not a requirement that the application was not ever afforded them a requirement. They did Tuthill 1, we did grant them the well development fee in that. Nothing in the requirements or the findings that I could find mentioned anything at all about pressurized irrigation until Exhibit B on the development agreement. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, in the findings on the Saddleview (inaudible) Dick Con Corporation in conclusion #9 it states the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the ordinances or the City of Meridian. At that time we had not changed the Zoning ordinance since 2nd meeting in November 1992. Pressurized irrigation was required at that time and (inaudible). It doesn't specifically state about pressurized irrigation, it just says (inaudible). • Meridian City Councii November 1, 1994 Page 7 • Morrow. Let me ask you this, the way the ordinance the modification to the ordinance was written is if they don't want to do pressurized irrigation then they request a waiver to do the well development fee, is that correct? Crookston: That is correct Morrow. There was no waiver requested? Smith: Not at this time no. Morrow. So as I see the issue the ordinance clearly states that pressurized irrigation was to be there unless they took specific action to request that it not be there. Kingsford: I didn't go back and research the date of that change. Crookston: This pertains to Saddleview also, (inaudible) were adopted. Kingsford: I think those findings are going to say that regardless of what date they may have. They are going to say that. Crookston: These were the findings that were made on January 11, 1994 (inaudible). Smith: January 11, 1994 is Tuthill Estates No. 2, I believe. Crookston: (Inaudible) the ordinances were not changed until (inaudible). So what you see now in the zoning ordinance was there in December of 1992. ~ingsford: What is your advice with regard to the development plans and so forth that was not discussed? Crookston: Well, ! think it just needs to be brought out that I think the requirement was there in the ordinance and (inaudible) Tuthill No. 2 that was a requirement at the time. I believe that it goes back to Saddleview and (inaudible). Kingsford: We obviously accepfed well development fees on Saddleview. Corrie: What was the reception from your question that would they go back and do the pressurized irrigation on the first phase? Kingsford: He hasn't been able to deal with his client. • • Meridian City Councii November 1, 1994 Page 8 Smith: That was the reason I was calling him this afternoon. Kingsford: I guess it issues the Council, what is your decision with regard to the pressurized irrigation? You say it has to be and it has to be, we will have to table the development agreement until it is signed. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that the pressurized irrigation stays. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to continue the requirement for pressurized irrigation on Tuthill Estates No. 2, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: It would be appropriate to table the development agreement. Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table the development agreement for Tuthill Estates until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED OCTOBER 18, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVSION NO. 5: Kingsford: I think we also received a letter on that requesting a table. For the Council's information I had some dialogue with the engineer on that as well and they are in an effort to try and set up a meeting with the property owner out there to be sure they obtain access to his property which is one of the items in the deveiopment agreement. With that I v~uld entertain a motion to table that until the next meeting. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the development agreement for Waterbury Park NO. 5 until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 9 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • ITEM #5: TABLED OCTOBER 18, 1994: ORDINANCE #675 - HAVEN COVE NO. 5: Kingsford: Mr. Smith, Gary on this one, would you like to field that, again we had a meeting with the engineers and their client. Smith: Yes, Mr. Mayor, yesterday Mayor Kingsford and I met with Leon Blaser, Dave Collins and Dave's assistant Chad and we discussed the Exhibit B, some of the requirements in Exhibit B of the development agreement. Specifically, a specific item discussed was the landscape berm requirement along West Pine. The concern of the developer was the point in time that the requirement was made for the 20 foot wide landscape easement slash common lot area. The developer's engineer after my review of the plat reduced the amount of right of way from center line from 33 foot to 30 foot which allowed him to gather 3 feet and add to that the 7 foot common lot area that he had provided on that plat for a total of 10 foot common lot. In combination with that common lot area vwuid be a 10 foot easement on the back of the lot, those lots that back onto Pine, W. Pine Avenue. And this total w~ould be 20 feet then, 10 feet of which would be a common lot, 10 feet of which v~uld be a landscape easement. The developer agreed and you might need to correct me on this Mayor Kingsford, I beiieve the developer agreed that he w~ould stipulate in the covenants that fences would not be built along that berm area other than what he termed a landscape fence. Which would basically as I understood it consist of plantings rather than a fence structure. This ~nrould allow the lot to take fult advantage of its depth which would basically be to the center of the berm. So that there v~uld be 8,000 feet of usable lot area. Short of doing this w~ould require redesign of the subdivision I believe at least to some extent and probably the loss of some lots because the depths and the widths of the lots and the area of ihe lots are 8,000 square feet roughly, even though some of these lots are culdesac lots and are larger than that there are some lots that would back onto W. Pine that would require some modification and possibly the loss of a lot just because of the way the street configuration is presently existing. But his biggest concem was the point in time that the landscape strip was brought to his attention and they have some concern about the definition of or the application of the landscape strip to separate different uses or I believe the definition uses the word major roadway. So there is some concem that they have, the developer has and his engineer over the terminology for the requirement of the landscape strip. Those were I think that was the major issue that was raised. Kingsford: The issue again came up and we might want to clarify our perimeter fencing and there was concem, they thought w~e w~ere talking about a permanent 6 foot board fence or whatever and I don't think that was ever Council's intent. It was a fence to contain debris during construction, if t am correct. So we need to clarify exactly what that fences roll is. . Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 10 • I don't know that we necessarily have to change the ordinance but in applications we let them know what the purpose of that is. One comment further as we visited, I think that for us to require a 20 foot common lot would require this appiication to go completely back to Planning and Zoning and start over again. You would be moving a street, you would be making a substantial change in the subdivision after they have been in a final plat that might be a bit of a late stage. They are very willing to comply with that 20 feet if 10 foot of it is easement they have agreed to stipulate that there would not be a fence on it to break that up which was Shari's concern with regard to that item on Exhibit B. Any question from the Council either for myself or the Engineer who didn't get a~hance to vote the other night. Morrow: Where did the confusion come about with the 20 foot common lot, how did ihis get to be an issue? Kingsford: It got to be an issue as Shari reviewed it and deemed that Pine was a major transition, a major street and required that 20 feet of landscaping. Having not had a planner before that a!ot of our ordinances were not enforced, they weren't reviewed and w~eren't found. I think that is where that came out. Her concern then was that if you have 10 feet of common area and 10 feet of easement that people will build and encompass their entire lot and you wouldn't have that 20 feet. By having that in the covenants and a letter stipulating that I think we have at least covered the intent of that without making a complete redesign and sending it back to Planning and Zoning. Morrow: Pine is classified as a collector, is that your determination as a major street? Smith: Well, it is classified as a collector, I don't know what a major street (inaudible). Kingsford: That is not something the highway district uses in terms of a major street as a classification. Smith: I guess in terms of standard residential street, escalating from that point upward the collector street is next and then minor arteriai and then your major arterial. Morrow: The intent was that would have, Pine is a collector so collectors have 20 foot landscape berms, is that the intent of the ordinance. Stiles: Our ordinance actually says highways, but it also defines highway as a street. So Mr. Collins was arguing well we had to require it on every street including local streets if we were to interpret it that way. When it came up to this subdivision, ! was not thinking only of the amount of traffic that is going to be on that roadway, especially when it is a though all the way to Boise, but what exists across the street which is I believe about a 35 i Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 11 • foot landscape common lot. So it is not only, I see it as not only buffering the people from the noise of the street but also as enhancing the appearance of the street. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, Shari, did I understand it that they go 10 foot and then the other 10 foot would be the easement. Were they going to put a fence or anything on the top of this berm or is thing just going to be a grass berm and they are behind that? Stiles: Their original proposal what we received from them for a development agreement said that they would have a 20 foot berm with a fence on top of it. Which would essentially leave 10 feet. Kingsford: What they have agreed to now is that it won't be fenced now in the berm area in that 20 feet. Morrow. My other question is that we are not a long ways down the process here they haven't received approval yet of their preliminary plat. We are not to the final plat stage. Kingsford: They have been through P& Z and got their approval. What is the position of the plat now, what stage are they at? Stiles: They have yet to receive preliminary plat approval at Council level. Kingsford: They have gotten it at P& Z and they have had their public hearing. Stiles: Yes Kingsford: We are at a stop because of not being able to do anything with the ordinance which we have a problem there in terms of not approving the ordinance because of its language requiring a development agreement. Tolsma: We still don't have a development agreement. Kingsford: I think we have an acceptance by the owner of everything on the development agreement except this issue with having a 20 foot common lot, is that correct? If you would come up and state your name, I don't' want to speak for your client certainly. Kinkela: I am Chad Kinkela, I am representing Leon Blaser, we submitted a letter today with Mr. Blaser's intent on the berm and had him sign that along with a revised Exhibit B that he also signed as we discussed per our meeting. Our intent is to have 10 foot dedicated as a public lot and 10 foot easement with a landscape type fence on top of the berm allowing the 10 foot to be used both by the common lot as a iandscape striping and • • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 12 to be used as open space for the lots. Morrow: Now say that, in terms of a fence on top of the berm? Kinkela: Yes, as in shrubbery to help buffer the lots. Morrow: Not a fence? Kinkela: No not a fence. Kingsford: They are talking about plantings. Corrie: And you will do the whole 20 foot in grass, the back part? Kinkela: To my understanding it will be landscaped I don't know how it will be landscaped it will either be grass or beauty bark and shrubbery. Corrie: But it will be the same on both sides? Kinkela: Yes Toisma: The back half of this then will not be part of the property of the homeowner then? Kinkela: Yes it will but it will be an easement a 10 foot easement, to my understanding that is how it will be. Kingsford: We are talking about the 10 feet closest to the street, it will be a common lot of the entire subdivision, 10 feet then ciosest to the lots w+ll be owned by the individuals but they will not be able to build the fence on it. The only fencing would be plantings. Kinkela: Correct, and all of this will be maintained by the homeowners association. Kingsford: If they build a fence it would then have to be in side of that 20 feet. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Tolsma: And this basically is the backyard of all of these people that front this. Kinkela: Corre~t. Tolsma: How does that affect the setbacks of the houses and stuff like that? i • Meridian City Councii November 1, 1994 Page 13 Kinkela: I don't know anything about that sir. Kingsford: That is going to depend on the kind of house that you decide to build on it. Tolsma: But then do they classify then the setback of the house from the top of the berm or from where they are going to put their fence? Crookston: The setback is measured from the property line which would not be the easement line. Kingsford; So it would be from the top of the berm. Well, again I think the intent of the landscaping, berm or whatever it will be known as is to protect the buyer and enhance the appearance of the City particularly on what in essence would be double fronted lots, to protect those backyards. And maybe that ought to be the definition if the lot is going to be double fronted it has to have a certain width of landscape berm. That issue I guess is are you satisfied with the amended development agreement that the only thing that has changed from Exhibit B then is the acceptance of 10 feet of easement instead of 20 foot of dedicated lot? Tolsma: Who maintains this {inaudible} each individual property owner that abuts up against this maintain this? Kinkela: It was my understanding that the whole 20 feet will be maintained by the homeowners association. So it will actually benefit the lots that they will have a nice backyard, a nice berm to look at that is landscaped and well kept. Tolsma: Well, if this was a double fronted lot then (inaudible) wouldn't be but 3 foot tall then. Kingsford: I am sorry. Tolsma: If they fenced the backyard of these houses at the bottom of the berm 10 feet back then if it was classified as a double fronted lot then the fence would be the same at the back as is at the front. Kingsford: No Tolsma: You could still put a 6 foot fence in the backyard. Kingsford: Yes, I can't imagine a person necessarily wanting to other than to keep renegade chi(dren in or dogs. it w~ould certainly restrict the size of their lots to put a fence . Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 14 in side the berm. • Tolsma: That would have to be part of the deed restriction then also (inaudible). Kinketa: Pardon me sir? Tolsma: That would have to be part of the deed restriction probably at the sale of the lot then that they couldn't build a fence outside of that easement. Kinkela: Right, that is part of the letter that we sent over that Mr. Blaser had signed that said that would be part of the restrictive covenants. Kingsford: Who did you send that letter to? Kinkela: I believe that was sent to Shari. Kingsford: We are trying to determine who might have received the letter? Will said he didn't, w~e didn't get one in our packet. I don't know who was the recipient. Was that had carried? Kinkela: Yes it was. Kingsford: Who did you had carry it too? Kinkela: I personally didn't hand carry it, it was carried by our secretary. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I received a copy of it and Shari received a copy of it but it was addressed to the City of Meridian and we were shown that copies were sent to the Mayor and myself from Collins Engineering. So I don't' know who would have received it other than the copy that I received and that Shari received. Kingsford: Well, as I look at this it states effectively what we have been talking about. When Gary and I talked to Mr. Blaser yesterday that was required that we placed that we have that by noon today. I guess w~e did I don't know what happened to it when it got here. Gary, in your reviewing of that did that meet with what we had discussed on yesterday? Smith: I guess I didn't look at it too closely because I thought it was going to everybody that was on the list. When a letter is addressed to the City of Meridian and I am the only one that gets a copy of it I guess I don't quite understand why Will Berg didn't get a copy of it or why the Mayor didn't get a copy of it. C~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 15 i Morrow. Mr. Mayor, this is just for point of discussion, I personally have some real reservations about this project and who is going to do this and who is going to do that. The fact that it hasn't been submitted to the City Attorney for review of the development agreement that we are getting a letter at this point in time to put al( these things together. My concern here is that we have talked about these things, yes they will be incorporated in the covenants and restrictions but there is a world of difference between which is a preliminary plat time and tMe covenants and restrictions and it can easify fall between the cracks. My preference would be that all of these things that we are discussing if we are going to approve the concept of the 10 feet plus the 10 feet be addressed in the development agreement that is submitted to our City Attorney and to our staff folk in that form and that format and be all part of one article so it clearly spells out who is going to do what, what the agreements are. { have real discomfort with trying to do this piece meal and trying to make sure that something doesn't fall by the waste side. And those are just points that I raise as discussion. Kingsford: In difference to those comments Mr. Morrow, I feel some compassion for developers that can't meet with us as a group because that violates the open meeting law, by the time all this transmittal takes place and they get back to what the~r need to do there is a lot of confusion. This is something that has been (End of Tape) require the development agreement. Is it reasonable at annexation, is it reasonabfe at fiinal plat. We have some of each out there and I think that is confusing to developers. Morrow: Well, I think that is an issue that we address when we are re-doing our zoning and development ordinance things that is part of the padcage that we address at that point in time so we get some consistency. And obviously at that point in time we address apparently what the definition of a street is, a major road, a double fronted lot, those are all real valid points in terms of having it in writing somewhere so somebody can tell what it is they are dealing with. Mr. Collins by nature would question whatever a street was because it could be definition from a gravel road through a freeway and everything in between and that is a point that is well raised by him. Kingsford: Well, I think at issue still with regard to this is it your desire that this thing goes back and start over with the platting process or is it your desire that you accept the 20 feet 10 of which is an easement. I think the developer has a right to know that at some particular point in time. Tolsma: Is this what you had in mind Shari, this 10 and 10? Would that be adequate for that Pine Street corner out there? Stiles: I guess I would say that no it is not really what I had in mind but the ordinance doesn't specify that it has to be a common lot. ( think that by what they are proposing they • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 16 ~ are essentially going to have 10 feet of a landscape strip along the street there. And whatever is going to happen to the back part of that is anybody's guess. Also I would like to mention that the development agreement has not been signed with this new Exhibit B. That is just for your ir~formation that we don't' have anything in hand that has been signed by them on this. Kingsford: Where is physically the development agreement that has been amended by your client that you spoke of? Kinkela: There should be a copy that, Exhibit B was the only portion that was amended and he actually physically signed the back of Exhibit B to ensure that. Kingsford: In this document that we are addressing right nov/? Kinkela: Yes Kingsford: I didn't look at the back of it, is that on there Walt? Morrow. There is an Exhibit B which is actually pages 2 and 3 and there is a signature, a non-notarized signature in terms of obviously it doesn't have any contractual significance. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, 1 still have some trouble with this 10 foot, the covenants said they can't build up on that, what is to say that they can't. The covenants seem like they mean nothing around here half the time. If they want to put their fence up on top of that it is still their property. I don't know if you could it somewhere in the plat or the deed. But I have a feeling in the back of my mind that you have going to have homeowners that say this is my property and I will do what I want to with it whether it is 10 foot or whatever it is. They may put their fence back and there is nothing we can real{y do about it nor could you other than the covenants and like I say those sometimes mean absolutely nothing. I am not comfortable with it either. Crookston: To answer your question Mr. Mayor, he has, I assume this is his signature, I believe that I have seen it before and I think it is his signature. It is not notarized and the document is not part of the entire development agreement. I think that they need to be in one document. I have not had a chance to review this Exhibit B, I have reviewed an initial development agreement, but I have not reviewed this. Smith: Mr. Mayor, may I address a question that Councilman Corrie asked. On the fence, there would need to be a not on the plat that specifically restricted fences from being placed on that property line which would be at the top of the berm. If we don't' do that a fence will go on the property line at the top of the berm, you are exactly right because 1 • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 17 ~ have seen this happen out in Candlelight Subdivision as regards Nine Mile Drain. Where the property iine is on the other side of the ditch, the side lot lines run through the ditch to the other side and the property owners feel that is their property and it is with the exception of the access road and our sew~er line that parallel the ditch. So they fenced their sideyards out to the ditch. And with the exception of busting through there with maintenance equipment to maintain our easement that is all we can do and we have to replace everything. So I think from a technical standpoint that the property owners ~nrould fence to their lot line unless there was something on the plat that restricted that. I don't know if that is as legal or as easy as simply putting a not on the plat and showing that the property line cannot be fenced. Maybe Wayne would have to research that and respond to that, but somehow, some way there would have to be a restriction that would be very evident, very prominent otherwise that will happen. And I don't think that is the intent of the developer, that is what they expressed to Mayor Kingsford and myself that wasn't the intent. But when the property changes hand and the developer is gone and the second owner takes over things get forgotten and so forth. Morrow. I guess from my standpoint I am not willing to vote on anything concerning this project until some of these things are cleared up and in writing and in the property format. And this seems to be a continuing process for this particular subdivision. I think if I remember correctly most of the time it has been tabled over the course of the past 3 months has been because of the failure on the part of the applicant or engineer or somebody within that system to do things correctly. So I am compassionate to what you say with respect to stringing folks along but in this case it has been of their own causing. And here w~e are again with something that has a whole lot of gray area. I sense from the staff and from Wayne that none of them are comfortable, I am certainly not comfortable with it. I think that I will put a motion before the Council to table this until all of these things are in their proper format which w~uld be our next meeting of November 15th. I don't have a problem with the concept of the 10 and the 10 but I think we need to have some safeguards and some definitions there. So I would move to table until November 15th. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this until the November 15th meeting. I just as point of discussion before the vote, that I can appreciate the developers frustration, they had a meeting with me and with Gary, they have met with staff several times and tried to w~or4c it out. And i wiil agree with you that most of it has been their fault. I think that they are meeting all the intent of that development agreement from my perspective. I think that if you guys do this it will be my position I am not going to meet with the developer and try to negotiate anything. Because I have absolutely no hand in it then. So that is your decision. Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 18 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea . ITEM #6: TABLED OCTOBER 18, 1994: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE N0. 5: Kingsford: I assume then you are going to table item #6 as well. Tolsma: So moved Morrow. Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to table item #6, preliminary plat for Haven Cove, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: AMENDED ORDINANCE #654 - AVEST ANNEXATION: Kingsford: AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REA~ PR4PERTY WHICH !S DESCRlBED AS THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ANQ PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like Amended Ordinance #654 read in its entirety? Is there a motion? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve of Amended Ordinance #654 with the suspension of rules. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve Amended Ordinance #654 wiih suspension of the rules, roll caal vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: DEVELOPMENT RGREEMENT FOR AVEST: Kingsford: Counselor, have you reviewed that? Crookston: Yes I have Mr. Mayor, both Shari and myself have looked at it. There have • ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 19 been some requests to change some of the items. Avest has communicated to us through Kathleen Weber, I think that there are still some matters that need to be worked out. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I also have a question on the Exhibit B, item #3, the developer agrees to comply with the requirements of the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian City Engineer and Planning Director, etc. should we include the Fire Department on this, because there are some requirements of the Fire Department as well? Morrow: Yes, it should say Meridian Fire also in my opinion. Kingsford; Entertain a motion to table. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table the development agreement with Avest until the next meeting, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Point of interest Counselor, does that mean we shouldn't have annexed it given your standard? Crookston: I don't' believe that is within Avest's findings. Kingsford: It wasn't in the ordinance. Stiles: This property was previously annexed. Crookston: All the amended ordinance did was correct the, it used to read the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and that was changed to the SW of the SW, that is the only change in the ordinance was the legal description. ITEM #9: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR NEB-i COMPANY (D & B SUPPLY): Kingsford: Comments on the development agreement for NEB-i? Morrow. Everything with the development agreement is satisfactory with Shari and Gary and Wayne? ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 20 ~ Stiles: Wayne and I have reviewed it, the copy that you have has been amended a little bit (inaudible) me, Wayne and the developer and I also have a signed copy of that agreement. Kingsford: And that meets with your approval? Stiles: Yes Corrie: Mr. Mayor, t hate to do this again, but #3 has left that out as well, the fire department. Morrow: Let me ask you this, is maybe the intent that the fire department would be covered undemeath the building permit process? The fire conditions would be part of that process and not necessarily need to be spelled out separately? Corrie: I would have no problem if we all agree that the City Engineer and Planner will include the fire department with that. Some things have to be sprinkled and some things don't, standing pipes and what have you. It is the requirement of the State fire code, if the engineer feels capable of handling that. Kingsford: Well, that is also part of the building code, fire and tife safety. Corrie: Right, this is more of a housekeeping thing here. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Corrie, when those plats come in for review that is one of the things that does get picked up is the sprinkling requirements for the building. Kingsford: Is there a motion then on the development agreement? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I vwuld move that we approve the development agreement as written. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the development agreement for NEB-i Company (D & B Supply) as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea l~~M #10: ORDINANCE #677 - NEB-i COMPANY ANIVEXATION: ~ingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF I~E'RIDIAN ANNfXING AND ZONING ~ ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 21 CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T.3N, R.1E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the pubtic that w~ould like Ordinance #677 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion on Ordinance #677. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that vu~ approve #677 with the suspension of the rules. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve Ordinance #677 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEB-i COMPANY (D & B SUPPLY): Kingsford: Any questions of the Council on that item? Our ordinance calls for a conditional use for that kind of an operation Counselor? Crookston: Yes it does because it is in a planned development area. Kingsford: It was heard at P& Z, I think you guys have gotten your minutes and so forth from that, any questions of staff? Entertain a motion on the conditional use permit. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the conditional use permit for NEB-i (D & B Supply), roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ETEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY MARTELL PROPERTIES: ~ ~. Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 22 Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite a representative of the owner to speak first. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I live within 300 feet of this so I will step down. Kingsford: Mr. Yerrington is disqualifying himself because of a conflict. Marlene Eborn, 9010 Bernette Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eborn: I am open questions. Kingsford: I think Walt would like you to do a little presentation as to what it is you plan to do with the property, anticipating his comments. Eborn: We are using it for office, that is what we are planning on doing with the property. Just keeping the original structure the way it is and just upgrading it cosmetically. Morrow: And you plan on meeting the parking and the landscaping requirements and so forth that the city has. Eborn: Yes Kingsford: Any other comments of the Council? You sure that wont' be too much of a deterrent having Mr. Yerrington live within 200 feet? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will ctose the public hearing, Council members we do have findings. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared for P & Z. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P& Z, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Abstain, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: A11 Yea Kingsford: Entertain a motion to prepare (inaudible). • • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 23 Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move we direct the City Attorney to prepare a rezone ordinance for Martell properties. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance rezoning Martell Properties all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: STEINER DEVELOPMENT: PRESENTATION ON CONCEPT PLAN FOR CHERRY LANE AT THE LAKE N0. 5& 6: Kingsford: Mr. Forrey. Forrey: My name is Wayne Forrey and I am here tonight with Doug Campbell representing Steiner Development and I also I see Mr. and Mrs. Teter are here. Just an update for the City Council, Steiner Development is currently constructing Cherry Lane at the Lake No. 3, the roads are being constructed right now. Cherry Lane at the Lake No. 4 will be the next phase and for the benefit of the City on the golf course, Steiner Development, Doug and I spoke about this tonight, the company will give the City as soon as it is prepared, I think Tom Eddy is preparing the legal description for the fairways for Cherry Lane at the Lake No. 4, 3 has already been submitted to the City before and the deeds will be given to the city and Tom Eddy to stake and put in (inaudible) on 3 and 4 on the fairways so the city can go out and visually see nowwhere the fairways are going to be and then start the work on whatever your schedule is. Any problem with that? Kingsford: Is that then the balance that would be golf course Doug? Forrey: Doug do you know the schedule, the timing when we could get that to the City? (Inaudible) Forrey: Now the next project that Steiner Development is undertaking out there is the 40 acres which woould be immediately east of Cherry Lane at the Lake No. 3 which is the Teter property. Steiner has looked at 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and this is about a$40 million investment total with all of the construction and the value of the land and the properties that w~ould be developed. So they wanted to do it right and make sure that the City could have some input in this before we submitted any annexations or zone requests or development agreement or anything like that. So we took the approach of sketching a concept plan and getting that on the agenda just to see if the Council had some ideas on . • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 24 how to make this even a better project. Market research that Steiner has done and I had 2 of my grandparents now go through this looking for a elderly apartment or a garden type patio home here in meridian and w~e just couldn't find any. Their market research indicates there are really 4 types of housing they would like to have in this project, ail high end, some single family detached, some patio homes or zero lot line, and elderly garden type home and then town houses. All four of those are shown in that 40 acre parcel. A lot of landscaping, there are 15 landscape islands, a lot of nice features, the fire station site is there, 160 feet square. There is private vehicle storage, club house, pool. Shari Stiles suggested we have a pathway throughout the project and that can be accommodated (inaudible) in there. Good CC&R's, covenants, conditions and restrictions Steiner would ask for even though the City doesn't have design review but maybe development review criteria so you v~rould be aware of the standards, the color schemes, the architectural style and the landscaping. All of that could be subject to either the development review process or a development agreement. Steiner wants to do this right, there is a lot of money involved here. So we would like to ask the Council, do you see anything that could be even better in this project. One thing that we have had a little difficulty with is the current zoning in your current ordinance doesn't allow a lot of flexibility unless you get to the R-15 zone. So our (inaudible) at this point is to request annexation for about 20 acres at R-4 zoning and 20 acres at R-15 zoning and then enter into a very tight development agreement on just what can occur in that R-15 zone. There wouldn't be development of 15 units per acre but in order to get the town homes and garden apartments the R-15 zone is the closest thing you have in your current ordinance that would allow this. Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Forrey? Morrow. A couple comments maybe in terms of would that be better done as R-15 zoning or planned unit development of some sort? Forrey: We looked at the planned unit deve(opment (inaudible) and it doesn't have as much flexibility as you might think. I really thought, when w~e first looked at this and Stiener said we wanted to do a really nice mixed residential project, very high quality, my first thought was PUD and boy we sat down with Shari and went through that and it doesn't allow a lot of these things. Maybe through a conditional use permit process it could happen but it is very subjective. If that would be better I think Steiner (inaudible). (Inaudible) Corrie: I guess Wayne, mine is a comment too, I think this is very well done and I enthusiastically endorse this type of thing. We are needing this, 1 have people coming to me every week saying w~e need a place for the senior citizens, patio homes and that type of thing. And where it is located at the golf course I think is an excellent project from what • ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 25 I have seen. Morrow. I think I might add from personal experience most recently with respect to flag lots you had three of them in the 3 corners, boy you need to take some special precautions with respect to whether it appears on the plat or within the covenants and restrictions making sure of view corridors. Making sure of fence heights and fence heights to and including not only man made fencing but landscaping heights so that projects that get built back in there aren't held at the mercy of the case of one lot 7 and 9 and 3 and 5 and lot 6 and 8 from a practical standpoint unless you protect those folk with those flag lots they can be subject to some fairly heavy (inaudible). Forrey: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, do you think we should just eliminate flag lots? And I think we could if it is raising some problems. Morrow. Well, from a practical standpoint I just went through project with some folks built on a flag lot and in essence what ended up happening was that even though there was a design reviewwithin the subdivision and there were covenants and restrictions there was some not paying attention to those design review and those covenants and restriction and there was some intensive last minute negotiation and some concession by the owner of the flag lot because an adjacent neighbor on one side had built a 5 foot fence when it was clearly approved with only a 3. and the other neighbor on the other side quickly ran out and bought aribidas and put them in. All with the fear of the unknown and so the point is there is a lesson that I came away from that is if you are going to have flag lots and I don't' personally think they are very desirable but if you are going io have them as a developer and owner of the subdivision you have a real responsibility to protect that buyers not only short term but long term interest. And so you need to spell that out, I guess it puts the whole world on record as to what can and cannot be done with those properties that are adjacent to flag lots. Kingsford: What is the Council's feeling with regard to the private streets that are in that cluster in the lower right corner? The area that goes around A through and around J, H and G, I they are calling out private access there. In terms of fire and so forth what is your feeling, of course it is pretty close to a fire station I don't know if you could shoot a hose over the top. Corrie: I at one time was concerned with private drives, I think that I am not as critical as I once was when I was told how tMey work. We need to make sure they are wide enough, the standards of the street so that we can get trucks in and out and around. Were you planning on these being locked type or a raising gate or something of this nature. (Inaudible) C~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 26 • Corrie: So you were thinking about on the Ten Mile side a gate, I would much rather you have a gate if you are going to do that it be inside the property rather than cutting Ten Mile off. (lnaudible) Forrey: We are talking about Block 13 which would be the lower right corner. And the reason we Kingsford: We are talking about having a private gate mid way through is that (inaudible) Forrey: Yes correct Kingsford: Not as you are coming in off of Ten Mile. Forrey: And again this is something that when you talk to folks that want to conceivably to buy in there they say we would like to have it gated and secure. Kingsford: So you would also have a gate then down here where the E is. Forrey: Correct and that is why those culdesacs are designed there so people can come in and tum around actually if they weren't welcome to be there. (Inaudible) Kingsford: People are tired of the grandkids so they change the number basically. (Inaudible) Forrey: I think we are scheduled with the Planning and Zoning next Tuesday night and your input and their input and Steiner will re-group and get something submitted. Kingsford: Any other comments for Mr. Forrey? Forrey: Mr. Mayor, just as a recommendation as you consider these development agreements 1 think you should think about a 3 part development agreement. One at the annexation phase that deals with annexation issues, another component of the original at the development subdivision approval stage. When you have a project in front of you with some physical things like berms or something that you wouldn't anticipate maybe at the annexation phase. And then the third I think you should have a development compliance report. It was an exercise we went through on Cherry Lane at the Lake 3, it is a good • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 27 ~ process, the developer sees all the city requirements. It is good for the staff to have everything and that is probably a third leg of that stool on making sure everything goes through the mill correctly so all parties know what is involved. Tolsma: One question Wayne, you have an all public streets here are 50 foot right of way constructed to ACHD standards with 5 foot sidewalk. What are the widths of these private streets in here? Forrey: Those are 30 Tolsma: So they would be 30 feet wide? Forrey: Yes, as shown here they would scale to 30 feet. Tolsma: Then there would be no sidewalks on (inaudible). Forrey: There would but that would be outside of the 30 feet. Tolsma: So it would be a 40 foot right of way? Forrey: Probably would be and that is what we need to see what the fire department wants, they may want more than that. This is just a concept at this point. (Inaudible) Corrie: That is the biggest thing if they have parking. It looks to me like you don't have parking except by the pool and patio and that is a private storage. If they are parking along the street on a 40 foot wide street we are going to have some scrapings I am afraid. Forrey: So we need some off street parking. Corrie: Well, you have garages it looks like through all of these, but still people come and visit. Tolsma: The on street parking (inaudible) 1fi feet of that 30 feet (inaudible). And the private street is really hard to control (inaudible). Forrey: Thank you ITEM #'14: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 28 • Kingsford: This is to inform you in writing that if you choose to you have the right to a pre- determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. November 1, 1994 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 and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on November 16, 1994 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone from the public that would like to contest their sewer, water and trash bill delinquency? Entertain a motion to approve the turn off list? Yerrington: So moved. Morrow. Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the turn off list, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have 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. The amount of the turn off list this month is a whopping $26,461.98. ITEM #15: APPROVE BILLS: Tolsma: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to approve the bills, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: Mr. Gary Smith Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members, the first item I have to tatk to you about tonight is the change order request that we had to under go on our parking lot project on Broadway. When they began their excavation they ran into some underground concrete that turns out to be the foundation for the o1d scale for that building that was ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 29 removed. Tolsma: (Inaudible) • Smith: They just filled in the hole actually, there was a slab and a wall that the top of the wall had to be knocked down and the slab was broken up. In coming up with the change order before the contractor could start work it was a little bit different to arrive at a dollar value but I felt that we needed a dollar value so we just didn't turn him loose over there. After we quizzed him a little bit he said that he would agree not to exceed an amount of $2000 which we felt was reasonable and he thought that it would be much less than that actually, around $1200 maybe. I think the actual amount of time that they spent last Friday, most of the day with the back hoe and a hydraulic breaking hammer on the back hoe and then a couple hours yesterday loading up the concrete and moving it out of there. So I don't expect that w~e are going to be very heavily involved with a change order on that. But it was something that I needed to keep them going to keep them moving so we got this thing where we could get it paved before the snowballs start hitting in the backside. Kingsford: You need a motion then to approve of the change order not to exceed $2000? Smith: Yes Morrow. So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the change order for the parking lot not to exceed $2000, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow. Mr. Mayor, if I might through this out for everybody, on al! demolitions generally speaking you are required to remove all footings and foundations, anything that is in mother earth if you tear down a house or any type of a building. The accepted practice of years ago of caving and putting a foundation in and covering over and going on has not been accepted for several years. And in this case that footing and foundation should have come out with that demolition project. I think you will find that there are statutes to EPA that deals with it (inaudible) Uniform Building Code also. So as a point of reference anything future that we might buy in demolition any contract that is written for demolition should clearly spell out everything (inaudible). Kingsford: We have another one that is a problem with that too, the house that was moved ~ ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 30 over here on Pine. That contract house basically was to pick up the house and move, there was never anything spelled out and I think their intent is to just leave the foundation. I was unaware of that. Smith: Are they paying us to move that house? Kingsford: I think they are, they are paying us for the building. Maybe we can get the foundation demolished for the price of the building. Smith: The second item I have is a litt)e more involved. I placed in your boxes I think on Monday a copy of the supplemental engineering agreement that was submitted to me by our consultant for this project. And lt is a pretty extensive change. Have you all had a chance to read my memorandum that I transmitted it to you with? I hopefully explained it adequately so you understand what complications have arisen. I might say that in regard to Tim Burgess and Civil Survey Consultants they have been, they seem to be very they are very conscientious and they have a relative low over head and they did work and they are very expedient about getting their work done. There isn't' much flim flam that goes on in their operation. So not much wasted motion. Just having to go to the other side of the creek and kind of redo things that they previously had done is the cost of the major share of this cost. And Tim Burgess and I have met and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District advised John Anderson, that is w~e met with John Anderson, advised him of what we were planning to do. His only concern is that they have room to operate their equipment over there which basically means an 18 foot wide road from the edge of the bank away from the ditch. I think w~e can pretty much operate within the remaining piece of land allowing them to operate their roadway. They have a roadway along the south side which is where we w~ere going to place the pathway right now. And I think it covers most of the length of that ditch, doesn't it Shari, their existing roadway. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: Through Tully Park and all the way over to Meridian Road they can travel that, it is wide enough for a vehicle to travel. Do you have any questions that I can answer concerning this proposed supplement. Morrow. I have a couple questions Gary, I understand all the labor and hourly figures in terms of that and the subtotal for the labor. I guess it is just for my own information, what items make up direct overhead of 21.27% and then general overhead of 13.7%, what is meant by that? Smith: Well the general overhead Walt, is the such things as the building rent, lights, heat, I am trying to recall what other items consist of generat over head. (End of Tape) Wayne • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 31 ~ was advising me a iittle bit the direct overhead would over head items that would be attributable directly to the project, such things as travel. I think the only thing they show, they do show mileage as separate, they show computer as separate and printing is separate. Morrow: I thought the general overhead, wasn't 13.7% its 137, I think that is a real interesting number and it was a method of doing things that I am not really familiar with. The amount of general overhead it $6,754, I just needed some clarification as to what that is. Smith: I think you have your labor burden, all of your taxes and so forth are included in there some place. Morrow. Wouldn't that be in the hourly deal where you have 72 man hours at $21.62 an hQUr for an engineer or a tand surveyor? Smith: Well, I don't know. I am not sure, I can get a break down for you, I know that they have one because they have to have them for any project that has government funds involved they have to have that break down prepared. So 1 can certainly get that for you. Morrow. I would appreciate that because of my curiosity as to what it is. i am not personally familiar with it, with that method of charging overhead. Smith: I can certainly do that. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Smith? Tolsma: Gary, I was going to ask you on this (Inaudible)18 feet away from the edge of the ditch on Tulley park property. And we are building this pathway that is 12 feet wide. Smith: No not on the Tulley park, the access road for the irrigation district is on the other side of the ditch from Tulley park, it is on the north side, the same side as our sewer line. There is a little roadway on the south side of the ditch on the Tulley Park side but t think that the irrigation district has historically used that north side where our sewer line is for their access there. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: I sure haven't Ron Tolsma: (Inaudible) • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 32 Smith: Yes Tolsma: Did you submit that or did Burgess submit that? Smith: Burgess did Tolsma: (Inaudible) on what their thoughts were? ~ Smith: I have not heard from him, no I haven't heard. What I have been told is that it is just an administrative thing really. But they have to go through whatever process they go through to take that wetland off the list, if there is a list, I guess there is not a list, but at least eliminate it or allow the fill to take place since it has been declared as a piece of wetland. Tolsma: Did Burgess mention in that thing that (inaudibfe) drainage pipe that has been in for that particular parcel of property for that (inaudible) rusted out and (inaudible). Smith: I don't' know whether he did or not. Tolsma: (Inaudible) that is why I don't understand why they ever classified that thing as wetland (inaudible). Smith: As I understand it, it had to do with the type of plant life that was existing there, it also had to do with the type of soil and it had to do with the depth at which they found water. And those things helped them classify it as a wetland. Tolsma: But the water table (inaudible). I was just kind of curious, I have some people asking about that (inaudible). Smith: I will find out tomorrow and get you an answer on that. Kingsford: Well, Walter, is it your desire then not to deal with the change order until you have gotten that research from Gary? Morrow. No, I think that w~e should press ahead. His judgement is impeccable in terms of folk. I don't have any problem. Kingsford: You just want to know that for information? Morrow. Yes, I just want to know that for information purposes. I have no problem at all with authorizing you and the City Clerk or Gary and whoever needs to sign it to sign the • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 33 • fhing. I just need to know what is going on there and a break down because 1 am not familiar with that and I am uncomfortable with that until I see the break down. Kingsford: l don't` believe I have to sign ar~ything, I think you just need to approve the change order. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Smith: It needs to be signed by the City of Meridian, it doesn't say who has to sign it. Kingsford: Would you amend you motion to authorize the Mayor then to sign the change order. Morrow: Yes sir I will. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to authorize the Mayor to sign the change order on the Tulley Park engineering services for the pathway, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else? Smith: One other item I had, I handed out a concept plan for Tulley Park that Ron had been working with Pinnacle engineers here in Meridian. And the Capstone Architecture and Planning Group who are in the same building. They submitted this layout to Ron and I, I took the drawing to a blue printer and had them reduce a little more manageable for you to look at. Hopefully it wasn't' too much of a reduction so that you can't hardly read the printing. But nevertheless there are 3 little league/softball fields positioned on the site. A full size soccer field, 2 basketball courts and 2 tennis courts and parking spaces for 319 vehicles which include 10 handicapped. There is also a provision for rest rooms and maintenance building combination structure. I envision that w~e will house a mule type piece of equipment such as the one we have a Storey Park to get personnel around the park along with a lawn mower. You will notice up in the, near the upper left-hand corner an irrigation pump house. This w~ould be the pump house that would contain the pump for Tulfey Park as well as the Turtle Creek Subdivision to the west. It ~nrould be a combined effort here, they have agreed ta participate in the cost of the structure and according to • Meridian City Councit November 1, 1994 Page 34 • their engineer Gary Lee they are going to pumping somewhere around 900 gallons per minute so we can put a fire hydrant right there too. Tolsma: We are going to put our own separate pump system in there (inaudible). Smith: That is my understanding a two pump system so we are not Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: Along with that I believe Nampa Meridian is agreeable to the installation of a chuck up structure in Five Mile Creek that will allow us to pawn some water there. Kingsford: Gary, down in the lower right hand corner there, in Meadow View Subdivision No. 1 betw~een the 1 st and 2nd lot in as you go across there from 11 th Street what is that easement? Smith: It used to be the lift station for the Meadow View development until the interceptor was built through there. Meadow View Subdivision No. 1 used to pump to the east back to the old treatment planfi on 8th Street and that was where the lift station was actually located at the north end of that rectangular lot. And then the pressure line went due east paraileling the north boundary of the subdivision. Truthfully, i don't know what has happened to that little lot, I think it has been taken over by either one or the other. Kingsford: I don't see anything over there, it just looks like 2 lots. Smith: There may have been some legal papers change hands as far as that lot is concerned if that is indeed a lot. When we abandoned the lift station i vaguely remember abandoning the lift station they knocked the top of it in and filled it with gravel, they didn't pull it out. Tolsma: (Inaudibte) one of these basket ball courts could be a volleybatl court (inaudible). Kingsford: One thing that looks to me like Ron that would be a good idea is down there off 11th Street where w~e vuen't be able to get cars in it might be a good idea that Mr. Berg brought up that we have a bicycle rack down on that corner as well. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: We have that 8th Street as well. It keeps people from riding through there. Toisma: (Inaudible) u Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 35 • Corrie: Will there be anything going across the north side here (inaudible) over the ditch? Smith: At or near 11th Avenue there will be a bridge crossing the ditch and that will bring the pathway from the north side of the ditch back over to the Tulley Park side. Part of our informational meeting with the Meridian Park subdivision people they didn't want a pathway directly from their road access that dead ends into the Five Mile Creek. They didn't want that strip across, they felt like fhere would be too much movement of people. It was too direct of an access through the park. Corrie: Will this be a lit field at night type ofi thing? Kingsford: I would hope not. (Discussion Inaudible) Smith: I think that is a good point, one thing we have to do here is just based on the informational meeting that Shari and I had with the people that live out there is we have to be very sensitive to them. They are there, they have been there and they have some rights as far as the used of this park is concerned, the hours which this park will be used. I think w~e are going to be fighting, Dennis Summers our Parks foreman, Dennis has some good ideas, some concems about the layout, the waming track he felt around the baseball fields is a very difficult maintenance item because it is something that you have to continually spray for w~eeds. He is always fighting that at the Legion field so he suggested that we don't have a warning track either on the outside on the outfield or along the side of the first to third baseline. He suggested that we do have a short fence perhaps on the ou~eld to keep the balls from leaving the playing surFace unless they are a really well hit ball. Also it is a little more of a baseball park atmosphere with the fence out there. (Discussion Inaudible} Tolsma: (Inaudible) berm that goes up and over. The upper field is (inaudible). Smith: And that is one of the things when I talked to Dave Bailey the engineer with Pinnacle, one of the things that still needs to be done is the elevations of this site need to be hammered out because there is a significant change in elevation from the area to the south and west of the Settlers Canal Pipe ftom the area to the north and east of that ditch. It is quite a bit lower and so there is a transition here that has to take place and like Ron said w~e probably w~on't have that problem with the baseballs or softballs in the the 2 lower fields but top side we would probably need a fence along there. Dennis brought up an idea or a concern about the trash receptacle and where that is going to be placed and it needs to be secured with a fence. • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 36 • Kingsford: I think we need a development agreement on that. Smith: If we are going to have picnic areas if we are going to have picnic shelters or is it just a recreational park. As Will mentioned, generally speaking when you have a recreational park people come to watch their kids play or perhaps they are playing themselves and want some place to sit and eat a sack lunch or whatever. We will probably have tables scattered intermittently throughout the park whether we have any structured picnic table area or picnic shelter offices. There may not be room for it, I don't think we want to get so busy here that w~e create problems with the adjoining subdivisions. Anyway I think it is a good layout for the initial go around and I would really appreciate your reviewing it and giving me or Ron any comments that you might have, suggestions, criticisms whatever. We just want to keep moving forward on it so that we can get some grading started and w~e have money budgeted to do some w~ork out there and I would really like to see something there by spring time that can be used for this coming summer. I think it is possible that we can do that as long as we continue to move forward and don't' let it sit. Kingsford: Just a couple things Gary, w~e do have, or rather the Niemann family does have some money as a result of inemorials that they desired and she and I had discussed with regard to the drinking fountain and maybe some sort of placard that designates one of the fields as Niemann field or the ball fields as Niemann fields or something. We need to incorporate that in. Tolsma: Gary and I visited with that a little bit and right down in here there is going to be a triangle shaped area that the pathway (inaudible) and we throughout proposed at that time possibly a drinking fountain right in here with maybe a cover (inaudible). That would cover both of these ball fields plus the drinking fountain here which people on the pathway would use and then the sidewalks would also run around this and head back (inaudible) dug outs and the spectators sit (inaudible). Kingsford: (Inaudible) maybe it would be appropriate to have the whole area designated as Niemann recreation area. We have got to keep Tultey Park but maybe just designate the ball fields. Lawanna did desire and the family maybe a drinking fountain would be a good thing (inaudible). Tolsma: The proposal that we had was right down here Walter right in this tciangle shaped area (inaudibfe) and sidewalks (inaudible). Morrow. I guess from my perspective and I don't know too much about parks and ball fields but I don't see anything wrong with the plan as it is now and I whole heartedly endorse whatever we can in terms of tribute to Jack. And I guess the other thing that I • • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 37 would like to see is if w~e are going to press ahead let's get press ahead and maybe some of these ball fields for these kids next Spring. Because we have a critical shortage of ball fietds now and so from my perspective everything here is fine. Some of you guys know more about parks than I do. Kingsford: Mr. Berg brought something up with regard to maybe the building almost to the southv-~st area that maybe some consideration be given to that facility that might be able to be added on in case we do get into a situation of some sort of concessions with that much activity. I am not saying it is going to happen but give some consideration to design that this could be added on. Morrow. The key to success there would be to make sure we have utilities available. Kingsford: We are logically going to have that with the restroom there. Morrow. Plenty of electrics, you need 220 capacity or a 100 amp service or something with in the building. Kingsford: Another thing Gary, did they have any kind of an estimated cost? Smith: No sir, I haven't seen anything on it. Kingsford: Are we still looking Ron at the participation of some of the development community. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Kingsford: You are talking about John Barnes? Tolsma: (Inaudible) dug out construction work (inaudible). I said well contribute but you can't classify it as your own because it is a public park (inaudible). Kingsford: One of the things you are going to get is the different organizations are going to be beating the door down saying you are making 3 ball fields that size (inaudible) for our needs. Just to be aware of it. Anything else Mr. Smith? Are you guys prepared to say go with this design or do you want to digest it for awhile? Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second • • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 38 Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the concept plan for Tuliey Park, discussion Mr. Crookston. Crookston: Just a comment, are v~ meeting our own ordinances with this? The pathways and setbacks off of Linder Road. Kingsford: We will cover that in the findings and we will grant variances to it. All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else Gary? Smith: Yes, Mr. Mayor, (inaudible) received a phone call from Chuck Lee of the Meridian School District today. The school district is purchasing 11 new buses that are coming in soon and in order to house the buses they need to expand their existing parking area to the east which moves the yard into the area that is being used as a play field for the alternative school. In the meantime, or until that can be accomplished which will probably be, 1 am not sure. He is talking about a couple of years. They have talked to the property owner on the south side of Lanark, basically across the street from the bus barns, the property that is owned by Ridgeway Industrial. Ridgeway Industrial has a piece of their lot vacant between their structure and the maintenance building for the school district to the east. The school district has talked to Ridgeway about the possibility of utilizing that existing vacant area for a temporary parking lot for their buses until such time that they can get their existing storage area/ parking area expanded to the east. What they are proposing to do is to put some road mix on this land that Ridgeway owns, road mix gravel, blade it, roll is and use it as a graveled parking area, temporary parking area for 2 to 3 years. When Chuck first called me I told him what our standard parking lot requirements w~ere and he said w~ell the temporary status of it plus the fact that Ridgeway doesn't know what they want to do with the rest of their property. It could create a problem for both properties. Ridgeway didn't particularly want half of their lot asphalted, the school district doesn't want to put the expense into that when they have to expand their existing storage area to the east. So what they are proposing is a temporary facility that would be used for 2 possibly 3 years until they got their work done to expand their existing storage area. I told Chuck that I didn't have a handle on what he could do but I would bring it before the Council and Mayor and see what your thoughts were. Morrow. My question would be how do we treat anybody else, anybody from the private sector? Kingsford: I would say if they wanted to store 5 or 6 school buses that would probably be ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 39 • alright. Well, again t think we are serving the same patrons as trying to keep cost down in government and I think it would be kind of foolish to pave something and tum right around in 2 to 3 years and have the cost of tearing it up and paving a different location. We have granted in the past for the private sector temporary gravel parking lots which brings to mind, what is the status from you folks with regard to Cherry Lane Baptist Church? (Inaudible) Kingsford: They are going to pave, every time I drive by thinking about going out and worshiping the golf gods on Sunday 1 see they are still parking out on Cherry Lane so I w~ondered what the status of that was. We have granted that and 4 three year periods I don't think sets any kind of a precedent we haven't already established. Morrow. Do w~e maybe to avoid unnecessary calls about what is going on there have then sign it as signage as parking for Meridian school bus. Kingsford: Temporary parking Morrow. I don't have a problem with the concept. Kingsford: 1 don't think you are going to have a problem like that in an industrial zone, it may be a good idea. Morrow. Where I see the problem coming is somebody from the private sector comes along and says what the heck are those folks doing down there parking on gravel and you are making me pave. Kingsford: We will tell them it is pretty obvious. Is there a motion to allow the school district to have temporary parking on the south side of Lanark Street opposite the current bus barn. Yerrington: I will make the motion. Morrow. Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the school district parking buses temporarily for 3 or 4 years across the Lanark Street across the street from the current bus shop on temporary graveled surFace with signage indicating it is a temporary situation, Mr. Morrow. • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 40 • Morrow: By the time you get done with the motian they won't need to parking. Kingsford: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else Gary? Smith: No sir. Kigsford: Mr. Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, do you have anything to share? (Inaudible) Kingsford: Chief?, Shari? Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Yes, the Mayor has asked me to look into the LID situation. He asked me to look into the requirements, the time requirements that we can use the signatures that we do have and I am referring to the Glennfield Manor proposed LtD. There is no specific time limit stated but it does state that the ownership of the lots is determined as of the date the Council passes the resolution of intention to create. We have not, the Council has not passed that yet so whatever signatures we do have if those people still own those lots then we can use those. If they do not own those lots than we are going to have to get new signatures for the petitions. The question also came up as to the amount of property owners that need to sign the petitions. The statute says that we need 60% of the resident owners, in my discussion today with Grant it came up whether or not we could use one spouse of a couple and count that as an agreement of both parties. I did some research on that, there is a statute 32-912 that says it takes both the husband and wife to encumber community property. If you are going to assess them that is an encumbrance and i think that then you need 60%, in this case there are 15 lots assuming that they are all owned by husband and wife we would then need 18 signatures to the petition. Kingsford: The signatures of nine w~ould have to be both couples. I guess what becomes an issue, we can do an LID without a petition and try that. We could go back out and try to get the requisite number, as my information we have 9 signatures that only encompass 8 lots because the husband and wife signed. Now Wayne Crookston is telfing me you have to have both. I am not sure you can get there from here. We are talking about $10,000 is it worth our time to proceed? Morrow. What are we trying to do? • • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 41 Kingsford: Well, going back to that project Walt, we had an agreement with initially Settlers Irrigation they backed out, they were going to do some funding. The City was going to do some and Max Boesiger was going to put up a pretty good chunk of the money, what was it $50,000, he put up $10,000? What was the total amount, that was $50,000. Crookston: $53,000 I think. Kingsford: And so we had hoped that maybe we do 4 participants in that, it ended up being 3 and what it really ended up being was really 2. Morrow: What is the project? Kingsford: That was to cover a ditch through Glenfield that was originally supposed to be covered by the developer. That was done and he is gone. Crookston: It is beM~een that Baptist Church that you just referenced about the paving and Crystal Springs and goes back north to Glennfield Manor and part of Crystal Springs. Kingsford: We did that a year ago. We did that when we did it through Tulley Park wasn't that just about this time last year? Has it been 2? No, it couldn't have been 2, it was last year about this time. I think you go out there and try and to get signatures on something that (inaudible). I don't know that you are ever going to get 60% of the those people to sign at this point. Morrow. And we are after $10,000 from them? Kingsford: That is what the original agreement was. Crookston: Approximately $11,000 it is basically a 1/5 of $53,000. Morrow. Who has already paid the money, the work has been done. Kingsford: The w~ork has been done, Boesiger paid his part and we paid for the rest of it. Morrow. And so noww~e are trying to recapture $11,300 essentially. And we are trying to do that through an LID of 18 properties. Crookston: 15 Kingsford: Of which we have to have 9 to make 60%. ~ • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 42 Morrow. That is about $900 a property, is it equally split amongst the properties? Kingsford: It is linear (inaudible). Crookston: It is on a per foot basis (inaudible). Corrie: Chances are (inaudible). Kingsford: There have been properties sold and I don't know if the ones that sold were ones that signed. We have had that communicated through City Hall through title companies calling to check to see what the LID amount was and we couldn't give it to them. We could give it to them but we hadn't formed the LID. Morrow. So how did we get to this position where we are at today? Kingsford: My blunder. Morrow. Our btunder, so now the crux of the decision is do we press ahead with the LID or do we just absorb the $11,300 and go on down the road. Kingsford: I think that is kind of where we are at. Wayne, you have been involved in that. Forrey: I have got to admit the blunder, I really thought that we had the ordinances set up to get into the paper and had been acted upon by the Council. And then when Wayne Crookston, I think w~e had some communication and we both said where are we at on the Glennfield LID. And I was thinking it was all set up, he didn't have anything in his files. 1 checked my files and low and behold w~e had never taken official City Council action. The Council had made a motion to create the LID and that is where it ended. In my mind it had been done and Wayne's mind it had been done until he started checking and found it just didn't get into the paper to create it. There wasn't the public hearing, the protest hearing, a couple of those things just w~ere not done. And I have to admit that I dropped the ball on that. Morrow: And so we are short the number of signatures it takes to get it done? Forrey: No, by my records I show that we have nine separate properties signed, not just 8. Kingsford: What Wayne finds in the file is that we have signatures, a husband and wife of one of~ the properties though. b~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 43 Corrie: So you are 8 short of a husband or a wife. • Kingsford: And that was a requirement we had no idea that we needed until (inaudible). Morrow. Okay, so what it amounts to is w~e have 1 of 15 properties signed up and we need 8 more or 7 more. Crookston: From the records that I have review~ed, w~e have 8 lots, and we have 1, well on seven of the lots w~e have 1 signature. On one of the lots we have 2 signatures a husband and wife. Corrie: How many of those people are stilt there? Crookston: I don't know. Morrow. And it has to be the original property owners? Crookston: No Morrow: It can be anybody now. What are the odds of somebody who is there now that has moved in since the thing was signing up and wanting to be part of the LID? Crookston: I have no idea. An LID can be created by 2 means, one is the petition that we attempted, the other is that the City Council does it without petitions. Then if the City Council starts the process with that 60% of the resident owners can object, then the Council has to go back and I think they have to re-evaluate and decide whether or not the Council wants to do it. But the Council can still go forward, even if 60% of the resident property owners within the district object. Morrow: Where do these monies fall within the budget if we make the determination to absorb the cost and move on? How do we pay for it? Kingsford: We obviously already have. Corrie: I think it has already been spent. Kingsford: The bills have been paid this past fiscal year. Morrow. And so all we are trying to do is recapture (inaudible) so what it becomes is whaf did you call it carry over revenue or whatever it is if we get the money? Well we could give the job to Shari and say you can have all the (inaudible) out here. tt doesn't seem to me • • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 44 like this is going to be worth the effort. Kingsford: That is what Wayne and I talked about this for a month. I am not sure of the tariff that we have with him isn't 10% (inaudible). I am almost to the opinion that it is not worth the hassle involved proceeding with it at this point. That is a decision that you guys need to make. Morrow: Okay to take that point that you are making on further, if we go through the protest hearing and all those other things then we have got on going legal fees instead of $11,300 then we are in it even more. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that w~e drop the L1D and absorb the foss and continue down the road, that we drop the LID on Glenfield Manor. Kingsford: Is there a second? Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to drop the LtD for tiling of the ditch , all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Where are we at then for the LID for Phase II Counselor? Crookston: I have not looked into that simply because w~e w~ere not as far along on that one as we were on Glennfield. (Inaudible) Kingsford: What is the dollar amount we are looking to recoup on Phase 2? Forrey: Mr. Mayor and Council $35,000. Kingsford: Well, let's get with the program on it I would say. This is talking about Idaho Street around the corner on 2nd East and so forth on sidewalks. Crookston: I don't know because I haven't seen the petitions whether we are at 60% of the resident property owners. Forrey: If you look in the Councif minutes that also was approved by the Council to create • . Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 45 the LID. It was actually Terry Smith that presented those petitions. But that is probably the last oificial Council action, the petitions w~ere accepted and to go ahead and move forward to create the LID's and the budget was $35,000. The per foot cost was to be the same as the other people paid on Phase 1. Kingsford: Let's get moving along on that and if you guys would please coordinate that let's see if we can get $35,000 back there. Anything else Counselor? Crookston: No Kingsford; Mr. Morrov~/? Morrow: Yes, 2 things quickly, one is each of you have a copy of, when we met last Tuesday night we talked about starting to resolve the issues with respect to occupancy certificates and P& Z types of things. 1 indicated that I v~uld bring and I have brought to Daunt and Gary Smith a sample card of how we can address those issues with respect to occupancy certificates. I will briefly run over the procedure, this particular card would go with all building permits, commercial building permits at their point of issue. What it does is it basically fills out what type of the project is, the occupant loads types of construction, (inaudible)land use zone, the address and then a description of the work to be completed. And then where we get down to the meat of the issue is when it comes time for an occupancy at the point that w~e issue this, the gals would check off the signatures that are required for the occupancy certificate. It may that v~ have a project where only 2 or 3 things would be required. Such as the structural, heating, plumbing and electrical. Most projects would have a requirement of those 4 things, also probably the fire department, could have planning and zoning with respect to the landscaping issues. Might have some specific sign offs by ACHD, the health department, Central District Health is set up so that it can sign off if need be. Then w~e have the drainage and public works issues. The second part of this is that no temporary or permanent occupancy is issued until there has been verification that all of the fees have been paid. And then on the bottom part where office use is, as it circulates its way through it goes through the front clerk who would sign off that she has received this, the plan check people would sign off that everything was done with respect to the plan check. The structural supervisor and in our case that is same person as the building official and those folk all sign off. And then what happens is that a project that seeks a temporary occupancy would have that and the folks who would sign off for permanent also because all the criteria had been met and lets assume that everything was done except the landscaping for weather purposes. So those o~cials w~ould sign off on temporary and permanent. The landscape vwuld sign off as a temporary occupancy, the bond would be posted and the date set by which the completion of the project w~ould come about and by that date the project was completed and then that person signs off and they have their permanent occupancy. Nowwhat happens with this particular • Meridian City Council November 1, 't 994 Page 46 ~ card is that that notifies everybody at point of getting their building permit card that an occupancy certificate is needed and not only that it is needed but who all and what all departments have to sign off to get that occupancy permit. And so, everybody that is involved in that project knows from the very beginning what it is they have to do to legally occupy the building. Now then with respect to what we need to do and the purpose of this before you tonight is so that you can put in some input, we may want it adopted in its format as it is. We may want to change it a little bit. Whatever, but I need the feed back as to how we want to press on from here coupled with the fact that the person that we would hire in the P& Z fior an enforcement officer and Wayne would research the citation issue or whatever (End of Tape).... place like the Playground where they indicated they didn't need any building permits obviously for the lighting they needed electrical permits. This could be given out with the development package and checked of and say okay you are going to have lighting you have to have the electrical thing inspected. You have to have the health department, you have to have the road right of way, you have to have these other things done before you can open for business. So there would be no excuse for a business coming on and saying I didn't know I needed an occupancy certificate because we ~nrould have that all addressed up front. And so that was my idea in terms of having this spread around to you guys and to review it and tell me which direction you want to go and get it put together and get going from there. I would like to have that feed back by the next meeting so that we can get the project implemented. The second thing is that you asked me to review the Historical Preservation Commission, I have reviewed these documents and I guess what I would really like to see is that after reading through these and reading through the model ordinance I guess I would like to see a presentation by somebody as to why w~e need a commission. Essentially what these things say and the areas that I may have a bit of a problem with is that one of the comments is that a minimum local governments will want to develop methods for considering historic resources in local decision making. For example the Local Preservation Commission may be given a forma advisory role in Planning and Zoning issues, participate in building permit process and consult with other local govemmental agencies in economic and development and tourism issues. The other areas that it appears if I understand this correctly that the monies that may go for this preservation thing is $500, each certified focal government will receive a grant of at least $500 as long as sufficient federai funds are available and the project or projects are eligible for such funding. After the minimum allocation of $500 is provided funding will be distributed according to the following allocation, minimum grant plus the population factors equals the basic program allocation. Well in our population zone which is 10,000 to 40,000 folks basically the maximum federal monies would come is $2500. I guess my question is in the future if there is not funds available who funds this commission. Apparently we fund it from the city coffers. And so I think that those are things that need to be kind of spelled out. And the other thing was that powers and duties and responsibilities, here as the members of the Commission may be reimbursed by the City for expenses incurred in connection with their duties. What expenses and how much . . Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 47 of those expenses, is there a cap on the expenses? Under the section 5, the powers and duties, a couple of the areas I had some potential problems with were recommend the acquisition of fee and lesser interest in historic properties including adjacent or associated lands by purchase, bequest or donations. Recommend methods and procedures necessary to preserve, restore and maintain and operate historic properties under the ownership or control of the City. Make recommendations in the planning process undertaken by the County, the City, the State or the Federai government and the agencies of those entities. Item 10, Commission members, employees or agents of the Commission may enter private property, buildings or structures in the performance of its official duties only with the expressed consent of the owner or the occupant thereof. Is that written consent or verbal consent or how tightly do w~e put this project together. So those v~re the areas that I had concem with. I thought that maybe given that we might. I don't' know how many buildings w~e have in Meridian that warrant historic preservation. 1 don't' know what the just of whoever is pushing for this is. Kingsford: 1 would maybe suggest that maybe either you visit with Lila Hill who is the Historian or that you ask her if that is the desire to come and make that presentation. Again that is a model ordinance, I don't think that they have intention of asking for those things. They do say may rather than shall and so that is still a determination the Council w~ould make. I would suggest that you maybe talk with her and satisfy your wants or if the rest of the Council wants to hear those let's set up a presentation. Corrie: I would like to hear. Kingsford: See if you can get her to come to the meeting and make that pitch. Morrow. That is everything Mr. Mayor. Kingsford: Mr. Yerrington. Yerrington: No, 1 just wanted to make one comment on your good ietter that you wrote to the school district. It didn't do a hell of a lot of good did it? But I still think we should follow up with a letter from Council not endorsing what they did but against them. I think they make a mistake and they should reconsider. Corrie: I testify to that Mr. Morrow and 1 watched their faces and they were not about to change their mind. Mr. Riddlemoser did vote against it, (inaudible). Kingsford: They wanted the original rather than the amended. Corrie: I thought that but I didn't know. • Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 48 ~ Kingsford: (Inaudible) does the Council desire to have that written, I don't' disagree. A further comment to Max's, my suspicion is that fundamentally those boundaries were drawn as long ago as a year maybe a little longer. Yerrington: Before the bond election. Morrow. t think they screwed it up too so I am all in favor of this and 1 will sign it. Yerrington: Okay, I keep the motion I think we should sign it as a Council each one. Morrow. Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to settlement to the Meridian School district for attendance zones, all those in favor? Opposed? draft a letter opposing the boundary both high school and middle school MOTiON CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else Max? Yerrington: Nothing. Kingsford: Bob Corrie: Yes, we are now 24 hour coverage of the fire department as of today. There is somebody there all the time. So we are at the same place as the police is. Kingsford: Mr. President? Tolsma: Yes, I have one question (inaudible) I have several people from the church over there that are still inquiring about when that is going to become a parking lot or not (inaudible). (Inaudible) Kingsford: Where are you at with knowing what v~ got left over in that fund if anything, Shari? I have had that question too from one of the board members and 1 can see Mr. Rickets virtually everyday and about every 2nd day that comes up. ~tiles: I have a hard time following what the City has really spent and what they have left, because of the way the budget is. It is not clear, there has not been any tracking of where . Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 49 • this money has gone and when we got that check for $291,000 or whatever it was, I guess that just went back into the generat fund and not making up for anything. 1 don't' understand where it is, I don't understand how it is you can even figure out if there was more money or not f guess ail that money from that check was extra. I just cant' get a cfear answer from the treasurer as to a fine detail of expenditures and costs. We have about $40,000 left to request from the department of commerce but that is going to the parking lot. So basically there is no money. Forrey: I can help, I guess I can sit down with Shari and Janice because by my calculations we had about somewhere between $15,000 and $18,000 that could be allocated to the demolition of the youth center. Kingsford: We need to see whatever that budget vwas and look at where that fits within the City parameters so that we know. I would sure like to get that put together. Forrey: I vwuld too, 1 have some memos, they are in the file and those calculations Shari. Stiles: Well, budget and what has actually been spent, those are 2 separate things. Kingsford: Would you guys get together? Forrey: Yes Tolsma: Especially on Wednesday, I don't know if you have noticed, but there is no place to park in this town. (Discussion Inaudible) Kingsford: Anything else Ron? Tolsma: That is it. Kingsford: Mr. Berg? Entertain a motion to adjourn. (Discussion Inaudible) Kingsford: Moved by everyone but Bob, second by Bob to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ~ Meridian City Council November 1, 1994 Page 50 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:58 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: _ ~~ WILLI~4~111 Cti. BERG, J'R., i CLE}tK ~ APPROVED: YO R- G RANT P. KI G F D • ORDINANCE NO. ~ 7 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T.3N., R.lE., 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 ~he real property described as: ;; ~; i.± .~ 0 f/ Q~i portion of the North half of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 ~~~~ `~~~ Qr4 ~ of Section articular 8, l T. 3N. , R. lE. , B.M. , Ada County, Idaho, more described as foll ws : . . p y o ' BEGINNING at the corner common to Sections 5, 6, 7, and ~A..- 8, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., :; ~ > _ _ thence South 89°58'57" East, 1037.97 feet along the North - ~oundary of said Section 8 to a point; t V' 2~ ~ i f 4 c~ il i ~ w.. . _ . . - ,y~ th n e South 00°23'22" West and along the Easterly rc_.-. .-~[/V _ l'~`- dary of Lot 8 of Pleasant Valley Subdivision, as same F~t.~ -is' re~~ded in Book 12 of Plats, at Page 665, records of Ada County, ~Idaho, a distance of 455.00 feet to a point in the center of Wilson Lane; thence along the center of Wilson Lane North 89°58'56" West, 1038.44 feet to a point on the West boundary of said Section 8 and the center of Locust Grove Road; thence along said West boundary North 00°26'54" East, 455.00 feet to the point of beginning. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - NEB-i Page 1 • • Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de- annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant for this annexation shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer at its expense and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters; that the property may be de-annexed if the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not satisfied. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Comply with the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the M or of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this ~~~ day of ~ti: , 1994. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - NEB-i Page 2 • ~ APPROVED: , _. ~ OR -- GRANT P. KI ORD ATTEST : ~~~ "~;~ `K~ + ~:~ Y~`~i °~~2 ?`~,y p ~'J d'~ i 2o N / /~ ~ y~ ~' S)~ '~~~ew."~^~„ ~ ~~ ~W J f ~~~~ ./~../ ~ IM~.J - ~" ~ ~Tir .I+~.,:~~ {a W.f.R~f1~, .. ~{ *+x.. ~ ya ~~ ,(r} r rp 1~..I K'N+R. ,c 11 ~ f.~4 •y: ~~~ ~~ yM .. 3 • ,y ~ ~r,4 4~x qy ~ yt; ~ ~ •. WILLIAM G. BERG, J -- CITY CLERK ~k ~' ~ ,`, ~:~ :„ ~~~ ~.., ~,.~.` ~+ t; `",~~,:, ,s~,~ r`.;::' ~.. `> ,^ ~' 1 w ~ {r a. y Q k+ Lt. Y .,~ ~'`r j, .ly. 35b a '+f {•y ~" ' gr "v ~ -1 eJ ~t++,` ttl ~ r ! ~::f.~ f..~~'... `~ +> kA; ~~`~'•~ rwa~..,~.; .v~~' :: ~'' `A~ STATE OF IDAHO, ) ,~.,.~,_sk . ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. ~ 7 7 , by the City Co cil and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~~`/ day of ~r/, , 1994, as the same appears in my office. DATED this ~~ day of /v°'v , 1994. ` °f,~L~~1~C''`~.- • City Clerk, City of rid~.~ Ada County, Idaho ~~,~~y ~•~ ~~ ~,~• ~ Y~,,, ~as ,,» ;,.~r~.. " r ~. m r ;,~ ~ '~, y~,~.-~h f~,a.3a .. ~y .t~ ,.~ :.~. ~ '~ = ~~ • 1 'yw .t. .~ 4 f l ~ vsaars ~ ~'i~ . ~ ~ „t Z ~'~~ 1[~'~ .i (RF "i2% ~.Tn yy 1F$ ~ ~,1 3 ~k Nv ij ~.q ~~ i: x: :"~ :ia+ $~ 'hk ~ ' " STATE OF IDA.HO, ) . , `~, ; . ~t r~ • •i `i' '~ S S • County of Ada, ) ; a~. ,ti .~ ay ~~ ..ef~.~ +.x. ~~ :'. t C,qt , {'~MJ~ ~ 1 ;I t~ ~A e~ .„.~.~~ ,:~' " ' ' " k ~" ±+y, : 1.qy . % ~ : + ~ - ~ ~~y ~o s da f1; ~ ,* ~;'y a,~,• On this ~S day of o/ , 1994, befo~~.,~ii~~,p,,;~;~~Te undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said S tate, personally appeared WI~LIAM 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. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - NEB-i Page 3 ~ ~ 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,•., ~ n~4'^ aAw ~,r' ~ . ~~f • . ~,c ^'' ~ , mo SEAL '°w •° ' " ~lyl O ~ ~`~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ = ~ = ~ " .,1 = ~~:~ ~q r, a. "'~ : . . - . : n ' ~ c `:J~~~ ~~ ,~~', .~ 4 ;~ ; ..'~~,• ''~~~//It10f1~\i~9 _ ~ ~ ~ / \- J Public for ldaho g at Meridian, Idaho ission Expires 48 4a ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - NEB-i Page 4 • ` AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 654 AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN,EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: The SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de- annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - AVEST Page 1 ~ . K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. g. The requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the M~ or of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this ~ day of No6: , 1994. APPROVED: - ~. 'MAYOR -- GRANT P. K N FORD ATTEST: ~;~_ ,~g.- -._r~~~;.v,~~.; ~A ~ ~ ~ ~ Ra+~":!.(,fv .~,, ~J'4 si ,~i~" Y~!'fN ~`5 .. ~ .j''''?:: +~ °~i ~ K ~ ,~ „ ~.. ~~ Y ~ µ ~ ~ P /J f ' a, aux.+~'a w i e si' '` (•r F ~~^ $ k~° 1 9" a ~(,. ~ ,,~ Q / ,// j~ .L/~ . ' ' '~~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ i ~ .. ~/(i~ V 4 r f . ~ ~ RV v ;'~ ~` ~ ..7 ~ ~ ~fli ~W. ~ ~~' WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. -- ITY CLERK ~, `~,">~. ,~ ;+: r. `r ,l o d l •yi r a ~'~ ~y ~ „ { : ~ ~` ~6 y~r 'F hl.~ ~}y~' .k ..~` ,~ (1~..' ' i ~, i vv{",~r. '~ .,,4'P.` f',:~M ~ ~ g ~ ..~ 4 ~4'~ • ~ ' ~ M~ _; 1'Mw~M~.,r T 1~ ~S'.wr ~ \. ~'~tN. ~ l. I 1 :~~iA ' ~v . yll"~V,.y('~/~~l~e~%y~ iyyK M:i" . ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - AVEST Page 2 ~ • STATE OF IDAHO,) . ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE," passed as Amended Ordinance No. 654, by the City C ncil and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the si' day of ~/,~ ., 1994, as the same appears in my office. DATED this _~ day of `,!/. , 1994. ~, ~ { r1 .-, - : ~ ~5 ~.; -~ ~-r L; ~ v~ ~ , • ;t~::= . C~=~i~~/'~~.~.~L~~----y~ ~2C ~ . City Clerk, City o eridian Ada County, Idaho f'7 ~ ,t. , s ... ~i . ' ' ~ ~p . ' __ r,-- ;:~ . _ _.. , . • -• STATE OF IDAHO,) . ss. County of Ada, ) ~~ ~' +~.g..~,~a~,i'~. -~~ '~~~~~~`~ L~°~~~+ ~'t"~ ""''`. •.? ;.•, w ~aw xM. o~ .~' ''~+ ~,.e' ?r ~ ~xear„' ~~~ ~'' ~. ~ a~ ~~ ~a :g] ~ =^ ".~ " 0.f~j BS.~kM~]y(~. .:7~ ~~~ ~ 'a~;/, w,~, ,f'',~~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~'"~ ;' ~' ~, a~. ~.;o°~ ~. ~; ~ ^'`~' ~ ~;~.~t~:~..~a ,~~ ~~, <.~. • ~~;~, 'Q ;~#-.,, ~, ~ _. w{~~ M~:~. L'LC:'.~9~y ~%~ ~ y~ / ...WS:i On this ~5~ day of lVov. , 1994, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ,,, _ ~m~. ; =. .~ ~ . .., SEAL ° ot ry Public for ldaho ,°; Re iding at Meridian, Idaho ' ~ M Commission Expires O D~ : o;: -~~ 4V +, 8,~•"~dditSi9~~~~~ ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - AVEST Page 3