HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 04-06~ ~
J
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APR I L 6, 1993 - 7 : 30 P. M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 16, 1993: (APPROVED)
is MR. SAM FISHEL: TABLED AT LAST MEETING: REQUEST FOR C-U-P,
UGLY DUCKLING AUTO RENTAL, OLD TOWN DISTRICT: (APPROVED)
2: BRIDGEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION: TABLED AT PRIOR MEETING:
REQUEST FOR C-U-P WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT: (DENIED)
3: ORDINANCE #597: ANNEXATION OF ELK RUN SUBDIVISION:
(APPROVED)
4: ORDINANCE #598:. ANNEXATION OF CHERI MEADOWS SUBDIVISION:
(APPROVED)
5: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REGlUEST FOR ELK RUN SUBDIVISION:
DITCH TILING: (TABLED)
6: FINAL PLAT: ROD'S PARKSIDE CREEK #2 SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
7: FINAL PLAT: APPLEGATE SUBDIVISION #2: (APPROVED)
8: FINAL PLAT: THE LANDING SUBDIVISION #6: (APPROVED)
9: FINAL PLAT: SPORTSMAN POINTE #2 SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
10: WATER & SEWER DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED)
11: COVENANTS: MERIDIAN GREENS #3 SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
12: MR. RICK STEWARD: REVIEW BUILDING PERMIT ISSUE IN PARKSIDE
CREEK SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
12A: MR. CURTIS URRUTIA: OCCUPANCY PERMIT & WATER TURNED ON:
(APPROVED)
13: GULL PEST CONTROL: REQUEST 6 MONTH EXTENSION TO TEMPORARY
MOBILE HOME PERMIT: (APPROVED)
14: MR. PETER COVINO: DISCUSSION OF PARKING PLANS, ACRD
REGlUIREMENTS AND BUILDING OCCUPANCY REGlUIREMENTS: (NO
ACTION)
15: APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED)
16: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENT REPORTS
B. EXECUTIVE SESSION - LAND ACQUISITION
C. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PENDING LITIGATION
• •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 6. 1993
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to
order by Mayor Grant P. Kingsford at 7:30 P. M.:
Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Bob Giesler, Max Yerrington:
Members Absent: Bob Corrie:
Others Present: Shauna Berry, John Wiskus, Rick Stewart, Bill
Hardt, Becky Bowcutt, Don L. Bryan, Frank Thomason, Raleigh Hawe,
J. Johnson, Peter Covino, Ron Garvin, Dan Wood, David Turnbull,
Curtis Urrutic, Arlan Smith, Keith Loveless, Wayne Forrey, Wayne
Crookston:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 16, 1993:
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to
approve of the minutes of the previous meeting held March 16,
1993 as written:
Motion Carried: All yea:
ITEM ~tl: MR. SAM FISHEL: TABLED AT LAST MEETING: REQUEST FOR
C-U-P, UGLY DUCKLING AUTO RENTAL, OLD TOWN DISTRICT:
Kingsford: As I recall from the last meeting, I think the issue
was separation from the streets. Does the Council have any
questions they would like to ask Mr. Fishel?
Tolsma: The Downtown Development Committee recommended these
stop bars, has ACRD said anything about that? Or have you
checked with them?
Sam Fishel: The Ada County Highway District wanted a separation
between the sidewalk and the real property because the City of
Meridian spent a lot of money decorating the downtown area and I
understand that they also get funding from ACRD. They have an
easement along there and in no way did they want to, as we park
the cars, you know how you crank the wheels and come around, they
were afraid that it might upset the brick. They didn't want me
to use any part of the sidewalk or the easement along there.
They recommended maybe a little four foot chain fence or anything
to separate the automobiles from the sidewalk. I met with the
Downtown Redevelopment Committee and it was recommended that
those colored bumpers, something that is very very attractive,
the colored cement bumpers be used and I agreed with that or
whatever. My common goal is the same as everyone elses I want a
very attractive place downtown to display my business.
Giesler: How many cars did you plan on having there at one time?
• •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 2
Fishel: We have got five approved.
Tolsma: Have you seen the decorator pumice blocks?
Fishel: I haven't, but that has been mentioned to me.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Tolsma to approve
the Conditional Use Permit for Sam Fishel, Ugly Duckling Auto
Rental, conditioned upon all comments of past meeting being
approved and of the concrete separations separating the real
property and the sidewalk.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #2: BRIDGEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION: TABLED AT PRIOR MEETING:
REQUEST FOR C-U-P WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Crookston: Stepping down due to a conflict of interest.
Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering:
time so that we could met with the
north and the representative of James
set up a meeting and the Attorney for
notified and they did not show up.
possibility of improvements on James
parties at the meeting which was an i
Court Apartments or the owners of th
cooperate in possible dedication of
with the potential developer of the
guess one of the problems we had was
an easement, not a right of way so we
only the owner's of the James Court
that as public right of way. After t
I believe we left off last
proposed developers to the
Court Apartments. We did
James Court Apartments was
We met we discussed the
Court, we had only had two
ndication to use that James
at complex did not want to
James Court. We discussed
property to the north and I
the fact that we only have
cannot dedicate James Court
Apartments could dedicate
alking to Mr. Huber and his
client Mr. Angel, we indicated that they are just requesting
annexation and rezone at this time. We could not hinge our
development on the approval of their development when they are
going for an R-40 rezone and annexation at this time. No
development plan has been submitted and there is going to be a
substantial time lag between their project and ours. We are at
the point where we have plans in to Gary Smith, we have a set
plan, we are annexed into the City, it has been zoned R-15 for
many years. tFurther explanation and pictures presented regarding
emergency vehicle access - see tape) We contend that if we have
the property to give to facilitate future development and
circulation internally we would do it. Are there any questions?
• •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 3
Tolsma: You talked extensively with Bob Corrie and he indicated
to me was that you were going back to your client with the
proposal of building and dedicating the streets to ACHD Standards
with curb, gutter and sidewalk, which is what I' m for. We have
no jurisdiction over private roads.
Bowcutt: I understand your concerns on that and that's why they
are very strict in making the developers provide evidence that
the homeowners association will provide for that maintenance.
Under certain circumstances you can't avoid private roads.
(Further explanation given on public/private roads - see tape)
Giesler: I'd like to have you explain to me one more time about
protecting the 4® acres in behind there. I mean how do you plan
that he can get access into there?
Bowcutt: Explanation given on map presented - see tape.
Kingsford: Would you be willing to dedicate to the Highway
District or your client, that portion that would represent half
of a street, in other words that wouldn't take any landscaping?
The people on the north part of this were willing to dedicate an
equal amount so we'd have a public road in there.
Belnap: They are willing to dedicate the fee of the private
lane. Obviously they are interested in - what is this going to
cost? I can commit that they are interested in solving the
problem once and for all for the best of the City of Meridian and
all of our neighbors.
Bowcutt: I do have one question, I would like to think that they
are willing to cooperate but they've put up poles set in concrete
so we can't even get into the property (pictures presented).
Kingsford: These poles were there prior to our public hearing.
Belnap: Mr. Mayor, in the early stages when all of a sudden it
looked as though there were going to be neighbors there and our
local managers did not understand exactly why it is they would
have the right to come in and develop without meeting with us,
the fence was extended across that lane. We did seek advise of
legal counsel, he is in the process of removing them now. He has
taken down the fence and the bar but just hasn't removed the
poles. This is not going to be an issue.
Kingsford: I agree with Mr. Corrie, I think that it ought to be
public streets.
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 4
Discussion of Council.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to deny
the request for Conditional Use Permit.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #3: ORDINANCE #597: ANNEXATION OF ELK RUN SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND
ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF
LAND LYING IN THE PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE-MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone
present who wishes Ordinance #597 read in its entirety? No
response.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler that the
rules and provisions of 50-9®2 and all rules and provisions
requiring that Ordinances be read on three different days be
dispensed with and that Ordinance #597 be passed and approved.
Roll Call Vote: Yerrington - Yea; Giesler - Yea; Tolsma - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Crookston: There's a development agreement on that property and
I have received a faxed signed copy of that development
agreement. The hard copy will be forth coming. We need to have
the hard copy before we publish this in the paper.
The Motion was made by Yerrington and seconded by Tolsma to
approve of holding for publication until we receive the hard copy
of the fax.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #4: ORDINANCE #598: ANNEXATION OF CHERI MEADOWS
SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND
ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF
LAND LYING IN A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 5,
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone present
who wishes Ordinance #598 read in its entirety? No response.
• ~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 5
Crookston: There is a requirement in the Findings of Fact that
rightful and lawful use of Dixie Lane be provided. That was just
provided to me tonight. The developer has also indicated the way
they've got that platted out they will no longer need Dixie Lane
for emergency access purposes. I would like to again verify
that. I'd like to also withhold publication until that's
verified.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Yerrington that
the rules and provisions of 50-902 and all rules and provisions
requiring that Ordinances be read on three different days be
dispensed with and that Ordinance #598 be passed and approved.
Roll Call Vote: Yerrington - Yea; Giesler - Yea; Tolsma - Yea;
Corrie - Absent:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to
withhold publication until verification is made.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ELK 'RUN
SUBDIVISION: DITCH TILING:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the Public Hearing and
invite a representative to speak to that issue.
Gary Lee, 1750 N. Summertree, Meridian, was sworn by the
attorney.
Lee: I am with JUB Engineers and I represent the Development
Group on this request for variance on tiling the Kennedy Lateral.
The westerly boundary of the property consists of the Lateral
itself as being the boundary line. It extends eight hundred and
some feet along the westerly portion of this subdivision. The
purpose of course for the variance request is to allow the
developer to install fencing along his side of the property in
lieu of the recently adopted tiling requirement by the City of
Meridian. This particular ditch lays along a natural ridgeline
that divides some of the irrigated property in the area. When it
was constructed they actually built the ditch up with a fill
ditch so it sits above natural ground two to three feet. If we
r •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 6
were to t he that ditch we'd end up with a mounted situation
creating a natural boundary. In addition Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District has expressed a concern for the width of
easement to be maintained as it is today and currently, if I
recall correctly it's about 45'. What that would create is a
space between this property and the property to the west that
would be a maintenance problem for the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District if it were tiled and covered. The mounting of the pipe
would also create a barrier for the extension of Calderwood
Street which is a planned Collector Street for the circulation in
that area. We are constructing a portion of that street now and
will construct the balance of it on the phase to the south of
this project. One of the other considerations is the siae of the
piping requirement. That particular lateral carries a sizable
amount of water for irrigation and to t he it it would take
probably a minimum of 48", possibly larger. We've also discussed
the possibilities of installing a syphon. Nampa Meridian
typically does not like syphons, they are a maintenance problem
for them. I'd be glad to answer any questions the Council may
have.
Tolsma: Who is going to maintain this ground over here where the
ditch is open?
Lee: That's now being maintained by the Irrigation District.
They have a ditch rider road on one side and they maintain the
ditch and the road. Typically we can enter into a developers
agreement with the Irrigation District that will allow us to
fence closer into the ditch itself and the roadway and by doing
that your cutting down on some of the maintenance area. They
still need to have adequate room for their equipment to get into
that area.
Tolsma: How close would these back yard fences be up to this
ditch?
Lee: I can't give you an exact figure. It would probably be
between 1i0 to 15 feet.
Kingsford: As I recall, that is supposed to be wood fence in all
those backyards.
Lee: That's what has been planned, yes.
Tolsma: Are you on a 45' easement?
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 7
Lee: I believe that's what is shown on the preliminary plat. I
think it's 29~ on one side and 25 on the other. You can move your
fence closer to the banks of the ditch, thereby cutting down the
maintenance area that the irrigation district has, but they want
to maintain enough room to where they can be sure to get their
dump trucks in to maintain the ditch.
Giesler: We haven't had very good success with Irrigation
Districts and weeds. I have a real concern about a real fire
problem in there but yet I do know how exactly how to handle that
situation.
Kingsford: Your saying that we require a syphon then across
Dverland? Is that right?
Lee: There's a syphon there now across Overland.
Kingsford: So if you went to proper depth with this pipe it
would just change that syphon wouldn't it?
Lee: It would be a longer syphon is what would happen.
Yerrington: What size is the pipe across Overland Road?
Lee: I' m not sure.
Kingsford: When we talked about our ordinance we were talking
about natural water ways being excluded and I think generally we
all felt that the size ditch that that is would be considered
natural water way. When Mr. Smith approached that subject with
Mr. Anderson at Nampa Meridian, he says we have no natural water
ways in Meridian. We may need to determine for our Ordinance
what constitutes a natural water way in our interpretation.
Tolsma: I have the same problem as Mr. Giesler. Concerns about
area being a dumping grounds.
Kingsford: Thank you. Anyone else from the public to testify?
No response. I will close the public hearing.
Giesler: I might ask the City Engineer if he has any advise on
this.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 8
•
Eng. Smith: The siae of the ditch is definitely a consideration
here and as Gary Lee mentioned it does create a syphon and
typically those things are problems because of the silt that the
irrigation water carries and depending on the velocity of the
water going through them as to how much that silt settles out.
The size of the pipe is obviously an expensive proposition for
the developer. The other thing that you have to think about is
when we get development on the other side of the ditch then we
have a ditch running between two developments and I don't have to
think to far back in time to remember a project that we're just
finishing up piping a ditch between two developments because of
public out cry from the people living along the ditch. That
prior example was under the jurisdiction of a different
irrigation agency than this one is and that irrigation district
doesn't have the resources that Nampa Meridian does so there are
some differences there too.
Giesler: Do you have any input on if we were to have it tiled
above ground?
Eng. Smith: Nothing other than the berm. I don't know what
impact that would have on extending the roadway, Calderwood to
the west. I'm sure it would have some impact because it is high
ground.
Kingsford: Gary the situation
Addition is similar?
between Northgate and Phillips
Eng. Smith: Yes.
Kingsford: I think there's been some weed problem there but it
also has been kind of an interesting foot transit path along that
section. Have we had complaints along that that you are aware
of?
Eng. Smith: Not that I' m aware of, no.
Tolsma: How quick do you have to know on this?
Lee: The developer of course wants to start construction as soon
as we can get approval on the final plat and it's been submitted
and I believe that's going to be next Council meeting.
Tolsma: I would like to meet with Nampa Meridian Irrigation and
hear their thoughts on this.
• •
M
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 9
Kingsford: I think we could put that on the same agenda then
with the final plat.
Crookston: You have to have Findings of Fact on this.
Kingsford: That's true. We've closed the public hearing and I
think we can ask the City Attorney to begin preparing Findings of
Fact.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to have the
City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on
the variance request for Elk Run Subdivision for tiling of the
ditch.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #6: FINAL PLAT: ROD'S PARKSIDE CREEK #2 SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Is there a representative for Parkside?
Dan Torfin, representing L & R Sales for this second phase of
Rod's Parkside Creek Subdivision. It's 69 lots and it's located
on Cherry Lane just east of Interlachen.
Kingsford: Any questions of Mr. Torfin?
Giesler: Do you have any problem with the Engineer's comments?
Torfin: No we don't.
Kingsford: Any other questions? No response.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to
approve the final plat for Rod's Parkside Creek #2 Subdivision:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #7: FINAL PLAT: APPLEGATE SUBDIVISION #2:
Kingsford: Is there a representative here for Applegate?
Keith Loveless, Loveless Engineering representing Ramon Yorgason
who is the subsequent owner of Applegate. We are currently under
construction of Phase i of Applegate.
Kingsford: Any questions? No response.
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 10
•
Yerrington: Do you have any problem with the Engineer's
comments?
Loveless: I just received them tonight but we have no problems.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Giesler to approve
the final plat on Applegate Subdivision #2:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #8: FINAL PLAT: THE LANDING SUBDIVISION #6:
Kingsford: Is there a representative present?
David Turnbull, the Landing Subdivision #6 is directly south of
#5 and to the east of #4, off Linder Road south of Franklin.
Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Turnbull?
Tolsma: You've seen the Engineer's comments?
Turnbull: Yes I have, no problems.
Yerrington: I notice in here you have 1100 square foot on your
structures, do you have any percentage of what you think will be
1100 square foot?
Turnbull: I believe the covenants state 13G0 sq. foot homes.
Yerrington: Thank you.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Yerrington to
approve the final plat on the Landing Subdivision #6:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #9: FINAL PLAT: SPORTSMAN POINTE #2 SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Is there a representative here?
Greg Johnson, representing the West park Company who is the
developer of this subdivision. This is the second phase of
Sportsman Pointe Subdivision, it lays directly west of the first
phase. It's on the south side of Overland Road between S. Locust
Grove and Meridian Road. I have reviewed the Engineer's comments
and have no problem with them.
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 11
r~
Kingsford: Was your's one of the one's that we were talking
about on the flood plain and we were doing some changes?
Johnson: Yes.
Kingsford: What is the progress of that now?
Johnson: We have heard back from FEMA, we expect the letter
within a week or so.
The Motion was made by Yerrington and seconded by Giesler to
approve the final plat on Sportsman Pointe #2:
Motion Carried: All yea:
ITEM #10: WATER & SEWER DELINQUENCIES:
Kingsford: This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to,
you have the right to a pre-determination hearing at 7:30 P. M.
04/06/93 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to
be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that
your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain
counsel. This service will be discontinued on April 14, 1994
unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who
wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash delinquency? No
response.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Tolsma to approve
the turn off list.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Kingsford: They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have
the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District
Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal, their
water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is
~ 10, 529.6 5.
ITEM #li: COVENANTS: MERIDIAN GREENS #3 SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Counselor have you reviewed those?
Crookston: I have and I have a copy of the covenants here with
some comments on it. There's just some things that need to be
worked out in the wording and some things that I'm not following
on.
• ~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 12
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Yerrington to
approve of the covenants for Meridian Greens #3 conditioned upon
approval of the City Attorney.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #12: RICK STEWART: REVIEW BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED IN
PARKSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Is Mr. Stewart here?
Rick Stewart, again what I'm doing is taking issue with your
building permits. You had stated that your not issuing any
building permits at this time due to the inadequate road base out
at Parkside Creek. What I'd like to do is read you this letter
that I'd sent to Mr. Smith explaining my particular situation.
(Letter read 8 explanation given - see tape) -
Kingsford: I certainly am sympathetic about your situation. The
developer knew this on I believe it was March 2, 1993 and I would
have thought conveyed that to the buyers. Does the Council have
any questions?
Giesler: I guess the question as to why others are working out
there I suppose they had already obtained the permits to be
started and it's pretty hard to -
Kingsford: They are the very reason that we instituted this
policy. There was no road base, it was wet our inspectors
couldn't get in there, virtually no-one could get in there. They
were pumping cement in and trucks were stuck.
Mr. Colt Wright, I have Homemakers, we're contracted with Mr.
Stewart to build that house. This caught us totally by surprise.
On our part what we've tried to do is Mr. Stewart's house is
closing the one he is living in and selling I believe it's on the
22nd of April, we've made every attempt to pro-long this. We're
not asking the Council to over turn it's policy, I think it's a
good policy. We got caught unaware here. We're trying to get an
exception to help Mr. Stewart not be literally be out in the
street.
• •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 13
Kingsford: The thing is we're in one of those building phases
where Mr. Stewarts facing that the 22nd and the next individual
is on the street today. Does Council have any comments? I
suppose you could make that exception if it's your desire to.
The weather is certainly better than it was but I would certainly
say that another season or ongoing that there ought to be
absolutely no exceptions.
Giesler: I don't really think it's the City's fault but the
developers.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to
approve the issuance of a building permit for Mr. Stewart.
Motion Carried: Tolsma - Yea; Yerrington - Yea; Corrie - absent;
Giesler - Nay:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #12A: MR. CURTIS URRUTIA:
Curtis Urrutia: Our situation is very similar. On March 31,
1993 we were to do a final inspection on our new home. On that
same day we were to be out of our apartment due to someone else
renting it. We were expecting the final inspection to go okay
and then we were going to move in that evening and rent from our
builder for the next couple days until we could close being that
we cannot close until we have a final inspection. The final
inspection did not go through simply because there is no pavement
on the street. I talked to the City Engineer and the Building
Inspector and both of them had gave me the reasons why and I
completely understand those and just to briefly let you in on
that, it's because if we're in that building and we're using the
sewage and water systems someone later on has to go and final
inspect those. It's a dirty job and I wouldn't want to do it
either. The problem I run into is like Mr. Mayor said, I'm out
on the street right now and have been for the last week. I had
to take my children out of school, send them to other city's to
be with grandparents during this so that they would not be
subjected to it and me and my wife have spent two nights in the
car and other nights in a motel waiting for weather so that they
could pave our street. I also talked to the pavers that have the
job, they told me today it could be three days, could be three
• •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 14
weeks, they don't know for sure. Until we get a final inspection
and let us in there we will still be out on the street waiting
for that street to be paved. What I'm asking for is for the
water to be turned on so that we may rent this house until the
final inspection and then we can have our closing.
Giesler: Are you able to drive in there though?
Urrutia: The bed has been down since last fall. From what I
understand they ended at that point last fall when the weather
got bad.
Crookston: What subdivision are you in?
Urrutia: Hunter Pointe.
Kingsford: What is the situation there Gary?
Eng. Smith: We can't issue a final inspection on the sewer/water
system until the pavement has been completed on the street
because of the debris and so forth that end up in the valve boxes
and in the sewer manholes. That's been our policy in the past
and we haven't - until the subdivision is finally excepted then
we haven't been setting water meters or issuing occupancy permits
through the building department.
Kingsford: As far as a final inspection of the building, that
could happen.
Eng. Smith: I might clarify too that part of the subdivision was
paved. Half was paved in some areas and in some areas the full
width of the street was paved. There have been water meters
issued and occupancy permits issued on some houses in the
subdivision that had paving in front of them. The policy that we
had in the past and it was reinforced last year because I guess
this happens every winter, the developers see that paving season
is coming to a close and they are trying to get their subdivision
finished so they can get water meters and occupancy permits for
their homes that will be built so they were asking the questions
last year and this policy was reinforced to them that we didn't
issue water meters or occupancy permits until the road was paved.
tFurther - see tape)
• •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 15
Giesler: I think the developer should be help liable for
something like this. I guess personally where they are able to
get access in there, I feel it's a little different situation
than the last one we just heard. I would ask staff to look at
the situation and see what could take place out there with him
driving in that area with him driving in that area that could be
damaged or an agreement with the developer that if anything is
damaged that it's at his expense.
The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Yerrington to
allow this gentleman to move into his home at this time and have
a final inspection and that some type of letter be sent to the
developer.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #13: GULL PEST CONTROL: REGlUEST 6 MONTH EXTENSION TO
TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME PERMIT:
Kingsford: Explained letter received asking for extension.
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to
approve of 6 month extension for Gull Pest Control.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #14: MR. PETER COVINO: DISCUSSION OF PARKING PLANS, ACRD
REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS:
Peter Covino, representing Gottcha Challenge. I have some
concerns and would request that you take a look at them in
considering an occupancy permit. What I have done is prepared
some documents from the Building Code and State Idaho Codes
concerning some of the requirements that we feel are not in
accord with the laws. To present this I've asked Arlan Smith to
present this to you. He is most familiar with the Building and
Fire Codes and Codes in this area to explain why there .should be
an occupancy permit granted. He currently works for Ada County
Planning and Plan Review. (Materials passed out to Council)
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 16
Arlan Smith: What's at question here is a list of corrections
and a letter dated March 25, 1993 that was sent to Mr. Covino
from your City Contract Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal
listing a number of items which they are requiring corrections
prior to the issuance of an occupancy certificate. The only
reason my credentials may have anything to do with this is the
fact that what's in question here is the interpretation of some
of these codes. The standard procedure in most jurisdictions is
for these interpretations to be appealed to a Building Board of
Appeals. I understand your procedure here is to come to this
body first, so that's why we are here. Let me just go down this
list of items and why it is felt that the interpretation as put
forth in this letter is incorrect or at least questionable. Some
of these items there is no challenge to. Item #1, there is no
challenge to that requirement. Item #2, refers to some rubber
mats which is otherwise known as a slitted curtain essentially
made of plastic which are in front of several of his exit doors.
The code clearly requires all exits to be unobstructed, now the
building code itself contains no definition of what an
obstruction is, neither does the uniform fire code. For that
definition the code refers you to Websters Dictionary. To types
of obstructions are defined there. Physical obstruction and
visual obstruction, we do not know which of these obstructions
they are saying these curtains are to those doors. They are not
a physical obstruction if you tried to lean against them you'd
fall down. They are not a visual obstruction because there are
exit signs above these. This is also a common arrangement that
you will find in places of a significantly higher occupant loads.
Giesler: Isn't is a possibility though if something should
happen that you could get hung up in those some way?
Kingsford: Let me ask you first Mr. Smith, you said that he
represented that to you, have you not been in the building?
Smith: No I have not. I've looked at his plans. These type of
curtains are known as strip doors and are used in commercial
facilities.
Giesler: But these are hanging in the exit doorway though?
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 17
Covino: Explained and gave example - see tape. There is slats
in these now but I can put more in. If, for some reason you
thought that slats or putting slices in this curtain were in some
how an obstacle, I offered also to take this curtain, hang it on
a hinged upper hanger so that if a person were pushing through it
would open up either this way or they can walk through. The
Building Inspector denied that also.
Smith: Item #3, where they've asked for saw dust which is placed
on the floor, for trees and tree stumps to be removed or treated
with an improved fire retardant, citing article 25 of the Fire
Code. Now Article 25 of the Fire Code is titled, places of
assembly. This section of the Fire Code is intended for
theaters, auditoriums, rooms of this nature. If you read that
section in context and it's subsections that's what it's
requirements are for. Actually the section of the code which
really should have been cited for this requirement would have
been Article 11 of the Fire Code. It states a very similar
requirement. It refers to a Class A occupancy which is what the
building official of Meridian had classified this building as.
That particular section of the Fire Code would also require that
these decorative items be treated with fire resistance. However,
there are some exceptions, #1 the Fire Code has a definition for
decorative materials, in that definition they specifically
exclude floor coverings. Floor coverings are not decorative
materials. The saw dust is on the floor, it is essentially a
floor covering and there is no restriction on any other type of
covering. If you were to weave a straw mat and put it on the
floor, that's a floor covering and is not decorative by that
definition. There really is no reason to try and fire treat this
saw dust that is on the floor. The referral to trees and stumps,
Article 11 of the Fire Code states that wood over 1/4" in
thickness is not required to be treated. These trees and stumps
that Mr. Covino has in the building are large and would exceed
that 1/4" in every case. It should also be noted that the
Uniform Building Code itself has a type of construction referred
to as hidden timber construction in which all wood members are in
access of 6" in dimension, it is recognized by the building code
that these large timbers are resistant to fire. (Explained
further on wood products - see tape) - Also it should be pointed
out that the, places of assembly, as defined by the building
code, another reason why the places of assembly, Article 25 does
not apply to this building is because the code defines a place of
assembly as a place where fifty (50) people or more are gathered
together. It does not use the term occupant load.
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 19
Smith: Occupant load is based on the square footage, it's a
building code term. The fire code states when 50 people are
there, not with an occupant load of Sm people. Mr. Covino
perhaps can clarify this, but I do not believe the nature of the
activities in this building would accommodate fifty (50) people
in any single room at one time. It simply wouldn't work.
Covino: The nature of the game and the size of the area limits
the number of players that can be in the building at one time.
We only will be supplying enough equipment to only handle forty
people maximum, because more than that cannot play the game.
Smith: For those reasons we feel that Article 25 is mis-applied
to this item and should not be applied, Article 11 should be
applied in it's place. Any questions on that item?
Crookston: That's Article 25 of the Fire Code?
Smith: Yes. Item #4, there is no objection to nor Item #5.
Item #6, no code section was cited in this correction letter for
item #6 so we're not exactly sure what the reason for this
correction is. There are two possibilities that I'm aware of,
one is that the area under the castle is a place where this game
is played and if there were full height walls in this area that
he is referring to it would be essentially maze, however these
walls are only four feet high except for in a couple of places he
has gone full height to the floor above with plywood. I believe
Mr. Covino stated that none of those panels were more than two or
four feet wide where they went full height. It is noted here in
this code section that the building code does not recognize
partitions or panels that are less than 5'9" in height as forming
corridors. As a matter a fact if you or someone in a business
decides to come in and put up some panels, if they are not more
than 5'9" in height a building permit would not even be required
to install those panels. If the reason for this correction is
because he wants that area closed off so people can't get into it
because it's a place that people couldn't get out of or would be
confused in an attempt to exit, there is no code basis for that.
The area underneath the castle is small enough that exit signs
from such an area would not even be required. Even though I do
understand that they are clearly visible to anyone that's in
those areas with a minimum of maybe two or three steps to one
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 19
side or the other they would be able to look up and see exit
signs that would lead them out. The other possible reason for
this correction may be that he is asking for the full height
plywood paneling to meet structural requirements. If that's the
case, it's also a misinterpretation of the code. Uniform
Building Code, Section 2517. G3 covers wall bracing for
structures. This is a conventional wall bracing method and
requires no engineering or calculations to be done if its met.
This would require one four foot wide panel from floor to ceiling
in each 25 lineal feet of wall. There would be no need to
completely enclose those areas for any structural purposes. Any
questions?
Kingsford: I don't know about the Council, but I'm not a builder
and as Arlan had indicated at the beginning we do have a Board of
Appeals. I think it would be a lot more practical that this
should be before them than us. I suggest that the Board of
Appeals is where this should be remedied.
Covino: In the past you folks have caused me to come to you
first and then to the Appeals Board.
Kingsford: Not on the building issues, whether or not you could
get the Conditional Use Permit and those kind of things.
Covino: I can do that but I think that there are two issues that
may come in front of the City Hoard. That is in compliance with
the coning ordinances that you require of me.
Smith: I think that's an appropriate decision. Thank you. I
believe what he's referring to is the last Item ~i10 on the
conditional use which the items that were uncorrected I believe
were the gutters and sidewalk along one side of the building.
Kingsford: We're in receipt of ACHD's letter. I think the
Council already got that.
Covino: What you may not be in receipt of yet is the one for the
side of the building and you may not even be aware of it. So I
will explain that to you. The County, according to Section 40 of
the Idaho Code, has absolute authority and power over the
construction of modification of sidewalks, streets, or anything
else in and around the creamery and matter a fact for the whole
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 20
City. Nothing can be done without their approval. You folks
said that I would have to comply with Ada County. Ada County has
written you the first letter saying I have complied with what you
want. The second letter concerns the side street. An oversight
on my part, I did not realize that you wanted something done to
the side. So in checking with Ada County as to what I need to do
they said I may not do a thing. They forbid me as a matter a
fact because they plan to put in streets, curbs and everything as
you see in that letter from the other side of the tracks to
Broadway. They have already actually started construction on
that. I believe based on those letters I have complied with
everything I can do. I can do no more. Since they say I comply
I don't know why I'm told I haven't complied. I need a ruling on
that from you folks.
Kingsford: Our requirements on you on this issue was what you
have here.
Covino: So have I complied then?
Kingsford: Well that's what they are saying.
Covino: Well the Building Inspector says I didn't.
Kingsford: I don't think he was in receipt of these items when
he told you that. What about the parking, is that an issue too?
Covino: That was the next issue. He had already given approval
for me to put only forty places around the building because we
would never need more than that. (Explained - see tape) We will
strip the back alley and the side where all our property is for
the forty parking places. If we ever had a problem with overflow
we do have access to the back eighty parking places in the back
paved parking lot.
Kingsford: Does Council have any comment on the parking?
Tolsma: Right down that alley way I don't think you can park
more than two or three cars down there because there's about ten
vehicles parked down there right now.
Covino: Believe it or not most of those
and the only reason the ones that don't
is because Jay has not been able to pull
on Simco Road. It's a swamp out there
several times already. If you'll notice
least two more cars gone.
vehicles have licenses
have licenses are there
into his dirt place out
and he's gotten stuck
every day you'll see at
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 21
Discussion of vehicles - see tape.
Kingsford: You will need to apply
Covino: You folks can't temporari
Crookston: There is a fifteen day
Kingsford: If you claim that this
don't recall that, but if it was
we'd have evidence of that.
•
for a variance.
ly approve 40 parking places?
notice requirement.
was approved by the Council, I
approved by the Council then
Covino: It was not approved by the Council, originally you
approved 120 or so parking places then I submitted that blue
print to Daunt and he said he'd have no problem with it and now
when I'm ready to do something he says well you'll have to go
back to the Council so that's why I'm here.
Kingsford: What you have in the Uniform Building Code is so many
parking spaces for so many square feet. In order to not do that,
you have to get a variance for that.
Covino: Is it not designed for a use rather than size?
Crookston: It varies. Some requirements are use, some
requirements are size.
Covino: So why can't we just go ahead and go by use and
realizing that I'm not using it and dispense with costing me
another fifteen days. It's already taken six weeks for Daunt to
come up with that list. That's really putting it off. Six weeks
to get a final inspection is not right.
Crookston: Well we have to follow the ordinances that we do have
and that's the purpose of the variance.
Kingsford: I would suggest that that is something that you three
need to look at in the ordinance and see what it says. If 41
parking spaces fit the bill, fine, but if it doesn't then your
going to need a variance. We can't violate our own Ordinances or
we can be sued for that.
Covino: By whom?
Kingsford: We can legitimately be sued for that. (Explained)
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 22
Covino: So depending on how long it will take~to put the appeal
board together, it might be easier for me to just strip the back
parking lot is what your saying.
Kingsford: It's certainly an option.
ITEM #15: APPROVE BILLS:
The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to
approve the bills.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #16: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Crookston: I'd like to have an executive session to discuss
pending litigation.
Kingsford: Okay. Anything else?
Forrey: I'd like to also request an executive session to discuss
land acquisition.
Kingsford: Prior to that, I'd just like to announce that our
City Clerk is in the hospital and could be doing a lot better. I
would hope that any of you might direct your thoughts in his
behalf.
The Motion was made by Yerrington and seconded by Giesler to go
into executive session to discuss pending land acquisition and
pending litigation.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Kingsford: Called meeting back to order. The Council considered
purchase of property and will proceed with an offer on a
particular piece of property. With regard to the pending
litigation, legal counsel advised the City Council and Mayor of
rulings on the disputed area, section of land in the Centennial
High School area. It was the Council's decision not to appeal
that. It's also the City Council's decision that we will work on
a vote to take place in that section just south of the disputed
area.
w
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 6, 1993
PAGE 23
The Motion was made by Yerrington and seconded by Giesler to
adjourn at i G : i ~ P. M.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
7,
WAYNE F RREY, CITY CLERK/
PLANNING DIRECTOR
y ~~
~t ` ~'`~
l~~ ~ ` ~__
_~
'~~
wdm . d
1 _ _._~_
s~~u~v~vA ~1 Q~~a u~ Lo~.~ m3~~ -5~g~
~--
.~_~ ~~ s~ ~ ~~ ~~8 ~
______
rte.... _ ~ ~.~~ ---± ~ =-1~~-~-
.
!~~j
V ._.__ ` ~ / _ N
-- `1^----
~-
~ _
ll~~ ~.GJ' C.e6r'7' L.~
C
~.~p t72. Sz~itE ~ ~~ - .3
Oa
_~~
80rS8 ~
°
,~r~~ r~ ~ 7~ 7t ~~~
~? o /~1d ~ 36 z -- 3S ~~
~ y~~/S Y!/>B~/ ~f ~ ~~
i
I
- - -----
~ ~ I~
.
t ~
i
i i
',
i
AP12-30-1993 15 01 FRQM GG5 ENG I NE~2I NG TQ
~.N ~ ~
~~'~~
April 20~ 1993
Meridan City Council
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idahq 8364.2
Re: Bridge Wood Park Subdivision
Dear Councl! Members:
B874B13 P.02
I em wntfing this letter at the request of the developer, Hunemiller-Wurta
Enterprises. At the fiime of the hearing, the developer was unaware of the fact #hat
the owner of James Court Apartments would consider dedication of James Court.
Since dediCa'rlon is an available apfian, it is feasible to construct public roads
within the Bridge Wood Park Subdlvisian with minor modlfla~tlons which include a
reduction of units.
The developer did not understand at th® time of the hearing that S deferral of the
project would allow for a r®design of the arigirrei layout. lie was under the
impresslan that Cauncll would defer the project so that public rands could be
added to the existing layout. Thla maditlcatoin would not be f®asibl® since e
reduction in IotsizeS would crest unbuildable end substandard lots. The developer
respectfully requests that Councl reconsider the denial of the project and allow the
developer to redesign the subdivision in compliance with the requirements of the
Meridian City Council. These requirements include dedication of James Court to
Ada County Highway District and public streets whhln the project.
Sincerely,
BRIGt1S ENQINEERINCi, Inc.
Bedry L. eowcutt
Land Use Planner
s2osit
1111 S. rJrchard, Suite 600 + Boise, Idaho 83705 ~ (2Q$) 344-9700 Fax#~ (208) 345-2950
TOTAL P.02
•
r 395
AAIIENDED ORDINANCE~NO. ~ 598 - .
AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CER7AI#V REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND. LYING
IN A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4' OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3' NORTH,
RANGE 1 EAST, BOI$E MfR)DIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ .
WHEREAS, ~ the' City +Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have
concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the.said~ City real property
which is hereinhelow described:
A ~parce1 of land lying in a portion of the SE 1/4 of they SW 1 /4 of .Section .5, T.3N,:
. R.1E, B.M., Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a point making the section comer common to Sections 6, 7 and 8
- and the said Section 5; ~~
thanes South 89°59'01" East 1,326.31 feet along the Southerly boundary of the said
~' SW 1/4 of Section'-5 ~to a' point marking the Southwest comer of the said SE.1/4. of
the SW 1/4 of Section 5;
thence ~torth Ob26'S5" East 824.01 feet along the Westerly~boundary-of the said
SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5, which is also the centerline of Dixie Lane, to a
point; also said point being~the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; ~ .
thence continuing North 0°26'55" East 492.46 feet along the said Westerly
boundary of the SE 1/4 of the SW 114 of Section 5 to a point marking the Northwest
comer of the said SE 1 /4 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 5;
thence'South 89°49'00" East~1;326.45feet along the~Northarly bo~ndary.of-the said
SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 to a point marking the Northeast comer of the
said~SE 114 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5;
thence South 0°27'20" West 868.60 feet along the Easterly boundary of the said
SE 1t4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 to a point; .
thence North 89°59'01" WEst 580.00 feet along a line Northerly of and parallel with
the~seid Southerly boundary of the SW 1~/4 of Section 5 to a paint; . -
theme 0°2T20" West 49.02 feet along a line Westerly of and parallel with the said
Easterly boundary of tho SE 1/4 of the SW 1'/4 of Section 5 to a point;
. thence North 59°59'05" West 858.07 feet to the point of beginning comprising 23.67
acres, (1;031;146 squar® feet); more or less. ~ ~ .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
Section' 1. That the above and`referenced real property descibed as: ~ ~ .
A parcel of land lying in a portion of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5, T.3N,
R.1E, B.M:; Ada County, fdaho,~ and more particidarly described as follows:
Commenting at a point making the section corner. common to Sections 6, 7~and 8
396 ~ ~
thence South 89°49'00" East 1;326.45 feet along the..Northerly boundary of the said
SE 114 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 to a point marking the Northeast coriner of the
said SE 114 of the SW 114 of Section 5;
thence South 0°27'20" West 868.60 feet along the Easterly boundary of the said
SE 114 of the SW 1/4 of Section 5 to a point;
fence North 89°59'01" WEst~580:00 feet along a line Northerly of and parallel with
the said Southerly boundary of the SW 1 /4 of Section 5 to a point;
thence 0°27'20" West 49.02 feet along a line Westerly of and parallel with the said
Easterly boundary of the SE 1 /4 of the .SW 1 /4 of Section 5 to a point;..
thence North 59°59'05" West 858.07 feet to the point of beginning comprising 23.67
acres, (1, 031, 446 square feet), more or less.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned R-8 Residential; that. even
though it is zoned R-8 Residential. no duplexes, townhouses or condominiums shall be
constn.icted and only single-family residences shall be allowed; tha the property shall be
sut to site planning review; 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; that all di#ches, canals and .watervvays
shall ~ tiled including those that are property boundaries or only partially located on the
property.
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the owner shall not
plat the property as submitted by Applicant, designate on the plat that only single-family
dwellings shall be allows, construct water and sewer line extensions to serve the property,
construct streets to and within the property, meet the requirements and conditions of the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and of this Amended Ordinance; if.Applicant fails
to meet these conditions the property shall be subject to de-annexation, which conditions
shall run with the land.
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 Amended Ordinance.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE HATE: There being an emergency, ,which emergency is:hereby
declared to exist, this Amended Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage and approval as required by law. .
~ is~
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
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 16th day of March,
1993.
APPROVED:
G NT P. KING FO D, MAYOR
ATTEST:
. ~.
WAYNE F RREY, ITY CLER
ORDINANCE NO. 597
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN
' REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN A
PORTION OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3
NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE-MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, ha"ve concluded that it is in the best interest
of said City to annex to the said City real property which is
hereinbelow described:
PARCEL A:
. ...~ __..__,._:, __ i~_ r . •o sic a •i o....a:.... 7ti
L~~ • r
thence leaving said boundary and centerline North 89°46'45"
West 915.09 feet tformerly known• as S 89°46'45" West 915.09
feet tformerly known as S 89°12' W 918.80 feet) to a point
on the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral';
thence South 5°05'50'" West 143.32 feet tformerly S 4°28' W)
along the centerline of said Ken•ned°y Lateral' to a point;
thence leaving said centerline South 84°13'38" East 135.12
feet to a point;
thence North 86°37'53" East 93.94 feet to a point;
thence South 89°46'45" East 343.40 feet to a point;
thence South 1°55'33" West 593.34 feet tQ a point;
thence' South 89°52' 45" East 213. 92 feet tformerly known as N
89°06' E) to an iron pin;
thence North i°01'15" East 200.08 feet tformerly known as
North) to an iron pin;
thence South 88°55'45" East 152.74 feet ~tformerly known as
East 150 feet) to a point on the Easterly boundary of -said
Section 24, also said boundary being the centerline of South
Meridian Road tState Highway 69);
thence North 0°37'36" East 545.00 feet tformerly known as
North and N 0°37'25" E) along said boundary and centerline
to the point of beginning, comprising 7.39 acres, more or
less.
and
PARCEL B
A parcel of land situated, i n the E i /2, NE i /4, Section 24,
T.3N., R. iW., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more
particularly described as follows:.
Commencing at a Brass Cap marking the Northeast corner of
said Section 24;
thence South 0°37'36" West 753.50 feet tformerly known as
South and South 0°37'25" West) along the Easterly boundary
of said Section 24, also said boundary being the centerline
of south Meridian Read tState Highway 69) to a P.K. nail ~
with washer;
•
~ 163
thence leaving said boundary and centerline Worth B9°46'45"
West 915.09 feet tformerly known' as S 89°12' W 918.80 feet)
to a point on the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral;
thence South 5°05' S0" West 143.32 feet tformerly S 4°28' W)
along the centerline of said Kennedy Lateral to the REAL
POIWT OF BEGIWWIPIG;
thence leaving said centerline South 84°13'38" East 135.12
feet to a point;
thence Worth 86°37'53" East 93.94 feet to a point;
thence South 89°46'45" East 343.40 feet to a point;
thence South i °55' 33" West 593.34 feet to a point
thence North 89°52'45" West 610.69 feet tfbrmerly known as S
89°06' W? to a point on the centerline of said Kennedy
Lateral;
thence Worth 5°46' 22" East 456.91 feet tfa~rmerly known as W
4° 28' E) along said centerline to a point;
thence continuing along said centerline Worth 5°05'50" East
147.10 feet to the point of beginning, comprising 8.05
acres, more or less.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
SECTION 1.: That the above and referenced real property
described as:
PARCEL A:
'' A parcel of land situated in'th•e E `i/2, NE 1/4, Section 24,
T. 3N. , ~R. 1 W. , B.M. , Meridian, Ada County, 1 daho, more
• particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a Brass Cap marking the Northeast corner of
said Section 24;
. thence South 0°37'36" West 753.50 feet tformerly known as
' .South and South 0°37'25" West) along the Easterly boundary
of said Section ~24, also said boundary being the centerline
of south Meridian Road tState ~ Highway. 69) to a P. K. nai 1
with washer, also said point being the REAL POIWT OF
re,a • •
thence leaving said boundary and centerline North 89°46'45"
West 915.09 feet tformerly known as S 89°12' W 918.8® feet)
to~a point on the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral;
thence South 5°05'50" West 143.32 feet 'tformerly S 4°28' W)
• along the centerline of said Kennedy Lateral to a point;
thence leaving said centerline South 84°13'38" East 135.12
feet to a point;
thence North 86°37'53" East 93.94 feet to a point;
thence South 89°46'45" East 343.4Q1 feet to a point:
thence South 1 °55' 33" West 593. 34 feet to a point ;
thence South 89°52'45" East 213.92 feet tformerly known as N
89°06'' E) to an iron pin;
thence North 1°01' 15" fast 200.00 feet, tformerly known as
North) to an iron pin;
thence South 88°55'45" East 152.74.. feet tformerly known as
Easy 15® feet) to a point on the Easterly boundary of said
Section 24, also said boundary being the centerline of South
M.eridiap Road tState Highway 69);
thence North 0°37' 36" East 545.00 feet tformerly known as
North and N 0°37'25" E) along said boundary and centerline
to the .point of beginn,in.g, comprising 7.39 acres, more or
1 ess.
and
PARCEL B:
A parcel of land situated in the E i/i, NE 1/4,~Section 24,
T. 3N.., R. 1 W. , B. M. , Meridian, Ada Count y, Idaho, m or e
particularly described as follows:
C.om:mencing at a Brass Cap marking the Northeast corner of
_ said Section 24; ,
thence South 0°37' 3.6" West 753.50 feet tformerly known as
South and South 0037'25" West) along the Easterly boundary
of said Section 24, also said boundary being the centerline
of south Meridian Road tState Highway 69) to a P.K. nail
with washer;
• ~ • 165
thence leaving said boundary and centerline~North 89°46'45"
West 915.®9 feet tformerly known as S 89°12' W •918.8® feet)
to a point on the centerline of the Kennedy Lateral;
thence South 5°®5'541" West 143.32 feet tformerly S 4°2B' W)
along the centerline of said Kennedy Lateral.to the REAL
• POINT OF BEGINNING; •
thence leaving said centerline South 84013'38" East 135.12
• feet to a point;
thence North 86°37'53" East 93.94 feet to a point;
thence South 89°46'45" East 343.44tfeet to a point;
thence South 1 °55' 33" West 593.34 feet to a point;
thence North •89°52' 45" West 6141.69 feet tformerly known as S
89°416' W) to a point on the centerline of said Kennedy
Lateral;
thence North 5°46'22" East 456.91 feet tformerly known as N
4°28' E) along said centerline to a• point;
thence continuing along said centerline North 5°415'541" East
147.14+ feet to the point of beginning, comprising 8.®5
acres, more or less.
and her: eby .~nnex.ed to the City of Meridian, and PARCEL A shal l be
a•oned R-8 Residential and PARCEL B shall be zoned R-4
Residential; that even though PARCEL A is zoned R-8 Residential
no duplexes, townhouses or condominiums shall. be constructed and
only single-family residences shall be allowed; that a
• Development Agreement has been entered into between th•e developer
of the property, The Development Group, and the City of Meridian
and 'such agreement i s, or shal 1 be, recorded and i s incorporat ed
herein by this reference as if set forth in full even though not
attached hereto; that the property shal-1 be subject to site
planning review; 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 aoning; that all ditches, canals and waterways
shall be tiled including those that are property boundaries or
only•partially located on the property.
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-
annexation if the owner shall not plat the property as submitted
by Applicant, follow the requirements of Development Agreement,
• and designate on the plat that only single-family dwellings shall
16fi • i
be allowed, construct water and sewer line gxtensions~ to serve
• the property,. and construct streets to and within the property,
meet the requi,retsents,and conditions of the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and of this Ordinance; if Applicant fails to
~aeet these conditions the property shall be subject to d~e-
-• annexation, which conditions subsequent shall run with land and
also be personal .to the owner, The Development Group.
Section 3. That the C
the legal description, and
designate the boundaries of
Ada County Recorder, Ada
Commission within ten ti®)
this Ordinance.
ity Clerk shall cause one ti) copy of
map, which shall ,plainly •a~nd clearly
said property, to be filed with the
County Assessor, ,. and the State Tax
days following the effective date of
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 l,aw. .
PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 6th. day of April, 1993.
APPROVED:
GR MT P.. K I G D, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WAYNE S. FORREY, CITY CLER