The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994 08-16• ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 2, 1994: (APPROVED) TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETfNG: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH KEN HAMILTON PRESENTATIONS: (MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO NEGOTIATE LEASE AGREEMENT) ~. TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING: LID ORDINANCE - GLENFIELD DITCH: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE) 3. TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING: LID ORDINANCE DOWNTOWN PHASE 2 (CITY ATTURNEY TO PREPARE) 4. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVSION: (APPROVEDj 5. ORDiNANCE #665 - ST. LUKE'S/ THOMAS/ C-G: (APPROVED) 6. ORDINANCE #666 - ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISIONf ANNEXATION: (TABLED UNT{L SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) 7. ORDINANCE #667 - CLEAN AIR ORDINANCE: (APPROVED) 8. ORDINANCE #668 - BRIGHTON ANNEXATION/ BEDFORD PLACE: (APPROVED) 9. RESOLUTION #158 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (APPROVED) 10. PRELfMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION (TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING): (APPROVED) 11. FINAL PLAT: KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION, 20 LOTS BY D.J. INVESTMENTS: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 12. FINAL PLAT: HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 2, 10 LOTS BY WILLIAM HON: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 13. FINAL PLAT: THE LANDING SUBDIVISION NO. 8, 303 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE CORPORATION: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) ~ ~ 14. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR W.H. M04RE COMPANY: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD BY GREENS SUBDIVISION BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) 16. PUBLIC HEARiNG: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: (CiTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATfON AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT ~OR HARTFORD SUBDIVISIqN BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AIVD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE; TABLE PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL SEPTEMBER fi, 1994) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FdR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE HQI.L~WS BY BOND CAMpBELL:(APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUStONS OF LAW; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR NEB-i COMPANY BY BILL GEYER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) 21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONlNG WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISI4N NO. 5 BY RAMON YORGASON: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARf FINDINGS OF FACt AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 22. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR JOSEPH AND MARY daROSA: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONC~USIONS OF LAW) 23. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RED CANYON CORPORATION: (APPROVE F~NDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) . ~ 24. PRELIMINARY/ FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PA~RK: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 25. STUBBLEFIE~D CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FOR TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISON: (TABLED UIVTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1994j 26. KEITH HOLLOWAY: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION ON ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PINE BLUFF'S: (APPROVE; CITY CLERK TO DRAFT LETTER) 27. DON BRYAN: WATER PROBLEM CONCERNING DOVE MEADOWS AND WIIVGATE PLACE DEVELOPMENTS: (AUTHORIZE STAFF TO HOLD BUILDING PERMITS AND OCCUPANCY CERTiFtCATES UNTtL RESOLVED) 28. THOMAS BEVAN: APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE: (APPROVED) 29. THOMAS BEVAN: APPLiCATION FQR A BEER AND WINE LICENSE TRANSFER: (APPROVEDj 30. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR FAWCETT'S MEADOWS NO. 1: (APPROVED) 31. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: EXECUTIVE SESSION: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT FOR BOItER REPLACEMENT: (APPROVED) 2. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE tNTO SEWER: B. SHARI STILES, PLANNWG DIRECTOR: 1. BW, INC. - REZONE ORDINANCE #669: (ApPROVED) C. WALT MORROW, COUNCILMAN 1. ELK RUN SUBDIVlSIONS '1 AND 2: (AUTHORIZE STAFF TO WITH4LD BUILDING PERMItS AND O~CCUPANCY CERTtFICATES UNTIL TILING OR FENCING PROBLEM IS RESOLVED) ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUN,.~IL AUGUST 96, 1994 The regufar meeting of the Meridian City Councif was called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7;30 P.M.: Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Bob Corrie, Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington: Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Bill Musser, LaWanna Niemann, Rick Willis, Fred Mack, Barry Blessin, Delta Holloway, Keith Holloway, Barry and Janet Hir~kle, Mike McGowr~, Craig Shepard, Ray Wilder, Janet Thelder, Jeff Hull, Dan Alderson, Walter Casey, Ronald Thomas, Winston Moore, John Schafer, Joseph and Mary and Manny daRosa, Joe Simunich, Wayne Forrey, Mike Shrewsberry, John Stubblefield, Becky Bowcutt, Ed Slagle, Gary Blessin, Dave Roylance, Mike Wardle, Jim Merkle, Bond Campbell, Gary Fletcher, John Sandford, Gene Smith, Larry Sales, Don Bryan: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 2, 1994: Kingsford: Are there any corrections ta those minutes? Entertain a motion for their approval. Morrow. So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt second by Max to approve of the August 2nd minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTtON CARRIED: Ali Yea Kingsfard: First item on the agenda I would like to take just a minute or 2 to make an acknowledgement when we re-did our Comprehensive Plan iast year in September it was approved and a great deal of work went into that, Those of you that have reviewed that document will see that the cover is acknowledging the Comprehensive Plan update dedicated to Jack and LaWanna Niemann. At this time t would like to give LaWanna littfe framed item here and also the first Camprehensive Plan. Niemann: That is really nice, I didn't know what you were up #o. (Inaudible) tTEM #1: TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH KEN HAMILTON PRESENTATION: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I vwuid like to, I think this is something that can be handled within the ~ Meridian C+ty Council August 16, 1994 Page 2 • staff and to clear it off of our agenda. I think I would like to move that subject to acceptance by the C+ty Attorney, yourself and the City Clerk that the Council authorize you and the City Clerk to sign that lease when it is in its proper format. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to allow the Mayor and City Clerk and City Attomey to negotiate and approve the lease with Ken Hamilton Presentation, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea lTEM #2: TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETlNG: L!D ORDINANCE - GLENFIELD DITCH: ITEM #3: TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING: LID ORDINANCE - DOWNTOWN PHASE 2: Kingsford: Those things have some work yet to be done, at the suggestion of the City Attorney I would like to suggest to the Council that we grant Wayne Crookston approval to proceed with those documents and get them up to speed for your approval. Morrow. So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney get those documents up to speed for our approval, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Has the Council had an opportunity to review those? Is there a motion for their approval? Yerrington: I make a motion for their approval. Tolsma: Second ~ , Meridian City Council August 16, 9 994 Page 3 Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Bedford Place Subdivision, roll call vote. ROLL. CALL VOTE: Morrow - Nea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: 1 NEA, 3 YEAS ITEM #5: ORDiNANCE #665 - ST. LUKE'S / THOMAS/ C-G: Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE C1TY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH tS DESCRIBED AS THAT PORTION OF LAND LOCATED IN THE W 1/2 SE 1/4 SECTION 17, T.3N, R.1 E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like Ordinance #665 read in its entirety? I would entertain a motion on Ordinance #665. Morrow. Mr. Mayor I w~ould mpve that w~e approve Ordinance #665 with suspension of the rules. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve Ordinance #665 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6; ORDINANCE #666 - ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION/ ANNEXATION: Kingsford: Counselor, would you make any comments on that? Crookston: The recommendation of the Council was to prepare the ordinance and to have it ready to be passed if the golf caurse property had been deeded to the City of Meridian. i am not aware that has been done? Kingsford: Has that happened Mr. Clerk? Berg: No Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table ordinance #666 until such time as that deed comes to the City of Meridian. ~ ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 4 Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table Ordinance #666 Ashford Greens Subdivision annexation until receipt of deed to golf course property, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #667 - CLEAN AIR ORDINANCE: Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER TO BE KNOWN AS THE CLEAN AIR ORDfNANCES ~F THE CITY OF MERtDIAN TO PROVIDE FOR CLEAN AIR INCLUDING SHORT TITLE, AUTHORtTY AND PURPOSE, APPLICABILITY, DEFINITIONS, AIR QUALITY DESIGNATlONS AND ALERT CRITERIA, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, BURNING SOLID FUEL OR REFUSE, AIR QUALITY ALERT EXEMPTIONS, MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CLEAN BURNING APPLIANCES, APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER AND PENALTY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that wnuld like to have Ordinance #667 read in its entirety? I would ask Wayne to make a brief ana(ysis of that basically it provides for the same thing as the County and City of Boise has, is that correct? Crookston: Yes, basically it provides that when the Department of Environmental Quality issues a warning to tF~at effect then the City can pass a resolution or just an immediate thing where no burning is allowed in home heating, wood stoves whether they are pellet or whatever kind they are unless that is the only heating device that the home has. Kingsford: Is there a motion? Yerrington: I move far its approval with suspension of the rules for #667. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve Ordinance #667 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VQTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA ITEM #668 - BRtGHTON ANNEXATION/ BEDFORD PLACE: • • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 5 Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CtTY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REA~ PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS GOVERNMENT LpT 3 IN SECTION 6, T.3N, R.1E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance #668 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I don't have it. Kingsford: Were those distributed? Berg: Yes Kingsford: Was it not in your packet Bob? Corrie: No, I am looking it over here. I move that we apprave Ordinance #668 wi#h suspension of the rules. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve Ordinance #668 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Nea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: I Nea, 3 Yeas Crookston: This is an ordinance that was changed and I have just reviewed the copy that Mr. Morrow had and the copy that he had is not the most recent change. Corrie: Which one do you have? Kingsford: It should be the one that reflect the 1400 square feet, that is the document that 1 had. The record should note that the 1400 square foot is the most recent copy that the Council received. ITEM #9: RESOLUTION #158 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Kingsford: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNGL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ESTABLlSHlNG THAT ALL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN INVOLVED IN ZONING AND SUBDtVISION AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR; AND PROVIDING AN • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 6 ~ EFFECTIVE DATE. Is the Council prepared to act on Resolution #158? Morrow. IVIr. Mayor, I would move that vve adopt Resolution #158. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Watt, second by Ron to approve o# adopting Resolution #158, afl those in favor? Opposed? MOTIQN CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION (TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING): Kingsford: The major reason for tabling those you couldn't approve it until annexation, was there additionat items that you remember Counselor'? Crookston: There was the question of the R-8. Kingsford: But at the last meeting that was basically (inaudible). Any questions of the Council? Tolsma: I w~auld move that w~e approve the preliminary plat for Bedford Place Subdivision. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the preliminary plat of Bed#ord Place Subdivision all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 TO 9, COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED NEA ITEM #11: FINl~tL PLAT: KlNG STREET STATION SUBDIVISION, 20 LOTS BY D.J. INVESTMENTS: Kingsford: Daes Council have any questions on the final plat for King Street Station? Morrow: Is there someone here that represents King Street Station? Kingsford: Yes, Becky would you come forward and answer Mr. Morrow's questions please. • ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 6 EFFECTIVE DATE. ls the Councii prepared to act on Resolution #158? Morrow. 1111r. Mayor, I would move that we adopt Resolution #158. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Wait, second by Ron to approve of adopting Resolution #158, ali those in favor'? Opposed? MOTI~N CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION (TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING): Kingsford: The major reason for tabling those yo Se ~ dn't approve it until annexation, was there additionaf items that you remember Coun Crookston: There was the question of the R-8. Kingsford: But at the last meeting that was basically (inaudible). Any questions of the Council? Tolsma: I w+ould move that w~e approve the preliminary plat for Bedford Place Subdivision. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max~o approve the preliminary plat of Bed#ord Place Subdtiv~s~on all those in favor? Opposed . MOTION CARRIED: 3 TO 1, COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED NEA ITEM #11: FINAL PLAT: KING STREET STATION SUBDIVISION, 20 LOTS BY D.J. INVESTMENTS: Kingsford: Does Councii have any questions on the final plat for King Street Station? Morrow. Is there someone here that represents King Street Station? Kingsford: Yes, Becky would you come forward and answer Mr. MorrovJs questions please. • • M~ridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page i Morrow. I would like her to make a small presentation to review us with that and then. Bowcut: This is the final plat for King Street Station, to refresh your memory it is a town house d~sign, it is in the Old Town zone. It is a parcel that is basically an infill property that is developed all the way around it with variaus mixed uses ranging from Commercial residential, and to semi-industrial acrass the street. We were proposing to do a pad on each individual tawn house and then provide parking, 2 spaces per unit on the s'rte. This is a drawing here that was the preliminary, they have patios off the the rear. They afso, w~ provided internal pedestrian sidewalks, central water, central sewer. We are proposing private driveways which is what will be utilized to access the development. It does abut William Street, ACHD has requested that we make some improvements on William Street basically extending the pavement. It is ~sphalt for a few hundred feet and then it turns to gravel. We have also been working with adjoing property owners, Mr. Forrey owns I think a parcel there. We have worked with him to put some additional curbing along William Street. We will interconnect Williams but w~e are doing so in such a manner that would not promote traffic to exit Williams but will promote traffic to exit out King Street. We will not have any direct access to Meridian Road that vvould be vertical curb at the end of the driveway right at this point right here, that will be vertical curb so that there will be no access onto Meridian road. That is basically in compliance with Ada County Highway District. We provided a conditional use, landscaping plan, elevations, we had some colored renderings that we presented to the Council. We v~nere also required to submit a variance on these zero lot lines because your code does not provide for zero lot line development. 1 believe some of the questions were asked originally concerning the driveway area to bring that up to the Meridian standard of 25 feet we were at 24, we did so. All of our parking spaces meet Meridian's standards. We meet fire district requirements of 20 feet separation betvu~en structures. t noticed the few comments made by Mr. Freckletpn, they are pretty standard. We did provide this information, pos~ibly it didn't reach him. Item 9 discussing the mixture betw~een ACHD storm drainage and private storm drainage our note on the plat references the drainage is the responsibility of the homeowners associatton. In fact there is one lot which encompasses all common areas, parking and a private driveway which will be blanket perpetuat easement which will run with the land. Storm drainage will be a responsibility of the homeowners association but we do like to put a comment that ACHD does have the right for emergency maintenance in the case of some particular problem. Item 7 is I think the only one of concern that I have addressing 10 foot off set from Meridian Road. Right now, the way she has it drawn, ACHD has asked for a substantial amount of right of way, v~ had to give additional I think 40 feet from centerline and then taper to the intersection which is a 45 feet from centerline up through here. This property does not have a lot of depth so we were close to the edge of right of way here. Mr. Freckleton vu~uld like to see at I~ast a 10 foot separation. I could possibly slide the building in this direction, but I am not sure I can make 10 feet and still keep this section here for walkways and sidewalks, but 1 can work with it. The Old Town • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 8 • zone it was my understanding did not have applicabte set backs, we referred to the Meridian Fire Department far standard uniform fire code setbacks, so 1 am not sure how the 10 foot arose. The preliminary plans submitted originally did not have a 10 separation between the edge of right of way and that structure. But I can do some adjustment. Do you have any other questions? Kingsford: Any other questions for Ms. Bowcut? Corrie: 1 assume you are going to move it back 10 feet? Bowcut: I am going to attempt to do so, I hope that I can, I've got to maintain a certain depth on tt~ose parking areas. And then I can possibly, it looks like we've got a little bit of leeway in here to do some shifting. If I may approach, this is the problematic area through here. We try to keep a specific separation between the sidewraJk area and the structure, but obviously this would be better to shift it this way and open this area up. I may have to reduce this a little bit, but see I've got a set distance here that is required under your cade for parking slots. And then a 25 foot through here. Kingsford: C3ther questions of the Council? I might say Becky, how come that long of a delay between the preliminary and to date. I remember hearing that quite some long time ago. Bow~cut: BasicaNy some decisions were made, waiting on the client, they are out of town and then back log at that time. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council for Becky or staff? Morrow. Maybe Gary can comment on #he 10 foot setback, is there any flexibility there? Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, we weren't sure of the setback requirements as far as the ordinance was concemed because the way these lots are laid out they are actually building lines as 1 understand it, is that correct? Bowcutt: Those are the pads where the line reflects yes. Smith: And some of these buildings have their backs apparently towards Meridian Road, some of them will have their sides toward Meridian Road. And the setback thing was kind of a question that we had, it appeared to us that there needed to be some setback from the property line since it is in Old Town 1 don't know how applicable that is. We raised the question as to whether or not that needed to be addressed. I think Becky has indicated that she will try and move those bui~dings as much as possible away from that property ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 9 line. ~ Morrow. I guess my question here would be is that you can move the building reasonably close to the sidewalk, but if you get the building right up against the sidewalk on the interior then you have people running into th~ building from the sidewalk so it seems to be like there is a little bit of a balance that can be struck there so it works both ways. Bowcutt: Mr. Mayor, if ! might comment we will be g)ad to work with Gary and his staff to try and come up with something that is comparable. Like I said according to Mr. Forrey who was at that time the acting Zoning Director he indicated that there was no applicable setbacks other than your standard betw~een building setbacks under the uniform fire code. So we were kind of questioned, that is unusual we weren't sure what to do in that case either. Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? The motion ought to include then consideration if that is your desire of moving that back 10 feet or as much as possible. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat for King Street Station subject to staff conditions and the adjustment of the setback to reflect a workable solution. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the final plat of King Street Station subject to staff approval and the effart to make the setback satisfactory to staff, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea iTEM #12: FINAL PLAT: HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 2, 10 LOTS BY WILLIAM HON: Kingsford: Does Council have any questions for either the developer or staff? Morrow: I think a brief presentation would be appropriate conceming that. Kingsford: Is the developer present or his representative? Bowcutt: Honor Park No. 2 is the second phase of a project that came through here a couple of years ago called I-84 Business Park. It has gone through multiple names, it was I-84 Business Park and Norris Park and now Honor Park. I believe this is a commercial subdivision located adjacent to Story Park and the water tower. The only outstanding . • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 10 issues I think is one the discussion concerning the easement, v~uld be item 12, the full 3p foot width access easement to the park. 1 talked with Mr. Hon before I came this evening, we did (inaudible) a letter, l don't know if that letter got to Council but it was with the final plat packet. I will first begin with this project even though if is commercial and was subjected to the well development fee in lieu of individual lot irrigation. Mr. Hon wanted me to state that in the 70's when he dealt with Mayor Story at the time the City approached him to obtain the parcel in which the water tower currently resides. Mr. Hon basically donated the property to the City of Meridian and Mayor Story at that time said we think this is great we appreciate it and when you get ready to develop the property if there is anything we can do let us know, we will remember this. Obviously the property didn't develop in the 70's when the recession hit and it happened in the 90's. Mr. Hon also indicated that the ball fields at the park were sotd to the City at a cost of $1500 per acre which is exactly what he paid for the property. And then he feels that the City by imposing #he wel! development fee on him for these commercial lots is kind of inappropriate when at the same time based on the history of the parcel and then at the same time the City is asking for the 30 foot ~asement. He has never been opposed to the easement and I think stated that in the public hearing on the preliminary plat that v~e v~ould be wilting to w~ork with the City to provide and easement. t think they have asked us to ~hift that easement over so it doesn't center the lot line. He is not opposed to that but he said obviously there is a value in the easement and I guess he feels that he is getting the double whammy here asking to grant an easement and then in turn pay these well development fees when in that particular area he has done quite a bit for the City of Meridian. He has indicated that the property has a value of $2.50 per square foot, if you calculate that out for that 30 foot easement that is $15,375. We show that easement on the plat and it goes to the Ada County Engineer, his opinion on public access easements is the fact that when we record the plat the property will be dedicated to the City of Meridian unless we put the easement on after the plat is recorded by way of granting the easement through a deed. We went through this with the City of Eagle and the green belt public easement. There is a section in the Idaho Code addressing public easements and it is a dedication at time of recording. So the City of Meridian, if w~e have to put that on there would end up with that 30 feet. So I am not sure if the City wants to own that of if they prefer ~ust an easement and then maintenance. I am not sure if those details have been finalized at this time. Any comments or questions. Kingsford: I think w~e just want to get to the water tower any time we want to. Thoughts on that Counselor? Crookston: I am not familiar with that statute about the deeding. Bowcutt: It is in the Idaho Code under plats, Title 50. ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 11 Crookston: 50-13 Bowcutt: (Inaudible} and that has been Joan Priester's interpretation of that section. That it constitutes a dedication even though it is listed as an easement unless v~e put private, like a private easement for just users of the commercial park. Kingsford: Mr. Smith, do you have a preference whether it be deeded to the City or whether it be an easement? (Inaudible) Kingsford: I think some consideration ought to be given to the access and fiencing or perhaps something to it. We wnuld certainly be in need of fencing that access easement. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members first of all I want to extend to Ron Hon and Bill Hon the City's appreciation of working with them both in the past on numerous projects, we appreciate their attitudeg and their help. When we started this subdivision, Honor Park subdivision the number 1 plat Bill Hon, Ron and myself and their engineer Stan McHutchinson met here at City Hall to discuss the access into the park from this side. It was my concern that with the projected development of the space that is presently used as a staging area for Ken Hamiiton ifi the track, something changes out at the track that the City woould be intent on developing the rest of that prop~rty as park ground that we v~ould need access from that side rather than have people drive completely through the park to get to the south end. And that was the reason for my proposal to Mr. Hon at the time. They were agreeable then to provide an easement and in fact in the #1 subdivision that started out with an easement an access easement along the bank of the Eight Mile Lateral after it was drafted in place some changes were made and it was decided it may not be appropriate to have it at that location and that we could move it into the #2 subdivision. Ar~d so I agreed to that and that is fine we would move it onto the east and still provide us access into the south end of the park. And that was the reason for the request at this time to get that easement established. Whether we own it or whether it is part of the lot I don't think it matters to me. I agree with the Mayor it needs to be fenced so that people know, I think it should be fenced so that people know that it is an access and w~e don't have future problems in maintaining the access by perhaps someone building over it before we get to the point where we need it. Timing is a question of course it always is. But I do want to emphasize our need for the access easement. And both Bill and Ron Hon had agreed that was something that could happen. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, Gary, Kenny the Fire Chief had a comment about this park access, is it going to be drivable for a fire truck, is that apropos at this time for that kind of a question since we are talking about access later? • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 12 • Smith: The access if it is provided next week for example wouldn't go anywhere. It would go into the park's south boundary which is a grass area. I have talked to ~ouncilman Tolsma in the past and vu~ felt that there needs to be a parking area because we are short parking spaces right now. There needs to be a space at that end in the park for access ta the soccer field area, access to that other picnic shelter area. When we have picnics going on and other playground activities parking because a real premium. But it v~uldn't be something that w~ould be put into use immediately. We still have to make provision for the parking or~ the park property before the access could be used, I just want to establish the access. Tolsma: {Inaudible) Water Tower Drive (inaudible). Smith: That is where w~e were on the first ptat but then vve moved it down in order to stay off of the bank of the Eight Mile Lateral we moved it this way and now v~ are right here, coming right into the southeast corner of the park. Tolsma: (lnaudible) Smith: Right Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: No, we k~ad (inaudible} there ~s an access right through here. That was platted as part of the #1 subdivision. Kingsford: Any other questions of Ms. Bowcutt? What is the Counci{'s decision? Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I am not prepared to make a motion just yet, but for sake of discussion ! think that it would be to our benefit long term to own the access easement. Primarily because of to allude to Mr. Smith's comments that things can get lost in such a small permit that it can easily get lost. I think that we woufd be better served and less future hass4e if the access in fact belonged to the City and was obviously attached to park property which belongs to the City and ought to be a continuous property. Kingsford: I would agree with that. I think one of the issues if 1 heard correctly Ms. Bowcutt is asking about too about the well fee and that access and the water tower donation. !s the Council inclined to grant cr~dit based on that? Morrow. Some of those issues, it is like bringing up issues that are fifteen, tvventy years removed and if w~e are going to credit it let's credit it at fifteen year old prices. The fact that it has taken this {ong to get to this point is not the fault or the responsibility of this Council. ~ ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 13 We have a water problem and the well development fee was instituted so we could solve that problem. I am very sensitive to the fact that things have been donated over the years and in the early 70's and late 60's and whenever it went on is a completely set of facts than today. It it true that it was $1500 for an acre fot the baseball diamond that was fairly given at that time. What we are being asked to do is to give $15,000 worth of credit for an easement and t think the conditions are different, substantially different today than they were 20 years ago, that is my opinion. Kingsford: Any comment from Council? Are you prepared to make a decision on the final plat? Morrow. Mr. Mayor I w~uld move that wre approve the final pfat as submitted subject to the 30 foot easement ~s per staff s recommendations. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the final plat of Honor Park subdivision No. 2 conditioned upon the 30 foot easement being provided to the park, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTI4N CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: FINAL PLAT: THE LANDING SUBDIVISION N0. 8, 303 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE CORPORATION: Kingsford: I believe that number should be 501ots rather than 303, that is the total number of all phases. Does Council have any questions for either staff or the developer? Morrow. Again I would like to see a short presentation. Kingsford: Is fhe developers engineer or representative here from Skyline? { guess not. Morrow. Comments by Gary Smith or Shari Stiles? Kingsford: Mr. Smith, while he is getting up here there are several seats strung through here, guests be vveelcome to seek those out. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Gouneil members, I don't have any other comments besides what was given to you in our staff report on the review of this subdivision. Tolsma: Have they got copy of the comments (inaudible) • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 14 L~ Smith: I assume that they do. I didn't send these in directly to them I turned them into the City C1erk. I haven't received any comments from them. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, subject to Gary's comments here there are several things here that I think w~e ought to have input from the developer to agree to or to be aware of. Seeing as there is no one here to represent them tonight I would suggest that we table this until our next meeting September 6th. Kingsford: 1s there a motion? Morrow. So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the fina) plat for The Landing Subdivision No. 8 until the September 6th meeting, aH those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR W.H. MOORE COMPANY: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Winston Moore, 11665 Thomas Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Moore: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, let me just give you a little background on the request and the development. Meridian Business and Industrial Park is an approximately 55 acre business and industrial park located on Franklin Road just east of Main Stree#. This is a development that I Mave been working on and suffering with for approximately 15 years. It is platted and we are now in for a re-plat, w~e intend to create smaller lots so we can have more flexibility not necessarily to sell smaller lots but to combine lots to make 1 1/2 to 2 acre lots etc. I am not sure if this is an ordinance or exactly what it is, but as I understand it from our engineer that because of the re-plat request we are required to pipe and cover the Hunter Lateral irrigation supply system that runs through the project. Our request for a variance is to not have to cover it. My hunch is that perhaps and I haven't talked to anyone in the City staff and so on about this I may be incorrect but that perhaps this ordinance or this requirement may have been intended for residential subdivisions as opposed to a subdivision of this kind where there will be no children. I presume it is a safety matter, I am not even sure of that. But by way of clarification this particular project it is business and industrial light manufacturing etc. It will not be frequented by children • • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 15 as a residential neighborhood would be. I think as a point of interest in other developments that vu~e have and that other developers have we spend considerable monies to create a water way similar to the Hunter Lateral that runs through this project. We consider it to be an amenity, it dresses up the pro}eet, it dresses up the buildings that are created within the project. And if any of you are familiar with this particular development and have driven through it recently I think you would be proud of it and pleased as I am to see the job that Jay Ashton did in his Farmers Insuranee building there. He landscaped right down to the edge of the Hunter Lateral, put in sod and trees and has just taken advantage of what is a really a natural amenity. What we are doing at Meridian Business Industrial Park is making an effort to and with some success we have several things pending now that are looking quite good to bring new business and industry and accordingly jobs and employment to the City. And if in fact we are required to do this and I say this respectfully I don't see where anyone will benefit by our covering the ditch and I don't see where anyone wauld be harmed by our not covering it. We are talking about significant cost which all that will do is to raise the price of land and rents and make at lease that development and a part of Meridian less competitive with other communities. We are currently, in fact the City has approved it and I think we are just about ready to start construction of extending 5th Street north to Bower. Which amongst other things will help relieve any traffic burden on Franklin Road and allow a lot of the folks within our project to proceed up to Bower and then onto wherever they are going (End of Tape) I note that in the circulation that staff has done to the various approval agencies that at least the package that I received none of them have objected or found fault with this request and more specifically the fire department, Central District Health, Nampa Meridian {rrigation District and US West have all said that they specifically have no objections to this request. 1 guess those would be all of my comments and I would be glad to answer any questions (inaudible). Yerrington: lf this ditch was to be tiled what size tile would it require. (Inaudible) Kingsford: For the record that was not a swarn statement, but (inaudible) 36 inches or better. Moore: I am sorry I didn't' have that answer. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Moore? Thank you Moore: Thank you Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that woufd like to offer testimony on this issue. • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Rage 16 • Ed Slagle, 310 East 3rd Street, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attomey. Slagle: As far as the pipe being the safety factor, my property backs this development and I have 3 kids and there are a couple of other people that have several kids in that area. If it is a safety factor then it has to be denied. I also wonder about what it would do to my property if it is backed up. When he moves it from where it is now without seeing any drawings that he has it would appear that it comes to the back of my property and would maybe hinder my from doing anything in the future or something like that. So I would have to see where it goes for sure and how it lays with my property because I have 2 lots of a couple acres right there. Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Slagle? Thank you, anyone else from the public? Gary Blessin, 217 East Ada, Meridian, was swom by the City Attorney. Blessin: My concem is I don't know if it is the responsibility of the developer, my concem is being able to get water to my property which is directly to the west of the proposed eomplex. As it stands right now the watering system is very poor and the neighbors have a hard time, myself and the neighbors have a hard time getting water, irrigation water. I hate to see it get any worse. I don't know if that is the responsibility of the developer to maybe put in gates to improve that very poor system now. Kingsford: Your property then is on the west side of Meridian Plumbing? Blessin: It is the west side of the canal that they are speaking of enclosing. Kingsford: Any questions? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, Gary do you think it would be better if v+~ had it tiled so it would go through rather than leaving it the way it is now, you are not satisfied with it now. Do you think if it was piped we could get the water through a lot easier is that what you are. Blessin: If they put in some kind of gate system that would direct the water towards the property owners, the adjoining property owners yes. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Janet Hinkle, 302 East 3rd, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. • ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 17 Hinkle: I was just concemed about making sure that we didn't lose our irrigation rights by whether this is piped in or not that is not a big concern with me, but I just want to make sure as he changes this ditch that our irrigation isn't cut off. That was the main thing as far as I was concerned. I just didn't want it to be over looked. Kingsford: Like I have said before and it hasn't held a whole lot of water, the developer cannot separate the water from the land. We have had some problem with developers doing that how~ever but I have every cor~fident that Mr. Moore would not do that. Certainly it is appropriate to have that on record. Mr. Moore. (Inaudible) Moore: With respect to the good folks that are here tonight that are concerned about the continuing flow of irrigation water. !t seems to me like that it is a separate issue. The Hunter Lateral is not maintained by the property owner it is maintained by Nampa Meridian frrigation Distric# and it furnishes as 1 understand it, I am not an irrigation expert but as I understand it furnishes the smaller tributary ditches that actually go to serve the yards and the properties. It is kind of almost a main canal. And I don't think whether this ditch is tiled or whether it is left as is is going to make any difference to the flow of water. The irrigation district keeps it maintained and in good shape. We do have a supply ditch running through this same development. It is a small little difich about this wide and from time to time it gets clogged up and I have heard from some of the neighbors and in good faith we have made every effort to keep that clean and spent some money going in there with equipment and so on. So I would just assure the Mayor and Council that this issue that is before you unless l am mistaken my engineer tells me that I am not rea{ly has no effect on the gentleman that tives to the west or any of them in that neighborhood other than that this flows through and serves the smaller irrigation ditches. I don't know if I make myself clear but, in any event I v~uld cooperate in the future as I have in the past with any and all of the neighbors if any of them have an irrigation problem that they think i~ originating on my property. All tMey have to do is contact me and it wifl be taken care of very promptly. Morrow. One question with respect to Bill Henson's comments of Nampa Meridian, if the ditch is allowed to be left open then you would need to, you mentioned that the Farmer's insurance building has already landscaped down to the edges of the ditch. Mr. Henson's commenfis indicate that there is a licensing agreement that is needed to allow that to happen because they have a maintenance requirement on both sides of the ditch. So I would assume that the person that has done has already, do they have a licensing agreement in place? Moore: I can't answer that Mr. Morrow, but I will presume that they do, I know I have a license agreements around the valley with the irrigation districts, of course we always do • Meridian City Counci( August 16, 1994 Page 18 . that because we need to. And I am just not sure, I am not sure that they need a license agreement to landscape as long as the easement continues and the trucks are able to drive along the landscaping. They can't build buifdings and edifices obstructors within that right of way. I am not sure that they do, I'm not sure they don't need that licensing agreement. It is a good point and interesting question. Morrow. We have run into some problems already with residential subdivisions that landscape through that and of course Nampa Meridian's concern is that when they drive over and destroy the landscaping so to speak and the routine maintenance of #he ditch that the property owner becomes very upset and so they are fairly ~nsistent upon licensing agreements. And in that instance and I think 1 have it in my mind's eye that the landscaping may be on orae side of the ditch of the lateral and there isn't any on the other side and perhaps the irrigation district will maintain from the other side. Which in fact is 5th street, the subject property fronts 5th Street. Corrie: Mr. Moore, what is the length we are talking about from your property? Moore: There is as much as '! 500 feet I understand. Kingsford: Thank you Ed did you have a comment? 5lagle: First of all if he moves the canal he either has to have the cbncrete and make a new ditch of there it either has to be erosion proof or concrete or something (inaudible). Second of all you are missing the point on the water issue, the main canal he is talking about moving, our ditch comes off of that canal and it is about this big but it is recorded and it is our water right. That comes off the Hunter Canal that he is going to move and goes right through the middle of the property. What he is proposing is to move the canal and then that ditch is gone. There is no mentipn of that ditch at all. When this gentleman says he don't know how he is going to get his water when the move the canal over to us (inaudible) back to our head gate or something. Morrow. I think he has, with respect to ~rrigation, he has the obligation to continue to supply you that water and Dave can correct me if I am wrong but I think the requirement from the irrigation companies is that wherever, you can move that all over Mr. Moore's property but it stiil has to exit at the same point that it currently exits. And so he would have the water from your supply ditch that comes off of that lateral he would continue to supply that water, maybe at a different point. Slagle: The only other thing I would say now is that we need to take a look at a drawing or samething and how it would approach our property. If it is going to be an open ditch w~e need to know how close it is going to be or exactly where it is going to go because I have ~ ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 19 200 feet along there and he is another 100 and so w~e are going to be about 400 feet along that ditch. We need some time to look over his drawing and make sure (inaudible). Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, do I understand you are going to move it around from where it is novi/? I did get that in my paperwork. Moare: I am not ~ure how this matter arose about the piping, I am not sure if it is the result of the re-platting request and when the subdivision re-plat was reviewed that this ordinance came up. We have talked to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation district and perhaps to Gary 1~m not sure, David would know about in the northwest comer of Meridian Busir~ess and Industrial Park in re-routing this so it runs diagonally through a lot now w~e would like to take it around the property lines of that. We have done this before, v~ did it when we put the Artech project out there for Holly. That design is approved by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and certainly it would accommodate this gentleman's justifiable concem that he needs water and if that ditch should be moved it would still need to provide wa#er to all of the people who now get water from it. I am not sure either way that is a part of the matter that is before you but I guess 1 v~ould say again that as long I am involved in this and 1 do own it the neighbors will have no problems getting water because we wouldn't have it any other way. Kingsford: Is there a plan, do you have a relocation drawing of that tha# these folks would have access to? Roy(ance: Dave Roylance, business address 4619 Emerald, there is no formal plan at this time. I was asked to look at the options of relocating the ditch with the approval of Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. Also recognizing that any laterals that come off of that main Hunter Lateral to private property owners would also have to be maintair~ed or relocated to where w~e deliver the same amount of water to them to the same location. So initially { was ~sked to look at a relocation, in doing that I had a brief discussion with Nampa and Meridian irrigation district also with Gary Smith the City Engineer. That is when it came up that we maybe required in fact w~ere required to tile it as a result of the re- plat that is a standard condition of approval. So there is not a formal plan now because I need some dire~tion whether we are #iling it or whether we are relocating it as an open ditch as our desire. Once I know what w~e are doing then I am going to get with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and follow their procedures and get with the private property owners and see what their needs are ~nd design the system. We did the same thing on the Artech building I was involved on that project. And vve did get a license agreement on that project to put landscaping in their easement. Any other questions? ! • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 20 Kingsford: The reason Mr. Moore that did come up at re-platting we amended our ordinances to require all ditches to be tiled and I guess your initial question was does that apply to all. I think generally speaking it applied to residential subdivisions although I can't speak for the Council, but that was our intent generally. Does Council have any further questions of staff? Are you prepared to make a decision? I think ~ndings are required, if you direct the City Attorney to do that. Morrow. So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Those findings wili be considered at our next ~ouncii meeting and after approval will be made available. ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFQRD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Mike Wardle, Hubble Engineering, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, the Council has received a recommendation for approval of the Ashford Greens Subdivision which you have seen before and is the project that encompasses the completion of the Cherry Lane Golf Course. The recommendation that came to the Council came subject to compliance with the R-4 standards which is the applicable zoning. And so in reality this evening the Council is considering the single family portion of this subdivision and in a subsequent item a waiver of some development standards through a variance request that was submitted and is also advertised for a hearing this evening. I have personally learned a great deal about the City process, direction and comment by the City Attomey that a conditional use permit is required for the medium density parcel identified in the original PUD submittal that in fact a PUD can only be approved by Conditional Use permit application. And that application has been submitted to staff and will be heard at a subsequent meeting in order to resolve this issue once and for all with respect to the proposed medium density uses from that proposal. We have informally also presented to the staff the first phase proposal for the deveiopment so • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 21 • that when preliminary pfat approvai is granted that we will submit a project that conforms strictly to the R-4 standards. That first phase will require no canditional use or variance components. And that wifl be done depending on what the Council finally determines to do. So in basic summation Mr. Mayor the requirable request is for preliminary plat approval of the revised pre{iminary plat which was submitted after the planning commission formulated its recommendation to the Council and that was simply to accommodate several points of access that wwere requested through the process by Ada County Highway District and other agencies. Obviously this particular preliminary plat approval is subject to consideration of the variance request #or reduced lot frontages for some lots, for length of 3 culdesacs which exceed the dimensional standards of the City, for longer than normal blocks and also for private drives that serve 6 lots on the project and for 2 flag lots. The council has seen the drawing before I~nrould respond to questions, but again I believe that the recommendation was for approval subject to the R-4 standards and we vvill deal with those variance requests in a subsequent item. So ! would respond to any questions the Councii has at this time. Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council members. Obviously no change in findings. What is your attitude Counselor with regard to the change as far as #he revised preliminary plat, does that constitute a re-visit to pfanning & Zoning? Crookston: That is a question that must be resolved by the zoning administrator as to whether or not she feels it is significant. If she does than it needs to go back to Planning & Zor~ing if she does not than it does not. (Discussion Inaudible) Crookston: Since the prbperty is not annexed however you really don't have authority to approve. Kingsford: Part of it is not annexed. Crookston: Correct Morrow: Gary Smith had basically 18 comments in his June 11 th letter were those things all addressed to your satisfaction Gary? • i Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 22 Kingsford: (Inaudible) Smith: Mr. Mayor and Cauncil, I have my comments, I don't recall response from the developer's engineer or Mike coming through and I could be totally askew on this. I just don't remember seeing them. Tolsma: 1 have a question, ACHD on your comment #6 (inaudibie) ACHD says we don't want that connected in there, that can be withdrawn off the comment list. Smith: Yes, well I guess that is something that the Highway District doesn't want to see happen. In the past we have been able to work with them, they seem pretty set in not wanting to see that through. So basically it w~ould function as a collector through collector. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: Where we have lots that are fronting onto Interlachen that it would create problems or could create problems they were opposed to that. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: Right, that was their other concern. Kingsford: Qf course my concern again still is getting people in the existing (inaudible) holes to the club house area and have that circulation. Smith: And that was one reason I fashioned that comment was after talking to Mayor Kingsford and his concern about the circulation in that regard. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, Gary (inaudible) the circulation that the Mayor is concemed about and I am to, (inaudibte) go around the other way, we still have that option of the street going around is that correct on the north side from Turnberry come all the way around (inaudible). Smith: Yes it woutd come through the Lake INo. 3 t think it is. Corrie: A bigger concem about the proposed variance on that side it would come up later. I agree that we need to have some way to get in there but there is another problem. That is all i have Mr. Mayor. Kingsford: Well the issue I guess, a significant issue is that it isn't annexed so you can't plat what isn't annexed or approve anything on it. So I think the appropriate thing now we ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 23 have had the public hearing is to table, is that right Counselor? Crookston: Yes Morrow. So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob I believe to table this until next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first on that subject. Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, I guess I w~ould like to take one step back since this is all related. The comments of Mr. Smith submitted with the original preliminary plat were responded to on the 6th of July. Spec~c information was provided at that point to staff, there has not been a follow up discussion or response since that information was submitted. But in each and every case the information was identified and was indicated that there would be a resolution. But a lot of the resolution will come with final design after preliminary plat approval and those are specific technicai resolutions with respect to the sewer or water design. I would also further make th~ comment that with respect to this project of 154 acres on a 23.98 is not already in the city zoned R-4. And the first phase that we are proposing to submit (inaudible) for many years zoned R-4. So I suppose from a technical standpoint that tabling may be applicable because the southerly 24 acres is not yet officially in the city, but the balance of the project certainly is and I think could be subject to annexation of that southerly portion before any development plans v~ould ever be approved for that. So 1 guess I am not certain of how the project works when v+~ do respond and the revised preliminary plat only addressed the issues that came up in the comments and they dealt with concerns stated by Mr. Bowers the Fire Chief s#ated a concem by Mr. Bowers for a flag lot that was rather long in terms of access. That flag lot was removed. It was in response to a comment by staff and I am assuming Mr. Bow~ers constitutes staff, the other change that was made on that preliminary plat was the extension of a street stub to the north to service adjacent property as a direct resutt of the ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 24 ~ conditions that Ada County Highway District put on it which are recommended by your staff as inclusion of conditions for approval of this preliminary plat. Now with respect to the item w~e are dealing with at the moment and that is only the issue of variance. Let me go back and bring this up it is a little cumbersome the location of the drawings so I can at least point out what we are discussing. There were some dimensional considerations in the preliminary plat that did not cor~form to the standards of subdivision development or to the R-4 zone. Those in order are there were a number of lots in the project that are 75 feet wide, 1 think the staff had indicated, in Cary Smith's original comments of some 36% where those lots w~ere only 75 feet in contract to the required 80 in the R-4 zone. There is no lot in the projeet that will be less than the required B,OOQ square feet but because of the depth of a lot of the lots adjacent to the golf course, 75 feet for additional depth we felt #hat it was a reasonable trade off. So that was the first variance from the standards. The second variance is the iength of culdesacs. In our discussions with the planning & Zoning commission there (inaudible) that w~e have longer culdesacs than normal because we don't to crqss the golf course in too many locations. I think that betv~en this and the adjacent property being devetoped by the Steiner Corporation there are only 3 crossings that occur and so w~e have this culdesac, this culdesac and this culdesac that are atl in excess of the 450 foot block standards. The third item and it is one that was identified by the staff and frankly I am not certain of how to qualify what constitutes a block or a thousand feet but it is simply included because staff noted it, staff would have to address specifically how that applies to a project of this type or any project for that matter. The fourth specific item which is a deviation from the normal subdivision requirements there are 6 lots off 2 culdesacs, excuse me that are fronted by the private drives. Those are private drives so tha# we don't end up putting basically putting another public street right into the mist of another public street ouf at Black Cat. But they provide not only the frontage to those 6 lots but they provide also the utility corridor for sewer and for water extensions which must tie from this location up to the north. So rather than having a street that fronts Black Cat on the inside of the gotf course we chose to do that via private drives for the extension of those utilities and the use of a common area along Black Cat road for again the connection of that sew~er and water from culdesac to cufdesac. And finally the only other requirement and I suppose that technicaliy they v~rould qualify without a variance but they v~are simply noted that there are 2 flag lots in Block 8, but are not the normaf type lots approved or appreciated by the subdivision ordinance. So those are the 5 items that have been requested with respect to a variance, 75 foot minimum frontage for a number of the lots, but 1 stress again that in the first phase of the project which is let me just identify what the first phase is, would be the entrance road to this point and then connection to the north and back out to Black Cat with only the lots that front on this road and this road and this main corridor (inaudible) the future club house location as the first phase. The annexation request that was made previously was only for this southerly 24 acres on the extreme south end of the project. So, reduced frontage to 75 feet for approximately 1/3 of the lots depicted on the plat. Three culdesacs that exceed 450 feet in length, block lengths in ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 25 • excess of 1000 feet. Six lots on private drives, 2 flag lots are the sum total of the variance request. So I would ask the Council to consider and approve these, I w~ould alsa ask the Council to returr~ to the previous item to reconsider and to give preliminary plat approval subject ta exclusion if you will from that portion of the plat that is not currently annexed and zoned R-4 in the City. Because we have made a good faith effort to respond and have provided information and have not received response in turn. I would answer any questions. Kingsford: Questions? Anyone else from the public that w~ould like to offer testimony on the variance request? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Counc'sl members. Morrow. I have a question for Gary with respect to the point that Mr. Wardle b~ought up, block lengths, the variance for the block length th~t is in excess of 1000 feet. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members 1 am not a planner, the block length and Mr. Wardle is, if anybody should know what a block length is l think he should but it is the distance betw~een intersecting s#reets as I understand it. So that in a block, in a series of blocks the distance from one end of that block of lots to the other end of it is a 1000 feet or 4ess. I do apologize to Mr, Wardle, l do have his comments, 1 received them on July 12th, I didn't realize there was a response required from my department. He did make several comments and did indicate what his request for variances would be. But again the block length is something that I always look at from the ordinance requirements for a plat and as well as the frontage of the lots. And those are items that I checked specifically in accordance with the ordinance requirements for subdivision plats. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Smith? Morrow: I have no other questions. Kingsford: Thank you Gary. Certainly the blodc lengths when you are dealing with the golf course and traversing those fairways there is no way you are going to have a standard subdivision. tf you have a golf course you are going to have some extensions of bloGc lengths. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, t have a question I guess fior Wardle, the Fire Department did make comment #hat concems me too. !t said they do not like private drives because they are not wide enough for vehicles and they will ~lways be parked in those areas and no tum arounds. Any comment on that, what is the width on your private streets, I am not too crazy about private streets either. Wardle: We agree with that and that is why there are very few o# them there. They are ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 26 there because we couldn't find a better solution to deal with the issue. Let me look specifically and see what the width is as depicted on the preliminary piat. i have not memorized that. It is not dimensioned but this i believe that they are 30 feet wide and in Gary's comments he indicated that they would require a 20 foot hard surface in that area for access over any utifities as wefl. So i think the easement is 30 fieet so the private drive v~rould be 30 feet and at least a 20 foot hard surface area. Corrie: What about a tum around, ifi you get a truck in there are you going to back him out, is that the only way we could do it? Wardle: No, not necessarily, in our discussion with the Ada County Highway District they had some of the same concerns. Their concern was that there not be any connection of those roads through those private driveways direct connection to Black Cat Road. However, we did indicate to them that we would make a provision and work with the fire department fo deal with emergency vehicle access through the common area which is the separation between the private drives and the public right of way on Black Cat. The details have not been vwrked out but very likely there will be a restrictive access at the end of those private drives so that instead of a big tall berms there would be fairty low and perhaps even some type of a concrete walkway that would service to take the vehicles on through if they have to go in there. Corrie: I have a real concern that if you have s fire at the end of one of those private drives and there are a lot of cars in there than you can't get a truck in there. Wardle: Those private drives are also immediately adjacent to Black Cat Road they are not restricted in terms of access from Black Cat that would aiso have access. Corrie: It is kind of hard to drag a hose across 6 foot fences and everything else to get to a house fire. I just don't like private drives (inaudible) somebody gets a fire back there and there is a party going on you will never get a fire truck back there and the place burns down who is responsible for it, that is my concern. Wardle: (Inaudible) this is not a unique situation it has been done many times and done quite successfully. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Wardle? Is it the Council's interest to reconsider the previous as requested by Mr. Wardle? 1 see 3 shaking their heads no. V1lhat is your pleasure with the variance? Morrow: It appears to me and for discussion sake that the variance also ought to get tabled because w~e have not completed the overall annexation for the overall project. We ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 27 have tabled the plat pending the deeding on the ordinance originally. And so if it is a logical sequence if vu~e have the plat tabled the annexation is not complete then it looks to me like we tabfe the variance request aiso. Kingsford: What about the findings, what would be the s#atus of those Counselor? Crookston: That is up tv the Council, you could request the findings be prepared or you could have the findings tabled along with everything. You wouldn't be able to act on the findings until every thing else is in order. Kingsford: Well, I personally, fram my point of view like to see findings prepared at least at this juncture. At feast v~ile it is still fresh in everyone's mind. Entertain a motion to have those done. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attorney v~ork on findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Aff Yea (End of Tape) ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HARTFORD SUBDiVISiON BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicant that I wan't try to pronounce it either. This is a proposal for annexation and preliminary plat located at the northeast corner of Ustick and Ten Mite Road. This application is for annexation of 20 acres with R-4 zoning. And for prefiminary plat inciuding 58 lots on 2~ acres which is roughly 2.9 lots per acre. Access to the subdivision will be from Ustick Road, this entrance right here which will line up right across the street with Candlelight Subdivision which is under construction I believe right now. We are also proposing stub streets to the east which would tie into a couple of parcels to the east right ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 28 here. There were a couple of comments from Shari regarding wanting a stub street to the north as far as access. We are not providing anything to Ten Mile Road there is an existing residence that will be included in the subdivision that would continue to have access out to Ten Mi1e Road. We are not proposing, this would be too close to the intersection and this one we don't feel is necessary to provide access out here. We have one double entrance out here and should provide plenty of circulation for emergency vehicles and in the future it w~ould tie back in and back out to Ustick Road. Shari's ~equest for a stub street along in here, our proposal is to not provide that stub street and let me give you an overall view of the area. This is kind of a blow up of the area, here is Ustick, Ten Mile Road, the yellow area right here is the subject 20 acres. This big line right there is the existing Five Mile Drain it is about 10 feet deep and 20 feet across. This piece of ground between us and the drain is kind of a no man's land in here. I don't really feel that providing a stub street into this property at this point provides anything vehicular to this piece of ground. I've kind of sketched in here, l don't know if you can see it, but my idea if this property ever develops that they just come in with their own street in this area culdesac and provide lots off of it. If you want, if I was invofved in this property Pm not sure that I would request that they cross that, they would still have to go out to Ten Mile Road and crossing this, it is a big expense just for these 7 lots if they can get their access off of Ten Mile Road anyvvay. So our proposal does not conclude a stub street to the north. All the streets as shown on the preliminary plat will be constructed in accordance with the highway district standards, 50 foot of right of way, 36 foot streets, 5 foot sidewalks as required by Meridian City. Water will be extended from existing water lines in Ustick and in Ten Mile at that {ocation throughout that development and extended up the frontage of the project. Sewer, which was an issue going through planning & zoning for this property originally v~e had proposed for a lift station somewhere in this vicinity to accommodate our site as well as the sife to the east and to pump across Five Mile Drain and into the existing Five Mile Trunk Sewer which is located on the north side of the drain. Gary had some concern with that, I believe back in early 70's when the Five Mile Trunk Sewer was constructed on the north side of the creek for whatever reasons I'm sure there was a good one it was not constructed deep enough to gravity undemeath. We can't cross over the top of it, we can't get service in here. This is a FEMA flood way flood plain issue, besides that Nampa Meridian won't allow you to cross over the top of the drain to get sewer. So this lift station was our solution for this area. In going through planning and zoning and discussing it with Gary, he thought a better idea might be to sevr~r all of this area to the west and across this parcei on the other side and some type of lift station further to the west into the Nine Mile Lateral which is acceptable to us. This preliminary plat lays that out with the sew~er stub going out to the west, before we had it over here but as a result of discussions with Gary and going through planning & zoning we have moved that over to this location. Pressurized irrigation will be provided to each lot as it standard now in the City of Meridian. This existing ditch coming across the site this will be piped through the site that will be our source for the pressurized irrigation. I v~rould like to address a couple ~ Meridian Gity Council August 16, 1994 Page 29 • of comments. 1 have provided a written response to both Gary and Shari. When I went through planning & zoning f addressed each in the minutes of the meeting but just recently as of today I responded in writir~g to all of their comments. On Gary's the first, the 2 I want to point out. He wanted a comment sta#ing about the existing house to be provided within the preliminary plat, w~e have accommodated him we have included that in the preliminary plat. And also his comment about the sewer across the top of the drain, I've already discussed we can't do that. The others are pretty standard and I think we can meet his standards. Regarding Shari's comments, the first one she talks about the stub street to the north and I have already addressed, if it is the Council's pleasure to require a stub street I guess we could but it is of our opinion that it is really not necessary. It doesn't make it feasible for this property, he is still going to have to come out to Ten Mile Road, if you bring it up in here somewhere he is going to have a variance of too Ior~g of a culdesac, he wnuld stili want to come out to Ten Mile Road there. So that is basically the reason why we are not putting that stub street in. She also had a point about the existing house being within the preliminary plat we have accommodated that. And then a pedestrian path to Five Mile Creek at the east end of the subdivision w~e proposed that. We are proposing a 5 foot wide path, however, she has since told me that the ordinance requires 10, I think we can accomplish that. We can do something with these 2 lots at the end, all of these lots have a minimum of 80 foot, but I think we can shove them all down and do something down here possibly with a flag lot or what not to get that extra 5 feet, but w+e can provide a 10 foot path. ! would like to point out at this time there is no such path on Five Mile. The existing road is on the north side of Five Mile Cree4c, I am not sure which side of the creek you want your future path on but obvious{y if vve stub it here on you are on the north side of the (inaudible} footbridge or what not in there, we do have pedestrian access out to the sewer easement this way if peopfe wanted to get into the future park allocated in that area in your comprehensive plan. So I think we can meet the 'I 0 foot, I would just like some clarification from staff in the interim 5 to 10 years or whenever the path is going to be there, we don't want that to just have to landscape and put a path down there to nowhere. Sop possibly just meeting the requirement for the improvements but allowing for space for it sometime in the future to connect up to wherever the path might be. Her other comments ! have addressed in writing and I think those are pretty standard comments. At this point I would iike to address any questions you may have. Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Merkle? Morrow. Jim, the property to the north that you are talking about that is basically kind of {and locked by the subdivision is that under the same ownership or is that different ownership? Merkle: It is the same ownership from here up on both sides. Both Five Mile and the (inaudible) Lateral which is a pretty big ditch that runs along the north side of the ditch. ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 'k 994 Page 30 CJ Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Merkle? Anyone else from the public tha# vvould like to offer testimony on this issue? John Shaffer, 2788 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shaffer: There has been a few changes to the plat since the fast time I have seen that. I guess one question I would have is the sewer line to the east elevation if that accommodates properties to the east. I also request that the road to the east that does dead end, I do own the piece of property to the east also, it is a 4.5 acre parcel there that there would be a fence at that dead end street to prevent foot traffic through and across the property if possibie. Also, at this time I do not intend or at this moment I should say plan to develop the property. I would request that a construction of a neighbor friendly type wood fence between the subdivision property as well as mine be constructed. This would prevent unsightly storage of materials in the backyards as well as separation of property between mine and theirs. It wi{I help control construction debris during construction as weU as prevent unwanted pedestrian traffic from these lots thro~gh onto my property as w~ell as safety and security after the homes have been constru~ted. At the time that this was first submitted there w~ere no covenants avaitabie at that time, if possible I would like review those covenants if passible. Kingsford: We require those to be submitted and when they are if you would check with the City Clerk those would be made available to you. Shaffer: The only other question I have is the dead end street, if it is required to be a culdesac at that end maybe to prevent parking of motor trailers and things of that nature at the end of that dead end street. Kingsford: We ave an ordinance on that subject. Any questions for Mr. Shaffer? Morrow. I have a question with respect to your 4.5 acres, you said currently an agricultural usage? Shaffer: Yes it is, we do righ# now have a residence on the property. Morrow: So it is your home and agricultural. Kingsford: Any other questions? Thank you, anyone else from the public? Ray Wilder, 3340 North Ten Mile Road, was sv~rn by the City Attorney. Wilder: My place w~e are tatking about here, my neighbor here he lives on the east of ine. ~ Meridian City Councii August 1 ~, 9 994 Page 31 ~ I might want to build a house back there by him, (inaudible) and I think he shoutd have to build a fence. I might want to build a new house back there and 1 don't want to look at his stuff, so 1 think he should build half of this fence for these people because he has more junk than I have. And I think (inaudible) if he wan#s a fence to keep these peop{e out he should have to build half of this fence. Kingsford: Thank you, that was pretty straight forward, do you have any questions for Mr. Wilder'? Anyone else from the public? Merkle: I would just fike to address Mr. Shaffer's comments. Yes, the sewer there will a stub to the east low enough to accommodate those parcels to the east. Regarding the temporary fence at the dead end street to the east that wila be, since we plat public right of way right to the parcelline that wouid be something the highway district would have to approve since it would be their right of way. I don't think we have a problem with doing it as long as it doesn't affect their requiremertts. Kingsford: Many of our stub streets in subdivisions that currently exist the devefoper is required to put up a barricade. Merkle: Right that is standard, but what 1 think he is talking about is a fence of some kind in addition to that. Regarding the perimeter fencing on the east I believe, in your development agreement will be addressing that issue. So I don't think that wi~l be a problem. The covenants have not been submitted but will be submitted when we submit the final plat for processing which to my knowledge is the typical way to do it. Also the dead end street to the east is not a culdesac, a turn around is not required. Usualty if you go more than 150 feet or more than 1 lot depth you are required tp do that but v~ are not required to do that in this case. And those are the comments regarding. Tolsma: (fnaudib{e} for several years now v~ have required 2 ways in and out from a subdivision and this only has one in and out of the thing. There is going to have to be anather way out on Ten Mile Road as emergency access (inaudible) because there is an e~ctremely long line of houses back in here and if there is on{y one way in and out of here it makes it really bad for emergency traffic. What they have done a lot of times in the past iS they have put a roadway in here (inaudible) with a break way barricade so you can get in and out of it (inaudible) fire department or ambulance acc~ss to gef in. Merkle: Councilman Tolsma I think the point is well taken, I believe with this particular 20 foot wide sew~er lot w~e are proposing to satisfy Gary's needs for the lift station to the west we coordinate some type of emergency access through that point if that would be acceptable to you. i • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 32 Kingsford: (Inaudible) require that it be a covered surface anyway. 1 think his comment with regard to the break away barrier though (inaudible). Any other comments from the public? Seeing none I will close that public hearing. Council members, need to prepare findings. Crookston: There has been no significant change in the testimony. Kingsford: ls there a motion to approve the findings prepared for P& Z. Yerrington: So moved Morrow. Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the #indings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for the planning and zoning roll cafl vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEA Kingsford: With regard to the preliminary plat you have the issue of the annexation and so forth being required so it would be appropriate to direct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance. Morrow. So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare the annexation and zoning ordinance, afi those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: What v~nould be appropriate Counselor since that isn't now, we have run into this a cpuple of times, table the preliminary plat? Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the preliminary plat for Hartford • s Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 33 subdivision all those in favor? Opposed? M~TlON CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Having not said that was to a date certain I assume that was for the next meeting. ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARiNG: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE HOLLOWS BY BOND CAMPBELL: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Bond Campbell, 1150 East Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Campbell: I guess we are here to request the annexation and zoning to the City Council. I really don't have any comments other than Shari had some information that I gave her regarding the way that the zoning had gone through Planning & Zoning. The request had originally been for R-4, and after discussing it with the engineer and Shari and after that meeting I discovered that I was designing around the R-3 criteria without knowing it so I am actually designing for R-3 and trying to get a variance on the original R-4 application. Kingsford: I think you could be put few~ar on there and you wouldn't need a variance. Any questions of Mr. Campbe{I from the Council? Morrow Let me see if I understand this, you originally asked for R-4 but you designed to R-3? Campbell: After, the appfication was turned in for R-4, but my preliminary plat that I designed met all the R-3 criteria and it was brought to my attention that would be a more desirable zoning request, R-3 and so upon finding that out we changed, we went ahead and designed to our original criteria but I guess what I am asking is that you would be aware that R-3 is what the zone ordinance t would prefer. Morrow: I have no f~arther questians. Crookston: I have a question, what you are asking for then is to change your application to an R-3 residential application is that right? Campbell: In a way yes, if that requires going back through the original application I am not sure that I am prepared to do that. I may leave it designed to R-3 criteria and zone it ~ . Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 34 R-4 if it means that I have to start over. Craokston: You have not submitted a proposed plat have you? Campbell: Preliminary plat has been submitted. Crookston: That is not for hearing tonight is that correct? Campbell: That is not until the 16th of ne~ct month. Crookston: Let me ask one more question, what you have submitted in the form of the preliminary is what you intend on developing? Campbell: That is correct and it does meet al{ of the R-3 criteria. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I wilt close the public hearing, Council members. I would assume those findings have not changed appreciably Cour~selor'? Crookston: No Corrie: If we approve these, if we approve it with the change to R-3 where it says R-4 in the findings of fact would that be proper? Kingsford: Can you do that? Crookston: He didn't commit to in the evenf that he would have to back up and start over so he is still wanted the R-4 but he v~rould still design the lots to R-3 standards. Tolsma: (Inaudible) so moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for planning & zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Yerrington: Mr. Mayor our ciock is running slow and mine is running fast it has a sick i • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 35 battery I move v~ have a 5 minute break. Kingsford: With your blessing let's ask the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance on this and finish that agenda item. Morrow. So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance annexing and zoning this property all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREAK Kingsford: Let's call the meeting back to order. I have a personal friend that would like to address the group before she has to retire, LaWanna. Niemann: Thank you, I would just like to address the Mayor and Council. This is such a great honor, 1 was surprised I didn't have a speech ready. I just want to say one thing f can't think of anything that v~ould be of a bigger honor folks than having our Comprehensive Plan written with sweat, tears and everything dedicated to Jack tonight. And this is even better than have the key to the City, this is more important than having the key to the City, in fact this is. Thank you very much, I love you guys. Kingsford: Is that an indication you v~uld like the key to the City, I can do that. Niemann: I think you got one one time. Kingsford: Thank you LaWanna. ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR NEB-i COMPANY BY BILL GEYER: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: I am here these evening on behalf of the applicant NEB-i Company. This • • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 36 annexation request is for 9 acres at the southeast corner of Locust Grove and Fairview, bordered on the north by Fairview, on South by I think it is Wilson Lane, on the West by Locust Grove. The applicant is asking for CG, general commercial zone in this area. This parcel has existing city services that can serve the property both sewer and water. We have met with the highway district are in accordance with their requirements for this parcel. It is in conformance with your new comprehensive plan that you spoke of. Regarding staff's comments, Mr. Smith's comments are more just informational 3 items and I think we are in agreement with those. Shari's comments are also can be met however, one of her items is regarding a 35 foo# landscaped setback along Fairview. The applicant would like to point out he is planning on constructing an attractive landscape en#rance along Fairview, your existing ordinance only requires 15 feet and we feel the 35 feet is a bit excessive. Pqssibly a 15 foot to 20 foot with a berm and fence maybe more of a buffer, more attractive than say a 35 foot space of just plain grass. So I am not sure that the width of it is the issue it is what is put in it is the key. However we would be willing to work with the city and negotiate that oufi if we can. With that I would like to answer any questions you might have regarding this proposal. Kingsford: Cluestions for Mr. Merkle? Crookston: What is the development possibilities on that? Merkle: Right now there is no proposal into the City for any site specific projec#s. It would be whatever would be allowed in the commercial general zone, say a retail possibly or something along that order. I don't have the ordinance in front of ine but what the applicant is proposing woutd fal{ into the CG zone. But that specific zone has not been presented to the City at this time. Morrow. Jim , this is the piece of property that is directly across the street from the Avest property. Merkle: Right on the south side of Fairview. Morrow. Is there not currently a for sale sign on that property or is that property in the proress in being listed? Merkfe: There may be, the property when the application was made the titled owner, Mr. Crandlemire, my client is NEB-i and they are under a contract agreement to purchase part or all of that property. They have Mr. Crandlemire's authorization to request the annexation for the CG zone. Kingsford: Any other questions? Anyone else from the public? • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 37 • Fred Mack, Suite 1400 West One Plaza, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mack: Mr. Mayor could I hand out a(inaudible), I am handing out to all of you just a general map here it is for (inaudible) so we can see what we are talking about here today. My client is Barbara Myall, Barbara Myall owns the parcel of property which is 16 acres directly south of Mr. Crandlemire's property. So you have Locust Grove Road, Fairview, the 9.12 acre which is the proposed development by Mr. Crandlemire, you have the 16 acres which my client owns. I think it is important for my discussions here tonight that the Council understands that there is a for sale sign east of this property also which is an additional 8 acres. Part of what ( want to discuss with you tonight is the action you take here may have a long term effect on your approval of a concept of development for an excess of 35 acres. That is what I wanted to bring to the Council's attention here tonight. It is aur position, w~e are here to object to the annexation of this property. We are going to urge th~ Cauncil to reject annexation at this time because it is pre-mature. We are not asking you not to consider in the future that this praperty be annexed but what v~ are saying is that based upon the submission of the application that you have to date and the impact that this property is going to have not only on my client's property but the other property on Fariview that this application is pre-mature and in the best interest of the city and therefore my client w~e should consider putting off annexation. I am aware that the city has procedures whereby if you gant annexation and a commercial development then you have a conditionaf use permit ptocess which you have used across the street #or protection. I will address that issue in a moment but 1 believe that there are some problems ever~ with that approach the city is using. So our approach here tonight is not to try and stop this development but to ask the City to step back and look at where you are at. This is 35 acres that is close to the city limits. You are never ever going to get an opportunity to address or deal with this size parcel this close to the center of your city. If you give up tonight and annex this without consideration of the greater effect or detriment that this is going to have on adjoining property you will forever be barred to do that. Even with the conditional use process yau still can't look at it globally. The first question t wauld like to pose to you is if you look at the map what can Mr. Crandlemire develop. Well when he was at the planning and zoning commission they represented to you that they didn't have a particular use while Mr. Crandlemire has advised our client that he already 2/3 of that frontage. hiow can Mr. Crandlmire develop that in anything but a strip use. That property is not deep enough to pu# multi stacked dwetlings of a commercial development so if you look at just his parcel of property I guess ~nre coufd argue about what is a strip development. But what you are realty condoning here tonight even with the conditional use process is the right to let Mr. Crandlemire or his successors develop the strip development. It is clearly contrary to your comprehensive plan, it is cleariy i believe not in the city's best interest and now is the time to address that issue. lf you look at the comprehensive plan ~nd you look at the findings by the planning and zoning commission you c2n see that this is a(inaudibte) when you annex this this is a big biock of glare brown • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 38 • that is very sensitive to the future development of this town. If you are going to look at how that ought to be developed you need to consider all of the other properties that are here. So if tonight you make a decision how are you going to treat the frontage on Fairview that is east of the property. How are you going to treat my client's property when she comes to you in the future? The on{y {ogical thing to do is to consider doing that in tandem with some kind of a cluster development. So, if the city wants to have good long term developmen# of this property we ought to have a procedure where by your interests are protected and also my clients to have a comprehensive plan. That has not been done for whatever reason there has not been any concept or plan proposed for a fulf development of that entire parcel. That is a lot of acreage that this body is going to be ruling on over the next few years and there should be some concerted effort as to what happens with that property. I am aware and t understand that the process you use of annexation and commercial zoning with the conditional use permit has been used in the past and that is based on a court decision that I am sure Wayne is familiar with called the Burt decision. I am here tonight to advise the Council that last week Judge Schroeder in a case that my iaw firm is involved in which is a dispute between the City of Eagle some property owners and the City of Boise, rendered a decision in my opinion that decision puts you in jeopardy if you continue to follow that approach. Judge Schroeder ru{ed from the bench that the action by a city to annex and then to zone commercial, that parcel of property is quasi judicial. What happens if that is true and again that is tMe judges decision, if that is true than your handle or your protection of a conditional use permit could be put in jeopardy. I apologize by not being able to give you authority other than verbally because the judge ruled from the bench I don't have an order. As a matter of fact vv~e didn't want that resolved from the court but I can get to your legal counsel a transcript of what the judge rufed. My concem is if you act tonight and you grant this annexation what you have in essence done is given him a commercial development which he can do with any confines, Schroeder is right your handle on him is no longer any good. That is clearly detrimental to my client and probably more so to you because of the adverse effect it is going to have. That case number is City of Eagle vs. City of Boise case no. 97787, I will provide to Wayne if you like a transcript of the judges opinion. But that is a danger for the city and also a danger for my client's future development of that property if you take that approach tonight. We have to understand that also the development proposed here tonight has not been really adequately disclosed to you. I understand that procedurally people can come up with development contracts later, they can tell you they are going to do later. In this case I believe that the development company already has a plan for development and they are not sharing that devefopment here because they want you to grant annexation. They want you to grant zoning first then they will come back to you. Since that hasn't been done you are at a disadvantage of knowing what type o# development is going to be in this property and how are you going to react on how that affects future development. So I think by the fact that they have not come forward with the development agreement or complied with the other requirements set forth in finding #10 in the findings of fact and conclusions of law ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 39 CJ that again this again is a premature action that does not need to be brought before this council tonight. The answ~er though is what is the answ~er, what is fhe city going to do, how do you act to resolve what I consider the limit. The demands on you are tremendous, you have tremendous growth but you have got to stand back and say what have we got here today, what affect is this going to have on a major piece of property which involves over 35 acres if we sit back and look at that. If you buy the argument that the precise development has not been determined by Mr. Crandlemire or his successors the worst position he is in by your denial of an annexation tonight is he can come back that is an irritation. To that you've got the interest of what is best for the City of Meridian, what do you want to do with the comprehensive development of that 35+ acres, how should it be developed and more importantly what specific development should Mr. Crandlemire be forced to show you and come to you before you grant it. The only feasible approach you can have is to deny the annexation. If you deny the annexation tonight he then has to go back and do his homew~ork. I would suggest if you deny the annexation you tell him to come back with a development agreement and have that development agreement address how his development is going to impact the 2djoining property owners for a comprehensive plan for the development of that entire corner, the 16 acres of my client and the property east of their which you are alt going to have to rule on. If you do that then you get an approach a guidance so you can make an intelligent decision that is going to affect the city far years in advance. We are willing to do that, my client is perfectly happy to have this body step back and make a decision or investigate a decision for the proper and orderly development of this property which I think is material to the city. The only other option is you say I am going to grant it to him and let the short term needs of the developer today, get what he wants and you are going to have to deal with the long term probtems tamorrow. I would suggest to you that is not what the city needs and you should reject his annexation request. Any questions? Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Mack? Morrow: If your client wishes to control what goes on there why don't they buy the property? Mack: She doesn't wish to control, she is asking the city to control that, she is asking the city to make that decision. She isn't forcing Mr. Crandlemire his successor to develop this property all she is asking is to make an intelligent decision on 35+ acres on this entire area before you grant him his annexation. Because if you don't you are going to do a piece meal and there is not going to be an continuity. She can always come to you with her 16 acres with a proposal as Mr. Crandlemire or his successor has done to ask for you to take action on that. We think that is not in the city's best interest and we don't think it is in her best interest. • • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 40 Morrow; It would appear fo me that from the standpoint of private property ownership rights the Crandlemire's and obviously this gal and the people next door have the right to pursue whatever it is they wish. We as a City Council cannot sit here and tell them they have to go to their neighbor and get cooperation and bring forth a design that is compatible with all 3 so that we as a city can act on that particular design or that particular concept. Nor is it proper in my opinion for government to mandate how development is going to occur in terms of a project and from a practical standpoint in many cases development of commercial nature it is contingent upon them to receive annexation and zoning before they can market the project to the private sector because in the private sector those folk won't commit to leases or to financing or anything else without those things being in place. And certainly in many cases you cannot as a development company represent who is being courted because of confidentiality. What you are asking here seems to me by the bulk that the ather parcels mandate what goes on with this parcel. Mack: I am not reaUy saying that, what I am first saying is you have a comprehensive Plan which I think is very good and there are numerous sites in the findings of fact by the P& Z that the threshold issue of your comprehensive plan is you don't want strip development. My first premise is if you grant that tonight that is what you have got. That property is only big enough for strip development. So that is going to go against the theory or the concept or the ultimate design that this Council wants for the development of the city. Address the issue in a broader spectrum first. You may end up there I don't know my client may end up with a decision she doesn't want, but from what I am saying there if you allow what amounts to a strip development and numerous access points and all of that which is a classic strip development you are in essence going against directly what your comprehensive plan wants. I realize it is a difficult question and it is har~ especially for this body when the pressures are upon you to allow the developer to make his money and go forward, but you do have I believe the ability and the power to look at those issues in a broader sense and then make the decision. You might come back to the same decision I am not saying you won't but I'm saying look at it. Don't give it up now without at least inquiring because I don't think this development is in conformance with your comprehensive plan. Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Mack? Anyone else from the public that v~ould like to offer testimony on this issue? Merkte: I will try to be brief here, I want to remind the Council I am sure you are aware but w~e are not talking about a 35 acre piece here tonight we are talking about a 9 acre piece bordered by Fairview and Locust Grove, on the south it is bordered by an existing right of way named Wilson Lane. tn any overalf master plan of the 35 acre area we v~ould still have the same 9 acre piece bordered by public right of way on 3 sides. We are kind of limited as to what we would do there anyway. In your findings of fact presented to you ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 41 ~ from Planning & Zoning item #14 says all development requests will be subject to development review, conditional use processing to ensure compatibility and since the city shall have control over any uses that are to be placed on the land it is therefore concluded that development of the parcel of fand is conditioned upon being developed as a commerciaf planned devefopment speaking of the 9 acres which is ailovu~d in this zone under the conditional use permit. Therefore it is concfuded that the property should be annexed and zon~ed CG general commerciat and or-ly capable of being developed as a planned commercial development ar under the conditional use process. Also as a condition of annexation of the 9 acres v~ree are required to enter into a development agreement which will address some site specific areas. Regardless of this other gentleman's client and her surrounding property we are just here tonight ta(king about this 9 acres. Any questions? Corrie: Do you know what is going to go in there? Merkle: Possibly a 50,000 square foot retail on the eastern 2/3 of this 9 acres. We have already met with the highway district regarding access points, this particular proposa{ which will come before you under a conditional use at a future date is not a strip development. It hasn't been submitted to you yet but that is one of the intents of the client. Kingsford: Other questions? Anyone else from the public? Mack: I will make one sentence. You have to ask yourself the basic question that if the developer knows what the development is which at the hearing before the Planning & Zoning commission indicated that they did not know why are they holding back to advising to what this devefopment is untif fater. And the answer to that is it might be very simple they want as many options as they can when they come back to you to do what they want to do. All I am suggesting to you is that is not in the best interest of the City. You ought to have the options up front, make them come to you first, then make an informed decision. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I wi11 close the public hearing. Counselor, I would assume that would constitute significant additional findings what it is your opinion? Craokston: Well it is because we did not hear from Mr. Mack or anyone representing that property at planning and zoning. Kingsford: Entertain a motion to prepare additiona{ findings. Morrow: So moved • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 42 Yerrington: Second ~ Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City At#orney prepare additional findings incorporating additional testimony, aff those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Can I ask Shari a question, Shari on the property that is across the street are we requiring a 35 foot setback across the street. I may be asking a questions that you don 't have the answer to tonight, if you don't would you just remember for me so I can ask you tomorrow. Kingsford: You are talking about the Avest? 5tiles: I know they have some landscape setbacks but I don't know for sure. I will check on that and tell you tomorrow. ITEM #20: PUBLIC HEAR{NG: REQUEST FC~R CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Kingsford: At this time I wiii open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak #irst. Gary Fletcher, 190 East Bannock, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fletcher: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council you have before you this evening a conditional use permit request by St. Luke's to construct a medical facility at the corner of I-S4 and Eagle Road. f think you wift see within the repor# and recommendation from the planning & zoning commission the services that we intend to include in this facility w~e appreciate the cooperation and assistance that we have received from the staff and the Mayor's o~ce and others. We have every intention of complying with (End of Tape) made by the city staff, the various agencies and entities that have reviewed the previous, at previous meetings the application for a conditional use permit. With that we respectfully request your consideration and approval of this and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Morrow: I have one question, you have read Gary Smith's comments of June 23rd, assume those are all acceptable to you with respect to the water and the sev~r'? Fletcher: Yes sir. • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 43 ~ Corrie: I have no questions, but i saw you on television and you did a nice job. Fletcher: Thank you very much, I am getting a lot of practice these days. Kingsford: Counselor? Crookstor~: What is the size of the structure going to be? Fletcher: Right now we are going through the final design but 100,000 square feet. Crookston: And how many stories? Fletcher: One story below grade and 3 above. Crookston: Thank you Kingsford: Will passage of the First Lady's bill have any ramification on this? Fletcher: No sir, we have every intention of proceeding. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none 1 wil! close the public hearing. l've got to conclude that is no substantial change to the findings. I would entertain a motion to approve the findings prepared for P & Z. Allorrow. So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for Planning & Zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CA~.L VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Entertain a motion on the conditional use permit. Morrow: I move that we approve the conditional use permit. Corrie: 5econd ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 44 Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the conditional use permit for St. Luke's Regional Medical Center, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #21: PUBLIC HEAR{NG: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY RAMON YORGASON: Kingsford: At this time I will open that pub{ic hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Gene Smith, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I am before you this evening representing Capital Development and to present for your consideration the annexation, zoning and preliminary plat for a parcel of ground known as the Waterbury Park subdivision no. 5. This parcel consists of approximately 14.6 acres, it is located west of Waterbury Park No. 4 which is west of Meridian and south of Ustick Road. The current zoning is RT in Ada County with a proposed zoning of R-4 that zoning is consistent with the adjacent properties both to the east and south of this particular piece with RT agricultural to the north and west. The proposed subdivision is to contain public water and sewer and streets. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the area. I have reviewed comments from staff both engineering and planning and have no concerns with any of those comments. Kingsford: Any questions? Anyone else from the public that v~nould like to offer testimony on this issue? John Sanford, 2880 Venable Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sanford: I addressed this body I think at the time that the zoning went through on the Lansbury Lane subdivision. And my request at that time was to eliminate a culdesac af the end of that property so I would have access to my 11.5 acres due west of that subdivision. 1 was informed at that hearing that I had no concern about accessibility because Venabte Lane was going to be a through street. It is obvious from the drawings here that I~m reading tonight on this new subdivision Venable Lane will not be a through street. You did approve the culdesac effect in the Lansbury Subdivision so I am here for accessibility. I also own 7.5 acres due north of the proposed subdivision in question here tonight. i think if f may, this is Venable Lane, here is the subdivision, here are the 7.5 acres of my property right here, here is a drainage ditch. Venable Lane is not going to be a through street obviously. I have no accessibility to the 7.5 acres or even my 11 acres ~ ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 45 with the acception of Venable Lane which is a private lane. 1 am requesting in as much as Venable is not going to be a through str~et to have access right across from this subdivision over to my property here across the drain ditch. Otherwise I am landlocked, on the 11.5 acres I presently run a cutting horse training center, I have a big facility there. It is obvious I don't have access except through Venable Lane and I have no problem as long as Venable Lane is going to be a through street, t do have a problem now. Thank you. Kingsford: Any questions? Anyone else from the public? Joe Simunich, 955 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Simunich: Mr. Mayor and City Council ! would just like to take a few minutes and use this as an opportunity to bring forth a couple of points primarily conceming irrigation ditches. About a year ago I stood here and I was told by a developer that he would pipe a ditch for us. At that time I assumed piping a ditch would mean it would be put into adequate standards that are normal in a construction industry. This subdivision was (inaudible) called Lansbury Lane. There were numerous changes in the plans working with Gary Smith trying to work with the developer we got an unsatisfactory project. The pipe is not backfilled properly. The grades were changed they were going to put in reinforced concrete boxes which they did later they found out they are too short, they just added some concrete to the top. After a difficult struggle w~e did get iron (inaudible} on the boxes. As of today they are still not botted down. At the beginning of the pipe line there is a fence between 2 properties it is directly over the pipe line. Part of the fence goes over an irrigation (inaudible) clean out box, in order to get to the fence you have to remove the fence and then take the lid off. From what I understand on the user laterals the city has no input. All you do is ask the developer to pipe it. In the future some of the property that I own if you require pressurized irrigation this pipe witl need to carry the water to that area. So I think in other subdivisions any place you are (inaudible) ordinance as to the quality of workmanship that goes into these structures and these pipes rather than let the developer do what he wants. The ditch was fine before he came there, we could take our tractor and clean it. Now there is 1800 feet of ditch in the pipe, there will be over 20 lots, there is a 10 foot easement what can you do in a 10 foot easement. I assume there would be a fence betw~een each lot so how do you access these irrigation boxes when you have cross fences along fhe entire ditch system. f am not concemed with Mr. Yorgason's project because he has done (inaudible) I have seen some of his other jobs and they are satisfactory. (Inaudible) sell the lots and then move on. Right here in the covenants it says (in~udible) to maintain that ditch. I can tell you that doesn't work because I (inaudible) the guy vuouldn't take his dogs out of the back yard so I could fix the ditch until Saturday. f would just like the Council to know how some of us feel about the irrigation systems that are being put in by developers. Thank you. ~ • Meridian C+ty Council August 16, 1994 Page 46 Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Smith: In response to Mr. Simunich, the irrigation is a problem, irrigation is something we all need to be sensitive to. i think he stated it best, Mr. Yorgason and his other devetopments has been very sensitive to that issue. And we have done the neighborfy thing to do and made those systems work. My understanding of regutation is that as fong as the water enters into the property and exits the property at the historical locations you can pretty much do with it what you want in the interior. The intent is not to harm the down stream users but to adequately provide their service as has been in the past. I believe that we would do just that to his satisfaction. in response to the gentleman's question the access to the parce! to the north. I guess i am a littie confused their, Venable Lane we originally, when w~e originally show~ed Venable Lane, I stubbed to Venable Lane and ACHD recommended that was not necessary with this phase. I don't recall the exact statement something to the effect that there was a collector p{anned on the adjacent property that would service that site. The access to the parcel to the north I don't believe would be coming from this property now. I believe they w~ou{d get access from the north from Ustick. Morrow: That seems to me like it is an issue that needs to be dealt with in terms of are theit' more than one parcel. Is the 11 acres that he is tafking about landlocked between here and Ustick? Smith: Not that I am aware of. Morrow: There must be a parcel that fronts Ustick. Smith: We do have a common area across the east side that we could provide an access easement across where that existing bridge is if that would service that site. Is that where you are getting access from nov~? {lnaudible) Smith: We have this common lot all the way along and we coufd provide, this is the bridge crossing right here and we could provide access road through that common lot. Sanford: What we have to understand here Venable Lane is a private lane and it is deeded, I don't own it. Smith: Neither does this property though. Sanford: Yes they do. ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 47 Smith: As far as the sell of this property, but it is not part of that. Sanford: (Inaudible) because they are going to have access from Meridian Road. Morrow. I think 1 am confused here, how does, in terms of this okay here is the area map, here is this, Venable Lane comes down, ean you show me Gene on this map? How does Lansbury Lane relate to these the 7 acre and 11 acre parcel. This is the parcel that w~e are dealing with here. Venable Lane is apparently here? How does this, there are parcels of property here that make these landlocked? Sm~th: That is what he is saying. Morrow. This is Ustick here. Smith: Venable being a private roadway from Ustick is what he is saying. So I guess my contention is if you have access now it is not coming from this property to the south presently. If it is I haven't seen any easements or anything that aNows access to that property. Morrow: Could you show me whers your property is and how you access it? (Discussion Inaudible) Smifh: This parcel here has no real effect on Venable Lane. (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow. It is not a matter of an easement, I believe it is a matter of actually stubbing the street there. I think #hat Mr. Larry Sale couid help us a little bit. Larry Sales, ACHD, 318 E. 37th St., Boise, was s~nrorn by the City Attorney. Sales: Mr. Mayor, members of fhe Council, when previous Waterbury Park No. 4 was approved this Council and the Highway District both agreed that there v~ould be access provided to the west. At the time there was an access provided to the north out of that subdivision which crossed a large drain ditch or canal. Because of the fragmented ownership to the north and the fact that we don't' really want to inherit any more bridges if we can avoid. We traded the access to the north for one to the west which ended up accessing this parcel. In the process obviously we stilt picked up another bridge because that extension crosses a fairly large water course. That water course happens to line up exactly if you look at your vicinity maps that water course lines up with Venable Lane. so . • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 48 we felt it was fruitless to try to get a connection in fine with Venable Lane, furthermore we have had extremely poor foRunes in convincing peopte that they should convert private lanes to pub{ic roads. If there are 3 or 4 owners on that road if only one of them decides that they don't want it to be a public road than it is going to be a public road. However, what appears to be 4 or 5 parcels do have preservable legal access to Venable L~ne and purchased the property apparently satisfied with that access. In reviewing then this plan w~e met with the developer and his engineer to ascertain an appropriate circulation pattern for this Northwestern corner of this square mi~e. If you again refer to the vicinity map, looking at one that looks like this, you will see out of the subdivision v~st of there there is a stub street to the next parcel west of this one. We did not want a direct connection with that street because we end up with 3/4 of a mile and fairly easily traversable street anc! w~e wish to interrupt that east w~est flow somewhere in there. Same time we want away from this traffic since there is no way to get out to the south to an arterial we want to provide this property with a good collector rivet out to the north. So at that time we I guess decided that at the staff at least that we would seek a collector roadway coming in from Ustick through the parcel of property which has the number 5 in it for Waterbury Park No. 5. At the same time we also asked the deve{opers engineer to look at the lot immediately where the arrow head points to in Waterbury Park No. 5 and to +nvestigate the feasibility of extending that to the north and ta (inaudible) in the layout. I don't recall if we asked him to check with the property owner or not. Regarding Mr. Sanford's property in our field inspection review~ed that property, particularly the 11 acre parcel on the east side as being a long term use and some very major investments and very nice facilities for his training business. It didn't appear to us that property was in the at least in the short term was going to be eligible for devetopment. The property to fhe w~est is another matter, his 7 acre piece on the w~est side of Venable Lane it could be served even with a street stubbed out of this project in the iot where the arrow point is. Or from a street stubbed in from the w~est ever~tuaNy from this collector street. That is er~ough I guess, do you have any questions? Kingsford: Questions for Larry? Morrow. So at this point the access for both of those parcels of property of his are somewhat future type access unless there is an access out of Waterbury Park to the 7 acre parcef? Sales: It would appear he has 3 options, 1 is to utilize Venable Lane and or convert it to a public street with the permission of the other owners. Two would be a stub out of Waterbury Park No. 5 and the third ~nrould be a longer term possibility being serviced from the west from property that isn`t yet in the deveiopment chain. Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Sale? Thank you Larry. Engineer, if 1 might ask you a question, the parcel that Mr. Sa{e spoke of that the arrow points at in the vicinity map ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 49 ~ (inaudible) what was your reaction when you were addressed about that by ACHD. It seems like that to be the reasonable solution to me a stub out there. And then to follow up on that to maybe have that turn be part ofi that collector so it also i~ not necessarily a straight shot. Smith: To be honest with you I don't recall the stub location, I do recall the conversation about the stub street to Venable Lane location. And the comment was and ! can probably find it here quickly for you. This is ACHD's comments dated June 9th, Venable Lane a private road dead ends to the north of Waterbury Park No. 5 across the (inaudible) lateral. A future collector status street to the north will be to the west of this parcel there for no stub street to the north is necessary in this phase. That is what we were going on. So far the stub street a different location if that is a requirement of the subdivision. I am sure they can be dealt with but that is not where we were coming from. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Sanford: I appreciate the 11 acres being called a future expansion due to the facility that 1 have there. We have to keep in mind that it is a horse training, cow cutting operation and at this point in time due to the Lansbury Lane subdivision my cattle pin is approximately 200 feet from the house that is already there that they just built. I wonder how long that (inaudible) are going to put up with the (inaudible) cows, I don't think it is a long term thing I think it needs to be addressed. Thank you. Kingsford: Last call, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony? Simunich: I've been watching the growth tn this area for 24 years. To the west of our property there is a subdivision put in it has one access road for 100 houses. There is to be another bridge across Five Mile Creek so that property would have 2 accesses to L.inder Road. The City has purchased that property for a park there will be no access across Five Mile Creek only the one that exists now. (Inaudible) people to have access in and around (inaudible) there should be an access provided somehow to those parcels, thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I wifl close the public hearing. Council members. Entertain a motion to prepare additional findings. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare additional ~ Meridian City Coun~il August 16, 1994 Page 50 • findings of fact and conclusions on the proposed annexation and zoning for Waterbury Park No. 5, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Sale: Can I comment on this matter? Kingsford: ft is not part of the public hearing but we will certainly look at it. Sale: I think the Highway District can be convinced to stub a street to the north boundary of this proje~t maybe even swap the west stub for the north stub because v~ can still get this the gentleman's property out to the collector. However, if should you decide to make that a condition we would ask that you add that fhis developer provide half of the cost of the structure across that stream bordering this property that he deposit the cost of that structure with the Highway District. And then when this gentleman develops this property he will have to build a bridge and we will give him this half of the cost so that he can have access. Kingsford: Thank you. ITEM #22: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR JOSEPH AND MARY daROSA: Kingsford: Would you sta#e your proposal please? daRosa: My name is Manuel daRosa, I put in the conditional use permit for my parents, I am representing my parents Joseph and Mary. I had put in there to, let me explain this background of this. It is a 1903 home built by a Reverend Powers retired here from Missouri. It is a beautiful home and I want to preserve the home as such and make it a landmark for the City of Meridian. And I am basically in accordance with the City of Meridian's outline that they have. It is in the Old Town area. I put in the conditional use permit to receive or get if I possibly could have angular parking on East 2nd Street. I am on the corner of East Pine and East 2nd Street. At the time I also asked for which have to this day, 1 have parallel parking on Pine Street and parallel parking on 2nd Street. Now Ada County Highway District recommended that the City of Meridian not grant me the angufar parking on East 2nd Street due to the street was not wide enough and it would provide us a dangerous situation. So at that time on July 12th we had the first public hearing, Shari Stiles made out and the first page in or the 3rd page Shari Stiles has written basically an amendment that would allow me to have parallel parking along 2nd Street. Which vu~uld provide me with adequate parking spaces, I want to put that as a professional office space so I need a minimum of 6 parking spaces. I would have 4 on the 2nd Street and 4 on Pine Street which would give me 7. To set that up now, Shari has told me that • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 51 • now the City of Meridian wants me to put in another application to apply for a variance regarding off street parking. I would like to just so state that I feel that I have already applied in my original conditional use permit for that parking. And I v~rould like the City of Meridian to allow me not to put in that variance so 1 i don't have to occur the cost and 2 so that I don't have to back myself up now another month. That is all I have, if you have any questions for me. Kingsford: Questions for Mr. daRosa? Yerrington: Are you on angled parking on both Pine and 2nd Street? daRosa: I kind of gave up the angular parking, I would like to have angular parking and I was even offering to put the angular parking on my property from the curb line in about 8 feet to my sidewalk but they refused that. I just want the parallel parking on both sides. Yerrington: Thank you. Morrow: How are you going to restore this building are you going to restore it to professional space, does that mean accountants, attorneys and doctors. daRosa: Yes, we have been working on this structure for 8 months and put quite an extensive amount of money into it and I am in the process now. I'm about $5,000 into sidewalk and Nampa Irrigation District tiling. Morrow. You already satisfied the requirements of this? daRosa: Yes, more than, l vvould like Shari if she would on my behalf {et you know that I am doing it. She has been on site now twice. Morrow: She will be talking to us next. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. daRosa. I guess one thing that I might ask is as you looked at your angular parking, I appreciate that you thought about giving that up. Have you looked at a protection ball, was that discussed much as we have for example on some of the parking spaces on 1 st Street? daRosa: I don't quite understand your question Mayor. Kingsford: For example over here at Intermountain Arms, there is a ball that protects people as they come (inaudible) was that discussed by the highway district? • • Meridian City Councif August 16, 1994 Page 52 daRosa: No it was not, there would have been one there, I would have put one there at the corner of 2nd Street and Pine that would have covered the 2nd Street side because I was actually proposed that I w~ould take from the curb to my sidewalk is about 8 feet and I vu~ould have left that type of curbing on the 2nd Street side and that would have given me 8 parailel parking spaces, 8 angular parking spaces on 2nd Street side but they didn't like that idea. Kingsford: Questions for Shari? Morrow: You had in our packet today a letter dated yesterday, talking about the conditional use permit is either approved or not approved (inaudible) an additional application with respect to a variance fior off street parking. You have seen this project can you bring me up to speed with your iine of thinking behind this letter that v~e received today? Stiles: Yes Councifman Morrow, Mayor and Counci{ members, I have been through the house a couple of times and have been on site while he has been making his improvements to his sidewalks. He has had quite a bit of prob{ems with the existing water system that has gone through there and the city water system is so antiquated it is literally disintegrated. As far as the parking, I just think it was part of their original application. They w~ere very upfront about it, it seems redundant to require a variance at this time when it is part of the conditional use permit application. I don't know legally if they need to, they are absolutely required to apply for a variance but it would seem to me that if you approved a conditional use permit it includes it as it is proposed and it should not have to go back through another application process that is costly to the city and does not pay #or itself. I think it has been presented in all of the public ~earings and I see no reason why it w~ould have to go through that. That was just my personal feeling on it. Morrow. Thank you Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council for staff? Morrow: I have a question of the Counselor, with respect ta what Shari testified to. Crookston: That issue has not ever come up before and I haven't looked at it. I certainty understand and appreciate what Shari has stated. I am just not in a position right now not having addressed it before to say that it is required or should be allowed to be approved without it. Kingsford: Have the findings changed appreciably. Entertain a motion on the findings. ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 199~ Page 53 Morrow: So moved. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for Planning & Zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: ItAorrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Yolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow. How do we deal with the variance issue? Corrie: The findings said he has to apply for a variance. Kingsford: I still would like to see you Mr, daRosa look at that angied parking. I know the highway district doesn't like it and Larry will gfare at me a little bit but we did it on 1 st Street and I would like to see that theme carry on through the old part of town where it can with the bulb with brick pavers and that sort of thing. And yau are right on the perimeter #here and 1 think it is a real opportunity. I would like to see you investigate that maybe first and then look at the variance to the parking ordinance. daRosa: 1 would like to say that Ada County Highway District woutd allow me to put angular parking if 1 actually and I am not quite sure what ihe words are here but if I sign a release of some sort putting all claims that would, if someone came out and pulled out and was hit from the back side. The Ada County Highway District wants me to fuHy responsible for any accidents that would be involved in that and I just didn't feel like I as a property owner should be responsible for that. So, I would IQVe ta have the angular parking there but I don't feel like I should have to sign that release form, Shari may know what that is? It is a hold harmless agreement. So that was proposed. I currently have to put in a pedestrian ramp and 5 foot sidewalk and actually a 6 foot sidewalk on the 2nd Street side and a 4 foat on the Pine Street side. Kingsford: We11 the requirement based on the approvaf of the findings is that one or the other happens either you have parking you apply for a variance for it. daRosa: I am kind o# confused about that I currently have parking there. Kingsford: Parking adequate for the building? daRosa: Yes, one space more than what is adequately needed, I need a minimum of 6 i Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 54 spaces and I currently have 7 open spaces. Crookston: It is all on street parking. • daRosa: That is correct, but it is available to me. I use it nowwhen it was a residence and my parents actually had renters in there they were using that parallel parking on both sides. So it is available to me now. I don't quite understand v-fiy 1 need a variance to ask for it back. I never gave it up really. Morrow: The issue there is the ordinance requires off street parking for that type of a project. The purpose of a variance is to take away the need for off street parking. It is true you do have 6 or 7 spaces of on street parking but if I am unders#anding Shari and Wayne correctly the variance is for off street parking requirements. Item 6 on page 5 of the conclusions it says, talking about (inaudible) all parking and landscaping requirements the applicant will need to apply for a variance regarding the off stree# parking. daRosa: That is correct, you don't Kingsford: But the ordinance requires that you do. daRosa: That I need off street parking. Kingsford: You need off street parking or yau need a variance from the Council to (inaudible). daRosa: I understand. {TEM #23: CONDITfONAL USE PERMiT REQUEST FOR RED CANYQN CORPORATION: Gerber: I am Lloyd Gerber, I am the President of Red Canyon Corporation. We purchased the property on 2nd East and Pine, the old medical center. It has been vacant since 1985. We are now trying to because it was vacant anything we put in there has to go through a conditional use permit. And that is why we are here now and trying to get it sa w~e can put tenants in there. We have one tenant that we anticipate going in there we wili still need one more. Kingsford: Questions for Lloyd? Morrow. You have read the staff's comments are you are in agreement of complying with the staff conditions. • • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 55 Gerber: t have the same problem on the highway, that this gentleman had and I am not going to sign the agreement. If w~e c8n't come to an agreement on it then the highway will just have to say what they want and do it, (End of Tape) if we have diagon~i parking they are going to, welf let me back up. Maybe all of you understand what that looks like down there with the north side of that building now has right up against coming right off the street. There are about 17 or 18 feet that are private property and now it is the parking on private property and backing out into the street. The requirements of the County to put the new curb in and gutter in and the sidewalk that will force the same parking out in the street so instead of being off street parking it is going to be forced off of the property onto the street which then takes me out of having that for my use. And in addition if it is to be diagonal parking which would be better for more parking spaces then I have to sign the hold harmless contract for the county's negligence. The only time the County can get sued is when they are negligent. I am not witting to do that, they can park wherever they want. They can put the parallel parking if they want. I simply ~nron't sign it. Kingsford: Questions of #he Council? Tolsma: This looks simitar to what vve had downtown also with the bulb w~ork on Pine Street there (inaudible). Sa{e: The difference in this ease gentfemen is that Pine is a proposed major street. There is sufficient right of way there that woe don't need any additional right of way, we don't need that right of way for some time until we widen the street. Mr. Gerber is correct in what he says in that parking is currently on, partially on I guess and partially off of the property but it is backing into the street. We will allow him to construct curb and gutter in such a way to continue to have diagonal parking but it will not be in the present location where the curb is. It will be a widened street section similar to what you have downtown. So there will be the protection there but it will be similar in location to what is there now. We will allow that only if he wiii sign a iicense agreement with the Highway District because he is using the right of way for tha# purpose. And we will require the license agreement so that when we need that right of way for the widening of Pine Street we will re-construct the street and he will Jose that diagonal parking. A part of that license agreement is that he holds the highway district harmless for any actions that may occur on or off his property within the parking area. So, if he doesn't want to sign the license agreement then he will build the curb further out in the street and won't be abfe to have diagonal parking he can have parallel parking and the curb along (inaudible). We can in this situation make the bulbs work for a time. Morrow: 1# is a short term deal then? Sale: It is temporary use. ~ • Meridian C+ty Council August 16, 1994 Page 56 Kingsford: That is not in the 5 year plan is it Larry? Sale: No Kingsford: Well I gue5s that is a mute point if Lloyd is not interested in the hold harmless anyway. Any other questions of staff or Mr. Sale? What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow: I take it there has not been substantial additional testimony? Crookston: No Kingsford: Entertain a motion on the findings. Yerrington: { move for their approval. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, seeond by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for Planning & Zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is it the Gouncil's pleasure to approve at this point the conditiona! use permit? Morrow. So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the conditional use permit request by Red Canyon Corporation, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the counselor has brought up a point that on the previous one w~e approved the findings of fact and conclusions but we did not approve the conditional use. Kingsford: Can we until there is a resolution on the parking space. Crookston: We approved the findings. • • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 57 Kingsford: And the findings required a variance or off street parking so I think we are stilf on line. ITEM #24: PRELIMINARY/ FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK: Shrewsberry: We are requesting a(inaudible) approval of a 2 lot subdivision being phas~d for Central Valley Corporate Park. It would be about 10 3/4 acres in size. If you have any questions I would be more than Mappy to present what expertise I have on the project. Morrow: You have read staff s comments particularly the ones from City Engineer's department? Shrewsberry: Yes sir w~e have no problem with complying with those provisions. They are basically just Morrow: The 6 on the preliminary and the 7 on the final. Corrie: There is a camment from ACHD in reference to a traffic study, have you done that? Shrewsberry: We vtirould request that the traffic study be deferred at this time until such time as a specific user for this property is identified and the possibility of a need be addresscd at that time. If I may go forward, ACHD's request was based upon a specific future tenant for this property. That sale is still under negotiation and there is no guarantee that it wi{f go forward. For the property as it is currently zoned which is CG the traffic intensities of those uses coufd be handled by the existing traffic network, the uses would not be of an intensity that would warrant a traffic study. If this specific user does or the specific client does in fact purchase the property and comes with a specific development pfan with their needs. My interpretation of the zoning ordinance is a rezone request would be necessary in order to located the use on this property. At the time of the rezone request then the traffic study would be accomplished as part of the preliminary work for that application. I myself had calculated that for a CG type use at this property would generate something like 200 vehicle trips per acre (inaudible) almost 11 acres. So it vwuld be about 2,100 trips a day that I calculate beir~g a part of this property. If it is used in a CG context. Corrie: f wil{ defer until a little fater. Shrewsberry: Any other questions for Mr. Shrewsberry? Any questions for staff. • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 58 • Morrow: I would like to ask Larry Sale a question with regard to the traffic study issue. How do you do a traffic study without a specific user'? Sale: I apo{ogize Councif for not getting these comments to you because of some illness on my staff these (inaudible) did not go out in a time{y manner. This what I handed you is the second page of the report of the highway district. We on one hand we appreciate the candor of the applicant in this case to discuss some potential uses of this property with the highway district. On the other hand that candor has perhaps placed him in some jeopardy in view of the potential traffic generation that can we conceive if some of these uses occur. The top of the page you are reading is an excerpt from the highway district's development services policy manual which sets up establishes the criteria for the times when w~e will require a traffic study. We will concur with the ~pplicant that the traffic study be deferred if the city will assure us that we be given the opportunity to review whatever future application comes to the city. And if you read the second site specific requirement the highway district specifically will deny approval, or 1 should say reserve approval of the final plat until w~e knowwhat that use is. So if, I don't have any problem with the applicant proceeding if we have an agreement between the city and the district that we ought to have a shot at that application if it comes in. ff there is some building application, if there is no zoning that is required and they can come in with a building permit for a large traffic generator we woufd like to have the opportunity to comment on it. Any other questions? Morrow: I think rny only comment there is that seems like a fair proposal from the standpoint of it looks to me like there are a lot of uses out there that w~ould fall within the CG that require absofutely no rezoning on the parcel but yet being sensitive to the traffic study it needs to be part of the building permit process. So I guess my question ta Wayne is how do we get to that point? Kingsford: I think that certainly (inaudible) something that the clerk ~nrould have to have a(inaudible) on that w~e re-trigger that when we know what the use is and consult with the highway district on it prior to buitding permit. Aiso that could come under a development agreement if the Council wishes to do that. Here we've got a situation where it is already zoned and so all they are talking about is a plat. t am not sure that we can hold them to a development agreement. I do think that we can withhold the building permit by agreement if it is a large traffic generator. Crookston: I think we can do afmost anything along these lines as long as the applicant agrees to it. Shrewsberry: Speaking for our client the purpose for this application is simply #o expedite platting process so that w~e can have this property recorded in its configuration as quickly as possible. Site specific requirement #2 from ACHD does disturb me because it sounds • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 59 • like it is going to pu# us in a catch 22 situation where vu~e need to get a definite commitment from a buyer before ACHD will sign. And the buyer will not purchase untif the plat is recorded. So we may need to re-examine that specific site requirement. Kingsford: Would your client succumb to an agreement with the city that prior to building permit that it be reviewed if we do approve this plat? Shrewsberry: I would like to say that the client would be agreeable to that. It v~rould be good from my standpoint it would be good planning prac#ice in order fo do that. Off the record it was not my approaching ACHD that brought on all of this it was someone else not associated with our firm. Kingsford: You are not saying you would have hid that from them? Shrewsberry: No Kingsford: What you are faced with here Mike is a situation where the Council is not going to have a comfort level o# approving this unless we have an assurance from you that there will be a review. I think what you are going to look at is either a table or you are going to h~ve to give us some assurances that we are going to deal. Shrewsberry: Well, I wil! give you that assurance because tabfing would not suit our overall goal on this at all which is to expedite the platting process. Even a 2 vveek delay woufd not be looked upon favorably. So t v~uld take the initiative and yes you woufd have that assuranc~. Kingsford: We wou{d like that then in the form of a letter if the Council should approve it. Morrow. Can we not approve the preliminary/ final plat subject to certain conditions? lfi those conditions don't happen then the approval is null and void? Kingsford: ft doesn't get signed. Tofsma: (Inaudible) 11~orrow: f understand that Ron but we have to adopt that site specific requirement also that was the point of the question. If we approve that subject to our staff conditions and ACHD staff conditions then if those things don't happen nobody signs. Kingsford: t wouid entertain a motion to that effect. • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 6p Morrow So moved Tolsma: Second ~ Kingsford: Moved by Walt, seeond by Ron to approve the preliminary/ final plat for Centrai Valley Corporate Park conditions upon the applicant providing a traffic study should the user of that parcel warrant it to the satisfaction of the Ada County Highway District and that no building permit is issued until that is provided. Shrewsberry: The ACHD requirement is in a commerciai use over 30,OOtJ square feet in floor area and that right there at least in my mind that if any development of this property includes 30,000 square feet of developed space that right there would be the trigger in my mind #hat you could use that in order to withhold a building permit until such time as the traffic study is accomplished and approved by ACHD. Kingsford: Wefl, I can some other things that might come into play too. Shrewsberry: I understand and we can design a buifding to 29,999 square feet too. Kingsford: Heard the motion and second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea IT~M #25: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTiON: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FOR TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVIS{ON: Kingsford: Shari, is there a representative from Stubblefield here? You 1 understand did research on this particular plat and it never was plat. There never was a pretiminary plat approved so there couldn't be an extension. Go ahead I am interested in hearing it. That was our research at least. Stubbfefield: This who{e thing tonight comes as quite a shock to me and I am realiy not sure how to respond. t thought I was just here for just an administrative approva{. My uncle has been processing this project for a year. We had a public hearing a year ago, my uncle Jim Stubblefield has been processing that. 4ur engineer Roy Johnson has been preparing plans w~e have s~nt thousands and thousands of dollars in engineering. Now, I have been working out of state, I arrived just a little over a month ago and got involved in heiping them to process this. At that time we received a 16 item, the first part of July I believe either the very end of June or first of July we received a 16 item list from Shari, Ms. Stiles, requesting corrections to the processing map, the plan. This project is in 3 or 4 phases and we were processing the final plaUpreliminary which is in the middle of the • . Meridian City Councii August 16, 1994 Page 61 subdivision. We met with SMari July 12th, I believe it was, I was really unprepared for this tonight so I apologize, to go through her 16 item list. She called out several things that needed to be corrected on the plan. And then at that time there vwere some things that she was not aware of. We had talked about a well site, where we had met with Mr. Forrey and had come to an agreement to provide a v~nell site on the north side of Ustick instead of the south side of Ustick. At that time she was in the process of preparing a development agreement, she didn't have it she had a standard form that she gav+e to us. Afi any rate we have been going right along. So all ofi this comes as a real shock to me. I did send Shari a 3 p~g~ letter in response to our meeting in which I went through each of those 16 items. I got a one paragraph faxed back from her which 1 did not understand but it was very clear that we needed to have some meetings with Mr. Forrey before we could forward on this. At any rate I would like to request if possible if nothing more that this matter be continued for 30 days to allow me to get my father here who was the original representative of the company and direct staff to meet with us so we can get to the bottom of i#. Kingsford: I think certainly a table to the next to research just where we are with it. Stubblefield: t certainly hate to think it is the CounciPs desire to just throw everything out and start from scratch. Kingsford: We need tr~ look at where we are at and move from there. Morrow. So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed'? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #~6: KEITH HOLLOWAY: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSl4N OF ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PINE BLUFFS: Kingsford: Keith, come forward and state your proposal. Haliowy: My name is Keith Holloway, I am the president of Western Health Care Corporation, Boise, tdaho. tt doesn't seem possible but 4 years ago this Council approved annexation and zoning on Pine Bluff s Estate for the development of a multi-family housing, a day care facility, a nursing home retirement center and mini storage. I ca-~'t believe the enarmous number or amount of regulatory hoops we have jumped through in ~ • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 62 the last 4 years. We submitted our final proposat for HUD last week and they needed a clarification or confirmation from the Gity that the zoning still exists. ! am here today to respectfully request that an extension of that zoning be continued for that projeet. Yerrington: Do we need 4 more years? Holloway: I hope not, I don't think I could make another 4 more years. The file on that project now overflows a single file cabinet. Crookston: Where in the process are you? Holloway: All final plans have been reviewed we are going for a HUD insured loan. There are not a lot of lenders out there that are (inaudible) money on these kinds of projects. Particularty new projects. Crookston: I am kind of concemed the heading on our agenda is extension on annexation and zoning. Kingsford: It was annexed and zoned. Crookston: 1 am just wondering why that was on the heading of the agenda? Kingsford: l think basica!!y what he is after is just a letter from the city saying that his projects still meets (inaudible). { think there is a(inaudible). Crookston: It has already been annexed and zoned. Kingsford: Its been annexed and zoned, HUD wants to know that he can still build his project there. He is asking for a letter from the city saying that. Morrow. So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to draft a letter by the City Clerk concurring that the property on Pine is still acceptable for his nursing home facility and day care, alf those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea {TEM #27: D(3N BRYAI~: WATER PROBLEM CONCERNING DOVE MEADOWS AND • ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 63 WINGATE PLACE DEVELOPMENTS: Bryan: Well, ( guess you all know why I am here. I was here 3 years ago when this project went together. For the record this water problem conceming Dove Meadows and Wingate Place Deve{opments should state Dove Meadows and Avest Limited ParMership Deve{opments because Wingate Lane got a personai friendship with Dan Woods and he has been more than easy to get along with. If there is a problem he takes care of it and he has done everything right up to this point. The problems that he is experiencing and I'm experiencing with him are caused by Dove Meadows Development. To give you a brief summary, when this project first got started I came in here and f said I v~rould be back and f am back, its 3 years down the road and we have a mess and I will be back again when they develop the next 40 acres. And that started in May, that all started in January of 1993. I came to the Planning & Zoning and City Council and the whole schmere. May 12th, 1994 I called Grant at home, t felt pr~tty bad doing it but I had a flood problem and I was upset about it because of the fact that 1 had addressed enough early on to get it taken care of. May 12th, May 19th Dave Lpader from Dove Meadows Deve4opment called me and he discussed, my problem over the phone about a 15 minute conversation and a just af the conversation that I got was that it was not his problem or my problem it was Avest Limited Partnership's problem. They are the ones that have the drain ditch carrying the wastewater that is flooding me out. So it didn't accomplish much but he was going to look into it. May 24th of this year I had a conversation with Scott Weber who is a r~presentative of Avest Partnership and he discussed different options that he would do. One of them was to bury the drain, one of them was to re-route it. And still nothing was done but there was a fot of talk going on. At the May 19th meeting when I had the probtem, Bruce Freckleton sent a memo to Dave Leader regarding the problem, do you guys have a copy of that letter'? I just happen to have 5 copies, t also have 5 copies of Bruce Freckleton's map (inaudible) bigger picture of what is going on. The yellow highlight denotes my lateral, that is where my water comes in from the head gate up on top, the main tateral, it comes down that fence line. The bottom line is (inaudible) tiled so far. Its got a head gate there on the corner of that church property that is going to be a mess in the future because there is no control over that, it is an existing head gate and it comes out of the head gate goes about 2 feet and dumps into a tiled ditch. It is out there in the middle of nov-fiere, kids get into it, the developers get into it, the people working on the job sites get into it. There i~ no control there. The water, my water is tiled halfway through Wood's property which is denoted as Barker here. It goes down across Dixie Lane and then down to me where the #4 is is where it enters my property. What Dave Leader has done is the previous line of the water historicaNy has gone down this pink line out Fairview, down Fairview and diagonally across his 40 acre parcef and then across the front of ine. What Yre has done is plowed a trench along that blue line through his development. He has developed the east end of his property so he has re-routes his, that pink ditch he has re-routes down through the other side of his property witM a blade. It is not even a ditch, ~ Meridian City Councii August 16, 1994 Page 64 . he has just taken a grader down there scraped out a big path for the water overflow to go down. So what that does is collects down there where that #3 is into a culvert of Dixie Lane which historically only handled 1/3 of the water and now it is all of the water. And that goes down a drainage ditch which is the main drainage ditch across that property and it dumps into mine just about on the left hand side of that #4, it is just on the other side on the back of my corral. It is wiping out my corral and fences and it has been that is how this all got started all the water is coming down to that point and flooding me out. So, this memo was sent by Bruce denotes the problems and then addresses the I think there are 4 problems here. On page 2 it denotes my problem, it says the irrigation water plus or minus 2/3 of the split head is now being re-routed to a temporary ditch to the drainage traversing along the southerly boundary of Dove Meadows parcel. It is my understanding the water historically flow~ed south of Fairview and then proceeded w~est through Ewing and Shoshoni parcels. Before proceeding (inaudible) Roger Allen's property. With the re- routing of this water plus of minus 2/3 of the split head to the drain it is no longer passing through Roger Allen's property. Since it is now going down the drain to the west it is combining with the other 1/3 that is passing through the tile of Dan Wood (inaudible) southerly boundary of Wingate Place. The full head of water is now being concentrated at a point adjacent to Don Bryan's property that historically only carried 1/3 of the split head. He says flooding on Don Bryan's parcel has been a problem for some time due to lower elevation. My flooding problem started with development. The only problem 1 had with flooding was high water, which w~e all have around here. I didn't have any floods until we started with these subdivisions, from the day one the one next door to me Mirage Meadows that was my first flood and I have had nothing but problems ever since. And it goes on to read, as I mentioned to you yesterday I had numerous discussions during the early stages of your development with David Marx about the irrigation and drainage situation. It is unfortunate that these facilities v~re not developed early on. Now our problem mentioned above needs to be solved under unfavorable conditions as soon as possible. Building p~rmits will not be issued in Dove Meadows Subdivisions per ordinances whatever until such time as the city received documentation and acknowledgement from the lisf of property owners indicating that these problems have been resolved to their satisfaction. They are building in there and they have building permits and they have 4 houses started. They have 3 framed up and they have 2 foundations setting. 1 had conversations with Scott Weber and Dan Wood's both when they received a letter from Dave Leader asking them to sign it stating that he has taken care of the problem. They both called me and said are you happy with what they have done to take care of the problem. I said I can't see where they have done anything except turn on my head gate. Somebody went up and turned off my live water at my head gate which is off of this map and eliminated all of the water I pay for coming down here. All we have been using is drainage, run off from JMK Farms, that is what we have been using because there is so much of it. In fact there is so much of it that it is flooding out my neighbor in the white house on Dixie Lane his corral is a swamp because the ditch won't • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 65 u handle it. So when I talked to them about signing a letter I said I hadn't seen any letter any letter and he has contacted me and I don't know anything about it. I don't know if they have signed it or not. Some time in June, approximately June 21 st I talked to Bruce Freckleton again regarding, I asked him for an update on what was happening with the flooding and permits not being issued and kind of a status report. He said that is the only leverage that the city has is to hold back that building permits until he does what he is supposed to do. I said we would just wait him out and see what happens. Some time in July these building permits w~ere issued and they have started building. August 5#h I came in here and had a conversation with Bruce regarding that very thing because I was a little be hot, I went home and I still had flooding problems and my neighbor called me and he has flooding problems. And they are already building and nothing has been addressed. It has always been my interpretation of what I know about the water from day 1 that they start developing it has to, the parcel they own, the parcel that Dave Leader owns the water has to enter at the same point and it has to exit at the same point. Now I don't know how he got by with that 1 don't who polices that but he obviously is not exiting. He eliminated the ditch on front ofi the church property is involved, I don't know anything about that. They have culverts out there that they buried and torn up and it fooks like a maze out there. I went out there to try to find where my water was and it disappears into the ground and comes up someplace else and I couldn't #ell you where it comes from. They have everything messed around. I just walked away from it because I don't want to get involved with that end of it. Like I said, fhe only thing I feel he has done to correct the problem is turn off my water. Because I am not using the water I am paying for I am using someone else's. I have no control, if I want to go turn on my water I can't control the flow. I am using the drain water. If they are irrigating I get a big head if they stop irrigating my head quits. I have a pump over there to do my orchard, if it quits in the middle of the pump it burns out my pump so I have to watch my pump all the time I irrigate to make sure the water doesn't quit. If I go up and (inaudible) water and my neighbor calls me because I am flooding him out because they turn the water on above me at the same time. I have no control over th~ situation. And in the future development with the 40 acres that Roger Allen owns I am going to have the same problem with Dixie Lane, there is a culvert coming across Dixie Lane I addressed at the Planning and Zoning and City Council meeting when he was pushing his issue that it needed to be taken care of. AI! I have heard is talk, talk, taik. And now Scott Weber from Avest is talking about they are going to have to bury that drain ditch and that w~ould eliminate my problems bwt what they are doing is just putting it off until the water goes out and then Don wont' have a problem anymore until next year. and 1 wilt be in here just like 1 was {ast year at this time. So I would fike to know why I was told there wasn't going to be any building permits issued and there was and why anything hasn't happened in Dove Meadows and how long we have to put up with it. Kingsford: Personafly, I am glad you are here. This is the first knowledge I had of you having a problem since you and I visited clear back in May. • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 66 • Bryan: That is why I felt I had to come to City Council because something wasn't happening. Kingsford: I vunuld encourage the Council to direct staff not to grant ~ny building permits until this thing is remedied water in or out of the ditch. Morrow. 1 w~ould like to go a little bit further, l dan't think you grant any bullding permits nor any occupancy certificates. That v~uld be a sensible motion. This is a very simple thing to solve and it is all screwed up and it shouldn't be. Kingsford: It has to be that the water goes in, whether or not they can get across in this excellent map whether they can get across there or not I don't know but they can sure put that water in at the point that used arrive to not encroach on you. Bryan: (Inaudible) they have roads in there and all of the utilities, they efiminated the ditch where it used to be but by elevations they are going to have to come across their development to get it where it came out. Morrow. There are only 2 issues here, one is he doesn't have his historical supply, which he is entitled to. And the second issue is what is going on there with the drain ditches that is floading him out. Essentially both issues need to be resolved. He is entitled to his historical supply and it is up to the development to continue that on through and it has a regular head gate that allows the water to come in when he is done it shuts off and he is done. He also should not be subject to flooding regardless to what happens to the other parcels in terms of how they choose to irrigate or whatever. It is an issue that these same people sMould be dealing with both issues and both problems at the same time. Corrie: Can they cantrol that drainage that comes out of there? Bryan: That is what they are trying to do and they can't do it. They can't controf the drainage because the drain fluctuates with the irrigation from JMK Farms which is up the road and they have no control over on the Church property. I don't know what happens on the church property, what they have done to the di#ches there. Evidently they have had a problem with #1 on the memo, it had a problem with the church property of the water ponding. I noticed when they put their new boxes out there the water was a lake out there forever and Ewing didn't have any irrigation. So 1 don't know what they did with that ditch. I have been trying to stay out of that. Tolsma: This pink line you have on there for the original drainage ditch. Bryan: That was the original live water ditch. • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 67 ~ Tolsma: The pink line, they abandoned it entirely and then run it as a temporary ditch and that puts the water then at the east part of your property rather than the west part of your property. Bryan: Exactly. Tolsma: (Inaudible) does that also create the (inaudibie) the hill iine then and floods the property behind you? Bryan: Well what happens the water coming down the overflow from that head gate that the forks dump into the yelfow the tiied ditch the overflow runs over into the blue. And all of the water that is not being used coming down from my line is dumping into here and dumping into my neighbor in the blue. Tolsma: (Inaudible) violated that. Kingsford: The pipe on Locust Grove Don that is enough bigger that it would accommodate that additionaf flow if they had put it in, put it back in there where it belongs. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Kingsford: The southwest corner of your property, is that pipe big enough so that they wou{d have continued to dump that in where it was originalfy? Bryan: That seems to be the problem that everybody thinks is a problem in front of my place the culvert going under my driveway that is what Scott Weber told me he said v~e decided to replace the culvert in front of your driveway and I said what is that going to do. Because the only time t have water from that culvert is when there (End of Tape). The onty time I had problems with the culvert flooding in front of my property is when it was flooded. f called Ada County Highway District, they ran a snake through there and found an obstruction from the box that Mirage Meadows put in. Historically all of this water did come down Locust Grove and go underneath my driveway before. Kingsford: So your contention and it seems (inaudible) to me is they dump that water at the east corner of your property instead of the west. { heard a motion from Walt to the effect of withholding building permits and occupancy permits is there a second? Yerrington: Second Carrie: From where? ~ ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 68 Kingsford: From Dove Meadows and I~nrould assume also any kind of building permits for Roger Aflen although I don't think he has applied for any. Morrow. I think the motion includes everybody's property on that corner, let's get the thing resolved once and for all. Kingsford: Discussion Counselor? Crookston: That was my point you need to detail who's occupancy and building permits. You are talking about what subdivision what developers. Tolsma: We could take everything south of the yellow fine then? Crookston: Or the land you could do it either way. You need to be detailed at to who you are shutting down. Bryan: That would be everything south of the yellow line. Corrie: How about north there it comes through that church property, is that a problem to you? Bryan: 1 don't have any problems north, 1 don't know what is going on with the church to the east. Morrow. On fhe church property you mentioned your water, your normal historical pick up point is on the east side in that church property and the water disappears. Bryan: It iooks to me like it goes underground and there are about 3 ditches over the top of it and it comes out underneath someplace else. I don't know if it has ever been changed or not because t have never been up there untit last week. Morrow: You can`t find your water at its historical pick up point? Bryan: Yes I can. Morrow: You can find your historical pick up point and the church property has nothing to do with it. Bryan: Other than the head gate where it comes, all the control is on the church property and that is probably the last parcel they developed. And there is no control over the head gate, that head gate is open to all the kids and people to do anything they want with it. • . Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 69 Morrow. Now is there a head gate on the lateral? Bryan: Yes Morrow. And so that is where the water for your parcel and these others comes from? Bryan: One goes my direction, one goes out or used to go out this way. Morrow. Gary Smith: Mayor and Council, I have had letter contact with Scott Weber with Avest and I have told him because he r~-routed that ditch that crossed Avest property and dumps, instead of his water crossing the property now to Locust Grove Road and then proceeding north it comes around the Shoshoni building north on Dixie Lane and dumps under the crossing on #3 there on Dixie Lane into that drainage ditch compounding the amount of water coming out on Don Bryan's #4. I don't know what kind of leverage vu~ee have with Avest to get that pipe replaced or the problem at the pipe reptaced crossing Dixie Lane to eliminate the f(ooding there or the point #4 at Don Bryan's property I don't know whether there is a de-annexation process allowed if he doesn't take care of his piping or ditches such as w~e have required of some other annexations that I can think of. But 1 will tell you dealing with these guys is a tough road to hoe because I thought we had it worked out because 1 wouldn't have lifted the building permits. I stopped them twice to try and get it resolved. And everytime you talk to one of them you get a different story. Morrow. Well, from my perspective this is a simple deal. I mean either they fix it or they don't do anymore work. And Scott Weber is not the guy to talk to let's talk to Roger Allen. Roger Allen is the horse power there behind the deal. Bryan: Dave Leader is the one that initiated the whole deal with this. He has sent the problem over to Roger. Morrow. I'm sure Roger will take care of his portion of it but it needs to start back here at the very beginning and follow right on through so we need to name everybody here concerned and r~otify them there are no building permits, no occupancy certificates until this issue is resalved once and for all. Smith: That is fine I will be glad to do it but I think Avest is in violation here too. And they will be so notified but what is the hammer to get it resolved because right now I have written a letter and all I've got is some double tall~ from Scott Weber saying w~e are in the process of dealing with a client and we may be at some future point abie to resolve this. And that is the kind of response I have gotten from him. • Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 70 • Morrow: Gary my point here is that the 40 acre thing with Avest is a multi-million dollar project. To solve this problem is a fiew thousand dollars and a little bit of time. It is no big issue. If Scott Weber is giving us the run around we are talking to the wrong guy we need to be talking to Roger Allen who is the horse power behind the deal and roger may not even be aware of what Scott is doing there or how serious the issue is. So let's direct our correspondence to him and that answers Wayne's question. The intent of my motion is that we notify atl of the property owners along there and that the same thing applies to all of them. There are no building permits, no occupancy permits for any of them. Smith: Well any of them is Dove Meadows, that is all that is being built right now. Kingsford: Well, I think that is the reasonable, I don't' think we should have to bird dog either Weber of Roger Allen. The guy that has created the problem initially is Leader, Leader needs to get with Allen and whatever the remedy is remedy it. But that has to stop, I am just about hot enough to wrap some heads. 1 was unaware Don that this was stitl going on, I promised you we would take care of it and I apologize for that. Bryan: It is not the staff s fault, it is the developers that say one thing and they won't do it. You are nofi getting the real story from these developers, they just keep putting it off, well Me will go away and quit worrying about it and his water wi{I be gone and we wil{ take care of it next year. Kingsford: What { heard in the motion was that everybody on the south side of the ye{low line and as indicated the primary is Leader, everybody on the south side will get no building permits or occupancy permits and not just until they tell us but until we see that it has been completed. Morrow: That was the motion. Corrie: That could be next year because there won't be any water in it after a while. Kingsfiord: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTiON CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #28: THOMAS BEVAN: APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE: Kingsford: Lieutenant, have you investigated that applicant? (Discussion Inaudible) ~ Meridian City Counci( August 16, 1994 Page 71 ~ Corrie: We got something here approved by the Chief. That approval of the Chief of Police isn't anything, it just proves that he has a driver's license, social security number and a birth date. Kingsford: Is there a motion to approve of the, excuse me. (Discussion inaudible) Kingsford: Is there a motion to approve of application for a liquor license? Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of the application for a liquor license for Thomas Bevan, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Afl Yea ITEM #29: THOMAS BEVAN: APPLICATION FOR A BEER AND W{NE LtCENSE TRANSFER: Yerrington: I also make a motion for approval for the beer and wine license transfer. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve of the transfer of the beer and wine license to Thomas Bevan, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #30: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTtONS FOR FAWCETT'S MEADOWS NO. 1: Kingsford: Counselor, comments on those? Crookston: i can't remember, I think I reviewed them. (Discussion Inaudible) Kingsford: Entertain a motion for approval. ~ ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 72 Corrie: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve of the CC&R's for Fawcett's Meadows No. 1, ali those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Ali Yea ITEM #31: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: 1 would like to ask the Council for a motion to go intv Executive Session for 2 issues, the issue of possibie litigation with regard to a bid. I wou{d ask for Wayne and Gary's input. And the other is litigation by the City of Boise and the District Court to compei the city to do some things. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to go into Executive Session, atl those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRtED: AfI Yea (EXECUTIVE SESSION) Kingsford: Cal{ the meeting back to order, the Councif did meet in Executive Session (inaudible) pending possible iitigation. No finai decision has been reached. Mr. Smith Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members I've got 2 items. One we had to, let me back up. July 7th we advertised for a boiler repl~cement at the waste water plant. This project was to purchase a boiler to replace the existing boiler because of increased requirements from our discharge permit we have to increase the temperatures in the digestors to get the required treatment. And the existing boiler is not providing that temperature that we need. So we advertised for replacement of the boiler and we received no bids. Subsequently by State code we are aflowed then to proceed to purchase a boiler independently. We then solicited prices or solicited bids from people that we knew of from suppliers that we knew of that we had previously requested bids from and did not receive any. We subsequently received some price quotes from 3 companies. Because of the delivery time required for these boilers I con#acted each and i failed to bring this before the Council's attention at the ~ ~ Meridian City Councif August 16, 1994 Page 73 last Council meeting. I telephone pofed each Council member to see if it would be acceptable to order a boiler from the low price quote. And all Council members reported to me that it was agreeable to them. And so based on Wayne Crookston's request I am bringing this back before you tonight for ratification. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved and seconded to approve of the purchase of a boiler on Mr. Smith's findings, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: The other item I have is to complete this boiler installation, I have retained the services of a consulting engineer, they have been doing work for us on smaller projects and their name is Aarons and Mason Engineering Inc. in Boise. They prepare the bid documents for the boiler and did a lot of the leg work in determining the acceptable manufacturer based on the price quotes that were received after we didn't receive a bid. Their engineering agreement or what they are proposing as far as their engineering agreement services is concerned for the purchase of the boiler and for preparations of plans and specifications to instaN the boiler. Which includes associated changes in piping and the electrical service. They are proposing an engineering service range of $25,000 to $30,000 to do all of this work. I told them it would be necessary to bring this before the Council for approval. t beat at them pretty hard on it because I thought it was pretty extensive. They have 4 different consultants that are in line to assist them, a mechanical, electrical and structural, excuse me 3. This includes the design, plan preparation and construction observation for the installation of this. It is going to require some structurai modifications to the floor support area because the boiler is quite a bit larger than the existing boiler we have. It is going to possibly require some changes in eleetrical and it definitely will require some changes in the piping out there. So piping will have to be dismantled and re-routed and so forth. And this is a time and material not to exceed, it is a range not a fixed cost type of deal. Morrow: But their upper side cap is $25,000 to $30,000? Smith: Yes Morrow: That seems like a lot of money. Smith: It did to m~ too, that is why I went back through it twice to get break down of the ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 74 ~ different disciplines. Out of that the mechanical is quoted at $6000, electrical is $4500, the structural $Z000 and then the remaining had to do with the bid documents that they prepared for the purchase of the boiler which we have already gone through. And then the preparation of the bid documents for the construction phase. Morrow: What percentage of the total job does that represent? Smith: They are estimating that the installation and modifications would be about $137,000 and we are spending, let me check that number. We will spending $16,190 for the boiler. So we got $16,190 and I believe their estimate was, 1 think I left the figures on my desk, I think it is $137,000 for the installation. So we are $153,200. Twenty five would be a 6th of that about 12.5%. of the total project. The cost of the boiier plus the cost of the installation. And I guess from a percentage standpoint in that 10 to 15°~ range is about where professional services are running. Which includes some construction observation also. Morrow: Does that include testing and core samples and alt of those other kinds of things? Smith: No Morrow: So that is over and above? Smith: Typically the owner picks up the cost of the materials testing. It would include the time, the start up of the equipment, the observation of all of that. I had the same opinion when f first saw it and that is why I really beat on them. With a~l of the back up information that they supplied to me plus letters from the individual consultants that they will be using outside of their office. Morrow: Have we used these guys for anything before of this size? Smith: No Morrow: Do they have a work history of doing anything this size? Smith: Yes, they have experience. They are just kind of a new formed company. I started them out just chedcing p{ans for us on sewer and water for the subdivisions and then they did a manhole rehabilitation project that we are going to be doing over here on the south side of the railroad. Morrow: Work cap to $30,000 is that the deal? • Meridian City Council Augus# 16, 1994 Page 75 ~ Smith: Well they are saying $25,000 to $30,000, but the break down he gave me is $25,225. Morrow: So do you feel safe at capping it at that 1 mean $25,000 to $30,000 is a long mark. Smith: 1 think they would probably work with that. Kingsford: Is that your recommendation Gary? Smith: Yes Kingsford: Entertain a motion. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved and seconded to hire Arrons and Mason Engineering to do the boiler work professional to a cap of $25,225, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: We have a proposal from an outfit that is doing some groundwater for the old Lee Spray Service area. They have proposed to John Shawcroft that they want to discharge filtered water into our sanitary sewer system and the volume of this water would vary from 6 gallons permit to 15 gallons permit. It would be running 24 hours a day. I am still in conversation with DEQ, I don't know the concentration of any contaminants in the water. the information that the clean up people gave to John didn't indicate that it was much of a problem. But I haven't heard that from DEQ and DEQ is involved in this site in the clean up of this site. My concem was that we would be in violation of our own ordinance if we allowed this because our ordinance says that we don't allow groundwater or cooling water or any uncontaminated water basically into our sewer system. It would be occupying I don't remember the figur+es 1 think I have them in my folder in terms of gallons per day. It is a pretty good size vofume. And they are talking about running this through until May 15th in 1995. Then at that time it is kind af up in the air as to what happens as to whether they have to continue or not. That is all based on the testing that DEQ would be making and do on the water that they are pulling out of the ground. Morrow: What are they trying to clean up? Smith: Wel{ there is a possibility of some chlordane and benzine. ~ ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 76 Morrow: And that is going to be filtered out in the filtering proc~ss before it goes into our sewer? Smith: That is my understanding. Morrow: And theoretically the water that we are supposed to be getting into the sewer is non-contaminated water, is that right? Smith: Wetl, the water we are supposed to be taking into the sewer is sanitary waste. Morrow: No I mean the water they are supposed to be pumping into our sewer is non- contaminated water, it is not sanitary waste, it is non-contaminated. Smith: Righf, it is sirnilar to cooling water or ground water. Morrow: Why can't it go into a drain ditch?' Smith: Well, they can pump it into Five Mile Creek but that requires a permit through somebady. Kingsford: Are they willing to pay us the treatment rate? Smith: Yes they are willing to pay us that. We didn't talk about any assessments in terms of hook up charges, equivalent to single family residential units. We just talked, 1 haven't talked to them at all, the only conversation that John Shawcroft has had with them is for our standard user fee. Kingsford: (Inaudible) short period time. Yerrington: How about storm drains, can it go into a storm drain? Smith: 1 don't kr~ow of any storm drains out there Max I think the only thing that is out there is the Five Mile Ditch for our sewer. Morrow: Does this thing goof up our (inaudib{e) by taking the uncontaminated water? Smith: No, it shouldn't. Morrow: Does it cause any hardship in terms of processing it? Smith: The only it does is take up hydraulic capacity in the plant. I mean it is ~ike we will • ~ Meridian City Councif August 16, 1994 Page 77 have infiltration during the winter that we normally don't have. The winter months aren't what is conceming me and John particularly it is when we start getting into May of 1995. Anytime after the middle of April if irrigation water comes back into the ditches in April. so, I~ust wanted to let you know about it and right now I don't know what DEQ what they are doing. 1 have had one conversation with the gal at DEQ and we missed connection today. She has been trying to call me and { try to ca{I her but we didn't get together, f don't know what ir~formation she had for me. But ~ felt like it should come before the Council because it is a viofation of our ordinance and I am not sure how we go about deating with it if it is necessary for us to, if we can vary from our own ordinance or what we do. Wayne is there a procedure for us to do that or not? Crookston: I would have to look irtto it Gary but my concem is whether or not we ultimately end up with problems with EPA. Smith: With EPA Kingsford: Well that is fundamentally DEQ because they report all of that through as long as we (inaudible). Keep us informed I guess is the proper thing. Smith: Thank you. Kingsford: Shari Stiles: Mayor and Council this is regarding the BW, Inc. the vet clinic on Fairview. They have submitted their landscape plan this is it and I have approved it. It is a good plan they have done the 15 foot setback as they proposed. And they have a good bufFer to the south #here it is residential. I let Wayne know that I had received this and approved it and he prepared an ordinance which I believe you have in your packets. I was asking that you go ahead and pass that. I neglected to get that on the agenda but I had promised them it would be done. Morrow: Is that Ordinance #669? Stiles: Yes Morrow: So everything is squared away and all ready to go? Stiles: Yes Kingsford: ORDINANCE #669, AN ORDINANCE OF TH~ CITY OF MERIDIAN AMEND{NG AND CHANGING THE ZONfNG OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE ~ • Meridian City Councii August 16, 1994 Page 78 CITY OF MERIDIAN WH1CH IS DESCRiBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYiNG IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T.3N, R.1E, B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like Ordinance #669 read in its entirety? Entertain a motion. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of Ordinance #669 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Carrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRI~D: All Yea Kingsford: Acting Chief (Inaudible) Kingsford: Counselor? Crookston: Nothing Kingsford: Mr. Morrow Morrow: Yes, Mr. Mayor, we had in our deal today a thing from Nampa Meridian conceming the (inaudible) in Elk subdivisions No. 1 and 2 with respect to them not piping the lateral and putting a pipe in there. I think the same rules apply to these folk as applies earlier with the Bryan deaf and it would be my motion that we stop issuing all building permits and occupancy certificates until that issue is resolved. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to disaltow building permits and occupancy certificates for Elk Run Subdivision untii that problem with Nampa Meridian either piping or fencing is resolved, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Max ~ Meridian City Council August 16, 1994 Page 79 Yerrington: Nothing Kingsford: Bob • Corrie: Maybe, will you be in town tomorrow? There are a couple of things I need to run by you, one is the fire in McCall to pay. The other is dispatch fees with the mayors and the State representative. I am setting up the whole thing and I need to talk to you about it. If you are going to be in town this week. Kingsford: (Inaudible) if you have time to talk at say 9:00 in the morning. Corrie: I have one other thing that was in our box that was Ada County Development Services. Kingsford: I was going to bring that up. Corrie: i will fet you. Kingsford: You guys (inaudible) as you are aware this comes into the western, you go 1/4 mile west of Eagle Road on this thing and Ted Johnson's development here and the Jarvis property now is before developmental services in the County. If we have response to that we need to do something by August 25th. I don't know what the heck you would do with it. Morrow: What is supposed to be going on there? Kingsford: What it amounts to is Boise said they wouldn't annex it based on our request. In fact they reconsidered it and dropped their approval, originally it was a 3 to 3 tie and the Mayor broke the tie to say no we wor~'t annex it in Boise. What they went back to is could we contract for services, Boise Water Corporation, City of Boise for sewer in the interim to develop that in Ada County. That is where it is at at this point. Corrie: So in other words they want to sewer and water from Boise in our area. As far as I am concemed that is urban sprawl in its pertect form. I don't think they should be allowed to do it unless they do it with our sewer and water. That is just laying it out there that they can come into our area with Boise water and sewer, I don't like it. To me that is urban sprawl. Kingsford: I think what 1 would recommend is that each of you respond then in whatever fashion you want prior to August 25th. ~ • Meridian City Councit August 16, 1994 Page 80 Corrie: Why can't we do it as a Gouncil. Kingsford: Well if you want to have a set one that is fine too. Corrie: We might as well see how everyone else feels about it, I don't know how the others feel about it, but I don't think we need to be giving Ted Johnson or anyone else carte blanche to go out and (inaudible) contiguous with the rest of it. To me that is urban sprawl and t don't think we should do it. So I guess to get it on the board I would move we notify the Ada County Development Services that we will not agree to allow City of Meridian to provide sewer and water service to the subdivision. Kingsford: Is there a second? Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Discussion? Morrow: Why the hell is everyone jumping through hoops here to have Ted Johnson develop the property in the first place. None of this makes sense. It is not consistent with what you see coming out of Boise. Kingsford: (Inaudible) or Ted Johnson in that whole area. We went through the court case and the whole business over this same thing. Morrow: My feelings are very strong about the 1/4 mile west of anything and quite candidly anything west of Cloverdale should belong to Meridian anyhow. I don't see from a practical standpoint is if we allow Boise water and Boise sewer to service this property it is a real small which is the next step that Mr. Johnson takes is welt we already have these services from Boise you should annex all of this stuff in there because it is legitimately yours now. So, I don't see letting the City of Boise or Ada County or anyone else approving (inaudible). And the other thing is we take a hammering all th~ time from folk here about us overloading the cotton picking schools this thing out here essentially has the potential to be four sections of ground which even at 3 units per acre (inaudible) 2500 homes that is 8000 folk out there conceitedly and we are taking a hammering here for over populating the schools. Kingsford: Any other discussion? Moved and seconded that you desire that you (inaudible) that the City of Meridian does not support that development that extension of Boise sewer and water, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ~ ~ Meridian City Councif August 16, 1994 Page 81 Kingsford: Do you have anything Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: This request for water hook up from out here (inaudible) that industrial complex (inaudible). Kingsford: What I would like to see you guys do and I have to take responsibility because I found that sucker on my desk and I don't know how long I have had it. There were multiple copies (inaudible). But I would suggest that we notify them that it is our desire to have them annex. (Inaudible) get into gear and annex. Is that agreeable with everyone? Do tha# Mr. Berg. Anything else? I would entertain a motion that we adjourn. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved and seconded to adjourn, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRtED: All Yea ~VIEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:03 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: . G T P. KINGSFOR , MA ATTEST: .,C~%II'~i~i~~'---=- ~ ~ W1LLtAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETlNG HELD AUGUST 2, 1994: 1. TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING: LEASE AGREEMENT WlTH KEN HAMILTON PRESENTATIONS: ~,~ re~ y,.~.,~- ~vt a ~v"z ~ ~~ ~ c:C~~l,~ n.~ r~~a ~~-i2~ ~~~ ~ ~ 2. TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING: LID ORDINANCE - GLENFIELD DiTCH: C's~ u. ~ / ~ ~~ r.~~ 3. TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING: LID ORDINANCE DOWNT~WN PHASE 2 u ~ ~~~ ~~~~ 4. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF lAW FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVSION: ~~J~~~°v-~'~-~ 5. ORDINANCE #665 - ST. LUKE'S/ THOMAS/ C-G: ~~j~r°"~ fi. ORDINANCE #666 - ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIViSiONi ANNEXATION: ~~d' 7. ORDINANCE #667 - CLEAN AIR ORDINANCE: c~;{~j~r~~GOL' S. ORDINANCE #668 - BRIGHTON ANNEXATION/ BEDFORD PLACE: ~fp~~~ ~~~c~ ~' 9. RESOLUTION #158 - LEGAL DESCR{PTION: ~jdp~°~Ld` 10. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION {TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING): ~~~vra~~ d- 11. F1NAL PLAT: KING STREET STATiON SUBDiVISION, 20 LOTS BY D.J. INVESTMENTS: ~~~~~~, a~" ry~ ~et~ ~ J'~f.~ ~' ~rndi~~--j~ a~ccG ~d ~ ~i° f""m -~~._ o~~ S'.e ~ ,~~ C~v. 12. FINAL PLAT: HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 2, 10 LOTS BY WILLIAM HON: G~~pj~,-v v~ yhQ.e-~i ~ f~tL~L c~. v~ 13. FINAL PLAT: THE LANDING SUBDIVISION NO. 8, 303 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE CORPORATION: ,~r~6~ u~~iZ ~'e,o~• 6 ~ ~h~~. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUE~T FOR W.H. MOORE COMPANY: C'~ ~ a-~1~"~ y~~/'a"~ F~,r~ C/` 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT F~R ASHFORD BY GREENS SUBDIVISION BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: -~-~ 6~e c~~ s~~ . ~' ~ ryz ~ , 16. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS C~/t~ Gf7~~-~ ~' {v ~r'r2~0~~. F~~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ SUBDIVISION BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER: 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WiTH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HARTFORD SUBDIVIS{ON BY VIJYA LAXMI DEVELOPMENT: ~,d/?~~'-e- fl{ ~ e1~ ~,~~ atfo~. f ~~f'~-,.~- oz-~" `-e~ ~-~c ~~'~`"~-" 18. PUBLiC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE HOLLOWS BY BOND CAMPBELL: ~j~pro~~ ~lF ~~'/` ~~~ ~ li t~e~' ~ ~/Ja-Le. o'1-c~vr~i,m_c.eJ 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONtNG F4R NEB-i COMPANY BY BILL GEYER: ~~~j r~~~~ ~ ,~'~'~~'~- r•`~,,~ ~/~ ~ c~~c 20. PUBLIC HEARiNG: REQUEST FOR CONDfTIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: ~~~~ a~OP~~~-Q ~'/~s ~/~' ~Pp%~~~ ~~d~~~~ u~ ~ 21. PUBLIC HEARlNG: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONtNG WITH A PRELiMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDiViSiON NO. 5 BY RAMON YORGASON: ~~~~z~~ a ~'~'m~.-~e~ ~ ~e-P~ ~'`v" ~~1~ ~ ~/~ 22. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR JOSEPH AND MARY daROSA: Q~P~v~e ~/~ ~ ~/~ 23. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR RED CANYON CORPORATION: ~~~rDv~ ~lF ~ c/t a~~arnv~ ~~a'~~-,`~~ uf~ ~?e~~~- 24. PRELIMINARY/ FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK: w~p,- o ~,e ~' ,~`a-e.~e~- W~ ~-~ e~d, ~~ ~ ~- ~a-~s~.d,~ 25. STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FOR TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISON: ~.h~ee ~~~ ~I'-e/~ t. (~ 26. KE1TH HOLLOWAY: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION ON ANNEXATION AND ZONtNG FOR PINE BLUFF'S: ~~,orave ~ ~•~'y cler/~:- ~n dv~_ft /ett`~ r- 27. DON BRYAN: WATER PROBLEM CONCERNtNG DOVE MEADOWS AND WiNGATE PLACE DEVELOPMENTS: au~~z~-'~ s~u'~~ ~' ~~ ~'~ _ ~~ r o ec~-~ ~~ 1:~~~ ~~- ~' he .rv-E'v~e ~. 28. THOMAS B~ AV~ A PLICATI6N FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE: GC jG'~'r'~ ~~ 29. THOMAS BEVAN: APPLICATfON FOR A BEER AND WINE LICENSE TRANSFER: ~Fpy~~..~ 30. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR FAWCETTS MEADOWS NO. 1: ° ~~+~.-a ~,e.~ 31. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: ~,-x~~;L,~, ,~'.,~ Se.sr ~ A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT FOR BOILER REPLACEMENT: 2. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE INTO SEWER: .- C~~ ~~ ~~9EF~~831A~! ~ AUG 1 6 19~4 ~fE~B ~~ T~IEs~~~r E ti'A~.~EY • ~ CI`~'~ ~i~° ~~:d~~~~~~i~ ~3 c~v i €i:,~H~ iVf~~'~lt~N, l~A~!(~ 83642 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ~ NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ~ ° ~ ~ ~ y.y`s 3~G - 2~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~.3 ~{S' __ ~~~~~ -- ~§~~----------------------------- ---___---_ ------ ~=~ "~--~-~-H~~_L,'~~l-~_l~ __ ______- ~s ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~o ___ -----_'~l ~ ~e----- M ~(~ ~ `-'---------------------------------------=-~=~~ =--~ `~-`~ _--- ----- . . ~~'~l ~F ~~9E~t~~3tA~i ~ AUG 1 6 1994 ~l~B ~3~ TREi'~~~r"'~cE 1~'~i.~EY ~ ~ G1"Y`~t" ~~~ 1~~i:i~'e~~:~ar~;'~ ~3 ~~iS i ~~,A4-~t3~ Ni~£d9Dl~i{~, ~~3A~l~ 83642 ~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ' ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~.~ca ~ ------------------- ------______----- ------~ ~.~--1 ~~~. -~Z?E~~---~c~-?~~ ~=__- -------__ __--_----- -----------------~g7- s~ 7~ __ .. . ~ ~ .~ ~~~_-- _ --j_1:~~----~--111~~~ ------____--__--_~~~f ~~- %~~ = ._ - - - ,~---~~ ~~~~_ ______________________------~--_ =~~ ~~-s: ~ ___ - ___ ~ ~~o~.__~1-- ----- _------~~_~____________----- ~~_~~o~ ~- ~ ~- ~39U ~~' /~ a ~_. NAME: PHONE NUMBER: =~x~ ~~ ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ ~i~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ . v~ y 1~,, { ~~ .r 1 ~ -ti i ~ 1 ~'7b 0 W ~ 4 5 ph1'~P ' ' ~ ~ ~a _; ~ ,1 ~ ~ 0. 4 a S d s, a ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ h~ ) C C t~l ~ /~ r .~ 1-~ l~ \b Q '~ ~ \\, ~ r 1~ ~ ~ ' ~ I i O 1 _......_..... .~ a.u or ~h I~ ~ ~y `o o ^ h b H 3 o ° ~ .i ~ .~ ~~ . s i 00 ~ _ - ~ -; . 3 ' w ~ - ..I e ... - =-,..~- ~ ~ ~, ~~ T _~ . / . tu~a a'I ~ . / ~( ~ J r ~ ~ ~ ~ S `~ _ _s ~ I \~ C- ' ~ ~: 2 ~° V~ ' . tn i - `s -o i. ~ ~ ~ ~ •~,s~,nsa0h F d ~ w = lU Q C F ~ ~ ~~ ~ ?~~ ;i . . ~ ~, ~ ~ :~ ~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~ yc t ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~1 Q J ! ~ ~6 ` `/ r ~' / /~• .._. Q osl' Zh ---avoa--~neas- s-sflae~-- - - ~~ Vy 3 ~ Y •rI "V ~ ~ ~ ~ C', •ri . •,-i a o~ ~ ~r" '~ • ~i ~'1 ~ H~ O ~ 0 N L: O1 ~.O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v o '~ ~ .'., U rd H rO-I •~ Q .C O tf+ U 1a Ca cd ~ ~- i RESOLUTION NO. 158 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF MERIDIAN ESTABLISHING THAT ALL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN INVOLVED IN ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR; AND PROVTDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 11-2-416 C 4. provides that all zaning amendment applications shall contain a legal description of the property; WHEREAS, Section 11-2-418 B 3. provides that all conditional use applications shall contain a legal description of the property; WHEREAS, 5ection 11-9-604 C 5. provides that the contents of the preliminary plat and related information shall be in such form as stipulated by the Commission, however additional maps and supporting data deemed necessary by the Administrator or the Commission or Council may also be required; WHEREAS, Section 11-2-417 B of the Annexation Ordinance it provides that the application shall be on a form similar ta a zoning application and shall include the same information and any other information deemed appropriate by the Administrator. WHEREA5, applications have been submitted in zoning and subdivision and development matters that have not been accurate, have not always been legible, and have been required to be straighten out by the City staff, rather than the applicant; WHEREAS, it is the duty of the applicant to submit legal descriptions that are accurate and capable of being worked with and it is not the City's duty to obtain accurate information or straighten out legal descriptions. LEGAL DESCRIPTION RESOLUTION Page - 1 ~ ~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: SECTION 1. That in all applications submitted under the Zoning Ordinance or the Subdivision and Development Ordinance the legal description included in the application shall be prepared by a Register Land Surveyor; the legal description shall be an original and not a copy; and if the legal description does nat contain a certification from a Register Land Surveyor the application shall not be accepted. SECTION 2. The effective date of this resolution shall be the date of passage as set forth below. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, this 16th day of August, 1994. APPROVED: ~ G T P. KINGSF RD, ATTEST: i~:~iGC-~,---' ,,~ i WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., IT CLERK LEGAL DESCRIPTION RESOLUTION Page - 2 - -- ~~0`r~7~!U ~ ~ ~~y ~~~~,o~/ ~ . _ _ : ., ~ ~j, ~.:~ C~~q uF~~~:: ORDINANCE NO. ~,~o o : E [+ L! :J L~.1~ ~ i i i ._: .~ ~ 1 ~.. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AME~DING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CI~~ ;-OF, M~RIDIAN--~+]I~~i~~ IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE ~;rsl./4:OF THE ~E°~1~~ OF SECTION 7, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to amend and change the zoning from L-O, Limited Office to C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial High Density and R- 8, Medium Density Residential, for the described parcel in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the aforementioned real property which is described as follows: A parcel of land lying in the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of T.3N., R.lE., B.M.; thence North 89°54'45" West along the section line common to said Sections 6 and 7 for a distance of 1320.48 feet to the East 1/16th. corner common to said Sections 6 and 7 being marked by an aluminum cap monument, said point also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 0°04'O1" West (formerly described as South) along the Westerly boundary of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of said 5ection 7, for a distance of 165.36 feet; thence South 89°55'59" East for a distance of 166.68 feet; REZONE ORDINANCE - BW, INC. Page 1 • • thence North 35°11'00" West for a distance of 123.89 feet; thence North 11°20'53" West for a distance of 34.71 feet to a point on a curve of the Southerly 50 foot right-of- way line of Fairview Ave.; thence 17.16 feet along the arc of said curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 57,245.80 feet, a central angle of 0°O1'02" and a chord distance of 17.16 feet which bears South 89°58'50" West to a point on a curve; thence leaving said right-of-way line North 50°22'45" West for a distance of 8.14 feet; thence North 0°58'15" East for a distance of 25.00 feet to a point on the secti.on line common to said Sections 6 and 7; thence North 89°54'45" West along said section line for a distance of 65.28 feet to the real point of beginning. be, and the same is hereby rezoned from L-O, Limited Office to CG General Retail and Service Commercial; AND A parcel of land lying in the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Tdaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of T.3N., R.1E., B.M.; thence North 89°54'45" West along the section line common to said Sections 6 and 7 for a distance of 1320.48 feet to the East 1/16th corner common to said Sections 6 and 7, being marked by an aluminum cap monument; thence South 0°04'O1" West (formerly described as South) along the Westerly boundary of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 7, for a distance of 165.36 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 0°04'O1" West along said Westerly boundary for a distance of 84.64 feet; thence South 90°00'00" East for a distance of 226.31 REZONE ORDINANCE - BW, INC. Page 2 • • feet; thence North 35°11'00" West for a distance of 103.32 feet; thence North 89°55'59" West for a distance of 166.68 feet to the real point of beginning. be, and the same is rezoned from L-0, Limited Office to R-8 Medium Density Residential; and Section 11-2-425, Official Zoning Maps is hereby amended to reflect the above two zoning amendments. This rezoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for rezone. Section 2. The Applicant shall pave parking areas adjacent or near property, the design standards for off-street parking in 11-2 414 must be met, specifically including the fencing. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the above conditions the property shall be subject to rezone back to L-0. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the !c. City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this ~6 ~ day of u~~ , 1994. REZONE ORDINANCE - BW, INC. Page 3 • • ~~ ~ '~ ~~ APPROVED : ~ 7 ~"'L~~w.' ~'~~~ ~"~' ' b,~p . ~s^ ~ y ~~~~ ~ .. ~ n.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~/~4 ~~ ' T ~ ", ~ ~ ~ MAYOR -- GRANT P . INGSFO ' ~~+U~1'li . ~~ ATTEST: ~~ ~ ' WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. -- CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF 5ECTION 7, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, "; passed as Ordinance No. ~69 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the /6 day of ~vcc,~usC" , 1994, as the same appears in my office. r DATED this l~~kday of ~~~/~f~ , 1994. ~}~ ~~ ~--~.~` s~~ ' *L ~ '~,b City Clerk, City of e dian ~' ~ °'~ r Ada County, Idaho ~ `~~~ ~~ ~1E0 r~ ~ ~ ~~~~ m ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ w ~ sr ig~• ~o . ~ •~~~'~' ~'t , ~9 REZONE ORDINANCE - BW, INC. Page 4 +~ i STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada, ) On this ~ day of f , 1994, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ee,+~n.p5.27.l~~~~~ gc' •~F^~v ~ ` e ~_ a fi" ~ w y ~ a~ S EAL c;' E r . N~ ~ '~ ~:.- ` '' , . o ~ . ~~ ; ,v ~ ~. :,~ ~, ~ n , ., , . , . y`,,` iej~~~•~~ ~ eNi c t a-~~~~ y Public tor ldaho o ding at Meridian, Idaho yj'f~j con,M:ss:a~i ~,r~.rrs ~Y =299 U REZONE ORDINANCE - BW, INC. Page 5 ~ ~ ~ '• + Y 0 n1 5, a~o4~D1~~ ~,~~~4~ ~.~`a}`ol" W. 1~.5, 3~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ °• ~ ~ ._.., $ m ~ Z Z ~ 8` ~ " ~, s ~ ° fi' ~ ~ ; ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ .~ ~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ' a , ~ ~' .~ 8 ~ ,~~ =~ `~. ' ~ ~m _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~'~ ,~~ w~~` ~,w ~ ~~ ~~= m! '~ I ~I < ~' ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~' N . ~-('or~FNEt~~ I~~Y r: t n r ~ ~ 4 l) f i~~ ~ ~ C~,~ ~~`~~ . .,,~z, - - :, : . , . .:,;J ORDINANCE NO. W W ~ C~ ~' `'~ _.: ; /o?,oo AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXI~iQ'i~p~; QNI~~ EE~~AIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS GOVERNMENT LOT ~ IN SECTION 6, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND PR~~IDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. "r',ru:., .. - _ , r' WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: Government Lot 3 in Section 6, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 6; thence South; 89°34'26" East, 2406.55 feet to the quarter corner common to the said Section 6 and Section 31, T.4N., R.lE; thence South 00°20'24" West, 45.00 feet along the East boundary of said Government Lot 3 to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING (INITIAL POINT). Thence continuing South 00°20'24" West, 1255.14 feet to the C-N 1/16 corner; thence South 89°44'06" West, 1314.54 feet to the NW 1l16 corner; thence North 00°19'24" East, 1315.99 feet to the W 1/16 corner on the North boundary of said Section 6; thence South 89°34'26" East, 1314.85 feet to the North quarter corner of said Section 6; thence South 00°20'24" West, 45.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned R-8 Residential; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - BEDFORD PLACE pa9e 1 . • conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de- annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant will be required to aonnect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusa.on into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular 5ection 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and 11-9- 605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. e. That these canditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which includes the requirement that all houses constructed on the annexed land contai.n at least 1,400 square feet, and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. ANNExATION ORDINANCE - BEDFORD PLA.CE Page 2 . • Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereb~r declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this ( b~ day of August, 1994. ,--... •ybv'YCr~'~! '~..^ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~, ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ APPROVED: r~ ~..~. ti ~ ~. ~E}~ ~~T ~~`' ~,~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~o MAYOR -- GRANT P. INGSF D ATTES : i2~~GL~---•~ r WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. -- ITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and ~oregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERTDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN SECTION 6, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDTNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE," passed as Ordinance No. 6 6f~ ,~y the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~~ day of August, 1994, as th ~~ ~ ears in my office. ~ ,,~`~ ~ ' ~~day of August, 1994. ,~ ~o '~, ,~`~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a • ~ St~ '~' ~" ~ ~ ~'9 ~ ~ ~Ir .~ ~f„+ 1' t'~ .~.~T ti~• ~~n ,~' ~., ~~~~ ~''~ . ~~. e ,1~'75 X~1~ i City Clerk, City of ri ian Ada County, Idaho INANCE - BEDFORD PLACE Page 3 • • STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada, ) On this ~ day of August, 1994, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, T have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written.,.. ~ n ~a~~eeoeeo,~r `~~~~ y ~ ~. . ~~sse ,.~` ~e ~~~. ~.~ s., : ~ ~~'~~ a`~~1, `~ ~: ~ ~ ~~~~~.~~ ,~ ~;, c~ + SEAL ` .; ' ~ ~, ~,: ~ E~ - ^-~,p ~ ~.A = w s, ~~ ~ ~~'~~ r~ ~l : C~ ~ ~q ; i e.`~ . ^ s a ~.~ C ~,;,o~ .,~~,~~ ,~~~i ~5 'o a., ~"`~~r°`i~~~ i~ y ~~ ~ `~ ~~~~e~E~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~.ry Public for ldaho ~ding at Meridian, Idaho Commission Expires ~-,~- /`~9 _ _ ANNEXATION ~RDINANCL - BEDFORD PLACE Page 4 _ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ; .. / ~, , ~ ~ 'f ~ ~ ~ ' i 1l • ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ j 1 ~ I 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ 1 I ~ 1 / I 1 ' ` ~!// ~~ 1 ~ ', ~'~~ ,-/{~ ~Ii~~Y(~~~oQ7'~ ~ ~ li ~tA• '~ • ~ I i i i. J~ r~ ~ ~ -i + ~ ~ ~' d i~ ---~i ~ ; ~ ~ G ---i i O ~ ~~ ~ i i ~~ i I ~'A ~ I ~/ • ~ ~ I 1 KN ~>{ ~ ~ . i; - I I W r7 1 1 ~~ 1 I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~ i I ~ Q 1 1 ~~+ 1 I ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ' ' . 1 1 ~~ \\ „ ~ A ~ „ „ '~ ; ; ~ ~ „ ~~ -~ ;; ~1~ ~,_ ~ „ Q ,~ „ ~ - ~ ,~ . , , $ -:, ~ ; . ~~ ~ , , ~ ~~ ; ; ~ ~~ ;; ~~ „ ~ , , . ~ ~, ; ; ~~ ~, ~ i ~~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ 11 ~ i 1 I ., ; ; . , bb'gi~1'~ ,~•°0 ~N ~ ~ ~ , ,. ,~ , ~~ „ „ , .,, , „ , ,~ ~ ;; ;~ w~~ „ „ , ~ ~ ,. „ . „ ~ ~ ______~=~~~=~,- ; , .,~ ; ; . ,, ,~ , ,, . ,, ,~ ~~ ~~ . ~, ,, , ; ; ~, ;; ~ „ , , ,, , „ , ~ ~ ' ~ „ „ „ „ „ , ,, ,, ~-- --- -- ------- -------------------- --------------------- --------- ~ ~r..---------------------. „ -- - ! Q, „ ; „ ,~ ~ „ , ~~ ;, , , i~ ; ; ;~ ~~ ; ; ~~ ~ /! ii „ • • ORDINANCE NO. 667 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE REVTSED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER TO BE KNOWN AS THE CLEAN AIR ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO PROVIDE FOR CLEAN AIR INCLUDING SHORT TITLE, AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE, APPLICABII~ITY, DEFINITIONS, AIR QUALITY DESIGNATIONS AND ALERT CRITERIA, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, BURNING SOLID FUEL OR REFUSE, AIR QUALITY ALERT EXEMPTTONS, MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CLEAN BURNING APPLIANCES, APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER AND PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (the "City") is a municipal corporation of the 5tate of Idaho and is authorized by Chapter 3, Title 50, Idaho Code, to adopt ordinances to maintain the welfare of the City and, where federally mandated, enforce such ordinances by either criminal or civil penalties; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian (the "Council") has found that the health and welfare of the residents of the City are adversely impacted by air pollution caused by the burning of solid fuel and refuse; and WHEREAS, the State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality ("IDEQ") has established a program pursuant to Chapter 85, Title 42, United States Code (the Federal "Clean Air Act") for the establishment of air quality designations, alert criteria and bans for solid fuel and refuse burning; and WHEREAS, the Council has found that controlling the emissions from solid fuel and refuse burning will protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCTL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: CLEAN AIR ORDTNANCE Page 1 • SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE: ~ This Chapter shall be known and cited as the Meridian Clean Air Ordinance. SECTION 2: AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to protect air quality resources vital ta the public health, safety, and welfare of Meridian residents and the economic future by controlling emissions from solid fuel and refuse burning. This Chapter i.s promulgated under the authority of the Idaho Constitution, Article 12, Section 2, and Idaho Code ~~ 31-714 and 31-801. SECTION 3: APPLICABILITY: This Chapter shall apply to all areas of the City of Meridian and those areas annexed to the City of Meridian hereafter. SECTION 4: DEFINITTON5: For the purpose of this Chapter, the following terms, phrases, words, and derivations all have the meanings given herein. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. AIR POLLUTION: The presence in the outdoor atmosphere of any contaminate, or combinations thereof, in such quality or of such nature and duration and under such conditions as would be injurious to human health or welfare, to plant or animal life, or to property, or to interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property. BUILDING: Any structure, dwelling, office, industrial plant, garage or barn, whether publicly or privately owned or any other structure as defined by the Uniform Building Code as adopted in Chapter 1, Tit1e 2, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. BURN DOWN: That period of time following an air pollution alert required for the cessation of combustion within solid fuel heating appliances or any outdoor fires or burning or incineration included with.in this Chapter. CLEAN BURNIPTG APPLIANCE: A solid fuel heating appliance that has been CLEAN AIR ORDINANCE Page 2 • • certified as clean burning by either the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality or the United States Environmental Protection Agency and has been placed on the list of approved clean burning appliance's maintained by the City Clerk. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: F.ifty percent (50~) or less of Ada County's median income as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. FIREPLACE: A residential solid fuel burning device with an air-to-fuel ratio of greater than thirty (30j which is a permanent structural feature of a building. A fireplace is make up of a concealed masonry ar metal flue and a masonry or metal firebox enclosed in decorative masonry or other building materials. A residential solid fuel burning device which is freestanding or which is installed into an existing "fireplace" opening is not included in the definition of "fireplace". HEAT OUTPUT: The British Thermal Unit (BTU)/hour output of a solid fuel heating appliance measured under the testing criteria as adopted by the Ada County Development Services Department. ~ OPEN BURNING: The combustion of any material not contained in a heating appliance or incinerator. PARTICULATE MATTER: Any gas-borne particles resulting from incomplete combustion, consisting predominantly, but not exclusively, of carbon and other combustible matter. PERSON: Any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, organization or governmental entity. REFUSE: All solid waste, garbage, and rubbish, including but not limited to cardboard, plastic, rubber, styrofoam, petroleum products, food stuff, Christmas trees, yard debris, or chemically treated wood. REFU5E INCINERATOR: Any device designed or operated to reduce the volume of refuse, Natural gas-fired pathological incinerators are excluded. SOLE SOURCE: One or more solid fuel heating devices which constitute the only source of heat in a building for the purpose of space heating. No solid fuel heating device(s) shall be the sole source of heat if the building is equipped with a permanently installed furnace or heating system designed to heat the building that is connected or unconnected from its energy source, utilizing oil, natural gas, CLEAN AIR ORDYNANCE Page 3 ~ ~ electricity or propane. SOLID FUEL: Any form of untreated wood or coal. SOLID FUEL HEATING APPLIANCE: An enclosed device designed for solid fuel combustion that meets all of the following criteria: A. An air-to-fuel averaging less than thirty five to one (35-to-1); B. Firebox volume less than twenty (20) cubic feet; C. Minimum burn rate lass than five (5) kilograms per hour; and D. Maximum weight of less than eight hundred (800) kilograms. Explicitly excluded are furnaces, boilers, cook stoves, and open fireplaces. SECTION 5. AIR QUALITY DESIGNATIONS AND ALERT CRITERIA: A. The quality of Meridian's air shall be determined by monitoring pollutant levels in and/or around the City of Meridian with equipment and methods approved by the Tdaho State Divisioin of Environmental Quality. B. The quality of Ada County's air shall be designated according to the following table, where "PM 10" indicates particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to ten (10) microns: Health Effect Desiqnation Good Moderate Unhealthful Very unhealthful Hazardous PM 10 Concentrations 24-hour ~uc/m31 0- 50 51-150 151-350 351-420 >420 C. In order to prevent the existence of air quality that is unhealthful, an air pollution "alert" will be declared whenever the Idaho State Division of Environment Quality measures levels of PM 10 concentrations exceeding one hundred (100) micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) and forecasts air stagnation conditions continuing for at least twenty four (24) hours. CLEAN AIR ORDINANCE Page 4 • • SECTION 6: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Whenever air pollution alert conditians are met, local print, radio, and television news media will be notified. Announcements of the existence of an air pollution "alert" will be made by the news media during regularly scheduled broadcasts and in all editions of the official newspaper of Ada County. SECTION 7: BURNING SOLID FUEL OR REFUSE: A. No person shall cause or allow refuse or coal to be burned in a solid fuel heating appliance designed for wood fuel. B. No person shall cause or allow a refuse incinerator to be operated contrary to the design, specifications, and manufacturer's instructions. SECTION 8: AIR QUALITY ALERT/ADDITION.AL RESTRICTIONS: At the onset and during the pendency of a declared air quality "alert", the following additional restrictions apply: A. No person shall cause or allow, after a three (3) hour "burn down", the operations of a solid fuel heating appliance or open fireplace, unless an exemption has been granted by the City Clerk. B. No person shall cause or allow the operation of a solid waste incinerator. C. No person sha11 cause or allow open burning or refuse or solid fuel. SECTION 9: AIR QUALITY ALERT EXEMPTIONS: A. The City Clerk shall grant exemptions from this Chapter if it is determined by the City Clerk that: 1. A solid fuel heating appliance is the sole source of heat for the structure in which it is situated; or 2. Using alternative heating would cause an unreasonable economic hardship; or 3. The solid fuel heating appliance is listed by Ada CLEAN ATR ORDINANCE Page 5 • ~ County Development Services as a clean burning appliance. B. Any person denied an exemption under this Chapter shall be provided, at the option of the applicant for the exemption, a hearing before the Mayor and City Council. C. Any building constructed after the effective date of this Chapter shall not be eligible for an exemption under subsections A1 and A2 above. SECTION 10: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CLEAN BURNING APPLIANCES: A. In no event shall the standards for clean burning solid fuel heating appliances allow a weighted average particulate emission greater than: 1. For a new clean burning solid fuel heating appliance with a minimum heat output of less than forth thousand (40,000) BTU per hour and tested pursuant to procedures approved by the Building Department. a. Seven and five-tenths (7.5) grams per hour for a noncatalytic solid fuel heating appliance. b. Four and one-tenth (4.1) grams per hour for a catalytic solid fuel heating appliance. 2. Clean burning solid fuel heating appliances with a minimum heat output of greater than forth thousand (40,000) BTU per hour shall not exceed an average particulate emission standard equal to the sum of eight and zero-tenths (8.0) grams per hour plus two-tenths (0.2) grams per hour for each one thousand (1,000) BTU per hour heat output. 3. For any other solid fuel heating appliance officially exempted by the Environmental Protection Agency from the above requirements. SECTION 11: APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER: Nothing in this Chapter is intended to conflict with, supersede, repeal, or affect any other regulations or requirements for the installation or inspection of solid fuel heating appliances, including, but not limited to, those regulations adopted at Title 2, Chapter 1, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Further, CLEAN AIR ORDINANCE Page 6 . ~ nothing in this Chapter is entitled to conflict with, supersede, repeal, or affect any other regulations or requirements for the burning, outdoor fires, and incineration permits including, but not limited to, those regulations adopted at Title 6, Chapter 5, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. SECTION 12: PENALTY: A violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or the failure or omission to perform any duty imposed by the provisions of this Chapter is hereby declared unlawful and punishable as a misdemeanor. SECTION 13: EFFECTIVE DATE: WHEREAS, there is an emergency therefor, which emergency is hereby 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 ~~day of ~~~ 1994. CITY OF MERIDIAN ~ , ~ T P. KINGSFOR -MAY ATTEST: ~,~,~~.~G~~+*--'~' 1 WILLTAM G. BERG, JR CITY CLERK CLEAN AIR ORDINANCE Page 7 ~ t i ~'1 1.~J .~- L ~ • C~ ~ ~%r~~ ~/ ORD INANCE NO . U+~ S ~ ~ # :~ ;:. : ~ - . /~ ~a ~ , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING A°l~~`i ~~~i~1~ ~~t'~JA REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THAT PORTION OF LAND LOCATED IN THE W 1/2 SE 1/4 SECTION 17, T. 3N., R. 1 E.B.M. P~1?A COUNTY_, IDAHQ;.._._-- AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ~;~.;,,,.,. _ ~ L~'~ WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property described as: That portion of the W 1/2 SE 1/4 Section 17, T. 3N., R. 1 E.B.M. Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Section corner common to Sections 17 and 20; thence S. 89°57' E. 690.00 ft. along Overland road; thence N. 0°38' E. 1231.21 ft. to center of an irrigation ditch; thence N. 50°19' W. 174.Q0 ft. along said ditch to I-80 highway boundary; thence S. 76°54' W. 416.80 ft. along long chord of highway curve Rt., thence S. 81°35' W. 152.00 ft. along said boundary; thence S. 0°38' W. 1225.00 ft. to the point of beginning, except that portion thereof described as follows: Beginning at the 1/4 Section corner common to Sections 17 and 20, T. 3N, R. 1 E.B.M.; thence S. 89°57' E. 550.00 ft.; thence N. 0°35' E. 25 ft. to true point of beginning. Thence S. 89°57' E. 140.00 ft.; ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - ST. LUKES/THOMAS/C-G Page 1 ~ • thence N. 0°38' E. 311.14 ft.; thence N. 89°57' W. 140.00 ft.; thence S. 0°38' W. 311.14 ft. to the true point of beginning. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned C-G General Retail and Service Commercial; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall be subjeat to de- annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer at his expense and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, and L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters; that the property may be de-annexed if the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not satisfied. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which per~ains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - ST. LUKES/THOMAS/C-G Page 2 i • Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and appro ~ by the ayor of the City of Meridian Ada County, Idaho, this ~~ day of/~~~_f, 1994. _ ~.. ~A avs ~G . s~ U y~~ ~A~~ ~~°~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~} ~ ~, ~ a ti ~ '~~t ~ ~` • . .U ATTEST : '~ ~. .~'~-~` , ~~~~~1 ~ ~ ~-~~~~~~c~~ ^ ~ WILLIAM G. BERG, APPROVED: Y R-- G T P. KI G O CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO,) . ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Tdaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH TS DESCRIBED AS THAT PORTTON OF LAND LOCATED IN TAE W 1/2 SE 1/4 SECTION 17, T. 3N., R. 1 E.B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. 66 S' , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridi.an, on the ~f~' day of 'Lc,!'~ , 1994, as the same appears in my office. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - ST. LUKES/THOMAS/C-G Page 3 ~ • DA ~'~i~ ~ day of ~ ~~~ , 1994. ~._ ~ pc,.'~ ~~po~T ,~' _ ~ .~`~ ~+ ~'~o ~ ~~---~ / r~~~, ~" ~~ °~ Q ~~' City Clerk, City of Meridian Q x~ Ada County, Idaho .~.. ~~ p/~T i s~'~ ,~~' ~ ~~~'+~ ~''~ . ~~ S TATE OF I DA~I~ ; . ss. Countg of Ada, ) On this ~ day of lf , 1994, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in a for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. . ees~~~ .. A SEAL ~~~°~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~'~'~ ~ ~_ . ~;,~~`.* ~ ,~. ~~~;c, ~., ` :.~ ~. . -, ..c ~ > F~ ~w ~ '' ~~ ~ ."' r ~~~~~ ~a:.~ :~ `:> : ~ - w .. „ ,,+r r ~ .' •, A @ , ~, ~ i~+ ~ ~r. _,~ i`v ~ i v ~ ~ `~,> ~ : L ~,~°`,. ~ '.:`_>~m' ` y. 9;.°. ,k ' .~. ,. . +~,,,,~~H U Ny~11~~~~`` `` r ta Public for lda s' ing at Meridian, ommission Expires Idaho 8~a-99 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - ST. LUKES/THOMAS/C-G Page 4 • • OR! GINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL BRIGHTON CORPORATION ANNEXATION AND ZONING (~OVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 6, T. 3N., R. lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on June 7, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the CITY COUNCIL having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Gene Smith, and having duly considered the matter, the CITY COUNCIL made findings of fact and conclusions of law; that the Applicant requested at the City Council meeting on August 2, 1994, to have the matter reconsidered, which the City Council did, and upon a three to one vote decided to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and therefore the City Council presents the following amended fa.ndings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two ( 2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 7, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly consi.dered at the June 7, 1994, hearing; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 1 • ~ that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that the Applicant asked for reconsideration of the findings and made a presentation at the City Council meeting on August 2, 1994. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 40 acres in size; it is located between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road and being approximately 1,320 feet east of the intersection of Meridian Road and Ustick Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT (Rural Transition) and the proposed use is requested to be for R-8 Residential type development. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not, as of the date of application, the owner of record of the property. The owner of record is Helen V. Davis, who has approved of the annexation and zoning request. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application i.s within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 2 ~ ~ Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is for one house and for agricultural use; that the applicant indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-8 type subdivision use; that the Applicant did not submit a request for approval of a subdivision plat at the time of submitting the application for annexation but has now subznitted an application for subdivision approval, known as Bedford Place Subdivision; that the density is shown to be 3.87 units per acre; that the Applicant stated that there would only be single family dwellings and would be similar to the surrounding subdivisions which are zoned R-8 and have agreed that there would only be single family dwellings; Mike Tanner, representing the Applicant at the Planning and Zoning hearing, stated that Applicant would be putting in a park like corridor through green belt type area with a pathway; he also stated that he "would want to put in a quality project and be consistent with the neighborhood in the area and what we do we try to do in a quality way."; that Mike Wardle represented the Applicant at the City Council Hearing and he stated that they desired to have dispersed housing with houses varying from 1,100 square feet to over 1,300 square feet and that such was needed to provide all income groups with affordable housing; that he stated that the lots would be a minimum of 6, 500 square feet and the frontage would be a minimum of 65 feet; that there was no park FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 3 • • land or recreational facilities mentioned for the project and no school site. That at the August 2, 1994, City Council meeting Mike Wardle stated that many of the lots in the proposed subdivision range up to the 10, 12 and 13,000 square feet; there was comment by Councilman Tolsma about a ten foot easement area along both sides of the collector street that goes into the subdivision from Ustick; Mr. Wardle commented that the greenbelt could be in the covenants and maintained by the home owners association; that Councilman Corrie discussed the size of the houses and stated that he did not have a problem with the R-8 zoning if the house size was going to be 1,400 square feet; that David Turnbull commented that he could have one-half of the houses being over 1,300 square feet and one- half being 1, 400 or larger, or as an alternative that all houses be 1,350 or larger; that there was comment by Councilman Morrow, that this is not an infill project or a hardship and that i.f the City decides to certain standards and that the development community needs to live up to them without compromise by the City. 10. There was one property owner in the immediate area, David Couch, that testified objecting to the application; his objection was that the lots were too small., that the lots were not compatible with the surrounding lots, many of which were used for agricultural purposes and many were one acre sized lots; that the larger lots needed to be buffered from the smaller lots to protect the rural Iand use; he stated that the twa properties to the ease and west FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 4 ~ • are currently being used as agricultural land and that 6.7U of the Comprehensive Plan required a buffering; and that Chief Joseph School was full and cannot accept more children. That the Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, Section 6.7U, it does state, "Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas by innovative land use planning techniques." 11. That Don Bryan, an owner of property on Locust Grove Road testified that he agreed with what Mr. Couch stated; that the City of Eagle controls for an open area; that open irrigation ditches are a problem for farmers and they are less of a problem if they are tiled; and that there were school problems. 12. That David Turnbull, a principal in the Applicant stated that they were designating a school site in the area and contributing land for the golf course; that the house size would be a minimum of 1, 200 square feet; that they would fence the perimeter of the project; that they would instruct the realtors about the adjoining agricultural uses and put restrictions in the covenants about the agricultural uses adjacent to the property; and that the subdivision would all be single family dwellings; in response to questions he did state that the school site they were giving was on Chinden Boulevard and near Eagle Road and that the recreational property he had stated they were working on was in the City of Boise. 13. That the property is in an area marked on the Generalized FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 5 • ! Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family residential area; that in the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acre. 14. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 15. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 16. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines. 17. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer, Meridian School District, the Central District Health Department, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. That the Meridian Planning Director did submit comments which were that the application complied with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; the City Engineer commented that the Onweiler Lateral and the South Slough course through the property and will need to be continued with any development; the Ada County Highway District did not submit comments, but when they are received they shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGC - 6 . • 18. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: ~R-8) Medium Densitv Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative stated that the subdivision eventually applied for would comply with the neighborhood. 19. That there have been other subdivisions in the area zoned R-8; in Cougar Creek the density is 3.5 dwellings units per acre but most of the lots have at least 150 foot depths, approximately; in Chamberlain Estates the density is 2.88; in Fothergill Estates Subdivision the density is 3.7 units per acre but the lots are from 7,000 to 19,000 square feet; in Rock Creek Subdivision the density if 3.5 units per acre but all of the lots have at least 9,000 square feet; that most of the lots shown on the proposed plat of Bedford Place, the subdivision on the property which has been applied for, are at a minimum square footage of 6,500; that there are some that are larger than that but not too many more than 7,500 square feet; that almost all of the land surrounding the land in the application has been zoned R-8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 7 ~ • 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, unde~ Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc .) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided .. .' 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), . . ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 24. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE~ - 8 • • and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 25. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 26. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation should be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impaat fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement. 27. The Meridian School District, in prior comments to annexation in this area, commented that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and that residents of new subdivisions could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 28. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may grovide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of polit.ical FINDINCGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAt~E - 9 r i subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromisi.ng quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not suffic.iently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 29. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, whi.ch, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 30. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convena.ent pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA-W BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PA(3E - 10 ~ ~ wide." 31. That 5ection 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet ( 20' ) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 32. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenita.es? shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 33. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." FTNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 11 • ~ 34. That Section 11-9-505 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Desiqn Manual for Ada Countv (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 35. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the CITY COUNCIL were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the Gity of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the CITY COUNCIL has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 12 • ~ Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, Brighton Corporation, and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Merida.an, but is at the request of the City Planning Director. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meri.dian and in particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M, Pipi.ng of Ditches, and Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the groperty shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAC~E - 13 ~ ~ that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked as a single fami.ly residential area, the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict w.ith the Rural Areas policies; but the land does border rural farms or ranches and those farms and ranches shall be buffered and the subdivision covenants shall let the home owners in the proposed subdivision know that the farms and ranches are there and that agricultural uses will, or may, be continued; that this matter shall be addressed in the development agreement. FTNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAG4E - 14 ~ ~ 12. That the development of the property of the property, as shown by the proposed platting of Bedford P1ace Subdivision, is comparable to other subdivisions in the immediate area; that the development of the property, as shown by the proposed subdivision application for Bedford Place would be comparable to the other subdivisions in the area; that the City has approved many subdivisions with R-8 zoning but in this area they have been at an R-4 or less density; that the total density for this subdivision is 3.87 units per acre. 13. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned R-8 and that as a condition of annexation this minimum house size be 1,400 square feet; that the condi.tions should be those stated above; that such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the aonditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met; that the Applicant shall place a 10 foot green belt easement along both sides of the entryway road into the subdivision to be maintained by the home owners association. 14. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not sa tiled the property sha11 be subject to de-annexation. 15. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 15 ~ ~ annexatian and zoning of R-8, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 16. That if the conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIOAiS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCTLMAN MORROW VOTED /V Q COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED 'eS COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED Ve S ~' COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED~ MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED _ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAC3E - 16 ~ ~ DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby approves the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of I,aw and that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to tile all. ditches, canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system, and have only houses of 1, 400 square feet or larger built on the property, as conditions of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: ~j~ APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FIATDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION - BEDFORD PLACE PAGE - 1T