Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 10-18~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~ AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MtNUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 4, 1994: (APPROVED) 1. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: CC&R's FOR TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 2. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: DEVEL4PMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1994) 3. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WESTDALE PARK SUBDIVtSION NO. 2: (APPROVED WITH EXHIBIT B) 4. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: (TABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1994) 5. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: HAVEN CQVE SUBDIVISIQN NO. 5: (APPROVED WITH EXHIBIT Bj 6. ORDINANCE #675 - HAVEN COVE NO. 5(TABLED OCTOBER 4,1994): (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1994) 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5(TABLED): (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1994) 8. ORDINANCE #676 - PLANNING 8~ ZOIdING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: (APPROVEDj 9. FINAL PLAT: NAVARRO PLACE SUBDIVISION, 36 LOTS BY THE FOUR T'S: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS; APPROVED CC~R'S) 10. FiNAL PLAT: BEDFORD PLACE SUBDMSION, 89 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORP: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNDANCE SUBDIViSION BY G.L. VOIGT: {APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE HOLLOWS SUBDiVISION BY BOND CAMPBELL: (APPROVED) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE HOLLOWS SUBDtViS10N BY BOND CAMPBELL: {VARIANCE NOT NEEDED) 14. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: THE PLAYGROUND: (APPROVED) ~ ~ 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: DISCUSSION OF GRlEVANCE: (DENY GRIEVANCE HEARING) 16. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. MAYOR KINGSFORD: 1. 1993-94 FY AUDIT (APPRQVED) B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING DIRECTOR: 1. REMOVE HOUSE AT 121 E. PINE - AWARD BID (APPROVED) C. GARY SMITH, C1TY ENGINEER 1. WATER HOOK UP FOR PACIFIC WATER WORKS (APPROVED ~MlTH DOUBLE HOOK UP FEE) D. ~tE30LUT10N #160 - UNFUNDED MANDATES WEEK (APPROV'~D) ~ • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 18. 1994 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was calied 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, Lenora Cushing, Art Cushing, David Lombardi, Chad Kinkela, Keith Loveless, Gene Smith, Becky Bowcutt, Val Elg: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 4, 1994: Kingsford: Are there any corrections, deletions or additions to those minutes? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move they be approved as read. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved and seconded to approve the October 4, 1994 minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea IT~M #1: TABLED ~CTOBER 4, 1994: CC&R'S FOR TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Counselor, have those been reviewed? Crookston: Yes they have Mr. Mayor, there is one item that I asked John Steele to correct, he had submitted to me a possible final, it is just a minor thing. I asked him to insert that there would be no manuFactured houses, because it is not zoned for it. He said he would do that and he said he wauld submit that to my by the 1 st of next week. I would recommend that you approve those subject to my approval. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the CC&R's for Turtle Creek Subdivision subje~t to the Counselor's reviewing of the item aforementioned, atl those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ~ ~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 2 ESTATES N0. 2 SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: The develaper has asked that it be tabled while they have time to respond. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the development agreement for Tuthill Estates Subdivision No. 2, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED OCTQBER 4, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WESTDALE PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 2: Kingsford: Any comments, either Counselor or Shari on that one. Does it meet with your approval, do you feel it is ready to be signed? Stiles: Yes with the revised Exhibit "B"'s that we have drawn up. Kingsfqrd: Has the Counselor reviewed those, we just got those this evening, the exhibit "B"'s. Wayne and Shari did that jointly is my understanding. Crookston: We have reviewed most of those together, yes. Kingsford: Questions of the Council on those? Morrow: My only question is that Gary is satisfied, Shari is satisfied and Wayne is satisfied that we have everything in proper format? Kingsford: With the addition of Exhibit "B". Crookston: Correct Stiles: Yes Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move we approve the development agreement for Westdale Park Subdivision No. 2. Tolsma: Second . • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 3 Kingsford: Does that need to have with exhibit "B" in the motion? Crookston: Should have. Tolsma: Withdraw the second Morrow: Yes and to rephrase that, I would move that we approve the development agreement for Westdale Park No. 2 including Exhibit "B" as an addendum to that agreement. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the development agreement for i~Vestdale Park Subdivision No. 2 with the addition of the addendum B, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: Kingsfard: This was asked to be tabled by the developer while they review the development agreement, entertain a motion to that effect. Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table the development agreement for Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5: Kingsford: Questions of the staff on that? Morrow: My question there would be the same question here, Shari and Wayne both worked on this are you satisfied it is ready to go, Gary is satisfied with the addition of Exhibit B? u Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 4 ~ Stiles: Yes, Wayne and i finished reviewing that today and the appiicant has not had a chance to review our revisions to that. It is fine with Wayne and 1. Crookston: That is correct. Kingsford: Given that we can approve it if they don't approve it then we would have to look at a negotiation. Morrow: So our choices are to table it until they get our feedback or we approve it subject to these conditions and then if they don'# want to do that than what format does a negotiation take? Is that done f~fore the Mayor and the Council? Or is that done between the staff? Crookston: It should initially be done befinreen them and the staff. Kingsford: If they can't reach satisfaction than they appeal to the City Council. It seems to me the most appropriate action is to approve of it at this point and then put the ball in their court. Counselor, would you maybe comment on the rest of them in the ordinance annexing and so forth. Where does that pu# us with those if they don't agree to it? Doesn't' the ordinance and the development agreement speak to its deannexation if they don't' have a development agreement in place? Crookston: I believe that the findings say that it will be de-annexed, but I think the ordinance itself v+ras subject to having a development agreement in place. Kingsford: So where does that put us with items 6 and 7? Crookston: I think that requires the development agreement to be executed by both parties prior to adoption of those. Morrow: 1 think that being the case and this is a point of discussion only, my preference would be that it is table with these particular folk until we know exactly where it is and they sign off and agree to this. Kingsford: Is there a representative from that? Have you had any time at all to review that development agreement? (Inaudible) Kinkela: My name is Chad Kinkela, I am representing Collins Engineering, I don't know what Exhibit B is but I would be willing to state that we would be willing to negotiate that a ~- Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 5 and if there is a problem we would try to rectify the problem with the City. Kingsford: Any questions? I think everything is in place aside firom that, but given your comments Counselor, probably Mr. Morrow's decision would be most prudent. Morrow: Further discussion here, 1 think my preference is that we as a City Council need to approve the final issues that are dealt with so that we know in essence what even though our staff may negotiate some of these things I think that for my purposes I would like to put the stamp of approval on those conditions. And that seems to be part of the responsibility that we take as elected officials and I am uncomfortable given the fact that the other 2 are contingent upon what is negotiated here in doing that until the deveioper has agreed to those conditions in the development agreement. Kingsford: 1 just offer that we hav!e had this thing in our court for a long while and partialiy the delay has been on us. That was sent out today, I wonder if this body couldn't approve of all of #hose things, they don't' get published and so forth until later on anyway. It doesn't' take effect until it is pubiished, I just wonder about ho{ding this group up another 2 weeks if we can approve all of it subject to the approval of the development agreement as is. If that doesn't' happen why it would be back in front of you in 2 weeks. Stiles: Excuse me Mayor and Council, the main differences on this and what they have provided us are the p~rimeter fencing that we have added as a requirement prior to obtaining building permits and what they have proposed in their Exhibit B was a fence shall be placed on top of the berm in front of the property. What I am afiraid this is going to mean is that there is going to be a 20 foot landscape easement with 10 feet and their fence and then the 10 feet which is basically what they were wanting to do anyway and I think our ordinance is pretty clear about having a 20 foot landscape strip adjacent to the roadway. We didn't' ask them for the 35 feet for an entrance corridor. Those are the basic differences in what they had agreed to. Kingsford: So you are saying you don't' see a whole lot of room for negotiation on those items anyway and they have agreed to the others? Stiles: Yes Morrow: t guess my position, that being the case is that I wouldn't see any room for negotiation either they agree to those items spelted out by the staff or it is not approved, that is for purpose of discussion also. Kingsford: Other comments or questions of the Council? • • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 6 Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I guess I need final clarification, do you feel we can do it this way going by approving with the condition that they (inaudible) Kingsford: That they sign the final development agreement. Crookston: You could do that. Corrie: I think I agree with the Mayor, we have had it long enough. t wili move that we approve the development agreement with Exhibit B that it be approved the developer as written by the staff. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve the development agreement for Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5 as written with the new Exhibit B, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTtON CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: What is your pleasure with item #6 and 7? You have to have a signed agreement so those have to be tabled. Morrow: So moved Gorrie: Second Kingsford: Moved and seconded to table items #6 and 7 until we have a signed development agreement from the applicant, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: A{I Yea ITEM #8: ORDINANCE #676 - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Kingsford: We have atready done that for the City Council, but P& Z happens to have their fall on election night, since the County uses this facility for election it would have the P& Z meeting on the next night. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ADOPTING TITLE IV, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4-101, TIME AND PLACE OF PLANNING AND ZONlNG MEETlNGS, OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE ClTY OF MERIDIAN TO PROVIDE THAT THE MEETING SHALL BE HELD ON THE 2ND TUESDAY OF THE MONTH AND IN THE EVENT A PLANNIIdG AND ZONING MEETING FALLS ON A HOLIDAY OR TUESDAY ON WHICH A CITY OR GENERAL ELECTION IS ~ ~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 7 HELD, THE MEETfNG SHALL NOT BE HELD ON THAT TUESDAY BUT SHALL BE HELD ON THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY; AND PROVIDING AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance #676 read in its entirety? Is there a motion on Ordinance #676? Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we approve Ordinance #676 with the suspension of the rules. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve of Ordinance #676 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yerrington - Yea, Morrow - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9; FINAL PLAT: NAVARRO PLACE SUBDIVISION, 36 LOTS BY THE FOUR T'S: Kingsford: Any questions of the Council, staff or developer on that? Morrow: Is there a representative of the developer here? Keith my only question is you read Bruce Freclketon's comments under Gary Smith's signature as of October 13 and all of those are agreeable? Loveless: Yes, we received it late Friday afternoon by pick up. We are making changes now. Morrow: And there are no problems with any of those? Loveless: No, not at this time we have no problems with them. Just for your information the plat was originally approved without central irrigation and we are putting central irrigation in now and it wifl be a well type pressurized system. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Loveless: I guess so, I am not sure what they have over there. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Loveless: We are looking at probably about 100 feet. • • Meridian City Councii October 18, 1994 Page 8 Tolsma: (Inaudible) Loveless: Our plans right now just came off of the plotter about 6:00 this evening and I have to review those and we will bring them into Gary's office tomorrow. We will tentatively set up so we can irrigate 25% of the lots at any one time, the amount of water set up. Basically we can water the whole subdivision in 24 hours if they rotate. It will be set up so they all have to have time clocks. We think it will work real well with them. Tolsma: (Inaudible) dead end. Loveless: It goes on across Peidmont where it goes to from there I am not sure. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Loveless: The plans call for it to be tiled, we have it all under pipe and it will all be under that berm along Pine street. You will note that we did add from Gary's notes that little lot in the corner to put the well on internally there which will be part of the homeowners association, it is not a non-buildable lot but we wanted the well setting on its own property and not on somebody else's property for an easement. It doesn't diminish that lot in square footage use that was just sort of a piece we had in there so that one lot that fronts Pine street wouldn't be a doubie access lot. And so we stopped that now by putting the well facilities in there. We plan on those to be mostly underground and not in an above ground buiiding. We don't want it to be a little shack along fhe side of the road. Kingsford: As far as the irrigation Keith, it is my understanding you couldn't get a well for irrigation purposes and to be at that depth, when you said 100 feef. Loveless: We can have, we have done extensive work with water resources we can have an irrigation well up to a half an acre parcel. Or we can combine the parcels under the homeowners association and take the water right for all 36 lots into one and combine them. But we can't go out and drill a well for a 100 acre farm. We can do it for a half acre residential property. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Loveless? Thank you. Any questions of staff? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, Shari 1 guess your comments are the same as Bruce's? Stiles: Yes Kingsford: Is the Council ready to take action? • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 9 • Morrow: (lnaudible) development agreements are in place on this project, is that correct? Kingsford: Shari, what is the status of the development agreement on this, was there one required? Stiles: I haven't had any conversation with them about a development with the applicant. Kingsford: In its approval stage did it not require a development agreement? Stiles: I believe so yes. Crookston: It may not have because that property was already annexed. Stiles: Oh Navarro, no it didn't. I was asking Gary that about when it was annexed and I believe it was years ago. So there would be no development agreement. Crookston: I have reviewed the covenants and restrictions and they are ~ne. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, that being the case I would move that we approve the final plat for Navarro Place Subdivision subject to staff conditions. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the final plat of Navarro Place Subdivision subject to meeting the conditions of staff, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Although it is not on the agenda it is probably appropriate to approve the CC&R's is that right Counselor? Crookston: Yes Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the CC&R's for Navarro Place Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 10 i ITEM #10: FINAL PLAT: BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION, 89 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Kingsford: Questions of the staff or the developer'? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have one 1 guess for the developer. The Fire Chief has mentioned many times in subdivisions that have the street signs before you start really getting too far aiong with your homes. Can you kind of hasten that up or see if you can get those up? Smith: I don't see a problem with that. Corrie: Good we have a little problem with sometimes having and fire and not knowing where to go. That isn't' to say the fire department doesn't know where to go but the streets are getting to be quite a number of them. Thank you. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I am sorry t did not check the findings or the status of the ordinance but I am not sure the City has annexed this property yet. Smith: As I recall, we went through that some time ago. Kingsford: I've got to think that the final, we do that at the preliminary plat. Crookston: 1 am just not recalling that, I just raise it as a question. Smith: Actually Mr. Mayor, we annexed this parcel prior to the preliminary plat, this piece of ground I brought in for annexation before we even had a preliminary plat on it. Eng. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I have a copy of it in my file, it is Ordinance #668 annexing and zoning the property. Crookston: Thank you Morrow: Was this not the property that was a reversal from R-8 to R-4 and back to R-8? Smith: 1 believe so yes. Kingsford: A little bird chirping in my ear that something needs to be done with the weeds out there so please attend to that. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 11 Smith: Within the past month they were knocked down. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? ~ Corrie: I guess Mr. Mayor I only have one, if you have any questions about the engineer's final report? Smith: I have reviewed that with my client, I have submitted a letter to Gary, I believe each of you have a copy of that letter in your packet. The only item of any consequence really is his item #3 which stated that the total density for the subdivision had a 4.12 dwelling units per acre and we had an error on our application where we had counted the landscape lots and common lots as part of the buildable lots. When you deduct those landscape Iots you actually have 78 buildable lots and that results in a density of 3.61 which is below the 3.87 allowed. Kingsford: So it is 78 buildable lots now Gene? Smith: That is correct, the other items on Bruce's memo to Mayor and Council none of them are anything we cannot live with. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Questions for staff? Thanks Gene. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have Morrow: What do we have for a development agreement here? Kingsford: Was that development agreement an issue again? Stiles: It is a requirement of annexation. The annexation 1 have not done anything on this. Kingsford: Gene, where are we at with the development agreement on that issue? Smith: the development agreement at the time of annexation it was approved without a development agreement. I would propose that this final plat be approved subject to agreement with the development agreement befinreen developer and staff. But it did say in the findings that there would be a development agreement, or in the annexation ordinance? Stiles: Yes Smith: But one has not been prepared as yet. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 12 ~ Kingsford: We now have that on the burner and it can wheel right along, is that true Shari? Stiles: Well, that is what I have been relying on the applicant to at least get it started, I haven't had any conversation at all with them on a development agreement. So, it has kind of been a greasy wheel around here with getting every thing done. Kingsford: 50, under your proposal you would get that started, say tomorrow at 8:00? Smith: That is fine. Corrie: You anticipate no problems? Smith: No t don't'. Kingsford: The issue on the plat is we have to sign that, the City Clerk, the engineer and you don't have it you don't get it signed. I move that we approve the final plat of Bedford Place subdivision subject to the comments of the Assistant City Engineer be met and also the development agreement has been signed before we make the final plat signature. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron that we approve the final plat for Bedford Place Subdivision subject to the staff requirements being met and the development agreement being in place and signed prior to plat signature, discussion Mr. Morrow. Morrow: Question here with respect to this we are approving or are potentially going to approve something that we have not seen any development agreement on but yet on items before us there was some question with the exhibits A's and B's where we have had a development agreement that we have looked, the conditions that were spelled out. And there was some debate amongst the Council rather we would go ahead and approve one of those subject to 2 adjustments being the fence and landscape easement. Here we are looking at approving the whole thing and not seeing any of the de~elopment agreement. I think I have a problem with that with respect to what we have done with the other issues before us this evening. And I throw that out for thought. Kingsford: I think one of the significant differences this one is annexed and those were a condition of annexation this was a condition of platting. We've had through time requirement at various stages and I think now it has become our policy that the development agreement comes in handy at the time of annexation. This parcel is annexed and that requirement was placed at the final plat issue. ~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 13 ~ Morrow: The development agreement was a condition of annexation here? Kingsford: No, in the preceding ones it was a condition of annexation. The ones you are comparing it to. Any other discussion? All those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 YEAS, 1 NEA ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite that owner or his designee to speak first. Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey. Bowcutt: This is Sundance Subdivision, it came before you around the first of August of this year as a preliminary plat with attached variance application. The first application was with another firm, it had approxirr~ately 153 lots which were less than the 80 #oot required street frontage for the R-4 zone. The attached variance requested that Council grant them a waiver, the Council basically denied that variance and found that there was no topographical hardship involved here and instructed the developer to go back and comply with the R-4 requirements of 80 feet of frontage. The project came to us and we have been working on it for the past couple of months to redesign it to comply with those standards. We did resubmit and went through Ada County Highway District for an addi#ional review on the redesign. We met with your staff and talked with Shari in depth on the design. We talked to Gary Smith and Bruce to try to accomplish something that was a little more palatable than what came before you previously. This particular plan unlike the first one which had 298 lots, this one has 291. The lots are all meeting the square footage requirements. We did have a few problems in some areas, Mr. Freckleton in his review stated that there were numerous lots which did not meet the frontage requirement. The cut off date kind of snuGc up on us so we had to hurry up and rap this up. Those lots indicated with the yellow on them indicate the ones which were less than 80 feet of frontage. One of the problems that we have is when we take a bend in the street that causes a problem when you try to fan that lot out. If you come in with an 80 foot of frontage than it makes that lot excessively large. It creates a problem or creates an abnormal shaped lot. What we have done is, I worked on this to see where we can gain some additional space. We tried to maintain a parkway effect just like the original plan had. In order (inaudible) and those lots which have the red circles we have expanded those to meet the 80 feet of frontage. These lots which line the Hunter's Lateral here the only way we can clean those up is to eliminate one lot because we have to gain approximately 72 feet over the 8 lots indicated. I did talk to the developer on the phone ~ • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 14 prior to the hearing and he has indicated that if that needs to be done he is willing to do so. that would leave us at 290, but we would be in compliance. The City of Meridian is the only city that requires that much frontage for a lot of this size, Boise's frontage requirement is based off of a 30 foot frontage and then they require an average width. That allows you flexibility when you do have a bend in your street and take a curve that is not a 90 degree curve to have that flexibility to fan the lots out. Ada County has a rule where they require for a lot of this size 70 feet of frontage which is a little bit easier to work with but they do allow us some latitude on the curves to measure into the lots at the 20 foot setback line to verify that we are meeting the approximate 80 foot width. So therefore we can meet the City of Meridian's requirements. The school site, the 4 acres at the bottom has been retained, it is in exactly the same condition, exactly the same size. The collector concept that was utilized in the first drawing has been maintained, no lots take direct access and will come in and wrap down into the school site. I met with Dan Mabe to discuss the collector what would work best for the school district. The old pian basically had the collector coming in and stubbing into the stub site. This was the old plan, the collector came in and stubbed right here at the school site. The problem with that is you don't know what type of site design they are going to have so that may restrict their or cause them some problems it the future when they get ready to design this site. So my idea and what I discussed with Mr. Mabe was to come in and intersect it at the end of that 4 acre parcel that will allow them more flexibility on their site design. He was satisfied and I gave him a copy, he is happy with that. We don't have any problems. The Highway District will require that tMis be built to fiheir collector standards of 41 back to back transitioning to a 37 back to back with no parking on either side and 5 foot sidewalks and bikepafihs since we do have the school at the south end. They wilf require that we on some of these 4 way intersections, this point here, this point here and I think here we will take the furthest street at the intersecfiion and basically what that does is that causes the traffic to slow down so you don't' have somebody going down a cotlector when it is 35 miles per hour doing 55. It will what they call neck down, it is just a little safer and I told the Highway District I though it was a great idea. We have retained the park area in through here whereas the old plan had it up in that northern portion. The old plan had approximately between the school site and the common area had 8.18 acres this plan has 8.25. So we have maintained it, we have just distributed it in a differen# fashion. The idea that 1 was trying to utilize is creating a park way where you have fandscaping dovam both sides of the street, green areas where they may open up a little more when you have reached one area, and it just gives it a nice effect. The same with it on this secondary entrance point where you have landscaping here. We have some other areas that we put in different locations here, over here, the first plan did not have those, those are for drainage purposes under the new central district health rules. We are starting to design everything with the bio-swait so we need to locate some common areas that can be utilized for landscaping aesthetics, but also can be used to filter the storm drainage prior to going into the sand and grease trap. That is basically what everybody's going to. So the plan ~J Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 15 ~ will be changing from now on where you will see some of these little landscaping islands or areas at the end of culdesacs and the end of the lots. I think it is a good effect, it gives the lots a little (inaudible) which abuts 2 streets. Do you have any questions? Morrow: I have a couple questions with respect to where the, that may well very be a park site or a school site, I think it is designed with the other 3 as being a common site. How does that collector afFect the other 3 sites from the properties that are joining this? Bowcutt: It was my understanding that the other site is right below and the other one adjoined it on this east side. Morrow: I guess my question is do we know that that collector lines up and doesn't cut through the other site that is below it? Bowcutt: This site below here there is a proposed preliminary plat but it is my understanding it has not been approved. This plan was shown to Roylance engineering which is handling that site. They stated that was an acceptable lacation to bring the collector in at. I did confer with them, the same with these stubs here, this one will shift just a little bit because these people I think J.J. Howard is doing this one. So we are working with the adjoining properties to make sure we don't create any problems and the Highway District. But I don't think it is going to compromise the school or park site the way i was told it was laid out. Morrow: And we can get confirmation of those things. Bio-swails, would you kind of explain the concept of a bio-swail please? Bowcutt: Basicalty what it is, is a storm drainage when it runs down the street it runs through a swail, but it is a grassy swail. It is landscaped, normally not with trees but more like shrubs because you don't want (inaudible) again, it is sloped in a fashion where it filters the storm drainage and then it would enter into a standard sand and grease trap and then into the seepage bed, it is just better for the ground water. And that is what everybody is going to. The State of Washington has a lot of manuals and those are the ones that the Idaho engineers are starting to utilize up in the Spokane area. Tolsma: On your second exit or second entrance (inaudible) secondary entrance off of Overland, now those lots that are on the south side of that where you show the trees and the grassy (inaudible) are those lots then will wont' enter onto that east west street there? Bowcutt: They will enter (inaudible) they will front at this point because they don't have any control of these, these are platted open space lots responsibility of the homeowners association. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 16 ~ Tolsma: And the entrance, the 2 lots abutting the entrance will open to the south? Bowcutt: That is correct. Morrow: Becky I have a question, the length of the blocks does it exceed the 1000 foot requirement? Bowcutt: Well, we discussed that when 1 met with staff, and when we went in and designed it that was one of the things that we looked at was the length of blocks to make sure that we did not exceed the recommended 1000 feet. That is why you see some of #hese streets coming in here and (inaudible). In my opinion from a planning prospective and based on how we measured it no I don't believe it exceeds 1000 feet. But I guess one of the questions I asked of staff was what is the definition of a block length? And no one could reatly giv~ me a definition, I went back to the office, I asked some of the engineers, some of the ones that have been in this business for 14 and 15 years what is the definition of a block length? How do you measure a block length exactly? And they couldn't tell me. So ! guess 1 find it hard to state for a fact yes I comply when I don't' have a definition. We measured them and tried to situate the streets in a fashion that we did not exceed 1000 feet in length. I know that was a problem with the first plan. Kingsford: Gary has read the definition of a block to us on several occasions and that definition is a bit vagwe, it has been read, as I recall it is where a street intersects or something of that nature. So, I guess depending on how you interpret the definition, our irrtent always has been safety. That we don't' have somebody out there 1000 feet and only 1 entry way to get in and that sort of thing. As I reviewed this before it pretty well meets that but again that is perhaps a determination we need a clear cut definition because engineering guides and so forth doesn't have it. Corrie: Phase 1, how many homes does that involve? Bowcutt: Well, we asked for a phasing plan and received a fax and that is what the fax looked like, but when I sent this to the developer he said that is not what I sent, so we had a little transmission problem. This is basically going to be broken up into 4 to 5 section and I did read Ken Bowers statement that if they just #ill half of it I am concerned about of one point of ingress and egress. But it will be indeed 1/4 out so will probably see, they will start in one area (End of Tape) come across to get that second approach and get that loop through so that we have 2 points of ingress and egress. And then that assures you, you know no one knows what the market will do if 5 years lapse or whatever before the rest of the subdivision were complet~d you would have your 2 points of ingress and egress. That be the case which shows here phase 1 is that long to the right, what if the school decides to build their school down here before you are down here? ~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 17 ~ Bowcutt: I have another proje~t we are dealing with the Boise School District and the school is up toward the mid-section to the upper section of the subdivision and basically we made the agreement with the school district verbally that based on their time table this is a full school site but they need the bond issue to construct that we would build the collector to them, that one also had a collector. So that would need to be something Dan would have to work out with Mr. Voigt and some type of understanding that in a year or 2 years tha# collector may need to be all the way to the south to the school. Morrow: I think part of the issue there also is that it was annexed with the understand that these properties were going to be deeded to the City that there was going some long term coordination befinreen the City and the school district and weren't giving the school district carte blanche to do as tk~ey may or may not plan very well. So I think that all three entities would be involved in terms of at least what 1 would visualize dealing with the collec:tor and the timing of the school and the timing of the park development and so on and so forth. My question would be has that property been deeded to the City as of yet? Kingsford: No Morrow: And was that not a condition of? Kingsford: To my recollection it has not been deeded, now one of the things that Dan Mabe and t talked about and 1 think is appropriate and I didn't get the council approval on was their dealing with the moving of some transmission lines on this. That they don't want to spend school district funds to move those lines unless they are assured that they have a site. And so 1 told him 1 didn't think the city would have any problem with joint ownership, having those in both aur names. Is that roughly the comments you and I had then Wayne when I discussed that with you? Crookston: Yes it is and Mr. Foley and I are still working on it, he is still checking with Dan Mabe and he is to get back to me. Kingsford: But for them to expend funds to move those utilities they needed to own property, so I guess if Council wants to put (inaudible) now would be a good time. It hasn't been finalized but I told him I didn't see and problem with an agreement of some sort whether it be joint ownership or an agreement or whatever. Morrow: 1 think, isn'# that a separate issue from this proposal. My question with respec# to Kingsford: We haven't' yet gotten it is the answer. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 18 ~ Morrow: I am the one that made the motion as I recall for that to be a condition upon which we hit some approvals and I don't remember what exactly those approvals were, but my question as it relates to Becky is how soon is that deed coming for that property? Bowcutt: I can talk to the developers and we can start making the arrangements, was that not included in his development agreement, that reference to the dedication of the school site. Kingsford: It was referenced in there but again I don't' remember either at what point it had to be. Stiles: There hasn't been a development agreement prepared for this project yet. Morrow: Well, I tfiink for our purposes what happens is the deed comes to us and we as a separate entity strike whatever deal we want to with the school district in terms of the deed issue and the developer doesn't get held hostage on that issue on however those things might work out. So my interest would be that the deed come to the City and then the city and the school district do whatever it is that they wish to do with the property. And Mr. Voigt is totally (inaudible) of any of the responsibilities at that point or as soon as the deed comes to us. Bowcutt: I do have one question Mr. Mayor about the school and park site is it the City's desire tMat the 4 acres be platted or just remain unplatted so that you may join the other 8 acres with the 4? Has anybody contemplated? Kingsford: What would be the most appropriate method there, we own 4 different parts then we have to, we wouldn't have to subdivide because we would be bringing together. Most likely it should be part of the subdivision shouldn't it be a lot and block and combine 4 of those lots and blocks. Crooksfon: I think it would work either way. Bowcutt: But you would have utility easements running across the lot lines which may need to be vacated at the such time as the school is built or any facilities for a park were to be built. I am just concerned. Kingsford: I think it would be in our best interest to leave it unplatted. Bowcutt: Because this by recognizing whether it is buildable or unbuildable obviously if the City owns it its buildable. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 19 • Morrow: The other thing is it is left unplatted, and we have a single piece of property than the division very well be 5 and 5 or if we leave these as platted parcels than we may have to replat to get the right legal description for the school site. Where if we have aN of them as an unplatted piece of property than we divide it up however it needs to be divided up at one time and we don't' have to deal with utility easements and those things. Kingsford: As you said a few minutes ago we are getting into an area that is a different issue, but 1 think what was envisioned when we put our Gomprehensive Plan together and when we started striking this deal is that they are not necessarily be separate divisions of that property. That during the school year the school uses the entire facility during the summer when the taxpayers want to use the whole area exclusive of the buildings they would have access to those, much is our agreement with the high school in terms of the tennis court and those restroom facilities. Crookston: Gary, you looked a little parched or cortifused when this issue came up, do you have a comment? Smith: I was just wondering if there was a division of property in the future that it wouldn't require another plat. Kingsford: If we split it between the school and the city. Smith: Right, if it was part of this plat than you could split it, split one lot, if this was one lot you could split it without going through the subdivision process if that is what is going to happen. At least that is the way I have always understood our ordinance that you could sp~it a lot of record one time. Kingsford: Again I think that goes back to my comments of the joint ownership. Crookston: In my discussions with Mr. Foley the question came up about possibly the school desiring a portion to be, I am talking ultimately in its name only because the site that the school is on the foundation the city will not really have any interest in. They may want the portion around that, but that is what we discussed was basically the foundation and 1 think that probably ought to be deeded to the school and the city have either the rest or share the rest in some capacity and divide the rest somehow. Kingsford: Well, then Gary's comments come into play, we may very well have to subdivide the thing. Or grant ourselves (inaudible). Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor we did one for the City of Boise and Meridian School District out off of Cloverdale Road and it was a 15 acre site and we platted it into the 2 lots the school i • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 20 district bought 7 and they indicated that they had to own at least a minimum of 7 and Boise bought about 8. It is a joint park and school site, it is by the interstate off Cloverdale. The park is under construction now. We basically just split it up into 2 platted lots and then conveyed it, we conveyed it first on a meets and bounds and then platted for the city and the school district. Morrow: So that would mean it is better to leave this unplatted by virtue of how that worked out. And then when you get all 4 parcels you put them together and split them. ] Kingsford: Wouldn't' they decide they want where the foundation is. Bowcutt: When start up by Overland Road it wiil take us a while to go south, so I think we have some time to work out the fine details. Morrow: Well I think the answer to the question that you asked is that no we wouldn't need to be, the deed would be conveyed to us (inaudible) that is the answer to the question that you asked. Kingsford: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing anyone else ftom the public that would like to offer testimony? Crookston: I am still not resolved an what the City is going to do with the block lengths. Kingsford: That, Mr. Smith, does this satisfy your desires for block length? It is not in excess of 1000 feet? Smith: When we reviewed the plat, I wasn't paying too much attention to the block length because the number of stub streets they had going east and west. Shari indicates there are a couple that are slightly in excess of 1000 feet and they are boundary type blocks on the boundaries of the subdivisions, I think they are 1150 feet, so it is not an excessive accedence of that block length. I guess, l didn't get too concerned about it because of the number of points of access that they were providing into the adjacent undeveloped properties. But the block length is a p~anning issue really and that would be my only comments on it. Kingsford: ~o in terms of our ordinance are we saying that they need a variance to that ordinance for what is here Shari? Stiles: I guess 1 would say yes because it is in excess of our 1000 feet. Kingsford: Regardless of how you look at those streets that come out there and some of C~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 21 them that exceed that 1000 feet. • Stiles: Yes, but I don't, I think that is something that can be remedied through their design, don't you think Becky? Bowcutt: Well, I think what Gary was indicating is along the perimeter, how can I put a stub street here that doesn't go anywhere. The Highway District has dictated this location, fihis one has specified down to exactly the foot where they want it, these, we don't have any problems with these blocks or internally the only particular area would be this perimeter here and I don't know how you break it up. You can't break it up with a micropath because it is really not going to go anywhere. So, I guess my opinion is when you have a particular ordinance which is ambiguous in nature I think the courts have found that it is very difficult to impose that if it isn't specifically set definition and understood. Like I said we go through and measured these for block length because I noticed in the first staff report too many of these blocks exceed the 1000 maximum. So we were aware of that right up front, but I just don't know what you can do here and this street. You do have an intersection here but you can't bring it across into the Rim View Subdivision. So I guess from a practical perspective I don't' understand the 1000 feet. The City of Kuna had it too and they eliminated it about 3 months ago because they couldn't define, they couldn't impose it on every development it was just a very problematic situation. Crookston: What is the property where your left is, what is that? Bowcutt: That is an unplatted parcel and then we have RirYi View Subdivision right in through here which has no stub street, there is no right of way connection to their perimeter. Morrow: I think the other issue that I see there is you have access from that street from 3 different points, so it is not as though it is 10~ foot street that you can't really, really the one street in the center there by your left hand breaks it up into 2 575 foot streets. Because if it is 1150 feet in its entirety I guess one could argue that the intersection there breaks it although it is not a 4 way intersection. Kingsford: I think it is 1150 feet on each side of that. You are using that street that goes in between as breaking it up already, but it still makes finro 1150 length blocks on the outside. Corrie: What was the original purpose of the 1000 feet anyway, was that fire hose or a problem there? Kingsford: (Inaudible) just to have some reasonable length that one ends and another one • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 22 begins. • Bowcutt: I think the original intent was in the early days when they used to just grid everything and you could run a block for a mile and so they wanted to break those blocks up and create a more grid system. But we normally don't develop on a grid anymore. Corrie: I think maybe you might have a point that we should look at that ordinance again. I can't really see any difference in the one coming off of Overland and going all the way down to the culdesac, it is a long one as well it just has streets coming into it. You have a long on the perimeter here that, I don't' see a problem myself either, you may have to get a variance because of the way the ordinance reads but I wouldn't have any problem with a variance there. Kingsford: Shari you had a comment? Stiles: I don't think the concept of 1000 foot block length is really antiquated concept that is meaningless. It is to allow inter-neighborhood with the mircolanes and all of that so a child in order to visit the person in his back yard does not have to go an inordinate length walking or riding his bike to get to the people in his back yard that is the reason for it. That is why I think there is a 1000 feet block length. Another reason this was probably hard to meet that 100 feet is to try to get away from having these streets become throughways and wasn't' that kind of a concem with the school district and the Ada County Highway District when they pointed out some of these stub streets. So it was not just, it didn't just end up being a through way. Bowcutt: Yes, they asked us to break it up in this fashion so that we didn't promote traffic coming in this secondary entrance and utilization of it as a collector. So that is why we tried to break it up into specific sections to force the traffic to use the collector is the purpose it is built for. Kingsford: Wefl, in any event if we agree that there is over 1000 feet you need to deal with a variance in your request for final plat. Bowcutt: Understood. Morrow: I don't' have any problem with it. Kingsford: Any other questions or comments? Counselor are you through picking on that? Crookston: Yes ~ Meridian City Councit October 18, 1994 Page 23 • Kingsford: You scared me a little Becky when you started talking about the courts dealing with it. Anyone else from the public? David Lombardi, Givens, Pursley, Huntly, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lombardi: I r~present Jim Griffen, if I may approach the Comprehensive Plan, Jim Griffen owns an 80 acre parcel I guess it is to the southwest of Eagle and Overland, it is right here. Part of that is planned in the comprehensive Plan to be commercial and the balance of it is planned to be Mixed Planned Use Development. All of the property which is to the east of this subdivision is planned to be Mixed Planned Use Development and in fact this property represents the balance between the residential area (inaudible) Mixed Planned Use area on the comprehensive plan. Our concern is simply that development is undoubtedly going to take place to the east of this subdivision and we are concerned that the subdivision being on the edge of a residential area as it is has shown no, or taken nothing into account in terms of screening or buffering of the lots in the subdivision from the change in use that is contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan next door. Our concem is that next year or 2 years or whenever it is Mr. Griffen and his neighbors come in for their request for their Mixed Use Deveiopments that the folks that have moved into this subdivision are going to say now wait a minute here, we have a nice home here we have a nice subdivision here and those folks ought to put some kind of buffer on their property to protect us from whatever the noises and distractions are going to be associated with that use. Now certain amount of that is certainly fair, but also a certain amount of that should be required on the part of the developers who are now coming in and putting in a residential subdivision which is right on the edge of the usage change established by the Comprehensive Plan. The other thing that I am not clear on and Ms. Bowcutt may have the answer and that is the roads that exit the subdivision toward the east and go onto the vacant agricultural land which is theirs, as far as I know I am not aware of there being any understanding with the owners next door as to the designation of the roads. If there is no showing in the record that the next door owners who own the vacant land have approved it I think that at least some mention ought to be demonstrated in the record to show that they know the roads are coming there that they may anticipate using them. It is conceivable if no plans have been made with the adjoining landowners for potential development of the adjoining land to the east that these roads which currently stub to that eastern boundary will end up as dead ends which creates problems for emergency vehicles. Essentially the concern is that the folks to the east, particularly Mr. Griffen are going to be developing their property to the east and we think it is only fair that as property out there develops that everyone kind of work together as a neighborhood and at least understand the plans of each other and try to cooperate. This particular subdivision which doesn't' appear to show any concern for what is going on in the east should I believe be modified or at least somehow recognize the potential need for buffers on the east and take its share of that buffering and screening. Thank you very much. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 24 • Kingsford: Questions for David? Thank you, anyone else from the public? Bowcutt: The stub streets to the east were dictated by Ada County Highway District, I believe they were also referenced in the first staff report by Bruce Freckleton and Gary Smith. As far as approximate locations, obviously when that parcel develops if one of those stub streets especially the one towards thc south is not necessary then that could potentially be eliminated or modified to say if they have multi family over here this makes more sense to connect through that at that point, those things are taken into consideration when final plats come in. Obviously we don't' know what is going to happen tp that property and to my knowledge I have not heard of any preliminary plat for PUD that has been submitted. In all the years that I have been doing this we have never had to provide a buffer from an adjoining agricultural parcel. Especialty when that, when you development is residential and the adjoining parcel is designated for mixed use. Usually the more intensive use bears the responsibility for the buffering especially if it is coming as a secondary development. tt is just not real practical to put 30, 40 feet behind single family dwelling lots and have somebody f~ave to go badc there and mow a 30 - 40 foot strip that runs for 1000 to 2000 feet. It creates safety problems, that area can't be monitored the police, it can't be seen when it is that long. You have a tendency that people will just let it go, if you try to make it a responsibility of t hat homeowner they wont' maintain it at times. I just have a real concem of trying to buffer myself from something I don't' know is going to happen. Mixed use means a lot of things, I would hope that we wouldn't end up with a rendering of a plan on our east boundary and i doubt if that would be the case. I see some industrial or commercial out there on Eagle Road and then probably transitioning toward more multi family or mixed uses as you head west. But I guess it just doesn't' seem pra~tical to try to put some big strip running this length of this property. I have never encountered that as a requirement anywhere in the valley. I don't' think it makes sense. Thank you Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing no one I witl close the public hearing. Counselor, I would assume that Dave's comments are new from P& Z? Crookston: Yes, but we do not have findings on this as a plat. King~ford: Then it would be appropriate to have findings prepared. Crookston: No, we do not have findings on the plats. Kingsford: What is the Council's pfeasure. Morrow: I am in favor of this piat and I think basically it is fine and the staff conditions are going to be fine. With response to Dave's comments I think it is a long standing policy ~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 25 • within the City of Meridian that commercial development does screen from residential. That is a requirement of that commercial development and I would suspect that when your clients property develops if it is going to be some kind of commercial that the requirement will be that he protect the residential. The other thing going on here is that this is the first project in line and so they are (inaudible). Those would be my comments with respect to this project. Kingsford: I would certainly comment Becky that effort needs to be made to visit with the adjacent neighbors particulariy with regard to the stub streets. If those need to be adjusted then now is certainly the proper time to adjust those. And I don't know whether Dave's client has any idea what to do in that. If there is still time to adjust those we certainly need to be doing it. Morrow: One final though along those lines, also historically in the past we kind of made it a requirement that the developer of a parcel like this that is going to border some other use make sure that the realtors and the potential buyers know that other use is out there and that it is not going to be for example residential and that they have to respect that persons right to develop as a mixed use property. Kingsford: And agricultural to that point. Corrie: I guess Mr. Mayor I have a question, evidentiy the Ada County Highway District told you Bedcy to put those particular places on the east. Where is their crystal ball, how do they know where they are supposed to be? Did they talk to Dave and Dave knows, I get confused, they tell us where yau are going to put them and then we guess. Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Corrie, Mr. Sale indicated that he foresees another collector to the east of us. And therefore he wanted to 2 points of linkage into that collector. Now, obviously you are right, they don't have any idea what is going to happen and they are guessing. So that was approximately the locations that they had wanted. Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat subject to receipt of the deed for the 4 acres and to resolution of the block length issue and ali other staff conditions. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the preliminary plat for Sundance Subdivision conditioned upon the deed to the 4 acres to the City, and to remedy the issue i Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 26 ~ with regard to block length whether it be variance or change in their plat and all other staff recommendations be met, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE HOLLOWS SUBDlVISI0IV BY BOND CAMPBELL: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Van Elg, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Elg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council this application is coming before from Bond Campbell and Shelli Caba. It is an application for 12 residential lots and as 1 unders#and it, it is the first of or at least one of the few R-3 residential developments that have occurred in the City of Meridian. I believe it is the first. The property was recently annexed into the city limits and rezoned with the R-3 designation for the specific purpose of submitting this plat. The lots are designed such that they will meet or exceed the minimum dimensional standards and the size and dimensional standards for the R-3 zone. The intent of the owner was not to push the limits or the minimum limits allowed by the R-3 zone. Rather create a pleasing or a pleasing and refreshing development for this community. The lots are all greater than 12,000 square feet in size, the minimum lot size requirement is 12,000 square feet some lots are even 19,000 square feet in size, where Mr. Campbell's house it here on this lot. We have discussed this application with both Shari Stiles and Gary and with the various agencies to ensure that the development wili comply with their requirements and to simplify the process before hand. We have also adjusted the absorption bed in compliance with ACHD's requirement right here. That is within the public right of way as required by ACHp. One other issue that we have addressed is in the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing a neighboring property owner to the east, (Inaudible) request that we adjust out lot line here. We had a stub street up a little further and I could show you that, this is the original design. We didn't show his property line here but what he ended up with is 10 or 15 feet or something of undevelopable property there with that stub street. We were willing to cooperate with him and to assist him in his development and he requested that we provide about 123 feet which we did and we adjusted that stub street. We didn't lose any lots, and the lots still compty with the requirements of the zone. The frontage requirements for these lots is 90 feet so you can tell that even though this lot is rather long and narrow but with a 90 foot frontage requirement that lot gets eaten up pretty quickly with the lot that wide. The owner intends to berm around portions of the property, there wil! be some landscaping and berming as required by Shari here along the front which we discussed with her. There wi!! ~ • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 27 be berming along this side here, we understand all of the requirements as far as tiling of the ditches and so forth and that will be done in accordance. We don't have any particular concerns with any of the requirements of any of the agencies comments that we have reviewed. We have discussed the comments with Gary Smith, the City Engineer, there were a couple of items of concern which Gary indicated were boiler plate conditions which may no# apply to this application. in any event they are there and Gary has agreed to address those with us. We are dedicating an additional right of way as required by ACHD along Ustidc Road. We are required to put in the sidewalks there. The maximum allowed density for this devetopment is 3 dwelling units per acre and with this development we are requesting roughly 2.01 dwelling units per acre. As you can see we are not pushing the limits where we could have 17 dwelling units, a density of 17 dwelling units on the site or a little over 17 where we are requesting 12. That concludes this part of the application. I guess the preliminary plat doesn't require findings Mr. Mayor, and I guess we will address the variance in the next phase. Kingsford: Any questions for Van? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, have you seen Shari Stiles comments the 3 comments she has made? Elg: Yes I have. Corrie: Do you have a problem with any of those? Elg: I did discuss the fencing requirement with Shari, the first comment, I believe it is the second or third page ofi your staff packages, the first comment is indicate centerline of Ustick Road, which we don't have any problem with, we will do that. The third is the development agreement is required as a condition of annexation that has been completed and submitted and recorded I assume, is that correct. (Inaudible) Elg: The second requirement though requires perimeter fencing prior to construction. I guess we have a little bit of concern about that but I don't' know if Mr. Campbell has considered what type of fencing he is going to put up here at this point but we would certainly be willing to work with Meridian 1 am sure. I think what we talked about was putting the berm here and perhaps putting a 3 foot fence on top of the berm. And as I understand it this fence is required prior to the issuance of a building permit and not construction of the subdivision or any of those improvements. Kingsford: The intent there is to keep the construction debris from flying around. It could be a temporary fence. ~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 28 • Elg: That could be built by each individual homeowner I assume or does the developer have to do that? Kingsford: Before they start building the house, we are concerned about the blowing debris and so to keep that confined. It could be a temporary fence but it needs to go up before the building is issued. Any other questions of Van. Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council members any questions of staff or comments. Corrie: Did I hear you correctly Shari that the development agreement has been taken care of and completed? Stiles: It has been approved by Council and the developer does have it. But I don't' know if it has been signed and recorded. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, does this require findings. Kingsford: I think so, let's take a vote on that. Any other questions of comments, anyone else want to ridicufe the Mayor? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the preliminary plat for the Hollows Subdivision subject to staff conditions. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the preliminary plat for the Hollows Subdivision conditioned upon meeting staff conditions, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE HOLLOWS SUBDIVISION BY BOND CAMPBELL: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner ar his designee to speak first. Van Elg, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was swom by the City Attomey. Elg: This variance application was submitted in delayed fashion, we submitted the plat and annexation first and processed those first. The variance was specifically delayed so that we could tag it with this application this evening to show you what is happening. The • • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 29 Meridian City ordinance 9~~5-B6 states that the maximum culdesac length for this is 450 feet. There are some very constraining due to some things that are constraining to this site, number 1 the site is very narrow and as I mentioned before in the previous hearing the 90 foot frontage requirem~nt that eats up that culdesac length rather quickly. The other thing to consider though on this application is that it makes good planning sense at this point, we have cooperated with the adjoining property owner. This culdesac is at best a temporary situation. When this stub street is connected this issue of culdesac length should no longer be an issue. I looked at a number of possibilities in redesigning this subdivision to comply with that requirement and you could probably do it but you will come up with some very awkward long flag shaped lots that aren't nearly as appealing or pleasing. And it does become very awkward and the lots would be difficult to build on in places. I am not positive that you could do it, I couldn't find any designs that really worked out well at all. The fire department has commented on this, I talked to Kenny Bowers before hand also and they don't' seem to have any problem with this. I think the comments indicate that also. I believe that is probably one of the primary concerns. Kingsford: Any questions for Van on this? Mr. Smith, the definition of block length, now beeomes my definition of culdesac length. I don't' see that as an excessive culdesac even though that is 3 dead ends to the right. Again using our intent so forth of that length what happens is that you don't have to back all the way out of the culdesac you can back into that stub street at this point. I don't see there really being a nesd for a variance. Smith: I think the variance was on the initial submittal where that stub street wasn't being provided, wasn't it Van? Elg: Yes, come to think of it. Kingsford: I really don't' see why we even need to deal with that. In that scenario possibly but what you are showing us now I don't see a need for a variance because it d+~esn't exceed that, does it? Elg: Yes, it is 580 feet to here. Kingsford: How far is it to the street? Elg: It is less than 100 feet loo~CS like, probably 80 feet from here to her~. Kingsford: ma#cing it how far then in length to that str~et? Your culdesac length then what 1,~m saying is your culdesac len~h is only from tha'~ street up there and that is only 20 r 30 feet. ~ • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 30 Elg: That is correct, the overall length of that culdesac, this lot is 97 feet wide right here. Kingsford: I just don't see a need for a variance there. I am not sure, which one of these guys in here gave you that bad information? (Discussion Inaudible) Kingsford: Well given that this is a public hearing if anyone else from the public would like to offer testimony on it we will certainly take that testimony, but I am not sure it needs a variance one way or another. Anyone else from the public that woufd like to offer testimony on this variance request? Counselor what is your recommendation, if we don't need a variance, and we already approved the preliminary plat, what is your reading, do we need findings? Crookston: If it is the Council's decision that this does not create a culdesac they do not need a variance nor do they need findings. Kingsford: It does create a culdesac but it doesn't create a culdesac in excess of 400 feet in my view, does the Council differ on that? (End of Tape) Morrow: If Shari or Gary has any comments on that concept? Kingsford: I think Shari was nodding in the affirmative with me, Gary what is your view point of it? Does it violate as it is shown here does it violate the culdesac ordinance? Smith: No, we went through this on Rock Creek where we had a stub street out to the west and I think Council ruled at that time that even though I said it was still a long culdesac the stub street to the west was still a means of breaking up the length of that culdesac with future development. That was the way it was ruled on the plat for Rock Creek and this is a similar situation with this s#ub street being pulled down from the culdesac bulb actually. And you are right Mayor then that distance woufd be from that stub street to the center of the culdesac bulb. Kingsford: So you agree with my but you resent the fact that we did that earlier. Smith: I ad agree with you and I don't think I resent it. Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I mave that we trash can the variance. Tolsma: Second ~ ~ Meridian City Councii October 18, 1994 Page 31 Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to trash can the variance, it is not needed, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Ali Yea ITEM #14: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: THE PLAYGROUND: Kingsford: Does Council have any questions of staff on that development agreement? Morrow: The only thing 1 want to make sure is that everything we have discussed has been covered by both the staff and the Counselor? Crookston: It has to my concerns. Morrow: And if there is non perFormance on the part of the other part we have some horse power by which to enforce the agreement. Kingsford: What is the position, have the Clarke's reviewed this, when was this done? Have they agreed to it, what is the status on that? Crookston: I think they submitted it to the City signed. Stiles: They did submit it signed and to pick up their building permit. Kingsford: So we are on board then with it. Is it the Council's decision to approve it? Morrow: Mr. Mayor 1 move that we approve the development agreement with the playground as written. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the development agreement for the Playground as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Does that include authority for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign. Morrow: Yes Kingsford: Is that satisfactory that those yes's came forward or do we need a motion. L~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 32 . Morrow: I inadvertently left that out of the motion Mr. Mayor. Kingsford: We can sign i# I believe Mr. Berg. ITEM #15: EXECUTIVE SESSION: DISCUSSION OF GRIEVANCE: Kingsford: At this time I would entertain a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss that grievance. Yerrington: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to go into Executive Session to discuss this grievance of an employee, personnel under ldaho Code, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea EXECUTIVE SESSION Kingsford: Let's call the meeting back to order. In Executive Session the Council dealt with a grievance at the Police Department, at this time I would entertain a motion on that grievance. Yerrington: Move fo deny Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to deny the request for a hearing on the grievance, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: QEPARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: Since they put me on there first I witl comment on the audit, I've got something here. I would like to recommend that we approve of the firm of Given, Scott and Dean again for next, Certified Public Accountants to do the municipa! audit. They have done that for a number of years, the first time they have even hinted at a request for an increase. The request is for the same amount as last year except that they have to again do an audit for grants that would be up to a maximum of $2000 additional on that. Comments on the • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 33 ~ audit? I think they have been very helpful with us. I don't' know how often Will calis probably twice a day getting an opinion on how we deal with certain things in the accounting procedures. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve of the request (inaudible) Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to approve of the appointment of Givens, Scott and Dean as our auditors for the next fiscal year, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Shari Stiles: Also one thing about the audit, that letter we got from the Department of Commerce that I forwarded onto Janice ! would like to make sure, can we get a copy of last years audit as soon as possible. Berg: When it is complete yes. Stiles: Of 93? Berg: 92-93 S#iles: 92-93 is not complete? Berg: That is correct. Stiles: When does that normally get done? Berg: Well because of the computer transfer programs she is running a little slow, but she is hopefully supposed to get it done the end of this month or the first part of next month, it is running into her schedule going to different cities and things. It is a little bit of a problem, bu# we are supposed to get that done. Stiles: We are skating on thin ice there, typically they are done the January after. Kingsford: Could we get Jo to write a letter to the Department of Commerce giving them an anticipated date they receive that because we are past due on getting that to our grants. ~J Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 34 • Stiles: What I need to talk about is all, we got a bid, one bid on removing the house at 121 East Pine, it was for $15~ he didn't specify whether he wanted $1500 or who was going to pay us $1500 so I asked him and he said oh I will pay $1500. That is what the bid is and just to get your approval to do that. Kingsford: Entertain a motion to approve the bid. Morrow: Let me understand this? Kingsford: We are going to get $1500. Stiles: You were asking for a bid for the cost to remove the thing and you got somebody who is going to pay you for it. Kingsford: They are going to pay us for that house. Morrow: I will move for approval of that baby. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the the house on Pine Street, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Mr. Smith ~~ ~!,~---- ~ , , ~j, G ' ~ G :~; ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ (~a-}..er ~Jork.s 3 ~ ~ 0 ~~` ~M ^n ercr' aX ~, Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members back in July of this yeai their present location in Boi~e wrote a letter to the City of Merid ,,.,~ ~~.~ 3~g/45~ allowed to connect the water line that was being installed in t ~4 09~ being built by Nelson MacAlvain to serve the building that ~ ~ Commercial Court. At that time the Mayor instructed me to re ~ h~ ~`~ ~ ~~ tell him that he needed to file application for annexation. 1 drop t-~ ___ __._ ,...., .~..~~ ~a„ into a pile and was covered up, subsequently I believe they corresponded, although Will didn'# have a copy of that letter they sent a copy of it August 16th requesting information about annexation of the property. 1 talked to their representative from Hubble Engineers yesterday concerning this. At the time that they originatly corresponded they were agreeable to become annexed to the City of Meridian in order to obtain city water service. I asked the representative for Pacific Water Works who is Art Stevens with Hubble Engineering to write a letter to the City of Meridian again so stating that they would like to have that water hook up and they are willing to pay the double connection fee and that • ~ Meridian Cifiy Council October 18, 1994 Page 35 they will submit an annexation request to be annexed. And they are, will be adjacent to the annexation boundaty being created by Ronald Van Auker. So I guess my request tonight would be for the Council to approve of their request to connect to the City water based upon their agreeing to become annexed at least file application for annexation and also that they are willing to pay the double assessment fee. This is a business that exists in Boise right now they are a~upplier of water and sewer pipe and valving and so forth. Morrow: I have a question, I don't' have a problem with that deal and 1 think it is to our benefit to have them located in our area. But could we not, if they are going to make a request for annexation couid~'t' we not refund half the double fee upon them being annexed, do we have to charge them the double fee since they are trying to do both things at once. Kingsford: Under our bonding ordinance we have to. Morrow: 1 understand that, but how much fee is going to be involved in this? Smith: Well the water, standard single family water assessment is 500 for a single family, I don't know in terms of fihe amount of water they would use. I don't think it would be very much, typically a business like this will have a couple of bathrooms and maybe a small kitchen area for coffee, breaks and that sort of thing, but it is generally a warehouse type facility out af which they sell these water works and sewer pipes and supplies and so forth. The water use shoutdn't be very large, at the most, I am sure they would be talking about 2 equivalents connections which would be 1000 in the city limits and outside the city limits it would be $2000. Morrow: So we are going to do it by the fixture units apply (inaudible). Smith: Qn commercial establishments we look at 3 different things when we make the assessments, one is the fixture unit demand in the building, the other item is actual record water use in a faciiity of similar size, and the third is whatever our ordinance might speak to. Then we try to make the assessment in the most equitable manner. I just can't imagine that the use would be very high or the demand would be very high. I think that if they are of a size and building construction that would require sprinkling but that would probably their major demand would be fire sprinklers and don't think their actual water use in the building would amount to very much. And of course right now they are in the process of wanting to get started on their building t believe. Rick Cummings is here from Hubble Engineering, he is are lone member in the audience and he may be able to answer any questions you might have conceming their schedule for building. But it is my understanding that they are kind of a rush. • Meridian City Councii October 18, 1994 Page 36 . Kingsford: One of the things that was my motivation Mr. Morrow initially to say be annexed and then we get the buiiding permit it is reasonable to have the single hook up and would be in both of our best interests. Logically now we probably won't see that building permit so maybe the double hook up on water isn't' totally inappropriate, you are not going to get taxes on them for a year anyway. Morrow: (Inaudible) Kingsford: If we happen to have dropped the ball we might well have had that annexation accomplished and so forth and they are going to be paying roughly for the same building permit one place or the other. If they had been in the city they would have paid less for a water hook up. What is the status with regard to sewer? Smith: The sewer would need to come down Eagle Road to serve the Van Auker development as that proceeds. Kingsford: So it is something that your client is looking at then that will hook up to that when it gets within the prescribed distance. And you are going to put in septic and drain fields at this point? And you are just basically looking at rest room facilities. Morrow: Are they applying to Ada County for a building permit as we speak? (lnaudible) Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to allow them to hook up outside the City. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of hook up of Pacific Water Works to city water with a double hook up fee, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Would you convey to your client our apotogies for fumbling that ball that we didn't respond quicker because we did talk about, we do get a little paper work here and we have no excuse. (Inaudible) ~ ~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 37 Kingsford: Counselor, did you have something you wanted to say? Crookston: The only thing that 1 have to report relates to the Magistrate's Court in Meridian as I indicated to you at the last meeting I had a discussion with Judge Schroeder. He indicated to me that we would have an order saying the City is not required to have that until October 1, of 1995. I have not to date received that order. I am just bringing you up to speed. Kingsford: Watt Morrow: No Kingsford: Max Yerrington: Yes, I would like to get the $1500 from the house to help defray the proposed Christmas tree decorations. I just wanted to get all $1500 in case I run over. Morrow: What is this a profit deal? Crookston: You have to have holiday cheer. Yerrington: The Mayor said that I should set this up and propose it because we did not budget this item. Morrow: Take it out of the Police Commissioners and Police Departments budget. Tolsma: I mentioned that earlier. Kingsford: I would entertain a motion an Max's proposat. Yerrington: I will make the motion that we do this for $1118.78. Kingsford: Less tax, I think we can get away without tax here. Yerrington: Okay, $1065.50 Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to approve of Max's project on the Christmas iights for City Hall, all those in favor? Opposed? ~ Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 38 MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yeas, 1 Yea Kingsford: Bob • Corrie: I have just one question on this legal notice of public hearings in Boise this Lee Melvin, is that in our area of impact that 28 acres? Kingsford: I gu~ss I am not familiar with that. Come: 4280 North Eagle Road, single family residents, R1 C, is that in our area of impact? Kingsford: I would assume that it would be. Does that show a map? (Discussion Inaudible) Kingsford: It would depend on whether we count that from our vote of which Mr. Morrow opposed or whether we count it on what the County has approved. If it were based on what we took out of the area of impact then it would not be in our area of impact. Corrie: So in other words that was my contention all along that it couldn't be sewered and I said it could be. Have we given it away yet? Kingsford: We voted to take that to Ada County, 3 to 1. Now the County has not accepted it from our point of view because they haven't accepted our area of impact. From their point of view they are saying that they are handling that as a separate issue. I don't think they can have it both ways. Stiles: In that meeting we had with Ted Johnson, they indicated to me that they had done by resolution taken that back but they still weren't recognizing the rest of it. Kingsford: Well, they can't do that by resolution. Stiles: That is what they claimed. I was saying how can you consider annexing this property here when it is still within our recognized area of impact according to you. They said well we did that by resolution, that piece. Morrow: So it is not in our area of impact now by resolution? Stiles: That is what they claim. Morrow: Why the hell do they send us this thing here? • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 38 Corrie: Because the other one is atso in our area of impact. Kingsford: Development services has pienty of paper. ~~ Morrow: Well the one is for a bucket of homes up to 320 acres is that the same issue, we had that one for last meeting. Stiles: That is the same thing. Tolsma: (Inaudible) talked to you about his property out there on McMitlan Road, that is west of Norm's Inn and west of the park ground the City of Boise purchased out there. Did he talk #o you Gary? Smith: Yes, that was the guy that was with Collins that day. Tolsma: Anyway he owns the property west of Norm's Inn. Kingsford: A 1/4 mile west, that is not in Boise's impact area. Tolsma: He has somebody that wants to buy his property but he wants Meridian to sign off on their impact so he can get annexed into Boise. Kingsford: That isn't going to happen because that is not in that 1/4 mile corridor. Tolsma: I told him, I was thinking he was in our area of impact. Kingsford: Just from the standpoint that the County hasn't yet accepted ours. Well maybe by resolution we ought to take that back. Do we need to haae findings on that? Stiles: 1 would like to bring up one more thing about this are~ of impact. I think it would be great if each one of you could talk the Ada County Commissioners and reiterate our feelings about that. They seem to be in the position that they may not grant that and that everything n4rth of MclVlillan would not be in the city of Meridian impact. I don't know what all is involved but part of it is based on the length of time it would take to serve that property with sewer and water. And Wayne Forrey has totd him it would be 50 years. Morrow: Part of the other problem here is that everybody talks about urban sprawl and the issue is there that if you are going to develop that stuff unorderly from #he center of Meri~iian makes the best sense to the developer. It is the last property to develop and consequently you don't have urban sprawl. What has happened by default and Gary and I have talked about potentially there are 12 or 14 thousand people in that quarter that goes • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 40 • along there and you don't get very far down that quarter then you run into legitimate statement that you have real gaod agricultural grounds and have good top soils and make reasonable, irrigate in one direction and reasonable (inaudible) as opposed to the rest of the stuff that is around here that is within a 3 or 4 mile radius of down town Meridian. I don't' think that it makes good sense to be building stuff over there in the short term at all. Ultimately the City of Boise turns south and they can go alt the way to Mexico City if they wish and this stuff out here (inaudible) develops after you develop from #he core of down town Meridian out and have everything in filled so you are not jumping over neighborhoods like you are in old north Boise with the foot hill situation and those things don't make good sense. If Wayne Forrey is right and it is 50 years so what, I guess is my feeling with respect to that. Kingsford: Well, Wayne Forrey had assured me that what he had pcepared in that Comprehensive Plan and the way the area impact was that would go to Meridian. Corrie: On their map down at the County Commissioners office there it shows it is in Meridian but that doesn't mean anything either 1 suppose. But I just won't to see us with Garden City No. 2 sitting here. Stiles: Wayne is not working on the Comprehensive Plan anymore, they have a committee and they have someone else that is completed that plan for them. Morrow: Well, Bob what you are going to get is a strip there just like Garden City if that is in fact (inaudible). Kingsford: And that is what I have conveyed to the County Commissioners numerous and they have assured me that wasn't going to happen. Stiles: They are talking January or February now before they would a~t on this area of impact and we are going to have non stop applications like this coming in. People wanting to be going in Boise's area of impact because they are not doing anything. Corrie: What are we going to do about this one, are we going to make a comment to it? Morrow: I tMink we ought to oppose it like we did the other one. Corrie: I think so too. I'm sure going to have some comments to make. Kingsford: 1 will call Mr. Bisterfeldt tomorrow and get with him a little on that. Advise him that we are thinking about doing a resolution to take back that other until we get the damn thing settled. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 41 • Corrie: (Inaudible) who is going to do this one, are you going to make a comment to him? Kingsford: Would you express for the, as the Planning Director that the City Council opposes development in that area, we view it as being in the Meridian area of impact. Crookston: Let's have a motion to that effect. Corrie: I sa move the motion. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to have Shari right a letter to the Developmental services opposing development at that site because we still view it to be as our area of impact, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTt~N CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Ron Tolsma: No Kingsford: Resolution #160, this is on the unfunded mandate week, I will just read the top line. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL UNFUNDED MANDATES WEEK, OCTOBER 24 - 30, 1994. With your approval I will send this thing along. Entertain a motion. Morrow: So moved Tofsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve Resolution #160, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTIOId CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Anything else Will Berg? The City Historian has (inaudible) to do some grant work and so forth. They need to have a Historical Preservation Commission, we have an ordinance in place to that effect dated 11-3-96, five member thing. I would like to appoint Frank Thomason to a 3 year term, Jim Shearer to a 3 year term, Lila Hill to a 2 year term and Gwen Alger to a 2 year term and Wayne Forrey to a 1 year term, entertain a motion to endorse the Mayors nomination on this. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 42 • Morrow: I have a question as to how that thing operates, the Historical Preservation Commission and what powers does that commission have? Kingsford: Well they do a variety of different things with regard to being able to get grants for historical issues. Here is the purpose as they say, the purpose of this ordinance is to promote education, cultural, economical and general welfare of the public of the City of Meridian through the identification evaluation, designation and protection of those buildings, sites, areas, structures and objects that reflect significant elements to the City, State and the Nations history, architectural, archeological and cultural heritage. This is Ordinance #471. Morrow: { have severat questions conceming that from the standpoint that I recognize that the goals of that are all noble and that is fine. The reality and the practicalitiss are that Some of those commissions are structured in such a manner that they can put a persons building on those lists or in those areas without their permission. Which radically limits the use of that property owners building from the standpoint of changing or altering the appearance of the building. It takes away the individuals right to do as he sees fit with the project. Are we creating a commission that has those powers and are we creating a situation where (inaudible). Kingsford: 1 would certainly request to you taking a look at this and visiting with those parties. My view point is that we are creating a Commission that is a lot more reasonable then ones that might be out there if you are dealing with the Federal Govemment getting on the national register. Morrow: But if you have taken grant monies from somebody you take them according to their rules. And I have to tell you from my own experience in terms of trying to work on some of those projects and buildings in many cases the property owners that have those structures don't even realize #he limitations that they have with the structure in terms of modifying or working on it. In the hindsight it turns out not to be a real good deal especially where you can create a whole street of those such as Harcison Boulevard and ur~fortunatety those who vote no still end up having to follow the rules that are in place that come up here. Kingsford: 1 would direct you to look into that and make a recommendation to the Council at the next meeting and we will sit on those nominations until next meeting. Corrie: Also 1 thi~k you need to check the State laws as well, each State is a little different. What you are referring to is exactly what happened in Colorado, those committees do have the power to take a building and say it is a historical building and you can't do anything with it. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 43 • Morrow: That has happened on Harrison Boulevard (inaudible) individual buildings in Boise that we have worked on. (Inaudible) Corrie: (Inaudible) Kingsford: What you get into and you need to look at is the Idaho Planning Act in conjunction with these and Will has all of these documents you might review and visit a little. We are obliged to have it. Morrow: I understand that, I just don't want to get into the position where we create something that is out of control and some#hing that has the capability of taking away somebody else's property rights or use rights. (Inaudible) Kingsford: It is an ordinance, you need to look at us doing away with that ordinance if you are opposed to it. And also then look at the State Code that he shows here with regard to what we have to (inaudible). I am not sure how much latitude we have there but take a look at that and teN us what kind of wiggling room we have. Crookston: The ordinance was passed in 1986. Kingsford: And the State Code was 1975, the Planning Act says you virtually have to have one, but take a look at those things Walt and give us your opinion. Visit with Wayne if you desire to, he is on board for reasonable money. Anything else that 1 need to do, that is it. Entertain a motion to adjourn. Corrie: So moved Tolsma: Second I~i~gsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CA~RIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:24 P.M. • Meridian City Council October 18, 1994 Page 44 /~PF~R4~lED: • ~` MAYOR - GI~~tT P. KI~GSF ATTf ST: ~ ~ WILL~AN! ~. ~~~~, .~R., C RK ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~ AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 4, 1994: Q,9j°r°~Q~-' 1. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: CC&R's FOR TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: ~~~rov-ed C~ey+tf!~i8~2: t+~ d~z-t ~~~ af~~~y.t~ ~o~,~+aner-r / 2. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 2 SUBDIViSiON: ~.-~'~P Gvt G~~',~i?~C~ v.e~u.~J ~ 3. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WESTDALE PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 2: ~~~ '~rv~-e ~ w/ E'~f ,/~- 4. TABLED OCTOBER 4, 1994: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: .~~ ~f ~~r-,,c~2t~~~ rie~u.ef~- 5. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: HAVEN COVE SUBDNISION NO. 5: ~~,~~„~rz~F ir~ ~h`f-/3 . 6. ORDINANCE #675 - HAVEN COVE NO. 5(TABLED OCTOBER 4,1994): -fc ~%~ 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5(TABLED): ~~~ 8. ORDINANCE #676 - PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: ~,., o~~-v ~e ~C- 9. FINAL PLAT: NAVARRO P~ACE SUBDIVISION, 36 LOTS BY THE FOUR TS: ~~ o~t~ave~ ~~rnc~,~t9-n~ vn <s'f~~~ c~v~s ~,o~o~,~a° ~' ~ . 2 s 10. FII~AL PLAT: BEDFORD PLACE SUBDMSION, 89 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORP: ~~~ro ~z d ce r:r~°i~ ~a~ pn J"~¢ C~rn~T 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION BY G.L. VOIGT: G~`~' y e va2.. ~3-~.e~'. ~uu,t ,~h-e.e:~.,~~ i7,{~~- C',c'v~.c~. ~'i ~f' i 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE HOLLOWS SUBDIVISION BY BOND CAMPBELL: -'"~`~ ~'-~`~'-`~' ~.~ /~~G'~~ Y~vrL L°a~r,, a~i~'i~2~ 6~~- _ ~,~t'-`'~li_..~-~~,r~h vati~ks~c~ " , ~~ recrrw~,..va.ef~~Jra.~ 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE HOLLOti~ SUBDIVISION BY BOND CAMPBELL: ri~.a~..~ /~~ ~,~~~e~..r 14. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: THE PLAYGROUND: ~„~~,r~ V e~ 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: DISCUSSION OF GRIEVANCE: ~ 0,~~,,~,-,_ ~ { ~ rrevcc~-<<.e~ 16. DEPARTMENT REP~RTS: A. MAYOR KINGSFORD: 1. 1993-94 FY AUDIT 5y Fi~b[~~Sco/t ~~ean -~~~'/b~~~' B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING DIRECTOR: 1. REMOVE HOUSE AT 121 E. PINE - AWARD BID -~PPYo~'e~ ~ HU~ OF TR~a~~4~~E iIALLEY 0 C~ 1 g i~~~ ~ ~ . 33 EAST IDAHO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN, IDAHO S3C~2 ~,:i ~ Y vi~ iWi~~g~l~i,wf'+ PUBLIC 1-~EETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ~=---------------------------- ~ ~F~--- ~~S-2c~~ ---~-'~- ~ <~----~wl '~-~--'~h-~i~ / ----------------------------~~-~Z - ~ ~-~- ~----------------- OC1~ 1 8 i~J~ ,..._ . ~+i ~ `~' tt~' i~y~~~si,'~itii'~ ' NAME: - CITY OF ME f ~ ~UB OF TREASURE VALLEY 33 EAST IDAHO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN, IDAHO H3C'~Z PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET PHONE NUMBER: f '- s~ ~ ~ ORDINANCE NO.~CD AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ADOPTING TITLE IV, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4-101, TIME AND PLACE OF PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING5, OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO PROVIDE THAT THE MEETING SHALL BE HELD ON THE 2ND TUESDAY OF THE MONTH AND IN THE EVENT A PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING FALLS ON A. HOLIDAY OR TUESDAY ON WHICH A CITY OR GENERAL ELECTION IS HELD, THE ~ MEETING SHALL NOT BE HELD ON THAT TUESDAY BUT SHALL BE HELD ON THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, State of Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of the said City to adopt a new Title IV, Chapter 1, Planning and Zoning Commission, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian to provide that where a regular Planning Zoning Commission meeting is scheduled on a Tuesday in November that is a City Council or General election day the Council meeting shall not be held on that Tuesday but shall be held on the following Wednesday. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: SECTION 1: That Title IV, Chapter 1, Section 4-101 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian is hereby adopted and which shall read as follows: 4-101 TIME AND PLACE OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: The regular meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission if the City of Meridian shall be held at the Meridian City Hall at 33 East Idaho Street, by the Chairman and Planning and Zoning Commission members on the 2nd Tuesday of each month at Seven-Thirty (7:30) o'clock p.m. of said days. If the said 2nd Tuesday of any month is a holiday or a City or General Election Day the meeting shall not be held on that Tuesady but shall be held the following Wednesday at the same hour and place. ~ ~ ~ SECTION 2: EFFECTIVE DATE: WHEREAS, there is an emergency therefor, which emergency is declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication according to law. PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of October, 1994. CITY OF MERIDIAN , BY: T P. KINGSF D, OR ATTEST: ,%,e~~,~ , . WILLIAM G. BERG, JR , ITY CLERK ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 160 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR A NATiONAL UNFUNDED MANDATES WEEK, OCTOBER 24 - 30, 1994. WHEREAS, unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments have increased significantly in recent years; WHEREAS, federal mandates require cities and counties to perform duties without consideration of local circumstances, costs, or capacity, and subject municipalities to civil or criminal penalties for noncompiiance; WHEREAS, federal mandates require compliance regardless of other pressing local needs and affecting the health, welfare, and safety of municipal citizens; WHEREAS, excessive federal burdens on local governments force some combination of higher local taxes and fees and/or reduced local services on citizens and local taxpayers; WHEREAS, #ederat mandates are too often inflexible, one-size-fits-all requirements that impose unrealistic time frames and specify procedures of facilities where less costly altematives might be just as effective; WHEREAS, existing mandates impose harsh pressures on local budgets and the federal government has imposed a freeze upon funding to help compensate for any new mandates; WHEREAS, the cumulative impact of these legislative and regulatory actions directly affect the citizens of our cities and counties; and WHEREAS, there is a continuing national public education campaign to help citizens understand and then reduce the burden and inflexibility of unfunded mandates, including a National Unfunded Mandates Week, October 24 - 30, 1994; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City of Meridian, Idaho endorses the efforts of the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties and supports working with NLC and NACo to fully inform our citizens about the impact of federal mandate on our government and the pocketbooks of our citizens; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Meridian, Idaho endorses organizing and participation in events during the week of October 24, 30, 1994; and finally ~ ~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Meridian, Idaho resolves to continue our efforts to work with members of our Congressional delegation to educate them about the impact of federal mandates and actions necessary to reduce their burden on our citizens. APPROVED: r MAYOR - GRANT P. IN S ATTEST: ~`~~~~~~ ~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK ~ ~ 2- Banners @ $325.00 ea. (Artech) _ $ 650.00 Material for tree (Tolsma) _ $ 200.00 21- Lights (25') $5.50 ea (Coast to Coast) _ $ 115.50 Min. e~rtra wiring = 0 00 $1065.50 5% Tax 53•2g $1118.78 ~~~ ~~~~~~ OFFICIALS WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurar GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BIIL" CaORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney MEMORA.NDUM TO: Mayor and Council ~~~~~ FROM: ~les, Plamm~g & • HUB OFTREASURE VALLEY • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887~813 Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor Zoning Administrator DATE: October 18, 1994 SUBJECT: Development Agreements COUNCIL MEMBERS AONALD R. TOLSMA MAk YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WALT W. MORROW SHARI STILES Planner 8 2oning Administrator JIM JOHNSON C~airman - Planning 8 Zoning Before the City Council tonight are development agreements for Tuthill Estates Subdivision No. 2, Westdale Park Subdivision No. 2, Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5, Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5, and The Playground. The engineer for Tuthill Estates and Waterbury Park has requested the agreements be tabled. The Playground has been reviewed repeatedly by Wayne Crookston and me. The main portion of each development agreement has remained essentially the same as previously presented to you, with some minor changes due to our review. The "B" Exhibits, dealing with more site-specific information, are attached for your review and approval. Wayne Crookston and I have reviewed all of these agreements at this time. Apparently, the developer of Tuthill Estates is going to take issue with the requirements for pressurized irrigadon and a bike path along Nine Mile Creek; the developer of Waterbury Park may take issue with the requirement for access to the John Sanford property. • . EXHIBIT "B" TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AND LAKE JENNINGS VISTA This subdivision is for 4Q single-family dwelling units with an overall density of 41 dwelling units per acre. The DEVELOPER shall: 1. Tile all ditches, canals and waterways, including those that are property boundaries or only partially located on the property. 2. Extend and construct water and sewer line extensions to serve the property and connect to Meridian water and sewer lines. 3. Construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks and streets to and within the property. 4. Pay any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the CITY. 5. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the CITY. 6. Construct and install pressurized 'urigation to all lots within this subdivision, with evidence of approvals from appropriate irrigation district/canal company and downstream water users submitted to the City. 7. Provide perimeter fencing except where such requirement has been waived in writing by the City. 8. Provide pedestrian walkways in accordance with Meridian City Ordinance 11-9-605 C. 9. Provide for pedestrian/bike path along Nine Mile Creek Drain. 10. Not encroach the easement along the Nine Mile Drain (50' from centerline) with fences or other structures; provide a non-combustible fence along the Nine Mile Drain outside of this easement prior to building construction. 11. Provide a permanent fifteen-foot (15') sewer easement within Common Lot 18 which shall be paved in accordance with City of Meridian Public Works Department Standards. EXHIBIT "B" Rev. 10/ 18/94 TUTHILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 1 of 1 • . EXHIBIT "B" TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AND MAX A. BOESIGER. INC. This subdivision is for ~8 single-family dwelling units with an overall density of ~ dwelling units per acre. The DEVELOPER shall: 1. Tile all ditches, canals and waterways, including those that are property boundaries or only partially located on the property. 2. Extend and construct water and sewer line extensions to serve the property and connect to Meridian water and sewer lines. 3. Construct curbs, gvtters, sidewalks and streets to and within the property. 4. Dedicate the necessary land for the future extension of East Pine Avenue, including any necessary bike lanes. 5. Pay any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the CITY. 6. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the CITY. 7. Construct a twenry-foot (20') landscaped strip along the future East Pine Avenue extension to be maintained by the Homeowners Association; Developer shall bond or provide a surety to the homeowner's association for construction of these improvements at such a time as East Pine Avenue is improved. 8. Construct and install pressurized irrigation to all lots within this subdivision, with evidence of approvals from appropriate irrigation district/canal company and downstream water users submitted to the City. 9. Provide perimeter fencing along the west, north and southerly properiy boundaries prior to obtaining building permits. 10. Provide pedestrian walkways in accordance with Meridian City Ordinance 11-9-605 C. EXHIBIT "B" Rev. 10/18/94 WESTDALE PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 1 of 1 ~ . EXHIBIT "B" TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AND C'APITAL DEVELOPMENT. Inc. This subdivision is for 46 single-family dwelling units, minimum house size of 1,400 square feet, with an overall density of ~ dwelling units per acre. The DEVELOPER shall: 1. Tile all ditches, canals and waterways, including those that are property boundaries or only partially located on the properiy, with approval of appropriate irrigation district and coordination with downstream water users to ensure irrigation systems are not interfered with and that all adjoining properties receive the water that they received prior to development. 2. Extend and construct water and sewer line extensions to serve the property and connect to Meridian water and sewer lines. 3. Construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks and streets to and within the properry. 4. Dedicate the necessary land for public right-of-way. 5. Pay any development, impact or transfer fee adopted by the CITY. 6. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the CITY. 7. Provide all common areas as represented to be maintained by the Waterbury Park Subdivision Homeowners Association. 8. Construct and insta.ll pressurized inigation to all lots within this subdivision, with evidence of approvals from appropriate irrigation district/canal company and downstream water users submitted to the City. 9. Provide perimeter fencing prior to obtaining building permits unless this requirement has been specifically waived in writing by the City; Five Mile Creek shall be fenced with non-combustible fencing outside of existing easements and/or rights-of-way. 10. Provide pedestrian walkways in accordance with Meridian City Ordinance 11-9-605 C. 11. Provide bike paths along Five Mile Creek and the South Slough in accordance with Meridian City Ordinance 11-9-605 L. and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. EXHIBIT "B" Rev. 10/18/94 WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 1 of 2 r~ ~.~ r~ u 12. Provide a gravel access road in accordance with City of Meridian Standards above the existing 21-inch sewer trunk line parallel to the Creason Lateral. 13. Provide access for lands owned by John Sanford. 14. Provide a determination of groundwater level and subsurface soil conditions, with report submitted to the City Engineer. EXHIBIT "B" Rev. 10/18/94 WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2 • . EXHIBIT "B" TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AND I~ITERWEST DEVELOPMENT This subdivision is for 74 single-family dwelling units with an overall density of ~,7 dwelling units per acre. The DEVELOPER shall: 1. Tile all ditches, canals and waterways, including those that are property boundaries or only partially located on the property. 2. Extend and construct water and sewer line extensions to serve the properry and connect to Meridian water and sewer lines. 3. Construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks and streets to and within the property. 4. Dedicate the necessary land from the centerline of Pine Avenue for public right-of-way, including necessary bike lanes. 5. Pay any development, impact or transfer fee adopted by the CITY. 6. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the CITY. 7. Provide a twenty-foot (20') landscaped strip along Pine Avenue to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. 8. Construct and install pressurized irrigation to all lots within this subdivision, with evidence of approvals from appropriate irrigation district/canal company and downstream water users submitted to the City. 9. Provide perimeter fencing, except where such requirement has been waived in writing by the City, prior to obtaining building permits. 10. Provide pedesirian walkways in accordance with Meridian City Ordinance 11-9-605 C. 11. Reserve Lot 41, Block 1 for a sanitary sewer lot as well as a pedestrian/bike path which shall be fenced on both sides and surfaced in accordance with City of Meridian Public Works Department Standards. EXHIBIT "B" Rev. 10/18/94 HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 1 of 2 • . 12. Provide a temporary turnaround on Lot 36, Block l, undl such time as a future road is placed to connect. EXHIBIT "B" Rev. 10/18/94 HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2 • • EXHIBIT "B" TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AND INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT This subdivision is for 74 single-family dwelling units with an overall density of ~7 dwelling units per acre. The DEVELOPER shall: l. Tile all ditches, canals and waterways, including those that are property boundaries or only partially located on the property. 2. Extend and construct water and sewer line extensions to serve the property and connect to Meridian water and sewer lines. 3. Construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks and streets to and within the property. 4. Dedicate the necessary land from the centerline of Pine Avenue for public right-of-way, including necessary bike lanes. 5. Pay any development, impact or transfer fee adopted by the CITY. 6. Meet the requuements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the CITY. 7. Provide a twenty-foot (20') landscaped strip along Pine Avenue to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. 8. Construct and install pressurized irrigation to all lots within this subdivision, with evidence of approvals from appropriate irrigation district/canal company and downstream water users submitted to the City. 9. Provide perimeter fencing, except where such requirement has been waived in writing by the City, prior to obtaining building permits. 10. Provide pedestrian walkways in accordance with Meridian City Ordinance 11-9-605 C. 11. Reserve Lot 41, Block 1 for a sanitary sewer lot as well as a pedestrian/bike path which shall be fenced on both sides and surfaced in accordance with City of Meridian Public Works Department Standards. EXHIBIT "B" Rev. 10/ 18/94 HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 1 of 2 . ~ 12. Provtde a temporary turnaround on Lot 36, Block 1, until such dme as a future road is placed to connect. EXHIBIT "B" Rev. 10/18/94 HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2