HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 12-05
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 21, 1995
(APPROVED)
1. TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQEUST FOR
74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
2. TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND
RESIDENTIAL USES BY E.L. BEWS: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY
16, 1996)
3. TABLED NOVEMBER 8, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR
CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION:(TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 19, 1995)
4. TABLED NOVEMBER 8, 1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 40.17 ACRES
TO L-O AND C-G BY JIM BALLANTYNE: (TABLED UNTIL MARCH
5, 1996 AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST)
5. TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL
SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE AND MICRO-BREWERY BY
SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 19, 1995)
6. TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL
DECEMBER 19, 1995)
7. TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: ORDINANCE #718 -SALMON RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 ANNEXATION: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER
19, 1995)
8. TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLY & ASSOCIATES
ANNEXATION: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 19, 1995)
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 30 ACRES TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON:
(APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;
DENY ANNEXATION AND ZONING)
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR SALMON RAPIDS N0.3 SUBDNISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
(TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 19, 1995)
11. ORDINANCE #720 -BILLY QUINN ANNEXATION: (APPROVED)
12. FINAL PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE
PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
13. FINAL PLAT FOR MORNING GLORY SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY RUSSELL
HUNNEMILLER: (APPROVED SUBJECT TO MEETING ALL
CONDITIONS)
14. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 21, 1995: REQUEST
FOR A VACATION OF AN EASEMENT BY JEFF COFFER:
(CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 19, 1995)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LENGTH OF CUL-DE-
SAC FROM 450' TO 476.50' FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5
BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO
DECEMBER 19, 1995)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO TILE THE
EIGHT MILE LATERAL BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
17. U.S. BANK MERIDIAN BRANCH -REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT
EXTENSION FOR TEMPORARY BRANCH BUILDING: (APPROVE
EXTENSION TO AUGUST 15, 1996 AND NO FURTHER)
18. REQUEST TO TRANSFER BEER AND WINE LICENSES FROM TEXACO
TRAVEL CENTER TO JACKSON FOOD STORES: (APPROVED)
19. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOS ALAMITOS NO.3 SUBDIVISION:
(APPROVED)
20. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION:
(TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 19, 1995)
21. WATERlSEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED)
22. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED)
i •
23. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT -GREGORY LIFT STATION REHAB:
(APPROVED)
2. TRAILER MOUNTED EMERGENCY GENERATORS FROM
MO POWER - $21,950 (APPROVED)
3. TEST HOLE FOR WELL #18 - $18,246: (APPROVED)
B. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY.
1. NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION CLARIFICATION: (MOTION
WITHDRAWN)
2. WHITSEL PROPERTY DEED AND INDEMNIFICATION
AGREEMENT: (APPROVED)
3. IDAHO POWER PAY STATION:
C. MAYOR KINGSFORD:
1. APPOINT GREG OSLUND TO PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION: (APPROVED)
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 21, 1995 fc~'~7r-cY~a[~
TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQEUST FOR
74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: -f~~/e anti l ~T n uury %~ !` ~~ .
2. TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND
RESIDENTIAL USES BY E.L BEWS: 7~~F~l2 uKti7 ~TuKUar-y l6fi` /.~f~.
3. TABLED NOVEMBER 8, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR
CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION: ~wf~ie ur~tr/ ~ecer;-!~, l1'~ 1~~,
4. TABLED NOVEMBER 8, 1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 40.17 CRES
TO L-0 AND C-G BY JIM BALLANTYNE: faa~c c~-ti l ~5a~°"
~~ aJ' re~uerteZL h~ ~~aj~/iza--f' fv?a-~cli '~"-`
5. TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL
SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE AND MICRO-BREWERY BY
SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS: taSle unfi7 ~cE'n.-/ey !<!'~ !~
u i re~u es te~L .h y ~~/>~i~curat
6. TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
FOR SALMON RAPIDS N0.3 SUBDIVISION: ~a,yee L~~~ ,deceu--,~~ lr?~
f~
7. TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: ORDINANCE #718 - SALM N RAPIDS.
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 ANNEXATION: {~.~ u~-~~~7 ~ce~-/~ /9'z i~ ~j
8. TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: ORDIN/~1NCE #719 - LANGLY ~ ASSOCIATES
ANNEXATION: ~~~v.-G:e ,~cer~-.6~-/~/'z! ~,
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 30 ACRES TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON:
ti~'f71'U(/Q :~/~ ~ C~L (~in~/ Glinn.PiF. ~~ Z~ -~-K~~L.
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR SALMON ~PIDS N0.3 SUBDMSION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
11. ORDINANCE #720 - BILLY QUINN ANNEXATION: ~~/~ruve
• !
12. FINAL PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE
PARTNERSHIP: a~prcve ~hal~,p~~ uii~/i c~~~c~'i~-~k~ns
13. FINAL PLAT FOR MORNING GLORY SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY RUSSELL
HUNNEMILLER: a~/arwe ~,h~'~~~ dub~~~rt ~~ dwzer ~
c''vndi~"ivnt
14. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 21, 1995: REQUEST
FOR A VACATION OF AjV EASEMENT BY JEFF COFFER:
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LENGTH OF CUL-DE-
SAC FROM 450' TO 476.50' FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5
BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: G'v->~fi)auz ~li~ ~',~"•~ ~`~ ~~-~~
16. PUBLIC HEARING:. REQUEST TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO TILE THE
EIGHT MILE LATERAL BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM:
Ci ~ R ttcrn ey ~ ~~ E'~G.-i.e ~~f ~ CAL
17. U.S. BANK MERIDIAN BRANCH -REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT
EXTENSION FOR TEMPORARY BRANCH BUILDING:
~r~r~vQ X X fPhS~tT7v fv ,9u~uJ f /S~ ~ / 15'E ~rzv ~u~th Pf-
18. REQUEST TO TRANSFER BEER AND WINE LICENSES FROM TEXACO
TRAVEL CENTER TO JACKSON FOOD STORES:
~Pprvve f~anrfc~r
19. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION:
~ppr~/z
20. DEVELOPMENT AGRE MENT FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION:
-~~e u~-e ~c. /mil'-='` ~~,
21. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
~P/~ro ve
22. APPROVE BILLS: ~z~pr~w.er
23. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT -GREGORY LIFT STATION REHAB:
~2~;'1Y/iUv L
B. WAYNECR/OOKSTON,CITYATTORNEY.
1. NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION CLARIFICATION:
u~/~hCff au~n- /i, ~ ti`s-.~.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 5. 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P.
Kingsford at 7:30 P. M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Marty
Goldsmith, Greg Oslund, Glenn Bentley, Brian McColl, Larry Van Hees, Tracie Persons:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 21, 1995:
Kingsford: Any corrections to those minutes? Is there a motion to approve of them?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the minutes of our meeting of November
21. 1995.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the minutes of November 21, 1995,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS:
ITEM #2: TABLED OCTOBER 17, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
USES BY E.L. SEWS:
Kingsford: You have reviewed the letter you have been asked to table that to the next
meeting. I guess I would just bring up, I would ask staff if they have discussed that either
with Mr. Bews or Mr. Forrey. My dilemma is that you put that off until the next meeting, the
findings are drawn you are going to be asking a different Mayor and two different
Councilmen to deal with it. I guess I would suggest that it be tabled until the second of
January.
Morrow: Restate your position please?
Kingsford: Well, if you table that to the next meeting as the developer has requested and
then you direct at that point findings to be prepared then you would be asking a different
Mayor and two different Councilmen to deal with the issue. And those findings might very
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 2
well be not the findings of that particular Council. In addition to that I did visit today with
Gary Fletcher from St. Luke's who understands that position but they would like to see it
not tabled, they would like to see it get remedied. Your dilemma? I still maintain that it is
better for a council to have continuity and work through that problem all the way through.
Even though we have been dealing with that issue for a year.
MOITOW: Well the long and the short of it is we haven't really dealt with it. We have had a
couple of meetings and then nothing but continuous tables. I guess with respect to the
2 new wuncil members that will come on, obviously Mr. Rountree is well up to speed mr.
Bentley will be essentially an apprentice and have no go here at all. It would make a
certain amount of sense in my mind at least to give the man a running chance of figuring
out what is going on. I don't know that in terms of, I would be sensitive to Mr. Fletcher and
St. Luke's but I don't see that is in the best interest of certain the Council or the citizens
of the community for us to rush ahead.
Kingsford: I think also you are looking at a new set of findings and conditions from the
Highway District, I don't know whether you have had an opportunity to review those, those
just came in this afternoon.
Morrow: I just got them now.
Kingsford: I suppose, rf it is your disposition to table that to the January 2nd meeting then
you certainly want to forward those along with the other information we have to those 2
new councilmen.
Morrow: I think my preference would be to table them to the January 16th meeting
because the January 2nd meeting will be largely ceremonial in nature.
Kingsford: You are that anxious to get rid of me I understand.
Morrow: My point is I don't think that January 2nd is reasonable for them to make a
decision because they don't officially come on board until January 2nd let's give them a
couple of weeks to review and go to the 16th. And I throw that open for discussion.
Kingsford: I would just offer that all of that material could be given to them and they could
be up to speed probably on the 2nd as they might be on the 16th. But I understand where
you are coming from.
Yerrington: Mr. Crookston told me that we have to take up all tabled items on the second.
Kingsford: All items that we have dealt with.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 3
Crookston: They are the old items that would be on the agenda you have to take care of,
this Council has to take care of at the beginning of the meeting. Until that is taken care of
the new Councilmen and Mayor are not sworn.
Morrow: Does that include old Mayors?
Crookston: Well, some old mayor aren't around.
Kingsford: So we want to table it then to the 16th, I agree with Walt then.
Crookston: That is up to you guys.
Yerrington: I would make a motion that we table this until the 16th.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table items 1 and 2 the Bews annexation and
conditional use permit to the January 16, 1996 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED NOVEMBER 8, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: As I recall Mr. Smith you were going to make a presentation on that am I
correct?
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. I have met with the engineer from
Hubble Engineers to discuss this issue and up to the time when the project was tabled
before you everything had been answered with the exception of the secondary supply or
the one point connection for City water. Bruce Stuart and I have both been in discussion
with Hubble Engineers concerning that and they will or I shall say a point of secondary
connection can be made. Right now the well that has been drilled on the site is supplying
water to the common areas only. The sprinkler system for the common areas is separate
from the sprinkler system for the residential lots. So that when this secondary connection
is made from the City system only the residential lots will be supplied water from the City.
The common area will continue to be sprinkled by the well that they drilled on site. That
was one of our concerns because they had so much common area we didn't want to be
providing City water to that. When I talked to Gene Smith today from Hubble Engineers
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 4
he wasn't sure who was going to provide that secondary connection point. Because at this
point in time he informed me the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District is the operator and
owner and operator of that system. That the developer of Crossroads subdivision has
entered into a contractual agreement with Nampa Meridian for the ownership and
operation and maintenance of it. So he wasn't sure whether Nampa Meridian is the one
responsible for installing that secondary point of connection or if the developer was
responsible. I have not seen the agreement between Nampa Meridian and the developer
so I don't know what it says.
Kingsford: It seems to me we would want to have that before we release any funds back.
Smith: The agreement?
Kingsford: Right, and know who is going to be making that connection and so forth.
Smith: Right. I guess that would be, well, I guess we would have to look at that agreement
and see if it was spoken to number 1. If it wasn't spoken to then we would have to get an
agreement from one or the other of them for installation of it. Because as 1 told the
engineer from Hubble Engineering the intent of this is to be able to provide the residents
with water from a single point connection. That we are not going to allow individual
connections.
Kingsford: Questions of the Council? When is a reasonable time that you think they may
be able to accomplish those items for us?
Smith: The installation of it?
Kingsford: No, some sort of a contractual agreement as to who is going to do it and when.
Is it reasonable to have that iced by the next meeting?
Smith: I would think so yes. There shouldn't be a problem with it. They should be able to
agree between themselves, between the 2 developer and Nampa Meridian as to who is
going to be doing this. I have got a feeling that probably Nampa Meridian is going to
require that the developer install the site the facilities. I only say that because I think that
is what happened at Cherry Lane Village Subdivision.
Kingsford: I think that is reasonable too.
Smith: I do too, and I know that these guys are anxious to get this thing approved and get
it taken care of. If you want to make that a condition of approval of releasing the funds and
then have them, if they have a problem with that we can revisit it at the next Council
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 5
meeting. I can bring the agenda item back to the City Clerk if you want to handle it that
way.
Kingsford: It would certainly be a way to take it off the table. What is the Council's
pleasure?
Morrow: My pleasure would be for the resolution of all matters of concern before we
approve the release of funds very candidly.
Kingsford: So you would move then to allow the reimbursable subject to all of those
conditions being met.
Morrow: No, I want to see all the conditions being met and then we will make the
reimbursement.
Kingsford: I would entertain that motion.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max then date certain to the next meeting to table
this to the next meeting pending resolution of the items with regard to the single point
connection to the City water and who makes that connection, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED NOVEMBERS, 1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 40.17 ACRES TO L-O AND C-G
BY JIM BALLANTYNE:
Kingsford: Any question or discussion on that? Mr. Forrey outlined a time table that P &
Z will have heard that plat and it would reasonably get to the Council. That was one of the
conditions that you guys had placed on that earlier is to see a plat.
Morrow: So moved.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the request for annexation and zoning
for Jim Ballantyne to the March 5, 1996 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 6
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL
SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE AND MICRO-BREWERY BY SANDPIPER
RESTAURANTS:
Kingsford: I think we have a request there likewise for table to the December 19 meeting.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, is that in reference to this, (inaudible) because of this Central Drive
trouble or is there something else involved here (inaudible).
Kingsford: Well, did you get the letter Bob? You got the same thing that I am looking at.
Shari, have you talked to anyone from Sandpiper?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I believe the main issue is ACHD also the person that
would be presenting has not been in town.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor I move that we table item #5 until December 19.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to table item #5 Sandpiper Restaurants until the
December 19 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: TABLED NOVEMBER 21, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR SALMON
RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Council had opportunity to review those amended findings.
Morrow: What was our reason for tabling there?
Kingsford: Was that the issue on 2 block lengths? What was this one. Counselor?
McColl: The Council was about to pass on the amended findings of fact and conclusions
of law for Salmon Rapids No. 3 and I believe the zoning ordinance and I put my foot into
everybody's mouth and stood up just before the vote and said maybe you want to back off
and have a look at them because I found that there were a couple of mistakes. In particular
we had referred to moving the fence on Salmon Rapids No. 1. I went back to my office and
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 7
I looked through them and they were quite frankly riddled with mistakes. 1 wrote to Mr.
Crookston and he and I have corresponded. He has made most of the corrections that 1
have suggested, I believe. There are some areas that we are still in disagreement but of
course that is the Council's pleasure to be in disagreement with the developer. But what
started this tabling was that issue of the fence on Salmon Rapids No. 1 appearing as a
finding of fact with respect to Salmon Rapids No. 3 public hearing.
Kingsford: My recollection Counselor was there was a statement made and this is off the
top of my head but that the Council had said they weren't going to approve further
developments until all the problems were met in No. 1. That might have been why that
showed up in that particular set of findings.
McColl: It may have been and in fact in going back and looking at the public record and
the public record for this phase was August 15 and in fact there was some discussion
about that whole fence issue. That is when the fence on No. 1 was coming up. If I said,
I meant No. 3's public hearing on August 15. On second thought maybe on that issue it
wasn't entirely inappropriate to put the discussion of the fence in the factual findings
although it didn't really bear upon subdivision No. 3 being annexed and zoned. In any
event the City Attorney and I have as I say exchanged comments on a lot of the other
aspects in those findings and I think they are substantially cleaned up. The only thing that
1 continue to have any particular objection with respect to the developer is on the August
15 public hearing there was a lot of discussion about the Salmon Rapids Well and the fact
that when we get to phase 3 on both of these subdivisions we will no longer be irrigating
out of the Salmon Rapids Well. We will be irrigating out of surtace water. There was also
some discussion by the public as to the impact of using water out of the well on their wells.
The testimony from both public and from the staff and from the developer was that the well
has a flow gage on it. The City Engineer testified that he had asked the Department of
Water Resources to perform some sort of an audit. That it was his experience that if asked
they would come out and see whether or not any particular in this case Mr. Goldsmith was
taking more water than his water right permitted. That was the (inaudible) that was
basically the just of the discussion on that. In the findings there now appears unless Mr.
Crookston has taken them out a pretty extensive discussion about the developer's duty to
monitor his well and to monitor his neighboring wells. To do so on a bi-weekly basis and
to do so for the irrigation season and to do so for as long as that property is utilized for a
residential subdivision. There was no record of that in the public hearing either by people
from the public, either by staff or from the Council members questions. So I suggested that
was an inappropriate conclusion of law to have in there. He and disagree on that and so
be it. That is the only thing that I still have any problem with.
Kingsford: Questions of Mr. McColl?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 8
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, if I could comment on that. Mr. McColl and I do have a
disagreement on what can be included in the findings. I think Mr. McColl is very correct to
say that we can't, excuse me what I meant to say was about what can be included in the
conclusions of law. We have no disagreement that what is in the findings has to be done
or have been submitted at the hearing. The conclusions are conclusions of law that are
adopted by the Council and are not necessarily based upon what findings were there.
There are many findings in the findings of facts that the City does that have no reference
no input was given on that particular conclusion at the public hearing. The conclusions are
for the Council, they should be somewhat based on the findings but if there is a conclusion
that the Council desires to make they can make it. It should pertain to the issues
addressed but the Council may make a conclusion as they deem fit. Thank you.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think I would like to address the issues of where we are coming from
with respect to the conclusions. Certainly the staff the general public is welcome to testify
upon any issue. It seems to me the responsibility of the elected officials is to react and to
make decisions that are in the best interest of the community and its citizens and
taxpayers. Based on that you have to interpret given what the public has testified to and
their concerns and then set forth the conclusions that can address those concerns if they
are valid concerns as best as possible. I think it is certainly contingent upon this Council
to protect the neighboring wells and not have the expansion of the City be detrimental to
those neighbors who merely happen to be there and can't do a lot about it. So in terms of
these findings of fact I for one support the position that the monitoring ought to be done.
That those folks ought to have some reasonable assurance that their wells are going to
function and not be drawn down by an adjacent well that is being used for essentially
landscape purposes while they are using their wells for domestic purposes. It seems to
me that from the Council's position that we ought to have that clearly spelled out so that
it is in everyone's mind knows exactly what it is they are getting. The ones that have the
right to be protected the developer that has the obligation to meet those needs and the
members of residences that are there after the developer is long gone so if at some point
that well should shut down they can understand why it is shut down. Because it is
impacting private water rights. It seems to me that it makes sense for this Council and the
City to put in those conclusions what it is they need to be to make the deal doable. I guess
the other alternative would be is if these aren't acceptable to any development than maybe
we don't need the development. I see that as being fairly black and white on my part.
McColl: With all do respect the sort of nature the legal objection to that was that the record
was to the contrary. The record was and I think it may have even been you Councilman
who asked the City Engineer who's responsibility this was. And I can point the Council
right now to the response, the City Engineer says this is not your jurisdiction, this is the
jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources. They are charged with determining
whether or not a particular water user uses more than his water right. The council can
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 9
micro-manage if they, they can do whatever they want and 1 agree with you on that and
I can understand public policy considerations. But in terms of what went down in this
record everybody was on notice that this is not legally the appropriate concern for the City
Council. That there is the Department of Water Resources, there is a mechanism for them
to monitor it and then we get this conclusion of law that we don't know where it came from.
Why bi-weekly and which neighbors and what if the neighbors don't give us permission
and who do you report the monitoring to. It just seemed like not a very nice solution to
something that already has judicially a solution built into it.
Kingsford: I wouldn't disagree with the problem in monitoring Counselor, but I do recall
very vividly one of the people at that point offering testimony that they were aware that
water resources was not going to monitor that on a regular basis. And I think that might
have been some of the motivation for that in the conclusions and reasonably so. Likewise
I would go a step further and what Mr. Morrow said I don't think the only thing you put in
the findings and conclusions is what the public testifies to. These guys are elected to be
public charge and they have a right to interject whatever they think from the development
as well. So I don't think it is just limited to this public testimony. Any other questions or
comments for Mr. McColl or staff?
Crookston: I would just add one thing that as far as the well monitoring that came up at a
Council hearing or meeting I believe as I recollect the comments were made by
Councilman Morrow about the monitoring. It came from the record not on the days that
you referenced, 1 think it was the meeting just prior to when the Council adopted the
findings or re-adopting them. Before I prepared them, it did come out at the hearing.
McColl: I think that would be a nice way to handle it as long as there is some record of it
so the developer can either voice his objection or raise perhaps certain issues like how am
I going to do this. With all due respect Counselor, I have looked through the record and
I couldn't find any reference to it at all. Not only on August 15 but on any further hearing
and I have all the minutes. So we are at a loss to know where it came from and we
understand the Council's position on it and are prepared to live with it.
Kingsford: Certainly with regard to your comment about if people won't let them monitor
1 think that is very evident then that they don't want to see their well protected and are not
interested. But I think that we need to make a reasonable effort to make sure that their
water is protected. Is the Council prepared to deal with the findings then?
Morrow: I guess my question is we have a set of findings that appear that were prepared
November 8th meeting and then we have a second set that were 11-17 and so the ones
that we are acting on.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 10
Kingsford: The amended findings of 11-17 are correct.
Morrow: I think that in our last time that we dealt with this issue did we talk about there
was some typographical errors.
Kingsford: I think they should have been remedied and likewise some of the things
amended from the previous or those that Mr. McColl spoke to that he and Mr. Crookston
visited on.
Crookston: That is correct.
Morrow: But we don't have any of the update that you and Mr. McColl have spoken about
in these.
Crookston: Yes you do.
Morrow: We have those available to us?
Corrie: It is in these findings from the 17th.
Morrow: I guess my question in respect to these findings and conclusions and the notes
that I had made before were that I don't find in these findings that, what if it impacts the
neighboring wells, is there a recommended solution. Have we taken that step?
Crookston: Not in those findings.
Morrow: Okay what if it does impact those neighboring wells, how are we going to handle
that as a City? And where is the appropriate form to address that.
Crookston: You can do that as part of the conclusions or you can do it as part of your
decision.
Kingsford: Certainly I would think that the reasonable thing is that if it does impact and
you discontinue use of the well or reduce the draw from it. I agree that is probably
something we ought to add to the decision.
Morrow: I guess my next area that 1 have a note is under decision it says the surface water
should be used for pressurized irrigation if possible. The same question what does that
mean if possible?
Kingsford: Of course one of the things that I recall from this was and this dates back
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 11
probably a year or more ago. It is my recollection that the land had to have been taken off
of the irrigation rolls, am I correct there Marty? What was the status of the surface water
for that?
McColl: What Mr. Goldsmith did in this regard is go down to the party that has jurisdiction
over this are, the Department of Water Resources and said what is my water right. And
the answer is 200 inches. What can that be used for? It can be used for irrigating up to 23
acres.
Kingsford: Now you are talking about the well not surface water.
McColl: Right, so we started with this, we wanted to use that well to the extent of our water
right and then when the development got to the stage that we were over extending that
then go to the surface water right. I see a very dangerous precedent on behalf of the
Council that they are about to start interfere with two citizens water rights. This has been
established well over 100 years by water law in Idaho. He has an adjudicated water right
and so does Mr. Shipley or Mrs. X or Mr. Y, and if there is a shortage of water the priorities
are established by well established law. And at this point we have made every effort to
make sure that the use that he is putting to this water is no greater than the use of his
predecessor. In this case the farmer in question Mr. McDermott. But we do now know that
with phase 3 that you are dealing with it will be necessary to use surface water. And so
again this issue is all covered by the public hearing. The concern with surface water then
is these two things are going to be interconnected. You are going to be taking water out
of the Eight Mile lateral and taking water out of the ground in Salmon Rapids and do we
have back flow devices. But the actual quantity of water is controlled by the Department
of Water Resources. Just like you and I with our property, whether or not we have a
commercial use, agricultural use or residential use, we have an adjudicated water right
and we can use that quantity and for the purpose set forth in that water right. In this water
right
Kingsford: I would beg to differ with you Counselor, we have wells inside the City of
Meridian and our ordinance says they discontinue those wells even though they are
adjudicated and have water rights to them. We say if you are going to live in the City of
Meridian you are going to hook up to City water. This is no different than that.
McColl: That is a little different question, I think you can ask the citizens to hook up to the
City.
Kingsford: No, I think when you annex somebody you can place a condition that if you
want to be annexed you do what we ask you to.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 12
McColl: Right, but they don't lose their water right as a matter just as a result of them using
the City's water they still have that water right. If it is not used for X number of years I
suspect it becomes abandoned.
Kingsford: Well, practicality it is lost because they can't use it.
Morrow: We require them to pull the pumps.
McColl: In any event that is what is going on with this well and the future surface water
right. We have been dealing with the City Engineer on the water monitoring that they have
got and the tests that they have got in terms of how much use it is going to have. I think
we are all on board with this.
Kingsford: Again, I would just say that the implication I think that was made by your client
going back when this thing first started was that water was not available and now you are
saying that is available but the preference is to use the existing well.
McColl: That is right, in fact we are using an existing well for both phase 1 and we are
going to use that existing well for I believe parts of phase 2 but we wont' be able to when
we get to phase 3, there just isn't enough. You do this by calculating the number of acres
and taking it out the carports and taking about the houses and that has all been done and
reviewed by the City Engineer.
Morrow: I think Mr. McColl part of what goes on here is and my interest here also is as a
developer Mr. Goldsmith will be long gone and there will be problems that will surface two
years, five years, ten years down the road. Clearly we have to do our job to make sure
there is some mechanism to handle those things when they become problems so they are
not hanging out here in left field and then in some sort of court system. So I think that with
respect to the irrigation water Bill Henson of Nampa Meridian indicated that they are in the
very beginning that there was more than adequate water for this property with respect to
undedicated waters within Nampa Meridian's system. All the developer had to do was
meet with Nampa Meridian and go through the procedure to get water rights for those
properties. Obviously he chose to utilize the well. It appears to me that based on what
we should do as a City is make certain conditions on the use of that well so that everybody
understands in the short term and the long term. So that down stream there are no major
problems that will crop up.
McColl: We will be using the surface water for this phase and I think the findings reflect
that.
Morrow: What I am indicating is that Nampa Meridian said that they had water for the
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 13
entire subdivision and that came about in the very first hearings clear back when this
process started. So it was by his choice that he opted to use the well. Nampa Meridian
had indicated I believe that Mayor Kingsford is right, his testimony was that there was no
water available for this property, Nampa Meridian testified that there was water available
it was just a matter of going through the process to get it from them to their surplus water.
So it was his choice that he went to the well system. What I am saying is the Council it
appears ought to put conditions on that choice for the future and for today. And apparently
that is the disagreement between us and you and your client but so be it.
McColl: I think we have those conditions, the conditions that you put in there in terms of
the monitoring you probably ought to take care of that. I just would be, 1 would caution the
Council to go any further in terms of getting into adjudicating relative water rights between
this citizen and his neighbors because we have the mechanism set up to do that already.
Kingsford: Thank you Counselor, I guess the issue that you brought up Walt is with regard
to what do you do if that is violated or if that monitoring results in a draw down the wells.
Counselor, would it be your suggestion to put that in the decision or to amend the findings
to include it?
Crookston: You can do it either way.
Kingsford: Thanks for recommending one or the other.
Crookston: To me it would be preferable to change the findings. Because then they are
done the way that the Council wants them at the time that they adopt them.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure with regard to what you do? Reduce the volume
from the well, stop use until the wells go up?
Morrow: Well, quite frankly I would like to have the staff review it and give us the
alternatives. I don't know at this point in time what those alternatives might be. The safest
alternative would be to shut the well system down, but that may not make sense because
then the question is how long do you shut the system, what happens what provision is
made for other water source while that is being taken care of.
Kingsford: I think that monitoring needs to indicate that is the fault that well operating is
the fault of draw down in an adjacent well. If that is true then you continue to monitor and
shut down and continue to monitor until it goes back up. Maybe reduce the flow.
Morrow: Your thoughts Gary?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 14
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, the impact of a well of a shallow well being
affected its water capacity or its yield being affected can be brought about by several
things. The impact of larger wells in the area will impact the shallower wells depending
upon how they are drilled and how they are sealed. I don't know all of the ramifications
of investigating a claim by a water right holder that an adjacent well has impacted his or
her well. It gets to be a very touchy subject and it is a very difficult subject to deal with.
We have opted in the City of Meridian in our municipal wells to get down deep into the
deeper waters to avoid these possible conflicts with shallower wells. I know in the
northwest part of town a year or more ago there was a significant impact by an irrigator
pumping a lot of water out of the ground not a deep well but several hundred feet deep
had a significant impact on shallow wells of farm houses, residential well for a farm house.
There were several hearings held, information type hearings where the people in the area
that had been affected felt they had been affected by this pumping brought Water
Resources into the picture. Water Resources was acting as a moderator for this public
information meeting. Had several hydrogeologists in attendance that spoke about the
impacts of such of these bigger wells on the individual wells. But also compounding this
was the fact that we were under going a drought situation. We did not have the recharge
to the ground water. That also affects these shallower wells. It is a very difficult subject
to deal with. So I guess I haven't given you a very good answer, I don't know a good
answer to give you other than to say the yield of a shallow well can be affected by more
than an adjacent well. Although that is probably the most significant factor that would
affect the shallower well.
Kingsford: Based on that then Wayne if Water Resources has to do that intermediary step
is it reasonable as Mr. McColl that we just give that information to Water Resources. They
are the ones that deal with the adjudication anyway. He is suggesting that we don't have
judicial power anyway. Is that reasonable to not even include in the findings that they have
to deal with it?
Crookston: Well, again it is the Council's decision but to my knowledge the Department
of Water Resources even in the case that Gary Smith mentioned it was quite surprising
that the department of Water Resources ventured into that at all. They don't normally come
out and test wells to determine what the draw down is on a particular well. I am not sure
that the Department of Water Resources has either the desire or the ability, not meaning
that they don't have the expertise to do it but meaning that they don't have the desire to
do it and nor probably do they have the manpower to do it. So, it is really up to the
Council. I would be very surprised if the Department of Water Resources said yes they
will do it.
Kingsford: Well, 1 wouldn't disagree with Mr. McColl, if we start getting into an issue of
saying you can't use your water right I am not sure that is within our jurisdiction.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 15
Crookston: That could very well be.
Kingsford: I guess I would feel like we were on a lot safer ground if we were to have said
can't use a well for irrigating.
Morrow: 1 think quite clearly 20/20 hindsight is that we should have said that at the very
beginning. We have nothing but one issue after another issue with this and very candidly
we should have stopped with what our policy has been of not having or of capping all wells
as properties are annexed. 1 think, I understand the issues in terms of Department of
Water Resources, I understand the issues in terms of water rights. We are talking here
specifically Mr. Goldsmith's right tonight very shortly it will be a homeowners association
right for irrigation, if it is irrigation for lawns against neighbors domestic consumption then
the issue that what I think I don't want to get hung up on Mr. Goldsmith's right today
because his right is going to transfer very soon to a homeowners association. It seems to
me what we are trying to do now in terms of this document is straighten out or give some
sense of direction to that homeowners association if in fact it impacts those neighbors, the
neighboring domestic wells. It would look to me like that domestic water rights will take
precedent over a homeowners association.
Kingsford: I am not sure that water (inaudible) would support that. I think what you have
to do is go back and see that right on that first is what the courts have held. If Mr.
Goldsmith's well and its predecessors had a water right prior to the adjacent residents
there his water right would have precedent in court.
Morrow: In court that may be so but the reality is that some families deprived of water
because it is being used for someone else's rose garden and basically that is not right.
Kingsford: I think that is right in terms of a nice (inaudible) judgement but in terms of what
you might very well be putting the city in the citizens of Meridian might very well be
deprived of tax money fighting it in court and lose and you have to look at water law.
Morrow: I understand that issue too and I think basically my feeling of this is that we need
to think this issue through, I am not prepared to act on this this evening from my
perspective. I would yield to Max and Bob whatever they wish to do.
Cowie: Mr. Mayor, Marty, Salmon Rapids No. 3 am I correct it is not even going to use well
water, this is surface water only irrigation for this one? I am lost in the shuffle here I am
afraid.
Goldsmith: Mr. Cowie you are correct that Salmon Rapids No. 3 is going to use surface
water. The irrigable acres for Salmon Rapids is 15 acres. That is what Jerry McDermot had
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 16
(End of Tape) okay to use.
Kingsford: So we are talking about not using the well in either Salmon Rapids or Los
Alamitos No. 3.
Goldsmith: That is correct, it is my intention to pull water from the Hunters lateral which I
have an abundant amount of surface water rights and start using that in Los Alamitos No.
3. Part of some of our second phases and Salmon Rapids No. 3. We are working on the
design of that right now.
Kingsford: And this well though is actually located in Salmon Rapids No. 3 in terms of its
physical location.
Goldsmith: Yes that is correct and we have worked with Gary Smith and something that
might be good for the record we have agreed on 119 lots that can serve and not go outside
of our water right. I have found that Idaho Water Resources to be very cooperative with
me in my dealings with them. I would say that a good option to have here would be for
them to monitor it and I would surely investigate it between now and whenever time period
you pick to see if that would be possible. If they would come forward with a commitment
to help us with this issue.
Kingsford: Other questions Mr. Corrie? Max? What is your pleasure? I would just offer up
that if it is your desire to annex it that you think about getting those hurdles across by the
next meeting so that we get tax money on it this year.
Corrie: That can be done at the next meeting?
Kingsford: That is correct, we have the ordinance drawn.
Corrie: Will that give you enough time?
Kingsford: The issue is with staff having enough time. I wouldn't preclude Mr. Goldsmith's
recommendation if Water Resources is willing to monitor that they have better expertise
than we or he.
Morrow: I think those things need to be resolved. I move we table it to our December 19
meeting.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this to the December 19 meeting, if I
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 17
might, does that include then the next item the annexation as well?
Morrow: I am sorry it would.
Kingsford: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: My understanding from Walt's motion is the staff is going to take a look at what
is going to be necessary to monitor what do we do in case that is does draw down wells
and so forth and I think that it would be appropriate that we take a look at Marty's
suggestion that Water Resource if they will monitor it. So we are not asking you to do
anything.
ITEM #t3: TABLE NOVEMBER 21, 1995: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLEY AND
ASSOCIATION ANNEXATION:
Kingsford: We have asked to have that tabled to the 19th as well because we just got the
legals today.
Crookston: It is my understanding that the legals we just got are not correct.
Kingsford: Well I thought engineering was an exact science Gary, I expect that out of the
Counselor.
Smith: Land surveying is not it is an art.
Kingsford: I have heard that too. Well, let's make every effort to see that gets done and get
ready for the next meeting too because you are talking about a pretty good size change
that would be nice for the citizens of Meridian to not have to fork out if we can get
someone else to. We need a motion to table that to the December 19 meeting.
Yerrington: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table the Ordinance #719 Langley and
Associates annexation to the December 19 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 18
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 30 ACRES TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON:
Kingsford: Council reviewed those findings. Any questions of the Council for staff? Is
there a motion on those findings?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we hereby adopt and approve the findings of fact
and conclusions of law as written.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as written on the annexation and zoning for Michael Preston, C-G, roll
call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the findings
of fact and conclusions of law above stated that the annexation application is denied and
the City Council shall not consider annexation and zoning of this property until more
definite plans of development are submitted.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: I guess my initial question is it appropriate to approve of a variance of
something that hasn't been annexed.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 19
Crookston: I would doubt it.
Kingsford: I think it ought to be tabled then with items 6 and 7 and deal with it at the same
time. I think we have those findings prepared and ready to be deal with them but it is
inappropriate to grant a variance on something that is not in the City.
Yerrington: I move that we table to our next regular meeting on the 19th.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table item 10 to the next meeting December
19, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: ORDINANCE #720 -BILLY QUINN ANNEXATION:
Kingsford: AN OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE NW 114 OF THE
SW 1/4 OF SECTION 6, T.3N, R.1E., BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND
PROVIDING AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to
have Ordinance #720 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion on
Ordinance No. 720.
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt Ordinance #720 with the suspension of the
rules.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to approve of Ordinance #720 with the
suspension of the Rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea,
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: FINAL PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE
PARTNERSHIP:
Kingsford: Dces the Council have any question on the final plat for Whitestone Estates?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 20
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have one question, is the, who is the developer, are they here?
Kingsford: Mr. Van Hees, would you come forward please?
Corrie: 1 have one question in reference to the Fire Department and its comment. I know
that it is becoming quite a problem but they ask that before you start building homes out
there that you get all the signs up on the streets put up for fire protection. As we are
getting bigger and we can't seem to not necessarily find them but it is easier when they
have the street signs up.
Van Hees: 1 don't have any problem with that.
Corrie: Because the rest of them you have addressed and there was no problem. Thank
you.
Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council?
Morrow: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Van Hees, you talked a little bit about a bike
path and pedestrian bridge and those kinds of things. Can you address those issues. I
believe that we have, those were questions that were spelled out in Shari Stiles
comments. Have you seen her comments?
Van Hees: Yes I have, I got a copy of those yesterday. Mayor and Council, I would like
to address that one issue and it is #2 submit a bike path plan for the area adjacent to Ten
Mile Drain. Throughout all of our discussion I am not sure that was ever an issue that
there be a bike path there. I want you to know that I don't have a problem with it because
as we continue development along on both sides of Ten Mile Drain I think it is probably
advantageous to us to have a bike path along there. However I am a little bit concerned
because when it is put in as a requirement at this late date I would not want you to table
this subdivision because of that. I know back in the findings of fact dated June 8 there was
a comment and the comment that we had is that this is a prior annexation a previous
planning director stated that a green belt along the Nine Mile Creek and coordination was
needed with the bike pathway plan and such comment is equally applicable to the Ten
Mile Drain. It was just a comment basically that maybe this would be applicable but it was
never any direct requirement to us that we work. And I am not even sure what the pathway
plan is does the City have a pathway plan. I am not sure that there is a pathway plan that
we live according to. I actually asked some questions on that several times and never got
an answer and it was never a question. tonight we are here to approve the final plat. I
would just like you to know that I think it is to our advantage to do it. We have several
phases there and we are looking at requesting a change in density for the parcel of ground
on the other side of Ten Mile drain that borders on Franklin Road. We would like to do a
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 21
different kind of a development there but that is down the road a year or two. If the path
would be on the other side of the drain and we wouldn't be able to do anything with it until
that time anyway. If you want to just state that would be required upon further development
there I don't have a problem there but I just request that you not hold it up for that because
I think it is as much to our advantage as to yours and we want to do a good plan there.
One other question I have and that is in the letter to you from Shari Stiles, item #7, a
development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. An agreement has not
yet been drafted for this subdivision, it is my understanding that agreement is drafted by
your department and we were told that apparently the squeaky wheel needs some grease
and maybe we were supposed to be requesting that. I would just like you to know that
when it is prepared that we would agree to sign that and we know that is coming up. I also
would like that not to be a condition for your approval of the final plat. If you have any other
questions I would be glad to address them.
Kingsford: Any other questions Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: I have none of Mr. Van Hees I have some of Shari.
Kingsford: Max? Thank you sir. Go ahead Mr. Morrow.
Morrow: Shari can you address this issue with respect to the bike path and the status of
the development agreement. I would think that this is a month or so ago in our planning
session we talked about changing the development agreement to a check list type of an
agreement is this one of the first properties that will be done in that manner is that what
we are talking about here?
Stiles: Councilman Morrow and Council the ordinance I believe for this annexation requires
that a development agreement be entered into. As far as the bike path is concerned it is
shown in our comprehensive plan and it is there is a ridge to rivers pathway plan that
dictates how these paths are built. The initial plat that was submitted, the preliminary plat
that was approved it was a contention of the applicant's representative that the plat did not
include any of that right of way or that it was not a part of that Ten Mile Creek. Now that
they have submitted this final plat it has changed to show the Bureau of Reclamations right
of way through there and I do think it is important that it be included now as part of this plat
because of what is existing on the other side of that right of way and the private property
owner that lives on the other side of the creek. So that is why it wasn't initially spelled out
as that because the applicant had represented that they would do that in a future phase
on the other side of the creek. But I think the way the right of way exists it should be
incorporated as part of the plat.
Morrow: Then my question still with respect to the development agreement, we are doing
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 22
anew format on development agreements now instead of the lengthy ones that we had
before we are going just an itemized list of what it is that we want as a City on the
development agreement. Is this project one of those that we are doing in the new format?
I recognize that the ordinance requires the development agreement.
Stiles: I guess I would have to ask Counsel since the ordinances does specifically spell
out that the applicant will enter into a development agreement where that leaves us.
Kingsford: Is that punch list qualifying as a development agreement I think is what Mr.
Morrow is asking, I would think it would.
Morrow: Well we have talked about going away from the bulky ones that we were having
a lot of problems with not only our people understanding but with the development
community understanding. We made the commitment that we were going to a punch list
type of a development agreement check off development agreement. What I am asking her
of staff is that is this a parcel that we are going to do that with? Because there is not a
lengthy development agreement that has been crafted as I understand it is that right?
Kingsford: So I guess Shari's question to Wayne that I would like to hear the answer to
is since that is in the development agreement is that something that we can do with a
punch list and call it a development agreement? I think that is what Councils' intent was.
Crookston: The ordinance just says a development agreement it doesn't set forth the type
of development agreement that we have been using for the last 2 years. So it would suffice
to use the check list type of agreement. But the ordinance still requires an agreement.
Kingsford: So we would have to prepare that punch list to meet that.
Crookston: I believe in the past many of the developers have actually prepared the
agreements have they not Shari?
Stiles: Some of them have crafted agreements using our master.
Morrow: I think our intent in terms of we have talked about it is that process stop and that
we craft the punch list very similar to the punch list that we are currently given by both you
and Gary as we go through this process. P & Z gets those same types of comments and
it would appear to me that it is the City's it is in the City's best interest to craft that punch
list of things that we expect that developer to come and agree to and accomplish.
Stiles: So Mr. Morrow, you would like the conditions of approval to be broken down prior
for those items to be completed prior to signature on the final plat and those prior to
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 23
obtaining construction permits and then conditions prior to obtaining a certificate of
occupancy.
Kingsford: I think what he is saying Shari is that one of the or there ought to be a spot on
that punch list for the developer to acknowledge that yes I am going to do these. That then
becomes the development agreement. And that could just be a line saying yes I
understand that these are the requirements that I have to meet and the initials (inaudible).
Stiles: The only problem that I see with that is if there is a transfer of ownership because
then those conditions do not necessarily transfer to a new owner legally.
Kingsford: You put that as one of the requirements then on it that they follow their
successors. Mr. Van Hees if you would come back up, I guess one of the issues that Shari
brought up with regard to the ownership across the ditch. I might have read between the
lines but I understood you to say that you owned the property on the other side of the
ditch.
Van Hees: No, there are two different parcels involved there. In the Kelly 40 acres that is
next door to that other piece the Kelly's control that and we are in a development
agreement with them and we will be developing that whole 40. So we do control both sides
there. On that other, the 40 that borders on, or the property that borders on Linder Road
that fronts on Linder Road we do not control that parcel there.
Kingsford: So you would understand then that a bike path would have to be on this
particular parcel.
Van Hees: We don't own the property where that bike path is in fact that has been a kind
of a problem. We have had 4 title companies try and determine who owns the right of way
on that ditch. I will tell you it is a very complicated issue and the Nampa Meridian no the
Bureau of Reclamation is not even sure that the own that creek bed right now. Because
there was some different deeds that were recorded and something about the succession
of recording those deeds and there is a real question of what they own. The one parcel
that they do own is a narrow strip, a spaghetti farm that is the whole length of that thing
that goes. It is a half acre and it goes the full length. That is the parcel that they do own,
they own it and that is where the bike path would be. If they agree to have it there. That
is something that we need to work out with them. They are really not too happy that they
own it. They would just assume give it to you or give it to somebody and the only problem
is, they even offered for us to work with you and perhaps go into ownership. It is going to
take about a year to get it or better or maybe never get it. It is a real problem there. I think
they would enter into an agreement to put a bike path there. I have been told that they will
(inaudible).
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 24
Kingsford: We have had correspondence that the Bureau of Reclamation has been very
amenable to bike paths and so forth. Nampa Meridian not so much so.
Van Hees: Well, we are lucky we are dealing with the Bureau here.
Kingsford: Any other questions of staff from Council? What is your pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Whitestone Estates
Subdivision subject to the resolution of the bike path issue, the development agreement,
the timing of pedestrian bridges issues and upon completion of those authorize the Mayor
to sign and the City Clerk to attest on the final plat and Gary Smith to sign the final plat.
Kingsford: I really appreciate the Councilman's requirement for me to sign but I don't do
those on the plats. But the others would be glad to sign if that is the Council's
concurrence. Is there a second on the motion?
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the Final plat subject to resolution
of the bike path issue, completion of the development punch list and the resolution of a
foot bridge, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: FINAL PLAT FOR MORNING GLORY SUBDIVISION N0. 1 BY RUSSELL
HUNNEMILLER:
Kingsford: Questions of the Council for Mr. Hunnemiller?
Morrow: I think what I would like to hear is a presentation by both Gary and Shari they
have a rather lengthy list of comments, site specific comments, in Gary's case of 17. The
major issue in my mind was item 17, the drainage flooding and the pictures that are part
of the presentation. And then obviously Bill Henson of Nampa Meridian has indicated
some concern about the drainage water and the ditches. And then Shari has some 6 items
on her list.
Kingsford: Gary, Shari who wants to be first?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I had no major problems with this plat. I guess the main
thing would be the issue of the variance. It was pretty clear during the preliminary plat
approval that their intent was to fence that canal. The only thing was that there is not a
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 25
variance in place. Other than that if the applicant has no problems with providing these
other items I have no problem with the plat.
Kingsford: Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I think most of our comments were pretty routine
on subdivisions. Engineer Johnson responded in writing to our request or to our
comments as we had requested. He agrees to make the revisions, additions that we had
requested to provide additional information as requested. The issue with the flooding of
the street in Merrywood Subdivision No. 2 has been brought to the Highway District's
attention by myself by a written letter and copies of the photographs that you have in your
packet. I think it goes back to the Highway District not having enough staff to follow
through on the temporary nature of drainage, disposition of drainage at the ends of these
phased constructions. I don't know what kind of response I will get from the Highway
District but I have made contact with them in written format. The developer's engineer Roy
Johnson has stated that they will as part of this phase extend the drainage from this area
which this will, this phase of the subdivision will construct a cul-de-sac at the end of this
street that you see in the upper right hand photograph. At that point drainage will be taken
from that cul-de-sac under Eight Mile Lateral to the North or the south and west to be
disposed of in the Ten Mile stub drain, appropriately disposed of in the Ten Mile Stub
Drain. They have committed to do that work which would be required anyway in order to
take care of the drainage in this cul-de-sac. But nevertheless that would accomplish or
resolve the problem that we have presently. This subdivision is not the first one that has
had that problem. The temporary cul-de-sacs have not been done in a very good fashion.
Kingsford: Well, I suppose the logic would be there that they are fairly costly to put in a
catch basin and drain that isn't needed when it is completed but yet many of them exist for
a year or two years or longer.
Smith: That is correct Mr. Mayor. The big issue is to get a positive drainage from the cul-
de-sac and in a lot of cases that hasn't been accomplished. Luckily we don't have that
much precipitation to deal with. But when we do have it, it creates a problem.
Kingsford: Other questions for Gary?
Morrow: I have a question for Gary, on Bill Henson's comments from Nampa Meridian you
indicated if any drainage leaves the site Nampa Meridian Irrigation District must review
drainage plans. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all
developments within the district. The district requires that a land use change/site
development application be filed for review prior to final platting. Is he indicating that there
is not irrigation or what is he trying to tell us here? Is there not irrigation water or
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 26
pressurized irrigation?
Smith: There is pressurized irrigation in Merrywood No. 1 and No. 2 and the engineer for
the developer has indicated that the pressurized irrigation will be continued into this
subdivision. It will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The disposal
of the drainage water that is a standard statement by Nampa Irrigation District, I believe
that they are allowing the amount of drainage pre-development drainage to leave the site.
The remainder of the drainage is retained or detained on site so that it can't leave at any
greater rate than what it leaves the site at now prior to development. The water has to be
skimmed, the sand sediments removed, the gasses and oils are skimmed off of the water
and then it can leave the site. But that drainage plan needs to be approved by Nampa
Meridian if they are discharging any into a Nampa Meridian Irrigation District drainage
way.
Morrow: That water in the pictures that we are seeing here in our packet would fall under
that condition?
Smith: Yes sir. That would have to be treated before it was discharged with Nampa
Meridian's approval.
Kingsford: Point of interest Russ, is this going to be tied into Menywood's pressurized
irrigation system, it will be totally separate? Okay, other questions of Gary or the
developer?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have one, the same question in reference to signage of the streets,
you will put those in before you start the building that is correct.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Morning Glory
Subdivision No. 1 subject to all City staff, ACHD conditions and authorize the necessary
signatures.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the final plat for Morning Glory
Subdivision No. 1 subject to all of the staff requirements being met, ACHD requirements
being met and authorize the appropriate signatures, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 27
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 21, 1995: REQUEST
FOR A VACATION OF AN EASEMENT BY JEFF COFFER:
Kingsford: This is in Central Valley Corporate Park, the applicant has asked that be further
continued to the December 19 meeting. If there is anyone from the public wishing to offer
testimony on that we will hear that this evening. Anyone from the public? Seeing none I
will close that public hearing and ask the Council to continue that to the December 19
meeting.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to continue the public hearing for Jeff Coffer
to the December 19 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LENGTH OF CUL-DE-
SAC FROM 450' TO 476.50' FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST
DEVELOPMENT:
Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the developer or his
designee to speak first. No one apparently wants to speak, anyone from the public at all
that would like to offer testimony is welcome to give that. It must be bad weather outside,
close that public hearing, Council what is your pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, my pleasure would be to table until presentation by Interwest
Development of their representative.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Point of clar'~cation are you asking to continue the public hearing or do you just
want a presentation at that point?
Morrow: I wish to withdraw that motion.
Yerrington: I will withdraw.
Morrow: My motion would be that I wish to table this until presentation by Intervvest
Development or their representative and continue the public hearing until that presentation
•
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 28
has been made.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this until the next Council meeting
December 19 and have a presentation, continue the public hearing and have a
presentation from the owner or designee for Interwest Development, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO TILE THE
EIGHT MILE LATERAL BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Tracey Persons, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Persons: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I represent the applicants Kevin Howell and
Dirk Marcum who have requested the variance for tiling the Eight Mile Lateral that runs
along the entire northerly boundary of their site. Upstream from this site the Eight Mile
Lateral crosses Franklin Road through and 83 by 57 inch CNP pipe which is equivalent
to a 72 inch round pipe. Meridian's current policy has been to grant variances from tiling
the lateral that require more than a 48 inch pipe. This one requires 72 inches and does
exceed that. Bill Henson with Nampa Meridian has stated in his comments that the Eight
Mile Lateral at this site has close to about 5000 minor inches and he does not believe that
the water would flow through a 48 inch pipe at this site. The applicant has submitted a
conditional use also on this property which was heard November 14 by Planning and
Zoning. He is proposing to fence the northerly boundary along the Eight Mile Lateral. So
there won't be any hazards posed by not tiling it. That is all I have, I would be happy to
answer any questions that you have.
Kingsford: Any questions for Ms. Persons? Thank you, anyone else from the public?
Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council members.
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we approve this variance.
Kingsford: We need to have findings prepared.
Yerrington: I move for findings of fact.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 29
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to have findings of fact and conclusions of law
prepared and ready for the next Council meeting, all those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: U. S. BANK MERIDIAN BRANCH -REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT
EXTENSION FOR TEMPORARY BRANCH BUILDING:
Kingsford: As your request indicates now they are talking about August 15, this comes
about because of the merger with West One and the time frame that they have to close the
bank and West One and U.S. Bank's agreement as to when they phase Idaho's, they are
going to do it last because it is a much larger area they are doing Washington, Oregon,
Utah and then Idaho last.
Morrow: So let me ask you this, so if we don't approve this extension does that expedite
the merger?
Kingsford: I am sure that is going to have them really sweating. I think what it does do is
it represents a problem for them dealing with the feds on closure of a branch. Clearly
Council's concerns about this branch all along have been well founded. As it turns out I
am not sure there is a whole lot that might have been done. Regardless of that, that is the
position we are in.
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: Certainly do whatever you want, I think it constitutes a problem as I understand
I think the feds could pull their Idaho Charter for U.S. Bank. Now having said that I don't
know as it makes a whole lot of difference because the charter they will be operating
under would be the one that West One has when they merge anyway. Might be beneficial
to them I don't know. But you dispose Lucy and others out into the elements I suppose.
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, could I read the motion of the last time?
Kingsford: I know what we said, but go ahead.
Yerrington: "I make the motion the we extend this to August 15 of this year and no further."
Kingsford: You may have noticed that I didn't make recommendation one way or the other,
clearly I won't have to break a tie so you do whatever you want.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 30
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for temporary extension to August
15, 1996 with no further extensions.
Kingsford; You have heard the motion is there a second.
Morrow: Yes I will second it.
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to extend the temporary office for U.S. Bank
until August 15, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 1 Yea, 1 Nea, 1 Abstain, Mayor Breaks Tie.
ITEM #18: REQUEST TO TRANSFER BEER AND WINE LICENSES FROM TEXACO
TRAVEL CENTER TO JACKSON FOOD STORES:
Kingsford: Chief, any problem with that?
Gordon: Absolutely not.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, is that his? (inaudible)
Kingsford: Yes, is there a motion?
Yerrington: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve of the transfer, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #19: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Los Alamitos is annexed I believe, the issue with No. 20 would have to be
tabled along with the other Salmon Rapids issues. But you do have Los Alamitos No. 3
annexed. Is there any question or discussion on that?
Crookston: I did have some comments on that one. I did have some comments on Exhibit
B, I am afraid however that what I had marked on is not right where I can find it. Did I
bring those down to you Shari?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 31
Kingsford: Do you recall what the reference was Counselor?
Crookston: It was more comments on Salmon Rapids development agreement then there
was on Los Alamitos, excuse me vice versa. There are just some changes that I think are
appropriate to their Exhibit B. On number 1 I would like to see added on the front of that
sentence provide and then it said construct perimeter fence prior to obtaining building
permits. On number 11 I would like to see a couple of things done, I will read it as I think
it should be done. Construct vehicular bridge across the Ridenbaugh Canal in coordination
with adjacent property owner across the canal. At minimum bonding for one half of the cost
with the City of Meridian is required in addition to any ACHD requirement. Provide and
pertorm this is a new numbered item, would be provide and pertorm the well monitoring
as required in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Anew number would be
construct and install pressurized irrigation to all lots within the subdivision. Another
number would be pay any development, impact or transfer fees adopted by the City.
Another new number would be dedicate land necessary for road public right of way and
a bike lane. That is all.
Kingsford: Bike lane are you talking about bike path along the canal?
Crookston: Yes a bike path.
Kingsford: Is that something that they would let us do, our experience in the past is they
said there is no way they are going to allow a bike path along the canals.
Crookston: If that is the way it is, I was referring back to what our ordinance was. If
Nampa Meridian is not going to allow it makes sense not to allow it.
Kingsford: They have clearly said they are not going to allow those other than along
drains. They have also said they will string up the Mayor if he doesn't have that license
agreement signed that he promised them a year ago last August. So I suspect we will
have that at the next meeting so you won't be looking for work.
Crookston: Let us hope so.
Kingsford: Mr. McColl, you focused on those prescribed changes, do you have any conflict
with those?
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: And that is for the record, 1 don't have my copy in front of me?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 32
McColl: Number 11 says construct (End of Tape) this is on Exhibit B of the development
agreement for Los Alamitos No. 3, construct vehicular bridge across the Ridenbaugh
Canal in coordination with adjacent property owner as suggested by Council then inserting
across the canal. It goes on, semi-colon, at minimum bonding for one half of this cost with
the City of Meridian is required in addition to any ACHD requirement. That is the one we
have difficulty with.
Kingsford: If we take bond for that are we going to obligate ourselves to build that bridge.
As you were reading that I had some concern about that same thing. Typically we let the
highway district deal with those bonds and then construct rf there is a default. I am not sure
we want to get into the bridge building business.
Crookston: The City could, I did not prepare this (inaudible) I thought Mr. McColl did.
McColl: No, I believe Shari did.
Kingsford: Who do you think prepared it Shari? Gary might have.
Stiles: I did prepare that, Marty Goldsmith came into my office and we went over that. The
findings do require the applicant to construct a bridge across the Ridenbaugh. ACRD is
not on line with the City as far as requiring this bridge. They wanted it in a different
location, I keep asserting this is where we want the bridge to connect the school site and
to provide interconnectivity between those neighborhoods. So, that was worded that way
to insure the City that those funds are in place should ACHD not require a bridge at all.
Which they are leaning towards.
Kingsford: I guess my concern is we require bonding for half the bridge are those kids
going to have to jump across the canal, what is its width?
Stiles: Highlands would provide the other half.
Kingsford: Does that line up, we don't have a plat from Highlands Ranch. Does that line
up with what they plan to do there?
Stiles: Highlands Ranch only showed a pedestrian bridge, but as part of their requirements
they were told to put a vehicular bridge there.
Kingsford: And so those would line up?
Stiles: Hopefully. Our problem is that no site plan has been done on that school site which
would really pin down the best location for the bridge.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 33
Kingsford: I Council amenable to that being in the City until such time as agreement is
reached with ACRD which the bond be transferred to them?
McColl: Mr. Mayor our objection is to paying for any part of this bridge.
Kingsford: Oh, well that is tough buns.
McColl: If I could just be heard briefly on this? This bridge is not on Los Alamitos property
at all. The development agreement in plain reading requires us to construct a bridge on
somebody else's property. It doesn't benefit the Los Alamitos property, what it does is
connect the Highlands Ranch subdivision to the school We are already right next to the
school. We don't want the bridge. We submitted a preliminary plat that was approved that
showed a stub that if when the road left our property and onto Highlands it would go along
Highlands for I don't know how long, 200 yards and then would bump into this Ridenbaugh
Canal. We did that because the Council requested us to do so. At the public hearing the
testimony from ACHD was they did not want that stub out, it should be a cul-de-sac, it
should not be a bridge there. The bridge had already been planned as much as it could
be planned another, 1/4 mile further on Ridenbaugh. Not only does this bridge not include
our property nor would that other one involve our property. But because your Planning
Director felt very strongly that the kids living in Highlands Ranch should be able to have
vehicle access to this school, she suggested that we continue with our stub out so we did.
The findings then went one step further and talked about making some general
arrangement with the neighboring property owner for the construction of this bridge. Now
we have the development agreement telling us to pay for a bridge on somebody else's
property. 1 understand that the Council and their annexing and zoning can make
reasonable requests on a developer. Give us some land for a school site or a park site.
Give us some land for a well site, but I think asking this developer who is already building
2 bridges on his own property to pay for any portion let alone half of a bridge on the other
developer's property that will primarily benefit the other developer is not A justified by the
record, it is not even consistent with the findings and I don't think it is fair. We did what
you asked us to and that is to make the plat with the stub out so that in the future it was
decided by you and or ACRD that is where the bridge should go they can come across
their property and hook up to our subdivision. That is fine but I think our responsibility
stops at that point. So I would respectfully request that the development agreement limit
itself to requiring us to stub out to the neighboring property.
Kingsford: How far is that from the canal?
McColl: I don't know, the other problem with the bridge there quite frankly, it then crosses
Highlands Ranch this triangle that we talked about is the very piece of property that the
Council wanted Greg Johnson to donate. This road is going to go right across that piece
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 34
of property. Arguably it is not a very good piece of property but that is what you were
going to ask Greg Johnson to donate for the school and park it is going to bisect that piece
of property. It is going to render that piece of property that you all had your heart set on
for a school and park to be useless. ACRD is saying put the bridge somewhere else.
Again, we don't care that much, we will put the bridge there if Shari really feels strongly
about it and there are good reasons for it because it does make Highlands Ranch
accessible to the school site. But it ought not to be on our nickel.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I would like to visit with you again Shari later on this one because the
way I understood it we need some access another access for emergency and everything
else across that canal in those 2 places. Which brings up a point and I am confused here
now where it should go. What you said at the time I think it made sense and then what he
is saying also makes sense. So I would Tike to sit down and look at this because
somewhere along the long we are not making the connection in the right place. Maybe we
are and maybe we aren't I don't know. I can't tell you anything I don't have anything in front
of me.
McColl: There is planned a fire station and a high school over on Eagle Road. If the
bridge that you are arguing in favor for is in place that would make transport from the high
school and the fire station to our subdivision more direct than the bridge where ACHD
wants to put it. There is no question, I think an argument can be made for putting the
bridge here, ACHD doesn't want it. We don't much care, but we don't think because it
primarily benefits them that we should pay for it. It is not even on our property, you can't
sign a development agreement obligating us to construct something on somebody else's
property.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of Shari and or Gary or both, the question here is
we are struggling to get this ground for apark/school site. Does this stub out in this bridge
in fact cut the use of that property?
Stiles: Councilman Morrow and Council, I think that with what exists there now is not
desirable anyway. The school is very concerned about the length of canal that they will
be required to fence as part of this piece. Greg Johnson has indicated he expects the
School District to pay for half the bridge. Basically they are giving up property that is not
worth much to begin with. I don't believe that the triangle that would be cut off by
accessing it with a bridge is of any value to the school district.
Morrow: Show me the triangle please?
Stiles: It doesn't line up with what Los Alamitos has given, it is going to be a problem for
the school district.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 35
Kingsford: Shari though, it was my understanding the school district is very concerned
about being able to purchase in Highland Ranch, does that affect this issue too? They
were talking about a school site purchase in Highlands Ranch.
Stiles: That is the high school.
Kingsford: How does it relate to this?
Stiles: It is on Eagle Road.
Kingsford: Okay
Stiles: Also where the Ada County Highway District has proposed the bridge be built is
going into the Griffin property and I said fine if it goes into the Griffin property we would
still expect this other bridge to be built because this is where the development is taking
place. We don't know how long it is going to be before that 160 acres to the north
develops and when there will be any kind of a connection there. Also, Mr. Griffin has
indicated that there is a High School site on Eagle Road. He does not want any kind of a
connection into his property from the High school.
Kingsford: Well, I can understand that working at one of those places.
McColl: To bring you all up to speed on what all is involved, our original plat showed this
stub out and then changed the plat to put a cul-de-sac because ACHD said we don't want
a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal here. Shari said yes we do so we changed that to a
stub out. This is the property that we are giving to the school district, this is the property
earmarked for Sundance to give to the school district. This is the property earmarked for
Highland Ranch of Greg Johnson to give to the school district, this is privately owned.
That is what the schoollpark site would involve. If the bridge goes across here it will have
the benefit of accessing Highland Ranch to the school It is my understanding from Karen
Gallagher of ACHD that she would prefer the bridge to be up here going into Mr. Griffin's
80 acre parcel. Your Planning Director rightly says you are a lot further along here let's go
with something that we have. That is her argument. We don't know what is going to
happen up there. So we don't again have any difficulty earmarking it for there it is just a
question of rf it is going to be there why should we have to pay for it and how do we even
Kingsford: In that triangle that you are showing there does that belong to Johnson now is
proposing giving that. And he also controls on the other side of the ditch.
McColl: Highlands is, this majority, this would be, this is not a great gift frankly from Mr.
Johnson. I don't think he can get much use out of this property anyway. So he says I will
n
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 36
give this to the school district, as long as Marty pays for half of the bridge and the school
district pays for the other half. At that point we respectfully draw the line.
Kingsford: Other questions of the Council?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I guess looking at that how can we expect him to do it?
Kingsford: I think we could if we were the Highway District and talk about doing off site
improvements. But 1 agree with you I don't see how we could ask somebody to do
something on property they don't own.
Morrow: I think from my perspective what is fair is fair. It is not fair to expect them to pay
for a bridge that is clearly not on their property. Ultimately the argument is that the property
benefits because of access. It has some benefit in terms of potential response time for
emergency vehicles. But the other side of the coin is I think historically we have indicated
by virtue of whether they be of road right of ways or sewer and waters that it to and
through and your property line is the extent of your responsibility. I think that clearly in this
case that is an issue.
Kingsford: Back to the matter at hand your are both suggesting that should be dropped
from exhibit B.
Morrow: That would be my suggestion.
Kingsford: 1 would entertain a motion to approve the development agreement excluding
item 11 from exhibit B and adding the other items that Mr. Crookston has suggested.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the development agreement for Los
Alamitos No. 3 excluding item 11 from Exhibit B and adding those items as read by City
Attorney to that development agreement. All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #20: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Entertain a motion to table the development agreement to the December 19
meeting.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 37
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the development agreement for Salmon
Rapids No. 3 to the December 19 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
Kingsford: This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to a
predetermination hearing at 7:30 P.M. December 5, 1995 before the Mayor and City
Council to appear in person and be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the
City that your sewer, water and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your
service will be discontinued on December 13, 1995 unless payment is received in full.
Anyone from the public that would like to contest their sewer, water or trash delinquency?
Seeing none I will entertain a motion to approve the turn off list.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the turn off list, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City
reviewed by the Fourth Judicial Court pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal
their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list this month is $25,869.42. I
commend Mr. Morrow's comment that we need to shorten that time period up to 2 months
and try to reduce the amount of that turn off list.
ITEM #22: APPROVE BILLS:
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the bills, all those in favor?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 38
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #23: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Kingsford: Mr. Smith?
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members, the first item this evening is a request
for your approval of an engineering agreement for Aarons and Mason Engineering, I will
pass a copy of this out to you. This agreement is for work that needs to be done to
upgrade the lift station that is lovingly know as the Gregory Lift Station. It has had some
pump problems, control problems and basically the station is worn out. It has been in
existence for, since 1978 or 1979, somewhere in that area. Aarons and Mason has done
some engineering work for us at the Waste Water Treatment Plant and in other areas in
the City. Their agreement along with, for the design there is also one for contract
administration. These are time and material agreements and I will endeavor to handle as
much of the construction management the contract administration as possible to reduce
that estimated amount of $4000.
Kingsford: Is that a maximum amount then not to exceed?
Smith: Correct sir, not to exceed. The design, the drawings, the bid documents, contacts
with the adjacent property owners is not to exceed an amount of $9,540. The contract
construction administration is a not to exceed amount on a time and material basis of
$4000. That also includes record drawings that would be prepared off of the actual
construction after the construction documents or after the construction is completed.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve task order #12 in the amount of $9, 540,
task order #12a in the amount of $4000 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk
to attest.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of task order #12 in the amount of
$9540 and task order #12a in the amount of $4000 and authorize the Mayor to sign and
the City Clerk to attest, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and thank you Council, I have got a couple other items that
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 39
I would like to run by you also. I didn't get a chance to get them on the agenda. I think in
your packet you have a memorandum that I wrote concerning the Waste Water
Departments purchase of a trailer mounted emergency generator for use by the Waste
Water Department at our sewage lift station sites. We presently have five different lift
station sites, all of them which will include the Gregory Lift Station will be outfitted for an
external connection to a power generator. This would be necessary in the case of a power
failure in the particular area of a subdivision lift station. Some of these lift stations serve
more than one subdivision. Gregory serves only that subdivision but the lift station in Golf
View serves Cherry Lane Village No. 1, Golf View Subdivision, Parkside Creek and that
failure of that subdivision could have a major impact on the area out there. So this, when
we have a failure at the lift station as I mentioned in my memo the station is equipped with
a dialer. That device automatically dials the number that is programmed to the pager that
is carried by at least one employee. That employee will respond immediately. If it takes
more he will contact more people. The recommendation from Superintendent Shawcroft
is from MQ Power, for $21,950. That bid amount also includes a one year warranty which
is I guess one year or 1000 hours. It includes a trailer and a sound (inaudible) for
operation within in a residential area so it muffles the sound.
Kingsford: Gary, if I might, is it logical to, we are talking about mobile generating facilities
for the wells as well. Is it logical that maybe we could coordinate those between the two
departments and two or three or whatever the reasonable number might be and have them
service them both?
Smith: I talked to John Shawcroft about that Mayor and he said that, we are looking at two
different KW, kilowatt demand, the wells we are talking about a 150 horsepower motor
maximum that we would need to provide power for. And I think we are looking at a 30
horse power maximum on this trailer mounted generator. I am not sure, he didn't think that
we could operate both scenarios off of one mobile generator because of the different horse
power requirements. The other thing that I am not sure of is if we have a lift station go
down and we have a well in the same area then we would be one generator set short I
guess you can say.
Kingsford: Yes, but the wells all tie together they wouldn't be totally without. I would just
hate to see us have a (inaudible) if we don't need to. I would think that certainly you can
have the same number of volts, watts, all that kind of stuff, a 30 horse power, growing up
with sprinkler irrigation I know we had motors that were 120 horse power, we had motors
that were 20 horse power that we could operate off the same panel, the same voltage.
Smith: We are looking at, with all of the well motors we are looking at a 480 volt, 3 phase,
I think all of the lift station motors at this point are single phase, 120 volt.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 40
Morrow: The other issue is that we have (inaudible) the well systems also do we not?
Smith: We have one right now.
Kingsford: Any questions of Mr. Smith on the (inaudible).
Yerrington: One question, is this equipment can you lease it? Is it possible, anybody have
something like that, these rental people or anything like that and if so how much do they
charge for it?
Smith: I don't know of any, I am not sure, I don't know Max if this would be available from
a leasing company or not, a rental company. I suppose it would be a timing issue as well
if it goes out in the middle of the night would be getting a unit over to the site. Of course
we do have a little time but in some areas it is more critical because of basement
construction, particularly in the older part of town.
Kingsford: I misunderstood, I thought Max was talking about leasing it and having it on
site.
Yerrington: No
Morrow: The other thing there Gary is you would be held hostage by whether it was in the
shop or not in the shop with a rental company.
Smith: By the way we did budget for this in this years budget as an equipment purchase.
It is there as far as the funds are concerned budget wise.
Kingsford: Is there a motion there on MO Power bid $21,950?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we accept the bid of MO Power of $21,950 and
authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest any necessary written
documentation.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the tow bid from MO Power in the
amount of $21,950 and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 41
Smith: The last item that I have is we have a well driller that recently completed a test hole
for us on well #17 which is in the Los Alamitos Subdivision area. We also have a site at
the northeast part of town which is termed well #18 and this same well driller can move in
that direction and drill that test hole. We have the water rights for 18 in hand and we are
going to be drilling that well as part of this years budget for water production within the
City. This contract, estimated amount for this contract is $18,246 and operating under the
existing bid laws of the State of Idaho we can without going through a formal bid process
award a contract of up to $25,000. We did obtain one other estimate from a qualified driller
to correlate against this driller's estimated cost. Stevens and Sons Well Drilling is the firm
and they are the same ones that drilled the test hole for Well No. 17.
Kingsford: Who was the other?
Smith: Hiddleston Drillers, they were about $2000 higher.
Kingsford: Doesn't the new bid requirement require 3?
Smith: It says if you can get them. It refers to that. The situation with this is that we drilled
well #17 we drilled to a 1045 feet. It is a reverse mud rotary process and it is kind of a
limited expertise that is available to the area to do that type of drilling.
Kingsford: Questions of the Council for Gary?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we accept the Stevens and Sons bid of $18,246 for
the test hole for well #18, authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve Stevens and Sons offer for test hole
for well #18 in the amount of $18,246, authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to
attest, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor that is all I have.
Kingsford: Chief?
Gordon: Nothing
Kingsford: Shari?
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 42
Stiles: Nothing
Kingsford: As I mentioned to you before we now have an ordinance enforcer, I would like
you to contact him and make him aware that we have an ordinance against snow in the
City limits and he better do something about it. Counselor?
Crookston: On my agenda there is a newspaper publication clarification, is that still on the
agenda?
Kingsford: I think we dealt with that already.
Crookston: We dealt with that at the strategic planning session.
Kingsford: 1 don't know as we necessarily have any requirement that we follow up on it.
Crookston: I would think the only thing appropriate would be to withdraw that motion.
Yerrington: I withdraw the motion.
Morrow: I withdraw the second.
Kingsford: Okay, Walt has withdrawn the second and Max has withdrawn the motion with
regard to the Newspaper publication clarification, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Anything else Counselor?
Crookston: No
Kingsford: Walt?
Morrow: Only two issues, one is there has been some complaint by surrounding neighbors
of the paintball place with paint balls being shot well outside the structure to the point of
peppering many cars to including those close to City Hall. In talking with one of the
neighbors immediately adjacent apparently it is an ongoing issue. It seems to me that Mr.
Covino's enterprise there was approved under a conditional use permit and one of those
requirements I believe rf memory serves me was that those activities be confined to within
the interior of that building. It seems to me to be appropriate to have that researched by
staff and then take whatever action is necessary to see that the activity stops.
•
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 43
Kingsford: Mr. Berg, could you research that and then work with the Counselor on
addressing a letter to Mr. Covino or whoever is not operating that.
Crookston: It is different.
Kingsford: I think it is now Rich Jarvis.
Morrow: Well the issue if it is different does it not need a new conditional use permit
required?
Kingsford: I think that is true of our ordinance if in fact they have transferred ownership.
He was the money in it originally but the conditional use permit was issued to Peter Covino
and if you have a different operator over there they are in default as of this moment.
Morrow: That is the premise of our conditional use permit is they don't' survive.
Kingsford: That is right, they are not transferable.
Morrow: So that needs to be from my perspective I would like to see that researched and
brought to the chamber to be dealt with. Second issue in your boxes there was a note
from ACHD concerning our Citizens Advisory Committee issues that we do on
transportation planning to bring you up to speed. That is the normal course of events after
January Gary and I have already addressed those issues and those letters will be going
out to members of our transportation committee posthaste. That would be all of my
(inaudible).
Yerrington: Nothing your honor.
Kingsford: Bob?
Corrie: No sir.
Kingsford: I have two items, I did receive yesterday a letter of resignation from Charlie
Rountree from the Planning and Zoning Commission effective immediately. I have talked
with the applicant for that Mr. Greg Oslund, I would like to appoint him to the remainder
of Mr. Rountree's term that expires on the first month of 1998. I entertain a motion of the
Council to confirm that.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 44
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to confirm the appointment of the Mayor of Greg
Oslund to P & Z until January of 1998, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Also, I had asked Anna to copy and to give to each of the Council proposed
deed of gift from Mr. Turnbull for those two golf holes that were formally on the
Baxterlfhomas property. Have you had a chance to review those? I know Anna made
copies of those, I will see that you get another run at those. Wayne reviewed those and
made some notes, some hand written notes all over those. I am not concerned still about
getting the deed from him. It was a condition that was made with regard to the annexation.
We have got that, as I discussed with him 1 think many of those points still need to be in
a different agreement. 1 don't think we ought to be tying up and encumbering property with
things that don't apply to the rest of the property that the City owns for the golf course.
There is a separate agreement that should be there as well for easement agreement, I
think it was entitled wasn't it Counselor? Did you say you had gotten those Walt?
Morrow: I have those.
Kingsford: I am sure
Morrow: I have a copy of that.
Kingsford: Anna copied those and I asked her to put them in everyone's box I thought she
had about a week ago.
Morrow: I did not bring them to the meeting tonight because I didn't know we were dealing
with that issue.
Kingsford: No, 1 am just asking that you review those and be prepared to deal with them
as that developer works through that process. That is that letter I think Bob that was
separate for you. Mr. Berg do you have anything?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I do have two items, the first one is the Whitsel property which is
the northeast corner of Idaho and E. 1st Street. I did receive a deed which has been
signed by Marie H. Whitsel as trustee of her own trust for the property. There is also an
agreement that the City needs to execute. I have reviewed the agreement and it is fine. I
received them from Mrs. Whitsel's attorney Rick Goodson, he indicated to me that they
were also going to be forwarding an IRS claim by Mrs. Whitsel for, to show that this is a
gift so that she can use it on her taxes. I had not brought this down to the City because
I was waiting for that and I received this probably 3 weeks ago. I called Mr. Goodson
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 45
today or excuse me yesterday and asked him when we were going to get that and he said
he did not know. But he also said that we should now go ahead and execute the
agreement and record the deed. So I would deliver the agreements to Mayor and City
Clerk and the agreement is fine, the deed is proper. So I would deliver them with just a
small note about the IRS form attached to it.
Kingsford: This was what 6 months ago the Council authorized that gift and (inaudible).
I don't recall that they authorized me to sign and the City Clerk to attest. So I would
entertain that motion.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to authorize the Mayor to sign and the City
Clerk to attest the contract indemnifying Mrs. Whitsel on the gift to the City of the property
at Idaho and East. First.
Crookston: Excuse me the other item I have is for an agreement, a hold harmless and
indemnification agreement between the City of Meridian and Idaho Power Company. I
have made some notes on it. I think it needs some changes. I am not asking for the
Council to approve of it at this time. I just want to inform the Council that 1 have it and I am
delivering a copy to the City Clerk.
Kingsford: And that is for our collection?
Crookston: That is the pay station.
Kingsford: So now does will send that to Idaho Power, those notes?
Crookston: I think I need to send it to the attorney for Idaho Power because I think the hold
harmless and indemnification is broad. That is all I have.
Kingsford: I think Gary if we could, the Whitsel property, we need to make arrangements
with whoever she was (inaudible) that we don't have that taken down and we have
exposure on that. Make sure that stays fenced and get arrangements to take the tanks out
and so forth as DEO has indicated and work toward getting that building leveled.
Crookston: On the fence I had a discussion with I think it is RMI who said that they would
be happy to have the City re-lease it. I asked them to send a copy of the agreement to me
and I have not yet received it on the lease of the fence.
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 46
Kingsford: We need to see that the sidewalk is cleaned.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, do you want me to proceed then with making arrangements to have the
tanks removed, to have the soils excavated and back fill brought back in and filled back
up? Is that your wishes?
Morrow: I think we need to discuss that in terms of your little letter is that mandatory from
DEQ?
Kingsford: I am still of the opinion as I looked at that letter from DEQ the only risk that we
are running is if we pave over it those tanks may cave in. I think it is better that we make
sure they are full of sand and just go ahead and pave over it.
Smith: Correct, it is not a requirement to remove the tanks. It was a suggestion from them
to remove the tanks so that it is completely closed out. I guess at this point that the tanks
are closed to some degree because they were filled with sand, apparently the Fire
Marshall was involved in walking that operation and I am not certain of that but I believe
that is what DEQ said. Tanks can be left in the ground but thief concern was if we do
something over the tops of the tanks and they are not filled completely full of sand then we
would risk the possibility of a collapse at some point in time due to rusting of the steel. But
at the very least we are going to have to start excavating and removing contaminated soil.
We may be able to dispose of that soil at the landfill, Seamans Gulch, Ada County's landfill
depending on the amount of contamination that the landfill will accept. DEQ couldn't give
me an answer as to whether this was contaminated beyond thief parameters of
acceptance. When I gave him the parts per million or milligrams per liter of contamination
he wasn't overwhelmed by it. He says that is not a big matter. If the land fill will not accept
the excavated material than we can take it to the waste water plant and dispose of it or
stock pile it in one of the sledge drying beds for the winter and we have to cover it. We
can't land farm it until beginning April 1, 1996. That is the period of time that DEQ says you
can land farm contaminated sludge or contaminated soil, that is contaminated with
hydrocarbons. Probably within a short period of time after April 1 that soil will be cleaned
up just from evaporation of the hydrocarbons from (inaudible).
Kingsford: Well, Gary, might we not be smarter to just put that dirt back in and instruct that
clean up after April 1 when we don't have to move it twice?
Smith: Well, that is certainly an option, we can fill the holes back up and remove the
building if you wanted at this point or just leave it as it and fill the holes back up and take
the fence back down and wait until April to excavate it. We can certainly do that.
Kingsford: Why don't you present us with some options maybe at the strategic planning
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 47
session next week.
Smith: 1 can tell you that it is not a big issue as far as DEO is concerned, they (inaudible).
It is not a big issue.
Kingsford: When they weren't ready to take the hide off our back I sensed that it was no
big deal.
Corrie: 1 can also understand where California is making some big changes in soil
contamination (inaudible) where they said (inaudible) so we are not going to wait until that
comes down but they are changing their minds on these things.
Smith: Right, and the other thing that DEQ mentioned was the only problem we might
encounter would be if we find ground water contaminated ground water. Then we would
have to go into some monitoring wells. But, we don't know that until we start digging.
Kingsford: I am more concerned with going over there and doing something with it now
with the moisture that has fallen and so forth with it being open if we were to wait until we
had dry weather in April or whenever we can get dry weather.
Smith: We would certainly want to get the excavation started before we got irrigation water
in the ditches.
Kingsford: So we are talking probably after the first of April before April 15 we would be
looking at.
Smith: I think in two weeks you can dig those holes and fill it up.
(End of Tape)
The motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P. M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
Meridian City Council
December 5, 1995
Page 48
APPROVED:
~.
j
~i, ~:_
GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
' '+ /1
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.,~I CTi' LERK
CITY OF MERIDI
~C MEETING SIGN
+ .i ~~..)
NAME PHONE NUMBER
CITY OF MERIDIA
PUBL~C MEETING SIGN- HEET
~.~~. ~ .. n i ~[ 1 .e-r n ~l ~~~t :~/YYII IY.~ ~~. ~
NAME ~ PHONE NUMBER
J~~~. C,'~w,..-t
~~_ ~ .
._.. y `~
The Honorable Grant Kingsford
Mayor of Meridian, Idaho
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
ful~'~ f~~f~ rf~~:a;!3:
December 1, 1995
Dear Mayor Kingsford:
Having successfully been elected to the City Council I am offering my resignation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission effective this date. I do so for two reasons, the
first is to allow a bit more time to plan for the transition to the City Council and the
second is to minimize the number of items that I would be acting on twice.
I have found the last eight years challenging and personally rewarding and I thank you
for making that possible. Your encouragement and guidance along with that of the
Council over the years I believe will help me better perform my new duties for the City.
I look forward to the challenges to come and wish you well in your future endeavors or
should that be rounds. Again thanks.
Sincerely yours,
1..~-~-^--~--
Charles Rountree
PLANNING 8~ ZONING COMMISSION
Board Members - Five(5)
Terms - Six(6) Years
Appointed by the Mayor with approval by the City Council
Chairman: Jim Johnson - reapt. 1/91 expire 1/97
Charlie Rountree - reapt. 1/92 expire 1/98
Moe Aldijani - reapt. 1/90 expire 1/96
Jim Shearer - reapt. 1/91 expire 1/97
Tim Hepper - reapt. 11195 expire 1/01
. _,
• • 4 a ...
L... ~ i
TASK ORDER NO. /2 ab
FOR AGREEMENT FOR ~'~~~ ~~I' °i~. ~-~_:i,r`.;-~
MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES
Consultant Project No. 809.5/S
This TASK ORDER entered into this /B1 day of OCYO6et' 1995, between the City of
Meridian, Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the OWNER, and Ahrens & Mason Engineering, Inc, hereinafter
referred to as the CONSULTANT, is subject to the provisions of the Agreement for Miscellaneous Engineering
Services, dated /Oil. /~ /q9..~ ,hereinafter referred to as the AGREEMENT.
The OWNER will provide the data and/or services specified in the AGREEMENT.
In addition, the OWNER will famish to CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT will perform said services within ~,~ calendar days of this TASK ORDER
The OWNER will pay CONSULTANT for its services and reimbursable expenses as defined in Exhibit A of the
AGREEMENT. The estimated cost of CONSULTANT services for this Task will not exceed S ~ 6~0.~ ,
based on time and materials. '
In witness whereof, these parties have executed this TASK ORDER AGREEMENT as of this day and year fast
written above.
OWNER: City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID. 83642
By:
CONSULTANT: Ahrens & Mason Engineering, Inc.
10332 Fairview Ave, Suite 204
Name/Title:
Boise, ID. 83704
By
Name/Title: ~ errU E. Liras
/~~
TASK ORDER NO.~' _
FOR AGREEMENT FOR _
MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES "'~' ~'
Consultant Project No. BOf95/5,4
This TASK ORDER entered into this /B~ day of ~j~D66r 1995, between the City of
Meridian, Idaho, hereinafter referred to az the OWNER, and Ahrens & Mason Engineering, Inc, hereinafter
refeued to az the CONSULTANT, is subject to the provisions of the Agreement for Miscellaneous Engineering
Services, dated /!l/~ /~ /99b' ,hereinafter referred to az the AGREEMENT.
The OWNER will provide [he data and/or services specified in the AGREEMENT.
In addition, the OWNER will furnish to CONSULTANT
ONC R.T NT S .RVI ..S
S .HED ^ FOR P FO MAN
CONSULTANT will perform said services within /55 calendar days of this TASK ORDER
BASIS OF FFF AND B71. IN = S D Ii
The OWNER will pay CONSULTANT for its services and reimbursable expenses az defined in Exhibit A of the
AGREEMENT. The estimated cost of CONSULTANT services for this Tazk will not exceed $ QDDD. °~
based on time and materials.
In witness whereof, these parties have executed this TASK ORDER AGREEMENT az of this day and year £ust
written above.
OWNER: City of Meridian CONSULTANT:
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID. 83642
By:
Ahrens & Mason Engineering, Inc.
10332 Fairview Ave. Suite 204
~ ~Bo~ise, ID. 83`704
B~( 1.~,1/1,/~J®~ f~ ~~~%~"//1/LID.
Name/Title:
NamelTitle: ~~/^I
/~'~~/Tr¢~,
_-
d
o.~-
.°O-
om
ee
vo
_°°-
~f
00
. ~-
Y ~~-
!~ ~
OFFICIALS . HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY • nar'I MEMB Rc
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Clty Clerk A Good Place to Live RONALD R. TOLSMA
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., Clty Engineer CITY OF MERIDIAN ROBERr D. CORRIE
R
BRUCE D. S7UART, Water Works Supt. WALT W
AORROW
JOHN T SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt. 33 EAST IDAHO
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt P 8 Z C-0MMISSION
SHARI L. STILES, P 8 Z Administrator MERIDIAN, IDAHO 831641 -
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, OMV Supervisor
Phone (208) 886-0433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chaimlan
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief
W.L. "BILL" GORDON,.Police Chief
Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 MOE AIIDJANI
JIM SHEARER
WAVNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney, Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 CHARLIE ROUNTREE
TIM HEPPER
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
Mayor
MEMORANDUM December 4, 1995
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNC
FROM: Gary D. Smith, PE
RE: TRAILER MOUNTED EMERGENCY GENERATOR
PURCHASE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The City of Meridian currently has 5 sewage lift stations, serving various areas of our town, that
need to have backup power in case of normal power failure. Four of these lift stations could,
some day, be abandoned when sewer collection lines are extended. The Gregory lift station will,
more than likely, be in service for a long time.
Because a power failure in a lift station area would have dire effects on our conveyance of
sewage, our wastewater department has requested your approval to purchase a trailer mounted
emergency generator for station operation during a time of power outage. Each of our lift
stations is equipped with an automatic dialing machine that will notify plant personnel when such
an emergency would exist.
Our wastewater superintendent has solicited estimates for this purchase and they are attached for
your information. He recommends the purchase from MQ Power for $21,950.00.
TRAILER MOUNTED EMERGENCY
GENERATOR ESTIMATES
1. Onan Unit Cost - $22,161.00
Sound Attenuation - $ 2.000.00
Total $24,161.00
Local service available.
2. MQ Power Unit Cost - $21,950.00
Sound Attenuation -Included
Total - $21,950.00
Local service available.
3. Dayton Unit Cost - $19,350.00
Trailer Kit - $ 1,570.00
Sound Attenuation - Not Available
Total - $20,920.00
Local Service ~ available.
,A-Iso- ~fos ohe ~rnv~
e
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEMBER 5.1995
APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; ~ 2
REQUEST; WATER/SEWERITRASH DELINQUENCIES
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: / ~~~
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: (,~'
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
DELINQUENCY FOR NOVEMBER
TURNOFF SCHEDULED FOR 12/13/95
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. , 12/05/95, 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 12/13/95, unless payment is received in full.
Is there anyone present who wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash
delinquency? No response.
Kingsford: They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of
the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho Code.
Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list
is $25,869.42.
~5 5~4 ~
ORDINANCE NO. 7~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING
REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF
THE SW 114 OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1
ADA COUNTY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
AND ZONING CERTAIN
LAND IN THE NW 1l4 OF
EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN,
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 Ciry
of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
Section 1. That the real property described as:
A parcel of land situated in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 6, Township 3
North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly
described as follows:
PARCEL ONE:
Commencing at a found brass cap marking the SW corner of said Section 6,
T3N, R1 E, thence along the westerly line of said Section 6, said line also being
the centerline of Meridian Road N 00°25'30" W a distance of 2648.37 feet to a
found aluminum cap moumenting the W 1/4 comer of said Section 6,
Thence continuing along said westerly line S 00°25'30" E a distance of 232.98
feet to a point, said pint also being the POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence leaving said westerly line N 88°38'32" E a distance of 135.00 feet to a
point,
Thence S 00°25'30" E a distance of 80.00 feet to a point,
Thence S 88°38'32" W a distance of 100.00 feet to a 1/2" steel pin w/cap,
Thence continuing S 88°38'32" W a distance of 35.00 feet to a point, said point
being on the westerly line of Section 6, and centerline of Meridian Road,
Thence along said westerly line N 00°25'30" W, a distance of 80.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND PARCEL TWO: '
A parcel of land situated in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1!4 of Section 6, Township 3
North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at a found brass cap marking the SW corner of said Section 6, T3N,
R1 E, Thence along the westerly line of said Section 6, said line also being the
centerline of Meridian Road N 00°25'30" W a distance of 2648.37 feet to a found
aluminimum cap monumenting the W 1/4 comer of the said Section 6, said
alumininum cap also being the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence leaving said westerly line and along the northerly line of the SW 1 /4 of
said Section 6, N 00°51'43" E a distance of 34.1.02 feet to a point,
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE -BILL QUINN PAGE 1
•
Thence leaving said northerly line S 00°25'30" E a distance of 33.00 feet to
a 1/2" sfeef pin w/cap,
Thence continuing S 00°25'30" E a distance 185.01 feet to a 1/2" steel pin
w/caP,
Thence N 88°51'43" E a distance of 155.89 feet to a 112" steel pin w/cap,
Thence S 00°25'30" E a distance of 93.20 feet to a 1/2" steel pin,
Thence S 88°38'32" W a distance of 381.94 feet to a point,
555
Thence N 00°25'30" W a distance of 80.00 feet to a point,
Thence S 88°38" 32" W a distance of 135.00 to a point, said point being on the
westerly line of Section 6, and centerline of Meridian Road,
Thence along said westerly line N 00°25'30" W a distance of 232.98 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian; that PARCEL ONE is zoned R-4 Residential and
PARCEL TWO is zoned R-40 High Density Residential but instructed to development of
20 units per acre; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced
in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the
request for annexation and zoning.
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the owner shall not
meet the following requirements:
a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and
resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land.
b. That the development of the property shall be subjec to and contolled by the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan adopted January 4, 1994.
c. That, as a wndition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into
a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that
the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G, H 2, K, L of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances fo the City of Meridian and other matters; that the property may be
de-annexed if the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not
satisfied.
d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which
pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M which
pertains to the tiling of ditches and watennrays, and 11-9-606 B 14 which
pertains to pressurized irrigations.
e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled
owners, and their assigns.
f. Meet the requriemens and condtions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - BILLY QWNN PAGE=2
~5 5 6 ~ •
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, whcih 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 5th day of December , 1995.
APPROVED:
NT P. KINGSFORD,~- R
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., LERK
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE -BILLY QUINN PAGE 3
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
SRERINAR INDUSTRIES. INC.
D. MICNAEL PRESTON
ANNEBATION AND REZONS APPLICATION
SW CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDARO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
again on November 21, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner, Shekinah Industries, Inc. appearing through D. Michael
Preston, the matter having been heard by and before the Planning
and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian on April 11, 1995,
the Commission having duly considered the evidence and the matter
and having adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law but
tabled the matter to allow the Applicant to provide the Commission
additional information before making a recommendation to the City
Council, the Applicant submitting additional information at the
June 22, 1995, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and the City
Council having held a public hearing on the annexation and zoning
on August 15, 1995, having adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and having made a decision to deny the Application, but the
Applicant having requested Council to reassess the Application due
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 1
to Applicant's assertion that the Council was considering different
information than the Planning and Zoning Commission had, and the
City Council having deemed it appropriate to re-hear this
Application for annexation and zoning, the City Council makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
I. FINDIN(i8 OF FACT
A. That proper notices of hearing were given and held by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in the initial
procedure for application for annexation and zoning; that notice of
a public hearing on the request to reconsider the Annexation
Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for November 21, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the testimony and evidence was received on the matter and duly
considered at the November 21, 1995, hearing; that the public was
given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and
that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and
television stations.
B. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and the titled owners are Monty and Beverly McClure and IVADCO,
Inc.; that consents by the owners of record have been given to the
City for the annexation and rezone of the property.
C. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 2
and is used for agricultural purposes; that the Applicant requests
that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service
Commercial; that no specific use for the property was presented;
that the Applicant did present a concept of what the uses for the
property could be.
D. That the property has frontage on Franklin Road, is south
of industrial zoned land, is easterly of the Meridian Cemetery, is
north of undeveloped land and the State of Idaho Department of law
Enforcement land and building; that there is very low density
residential development to the east and south of the land.
E. That Applicant has requested that the property be zoned
General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) which is described in
the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows:
(C-G) GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL: The purpose
of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses
which are customarily operated entirely or almost
entirely within a building; to provide for a review of
the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and
service oriented and are located in close proximity to
major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of
travel-related services as well as retail sales for the
transient and permanent motoring public. All such
districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and
Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not
constitute strip commercial development and encourage
clustering of commercial development.
F. That the land is 30 acres and the present use of the land
to be annexed is one a home and pasture land for cattle and horses.
G. That D. Michael Preston testified at the Planning and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 3
Zoning Commission that as he was meeting with various people it
came to his attention that a residential zone for this area was
evidently not in the interest of the City of Meridian. He stated
he decided that he would look at this property from a commercial
basis, so the concept that he submitted was purely a concept. This
was not something that he was ready to submit to the Commission;
this request was purely for annexation and rezoning. He stated
that he had high intensity service retail on the corner of Franklin
and Locust Grove and that someday that would be appropriate there;
that he also had retail along the westerly side of this office
complex. Toward the rear of the property, as we get closer to the
State Training facility, he would turn that into a supply type
commercial like a lumber yard or something like that, pipe supply
or whatever. If the neighbors are not interested, he could re-
arrange the streets very quickly and easily and leave them in
peace, which he said he would definitely do if that is their
desire. Ae stated that he was really trying hard to get along with
them this time and do something that was more agreeable to them.
He stated that the access road that he had there would be a very
convenient rear access from the Meridian interchange to the Nahas-
Hon commercial development. Be thought that this was something
that would be good for the City and he had every intent of
developing it somewhat in that fashion with additional input. He
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 4
just wanted to emphasize that the layout was concept only. He
stated that he could certainly pull back and that he would do so.
He stated that he had reviewed all the comments by the City
staff and had no problem with any of their comments and was
agreeable to all of them. He also stated that he had seen the
comments from ACRD and had no problems with them.
That at the June 22, 1995, meeting Mr. Preston stated many
things but in summary he testified that the he had submitted a
revised concept plan which gives the Commission the idea of the
type of landscaping, parking, fire protection facilities, access,
ingress/egress to each of the facilities; what the office complex
might look like, which could change because he does not have any
tenants at this time; that there is a professional office complex
next to the neighborhood homes, which is a quiet use; that he has
added a six foot high masonry wall all the way around the project
and with that he is trying to totally sound proof the area; also he
will have a twenty foot landscape strip which is called for by City
Ordinance; that with the 35 foot landscape strip they will not
disturb any of the wet lands and they will not impact that in
anyway and their landscaping will make it prettier than it is
today; that they will not be digging in the creek and they will not
impact Five Mile Creek in any way. He also testified that the
spine road, with water and sewer facilities, is planned to be in by
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 5
next spring; that in response to a question from Commissioner
Hepper regarding what can be performed on the land, he testified
that they had to come back for conditional uses from the Commission
to anything and that the Commission has total control over control
through those conditional uses.
At the City Council public hearing he testified additionally
that he does not have specific tenants, that he is planning intense
retail on Franklin Road and Locust Grove roads but it is not going
to happen quickly, that Franklin will have to be improved to a five
lane road and a traffic light installed at Franklin and Locust
Grove Road before the retail is implemented; that he has uses that
can be implemented now but they are in the back (south) of the
development. He stated that the neighbors concern over buffering
was a concern for him; that he is proposing a professional office
complex, a 20 foot buffer area, and a six foot masonry wall to
buffer the neighbors; that there will also be building between the
neighbors and the parking areas; he also stated that the masonry
wall would be between him and Mr. Brown; that his first phase would
be the professional office space; that it is going to be a very
nice development, with sidewalks everywhere.
Regarding Five Mile Creek, he testified that it barely touched
the property in the northwest corner; that when ACHD widens
Franklin Road they will be concerned with the Creek and have to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 6
handle the wet lands and flood plain issues; he acknowledges that
those are issues relating to his land but that since they are
asking only for annexation and zoning, those issues could be
addressed later.
That since this would be annexed as a planned commercial
development, all construction details, sewer, water, and
floodplain, would come back at future public hearings and be
resolved; that the plan is conceptual; that irrigation canals would
be tiled; that there will be pressurized irrigation.
H. That there was testimony at the hearing on April 9, 1995,
objecting to the Application which was principally as follows:
1. That Robert Smith stated he would still like to oppose
this type of rezoning. I don't think it benefits us
people that live on Locust Grove or Franklin Road right
now. The way that the City is growing with the
commercial and light industrial proposals that seem to be
coming in at a regular rate, I don't think right now
would be an appropriate time with the condition that
Franklin Road is unless it is rebuilt and Locust Grove
Road is rebuilt. These don't look to be done at any near
future dates so I think it would really be a detriment to
our properties. I hope you will not change your zoning on
this, thank you.
2. That Jim Witherell testified he was one of the affected
parties that already submitted a letter in writing
saying they opposed this thing, saying the annexation was
attempted under questionable circumstances. One thing
has come out that I would like to add that we did not
know at the time. Mr. Preston does not own this
property. He told that to us at the meeting. He said he
does represent the developer, but he had a letter of
intent on this at one time and that expired last May.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 7
3. That Morgan Plant stated he would like to recommend to
the Planning and Zoning Commission that this request be
totally denied. This type of development is not
warranted; it is not called for and it is not compatible
with the residences in that area. We are, although not
bordered by this property, dramatically affected. There
are open areas in there which will be zoned and approved
for residential areas and commercial in our back yard
would certainly be detrimental. I recommend that you
soundly refuse this request. It is not compatible for
that area whatsoever. It will greatly depreciate our
property.
I. That at the City Council Public hearing there was also
comment from the public which was basically as follows:
1. Ann Witherell testified due process had been violated;
that she had not seen the present plat before to nights
meeting; that this plat is the same as was presented
before; that this is not the correct plat; that the plat
was given to confuse and skew public comment.
2. Jim Witherell testified the effected parties had signed
and submitted a letter that the City had; that the
application is frivolous and should be denied; since
there is no concept plan and that the tenants are not
known this is not a legitimate application; that his
previous plans have been disapproved which is good reason
to deny this plan; that there is insufficient water and
a shallow water table which is not being recharged and
could be contaminated; that regardless of the landscaping
this is still going to look like a commercial development
stuck in the middle of on square mile of R-1 housing;
that the masonry wall will make it look like a fort; he
suggested a berm all the way around six feet high with a
three foot fence on top; that all commercial development
should be planned, single story; that there should be no
high density retail and no restaurants; that there
biggest concern was they do not think this developer has
much money and if they sue him they do not want to hit
empty pockets.
3. That Albert Rennison testified that egress and exit on
the corner of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin has to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 8
be address and resolved; that putting more commercial
across the street from the commercial that is on the
north side of Franklin does not make sense; the area is
not ready for commercial development; that the Corp of
Engineers has jurisdiction over the entire water shed
that flows into Five Mile Creek; that if the City
approves of this commercial development the developer
should be required to place a bond in the event the City
has liability problems because of the development at the
corner of South Locust Grove Road and Franklin; that he
recommends that the zoning and annexation be denied.
5. Norm Brown testified that he asked Mr. Preston if he
would continue the concrete fence to protect his land,
then that is fine; if we lose the irrigation we would
lose our well water.
6. Marshall Smith testified he was opposed to commercial on
the south side of Locust Grove; that the wet lands have
been there since before any of us and we should respect
what was put there by nature; that he was opposed the
Application.
7. Ted Hanson testified that ACRD had stated that they want
to bring Locust Grove Road straight to Franklin and then
to the freeway and that would not be for 8 to 12 years.
8. Rod Cullip testified that before anything is done at this
location, Franklin Road needs to be improved.
J. That a petition was submitted to the Commission signed by
eight people, some of whom testified at the public hearing; that
the petition is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that
the petition sets forth objections to the Application and requests
that it be denied; that a summary of the objections is as follows:
1. That Applicant's petition for commercial development
includes land owned by those objecting and they do not
desire their land to be so developed.
2. That the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 9
Applicant's previous application prohibit this
Application for development.
3. That the Application is inconsistent with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
4. That since there was no use submitted as part of the
Application, that the Application was frivolous.
5. That because the Application is frivolous, it is also
litigious.
6. That a portion of the land to be developed is wet land
area and is also regulated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation.
K. That there was testimony in favor of the Application from
Wayne Forrey who testified on November 21, 1995, as follows:
That he owned land in Meridian and he had a business
relationship with another property owner who owned land that
is closer to this and it is annexed into the City. That as a
property owner in Meridian along Franklin Road, Ed Bews, the
owner of property very near this area, is in favor of this
request and hope that you would approve it. Always there is
going to be some type of conflict, real or perceived between
a commercial property and a residential property. The City
does have the ability to ask a developer to buffer and screen
and provide transitions. That is in the Comprehensive Plan.
It is in the zoning and development ordinance and it is
probably something the developer or the applicant here would
be willing to negotiate with the City. I can understand that
other property owners out there may have some reservations
about commercial zoning. I do not I think it would be good
for the City to annex this property at the C-G zoning.
L. That at the November 21, 1995, City Council public
hearing, conducted for purposes of Applicant's request for
reconsideration, Mr. Preston read aloud a letter submitted by Monty
McClure, a titled owner of this proposed application, for the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 10
record, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that
Mr. McClure is in support of the request of changing the zone to C-
G (General Retail and Service Commercial); that he stated the time
is right to now sell the property and to allow it to be developed
to its highest, best and beneficial use.
That Mr. Preston stated that it is still in the record that he
stated that he did not have an option with Mr. McClure, but that
Mr. Preston does have an option and that Mr. McClure is totally in
favor of what Mr. Preston is proposing; that Mr. Preston stated
that this plan is to be a phased project; that phase one would be
something that could be developed right now, which was the
professional office complex which is in the middle of the project;
that the reason it is located in the middle is in order for it to
be a buffer to the residential neighbors; that the extension of the
masonry wall and access to Mr. Brown's property will be done; that
there will be a sixty foot (60') right-of-way, a 41 foot back-to-
back curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaped of both sides of the major
collector street all the way through the center of this property in
a north-south direction; that this will be a back entrance and will
allow traffic from Locust Grove; that there will be bicycle paths
all the way around the project and that he concurs totally with
bringing the sewer and water to the property; that a plat shall be
prepared showing these individual parcels; that development of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 11
road and commencement of marketing of this project will start with
approval.
M. Royland Doskeland, partner of the Applicant in this
application, testified regarding his enthusiasm about this project
and an eagerness to proceed.
N. Aoyt Mitchner, of Mitchner Investments, testified that
the interest in Meridian for land and existing buildings is
tremendous; that calls are received weekly from people looking for
warehouse space on a need now basis and inquiring what Meridian has
for availability in the areas of Franklin Road and Fairview Avenue;
that they can show them about one (1) of two (2) projects and they
either choose that or look for other land to buy and build.
O. That Ann Witherell again testified before the Council on
November 21, 1995, stating that there has been no significant new
information to reconsider on this application; that Mr. Brown, the
former partner of the Applicant, is selling his property and is
moving; that over the past 18 months, eight (8) parties who are
affected by this development, have delivered countless pages of
testimony in opposition; that the four areas of concern are the wet
lands and flood plain at Locust Grove and Franklin; that berming
and transition to the adjoining R-1 single family residence are of
concern; that the irrigation water is of concern as in previous
applications of this developer he constantly plats buildings over
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 12
ditches and easements; that this development sits atop the water
table and will directly affect our water; that there is no new
discovery; that the developer is a slow learner and the denial for
this project should stand.
P. Jim Witherell testified, restating his objections as to
this project in his earlier testimony of November 21, 1995, and the
definite problems it has with road development, the Ada County
Highway District, and the enormous amount of traffic.
Q. Morgan Plant testified that this proposed application
should be rejected on the grounds that it is entirely too vague;
that the plan does not fit the area.
R. Elwood Rennison testified that he was under the
impression that Preston was the owner of the property and that the
owner not being present at these hearings shows a lack of interest
to sell and develop the property; that there is a lot of land
already zoned which is available, just sitting around waiting to be
developed; that with this property you have too many things
involved, which takes a great deal of consideration, for instance,
the property owners adjacent to this development, the Five Mile
Creek, irrigation, and a cemetery; that this application needs to
be reviewed and a recommendation of rejection rendered.
S. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
submitted comments for the initial public hearings; that any
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 13
existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and
included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-
605 M unless a variance application is submitted; that any existing
domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed from
their domestic service but that wells may be used for non-domestic
purposes; that water service is contingent upon positive results
from a hydraulic analysis by the City computer model and domestic
water is presently located in Franklin Road approximately 3,150
feet west of Locust Grove Road; that City policy requires extension
of City utility lines to and through a development; that a 12-inch
diameter water line will need to be built in Franklin Road from its
point of connection to existing water east to Locust Grove Road and
south along the length of this property's frontage; that sewer
service would be via connection to the Five Mile Creek Sewer Trunk
Line; that a new legal description needs to be submitted pursuant
to Meridian City Resolution No. 158 that includes said Rights-of-
Way.
T. That Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles submitted
comments for the initial public hearings; that this area is
designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development, which requires that
all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process;
pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated
throughout the development; plans will be required to be submitted
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 14
in conformance with the requirements of Section 11-9-607; Applicant
is to enter into a development agreement with the City; a minimum
of ten percent of the site must be landscaped; a minimum setback of
35' beyond the required rights-of-way along Franklin Road shall be
provided; a minimum landscape setback of 20' beyond the required
rights-of-way along Locust Grove Road shall be required; that a
minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of Locust Grove Road shall
be required; that a minimum of 20' landscaped setback will be
required adjacent to residential development; that Nampa & Meridian
will have to be contacted for approval of any rerouting of
irrigation and other water lines; that a portion of the site
appears to be in the 100-year flood plain and that will have to be
addressed by the Applicant.
U. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the
former Planning Director had commented that annexation could be
conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to
help acquire future school or park sites to serve the area and that
annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and
fire services as determined by the City and designated in an
approved development agreement.
V. That the Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire
Department, Central District Health Department and the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District all submitted comments and they are
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 15
incorporated as if set forth in full.
W. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
X. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact.
Y. 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
and other uses.
Z. That the property could be physically serviced with City
water and sewer if the Applicant extends and constructs the lines
and facilities.
AA. That it is specifically found that the Applicant only
presented a concept, did not present a subdivision plat or any
other specific or concrete plan of development, and only verbally
informed the City Council of his intentions; that Applicant did
have a concept drawing, but had nothing more than that to inform
the Council of development.
AB. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 16
Statement.
Policies, Page 19
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design
Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land
use and design within the development, and with
contiguous developments; and encourage innovations
in building techniques, so that the growing demands
of the community are met, while at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
2. Under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84,
Overland Road and Franklin Road.
5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land
uses should be provided in specific plans and
proposals for future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on
functional plans and proposals in order to ensure
that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive
Plan policies and are compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of
development should be harmonized with previously-
developed land in the area, and where located
adjacent to or near any existing residence or
residential area, shall be harmonized with
residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall
be made to reduce the environmental impact on
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 17
residential areas, including noise and traffic
reduction.
AC. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows:
"Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which
generally allow for agricultural and rural residential
activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil
characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban
land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new
development, it muat be recognized that agricultural land can
no longer economically continue to be identified or used as
agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and
development."
AD. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services
(municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided.
AE. That Section 6.7U, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states as follows:
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
AF. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 18
AG. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential,
industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A
PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density,
lot coverage required, open space or type of residential,
commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or
more created districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential,
commercial or industrial uses."
AH. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use in
the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C-G district.
AI. That Section 11-2-416 E 2. c. provides that this
Commission is to transmit its recommendation to the City Council
within forty-five (45) days, but also states that the Commission
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 19
may continue the matter from meeting to meeting if it finds that it
does not have sufficient information to make a decision.
AJ. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
A. 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.
B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
C. That the Planning and Zoning commission has judged these
annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho
Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian
City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 20
notice.
D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
F. 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.
G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
N. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 21
•
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
J. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it
is concluded that upon annexation, as a condition of annexation,
the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained
in the current Zoning or Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
K. The Applicant stated and represented his intention as to
the type of development, stated some possible proposed uses of the
property, and stated and presented a concept of development, but
did not present a plat or concrete plan as to how the property
would be developed, did not present any specific uses that would be
constructed there, or where on the property that uses would be
constructed; it could be determined if possible uses would be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but without knowing exactly
what the use, or uses, will be, it is risky and hazardous to make
a suggestion of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan without
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 22
knowing the exact use or uses that will be constructed.
Additionally, the City has much more control in the annexation
process than it does at any other time in the development process.
Without knowing more exactly the uses, it is in the best interests
of the City to forego annexation until more information is known on
the specifics of the development.
It is further stated that the property at Fairview and Locust
Grove Road was, and is being, developed on property that has the
same designation in the Comprehensive Plan as this land, which is
Mixed/Planned Use Development; the developer of the Fairview and
Locust Grove Road property requested annexation, zoning and a
conditional use, all at the same time, but without a plat, which
the developer did not request approval of until January of 1995; he
did, however, know that he was going to have a storage unit
business, had plans for a retail shopping center, and informed the
Council what business would be the major user; he stated at the
City Council public hearing on the annexation that the proposed use
was for a commercial shopping center and rental storage facility
and had submitted plans as to where they would be located, even
though he did not present a plat; that it is therefore stated that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 23
the City has approved annexations without a plat, but it had more
definite and concrete statements as to uses than were presented by
this Applicant.
The City denied an application for annexation for JLG BUILDERS
where the City determined that the plat presented did not meet the
goals of the City of Meridian. Plats are a very decisive document
that gives the City much needed information.
Applicant did state at the Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing that he could certainly pull back and that he would do so;
that it is concluded that it would be in best interests of the City
to have this Application pulled back until, and the property not
annexed and zoned until, more specifics on the development are
known by the City and the Applicant.
L. That it is concluded, that since the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to i-
84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, states:
"The development of a variety of compatible .land uses should
be provided in specific clans and proposals for future
development.", (emphasis added),
and
"Development in these areas should be based on functional
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 24
plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses
conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods." (emphasis added);
that it is in the best interest of the City to deny applications
for annexation and zoning unless, and until, plans for development
are known and stated and/or the City has substantial knowledge of
the proposed development.
M. That it is concluded that it would be in best interests
of the City to have this Application denied and the property not
annexed and zoned until more specifics on the development are known
by the City and the Applicant.
N. That, as concluded above, annexation and zoning of land
is a legislative function and it is in the sole discretion of the
City to annex or not. The majority of the City Council, also
states, that the development concept was not totally adverse to
them, but what was adverse was the lack of specifics as to the
development; that the Applicant presented at the November 21, 1995,
very little more than it presented to the City Council at the
previous City Council public hearing.
O. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property would not be in the best interests of the City of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 25
Meridian.
APPROVAL OF FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIS BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED
The Meridian City Council hereby decides that based on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, above stated, that the
annexation Application is denied and that the City Council shall
not considered annexation and zoning of this property until more
definite plans of development are submitted.
MOTION:
APPROVED:[~y' v. ~ v DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 26