HomeMy WebLinkAboutUtility Sub PP 01-017June 17, 2002 PP 01-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 20, 2002
APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC ITEM NO. 8
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 16, 2002 -- Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Utility
Subdivision - 3365 North Ten Mile Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See previous Item Packets
See Aitached Comments
See Atlached Comments
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
SANITARY SERVICE:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
" HUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC
701 $. Allen St., Suite 102 · Meridian, ID 8;3642
June 19, 2002
David McKinnon, Planner II
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commissioners
660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
208/322-8992 · Fax 208/378-0329
RECEIVED
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Utility Business Park Subdivision, Response Letter to the Staff Report for June 20,
2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing
Dear Mr. McKinnon and Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
After reviewing the staff report received by the applicant on June 18, 2002, on behalf of Falcon
Creek LLC, I would like to respond to the following "issues" raised by staff and the conditions of
approval regarding Utility Business Park Subdivision:
Annexation and Zonin~ Analysis (o~s. 4-9)
Ee
Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of
the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the
same area;
And
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring
uses;
And
I.
Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or
odors;
And
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance.
Issue # 1: Staff is concerned regarding the design of the waste transfer station and the lack
of a means to secure the northern elevation of the building. Colored photos have been
provided to Staff and to the Commission in regards to designs of other transfer stations
that are located in Idaho (Latah, Gem, Boise and Elmore counties). Typically these
facilities do not have closing doors and if doors were placed on the transfer station
building, these doors would remain open throughout the normal business hours. The
orientation of the building is such that it is facing away from any residential uses, not to
mention several hundred feet away from residences and next to the Meridian Waste
Water Treatment Plant (WTP).
In regards to the issue with litter, both the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
and Central District Health Department (CDHD) will require a litter control plan before
any permits for this use will be issued. Also, it should be understood is that the waste is
compacted similar to a brick.
Issue #2: The applicant understands that noise is a concern of both Staff and the
neighbors. As stated, there will not be a noise issue because the compactor is housed
within concrete walls. There are methods to shielding the motors of the compactors
which have electric motors, not the diesel motors which tend to radiate noise. The
applicant believes any noise will be equivalent to the WTP to the north of this site and
contends the "beeping" noise the trucks make backing up will be the most audible sound
from the site. It is the intent of the applicant to meet whatever noise ordinance standards
that are adopted by the City of Meridian.
The applicant is requesting 'Staff and the Commission to keep in mind a fully landscaped
berm will be provided along the southern property line which will have mature
landscaping by the time the transfer station will be built in five (5) years. In addition to
the landscaping, office buildings will most likely be in place prior to the construction of
the transfer station thus providing even more ora buffer.
Issue #3: With this requeSt for approval on the Sanitary Services site, it is requested to
only landscape the portion of Lot 2, Block 1 that will be developed at this time. There are
not any uses planned on the western portion of the property. If and when expansion of the
site occurs, it will most likely be 10-15 years into the future. The applicant asks that the
Commission realizes the upfront expense of such a large amount of landscaping and that
the applicant is trying to be a good neighbor by providing more than the required
landscaping along the southern boundary and providing the temporary landscaping buffer
that runs north-south midway through the site.
Issue #4: The applicant is requesting the same consideration in regards to the fencing
along the perimeter of Lot 2, Block 1. Staff has a concern regarding the security fencing
being on the property line on the western portion of the site facing the Nine Mile Creek,
when in fact it is within the boundary of the property with landscaping proposed on the
exterior of the fence. Therefore, the fencing should not be visible.
Issue #5: The applicant will provide elevations of"Building C" which is the three-sided
covered parking structure. The applicant agrees to undergo a "staff-level" design review
of the structure prior to a permit issued.
Issue #6: Staffstates: "The proposed uses wi#generate more noise, smoke and odor
than any of the surrounding residential development. "Any development would generate
more of an impact. However, as outlined above, it is the belief of the applicant these
issues have been addressed to the best of their ability and that the applicant has worked
with the City of Meridian to find acceptable uses for this site. For example, removing the
proposed school bus site.
Issue #7: "Staff recommends the applicant be required at a minimum, prepare an
Environmental Impact Assessment for the site and the uses proposed within the site. "The
applicant contends this is not necessary for the following reasons:
· loThe federal regulations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state
regulations for DEQ and the local regulations for CDHD will meet or exceed any
requirements associated with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);
· ~.The federal regulations for these agencies do not require an EIS for a transfer
station;
· :' The activities associated with the transfer station will occur within concrete walls
in a building and any discharge will be contained within sand and grease traps
which will be regulated by DEQ;
o:- The City of Meridian WTP currently discharges into the Five Mile Creek along
the northem boundary of this site without an EIS. The applicant will not be
discharging any material into either creek abutting the property.
Recommendation for Annexation and Zonint, (i~. 10)
Issue #8: "Hours of operation shall be limited from 6am to l Opm, Monday-
Saturday... "The applicant is in agreement with this condition however, would
request "with the exception of departing commercial trucks" be added into the
condition language;
Issue #9: "Prohibit use of property west of proposed gate, until approved via a
CUP. "The applicant is in agreement with this condition of approval however, would
request "if anything other than storage is proposed" be added into the condition
language. The applicant requests if storage is the intended use in the future that a
modification of the Development Agreement be required in place of the CUP.
Site Si~ecific Comments (r~ffs. 11-13)
COndition #3 states: "The applicant shall work with the Parks Department to determine
the location, landscaping and other improvements associated with the proposed multi-use
pathways .... "
As of June 19, 2002, the applicant has not received the memo provided to Meridian
Planning and Zoning Staff from the Parks Director concerning pathway improvement.
While the applicant is showing a five-foot (5') pathway on the revised subdivision plans,
it is our contention this should not be a requirement placed on this subdivision plat.
Meridian Planning Staff has stated the Parks Department is requiring a ten-foot (10')
pathway outside of the western property line within the Bureau of Reclamation
property's right-of-way along the Nine Mile Creek and the Five Mile Creek. The deeds
for this land have been included with this response letter Which also demonstrates the
property owner has never controlled land within this right-of-way. Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District (NMID) has an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to maintain
these creeks.
NMID has been contacted as to the pathway required by the City of Meridian and it is our
understanding NMID would not agree to a pathway along the right-of-way. These right-
of-ways are for irrigation maintenance uses only and NMID, nor the Bureau of
Reclamation wants the liability for such a use.
We ask for your approval on this proposed development. We feel we are meeting the intent of the
desires of Staff and the Commission with the revised plans and additional information provided.
Sincerely,
Ashley B. Ford
Planning Director, Hubble Engineering, Inc.
Representing Falcon Creek, LLC
· GOLPE, IOAHO
--'100018533
Contract No. 9-07-10-L1521
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF T~E INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
DDODERTW EXCFIANGP CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT, made this 9-~'~day of ~-~.c_~, 2000,
pursuant to the Act of Congress approved June 17, 1902 (32 Stat.
388), and acts amendatory, thereof or supplementary thereto,
particularly the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187),
by and between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter called
the United States, represented by the officer executing this
contract, hereinafter referred to as the CONTRACTING OFFICER, and
Larry K. Peterson, a single man, hereinafter called the
CONTRACTOR.
WITNESSETH, THAT:
2. .WHEREAS, the United States, in connection with the
construction of the Boise Project, acquired certain lands in
S~SE~, Sec. 34, T4N, R1W, B.M. for the construction of the Nine
Mile Drain; and,
3. WHEREAS, the Nine Mile Drain was constructed so as to
necessitate the United States now acquiring additional lands for
drain right-of-way; and
4. WHEREAS, The CONTRACTOR is the owner of lands needed by
the United States; and
5. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the United States
a~d the CONTRACTOR to effect an exchange of land whereby the
United States' would obtain lands needed for drain right-of-way and
the Contractor would obtain lands not needed by the United States;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
dependent covenants herein stated, it is agreed between the
parties hereto aS follows:
6. Propert{ ~s to be ~.xchanged
a. CONTRACTOR's Property
in compliance with the terms and conditions herein
stated, the CONTRACTOR will, subject to any oil, gas, or mineral
'rights of record outstanding in third parties at the date of this
contract, and subject to any existing right-of-ways in favor of
the public or in third parties for roads, railroads, telephone
lines, transmission lines, ditches, conduits, or pipelines, on,
over, or across said lands, convey to the United States by good
and sufficient warranty deed, free of liens and encumbrances other
than those hereafter described, all of the following described
property situated in the County of Ada, State of idaho, to-wit:
Parcels A, B and C, encompassing 0.8901± acres, as shown on
the attached E~hibit A and described on the attached Exhibits
B, C, and D, said exhibits by this reference made parts
hereof.
b. Property of the United State~
In compliance with the terms and conditions herein
stated, the United States will convey to the CONTRACTOR by good
and sufficient quitclaim deed, free of liens and encumbrances
other than those hereafter described, the following described
property situated in the COunty of Ada, State of Idaho, to wit:
Parcels 1,2 and 3, encompassing 2.09± acres, as shown on
Exhibit A and described on the attached Exhibits E, F, and G,
said exhibits by this reference made a part hereof.
Subject to the reservation of:
i. Existing easements of record, or in use, for
public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads, pipelines,
ditches, and canals.
ii. Any oil, gas or mineral rights of record
outstanding in third parties; and
iii. The rights, if any, that were reserved in the
original patent on said premises.
7. value of Property and PaYment of Fe~s: Since the
interests in the properties to be exchanged are of mutual benefit
and considered to be approximately equal in value, there will be
no cash payment made by either party for the properties involved.
8. Recording and Fe~s: The expenses in connection with
recording of the deeds to be given hereunder shall be borne by the
United States. Other fees required by law to be paid in
connection with the execution and delivery of said deeds shall be
borne by the respective grantors.
9. Su~-veys: Prior to the delivery of the deeds as provided
in article 13 hereof the property line between the property to be
held in fee by the United States and the property to be held in
fee by the CONTRACTOR as a result of this exchange transaction
shall be surveyed by a licensed surveyor and all corners common to
each ownership shall be monumented with a permanent type marker.
Th~ cost of such survey and monumenting shall be borne by the
United States.
10. Evidence of Title:
a. The CONTRACTOR, without cost to the United States,
shall procure and have recorded all assurances of title and shall
accomplish such corrective steps and measures as are necessary and
property to show in the CONTRACTOR complete fee simple,
unencumbered title to the property being conveyed to the United
States, except for the reservations, exceptions, and encumbrances
described herein. The United States shall procure and have
recorded, without cost to the CONTRACTOR, all assurances of title
and accomplish such corrective steps and measures as are necessary
and proper to show in the United States complete fee simple,
unencumbered title to the property being conveyed to the
CONTRACTOR, except for the reservations, exceptions, and
encumbrances described herein. Each party will procure at its own
expense whatever abstracts of title, title certificates, or
policies of title insurance it desires with respect to the lands
to be conveyed to it hereunder.
b. Each party shall furnish all assurances of title and
shall take such corrective steps and measures as are necessary in
.order to convey title that will meet the requirements of this
contract as promptly as is practicable after request therefore has
been made by the other party.
11. D~livery of Deeds: When the title to the lands to be
conveyed to a party hereto is found to meet the requirements of
this contract, subject only to the vesting of such title in that
party, the party required to convey such lands shall be notified
promptly in writing by the other party. Promptly after the time
when both parties have been so notified~ the requisite deeds of
conveyance, properly executed, shall be tendered, the tender of
the deed by the United States being subject to the making of
arrangements for the recording of the deed promptly after its
acceptance by the CONTRACTOR.
12. Successors in Interest: Ail provisions of this contract
will be binding upon the heirs, devisees, successors, or assigns
of the CONTRACTOR, and upon the assigns of the United States, and
all such provisions are covenants that shall run with and bind the
lands.
13. Contingent on Appropriations or Allotment of Funds: The
expenditures of any money or performance of any work by the United
States herein provided for, which may require appropriations of
money by Congress or the allotment of Federal funds, shall be
contingent on such appropriations or allotments being made.
FailUre of Congress to appropriate funds, or the failure of any
allotment of funds, shall not, however, relieve the CONTRACTOR
from any obligations therefore accrued under this contract, nor
give the CONTRACTOR the right to terminate this contract as to any
of its executory features. No liability shall accrue against the
United States in case such funds are not so appropriated or
allotted.
14. The CONTRACTOR warrants that no person or agency has been
employed or retained to solicit or secure this agreement upon any
arrangement or understanding for a commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee except bona fide established
commercial agencies maintained by the CONTRACTOR for the purpose
of securing business. For breach or violations of this warranty,
the Government shall have the right to annul this agreement
without liability or in it discretion to require the CONTRACTOR to
pay to the United States the full amount of such commission,
percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.
15. O~fi~ers not to benefit: No Member of or Delegate to
Congress or resident commissioner shall be admitted to any share
or part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise
herefrom. This restriction shall not be construed to extend to
this agreement if made with a corporation or company for its
general benefit.
IN WITNESS W~EREOF[ the parties hereto have executed this
agreement the day and year first above written.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1150 North' CLLrtis Road
Boise ID 83706-1234
State of Idaho )
) ss
County of Ada
On this ~ day of
before m/e~4~,~/-~ F ~$~<~-.-~ S
the official of ~he UNITED STATE
within and foregoing instrument
to be the free and voluntary ac
for the uses and purposes the
that he was authorized to .re said
IN WITNESS WHEREO~
my offiCial seal the
hereunto
and .year first
personally appeared
to me known to be
that executed the
said instrument
~ed of said United States
and on oath stated
strument.
my hand and affixed
written.
(SEAL)
Notary Public
State of Idaho
Residing at
My commission
and for the
· es:
State of Idah°
County of Ada
On this
before me Larry
)
) ss
)
day of ~T~u~ , ~ personally appeared
Peterson, a single man, to me known to be the
individual who executed the within and foregoing instrument and
acknowledged said instrument to be his free and voluntary act for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he was authorized to execute said instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
ROBERTA McLAREN
"1
NOTARY PUBUC
S'TATE OF IDAHO
Notary Public in and for the
State of Idaho
Residing at
My commission expires:
State of Idaho )
) ss
County of Ada )
On this 'day.of ~-w-~ , ~, personally appeared
before ma ~ ~-~ ~ ~[\~ ~ , to me known to be
the official of the UNITED STATES OFAMERICA that executed the
within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument
to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said United States
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated
that~he was authorized to execute said instrument.
IN WITNESS W~EP~EOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
A parcel of.land b .e~'i pdrfio.n of'.~e S~ixth ~ S~.'.thea~...-(~axl= .of' Se~ion 3.4,.
comm~m~g at-a found 1./2, iro~ pin marklnv the BI J4 C0mer.of gaid Section 34; T. 4N.,.
R.1W., B.M.,.I County, la, thence. 8..0~!'/'3. 5"W.' (f .onn~ty ~;.0°12 .'W.:) 2643.52 feet
l~,file Road to a ~ounfl Bzas~ Cap ms ..ddng the Section ~ co'romp., p to. Section~. 34 and
35, T. 4N, R. IW4 B.M., Ada Co.uz/ty, Ta,b~ ami' SeC-flora 2 and 3;. T.3N.,
Ada C~unt~, Idaho and also'~.~'~'the cmi~rline in~i-~0n o£ said T~ li~le Road and.
Usfick Road; thence l~I.89°4.3~xI'W..934.94 f,.e~ ale.nE ~C. s9. !,,gi.beunda~.. '. 6£tliesai.'d '
SEI/4 of Section 34 -~l.~loz~g the said ~'0fU~:k'~ to'a ~ imid l~int
N.37'~25'41'W.'8.61:63 f~i' t. Oa sci 1/2'irog p~:'0mm!e H.~3006'~33~. 4~i.13'fe~t to a '
thence S.89042'00~r. '172:4'9 feet tO a: .17o;.~; "
~. .,',.
",' . : . ....;.'....,.'~..":'..'.......: . '.:...-.':...7'.. '..""'.-. ..-'.'i' -' .'-
'..' -.' : '..';.. '".: :, '"::i .':',.;:'.... :.':;:.-:.'..,.-'.-:.... -..:'.. ":. .:% c~'~ ...'.. ':.:;-'. ~'~''' '
· LEGAL DESCRIPTION
P~a~s. ON TO U.S.
A parcel of land being a pord.'on of the South Half sOUtheast Quai-ter of S~-'fion 34,
Township 4 Nort~ RanSC l'.Wcst,~Bois~ lVlgri~ Ach. County,. I..d~ho, Said par~ beins
· more particularly de, scn'betl as follows: .
Commencing at a found 1/2" h'on pin marking the El/4 Comer 6fsaid Section 34, T. 4-N., .'
tL 1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho; thence S~'0~I7'35"W. (formerly S.0°12~/[) 2643.52
along the east boundary of the said SE1/4 of Section 34 and along the ceatedine ofTen '
1W_zle Road to a found Brass ~ap ma~ the S .e~i~n Com~ common to Sections 34 and
35, T~ 4N., R. 1W.,B_M., Ada. CoUnty, !d~. 0.'.and Se~ons 2'and' 3~:T..3N'., R. i'.W.., B.M.;
Ada County, Idaho a~d also ~iarking the c,~. ~e ii~sl~ion of said Ten 1W_de l~,oad and
Ustick Road; thence N~89~43'00"W. 1019.45 felt'along [he south boundary of the said
gE 1/4 of Section 34 and along the said centeflii/e of Ustick~ Road to a point, said point
being witnessed by'a set 1/2" kon pin whii~h'bears N.37042'48'W. 31.72 fe~ said point
also marki~ the REAL POINT'OF BEGINNING;.
then'ce N.37°42'48"W. 51M.06.feet:io i set 1/2." iron"~ii;i
thence s.54°4s'00~, z~.~6 f=t to a'
· '.
thence S.37°25'41'E.'412.75'fe~t to a p6int lying:on'the sa~d south bound~ of the
' SE1/4 of Se~-'libn 34~ said poini'b/'ing' .Witn~se~l.by .a.set' i/2;' iron pin which.bears
N.3?~25'41"W. 31.60'f-~...- "
thence x svo,~,00,w., s4.5~ f~ alo~'th~. ~d. ~th. ~o~mday oi'~ .S.~.~/4 of S~on
Subject to any easements or fights ofw~y of record or in use,
PETERSON TO U.S.
· PARCEL C
EXlclIRIT "D'
A parcel of land being a portion of tho S~uth Half Southeast Quarter of Section 34,
Towmhip' 4 North, Rango 1 .W..est, Boim:Meridim, Ada County; said l~arcel being more
· particularly describ~ as follows:
Commencing i~t a found 1/2" ironpin marking lhe El/4 Comer of said Section 34, T. 4N.,
RAW., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, th~ce' S.0'1735"W. (formerly S.0°12~L) 2643.52 fe~t
along tho ~ boun.daty of the ,~id SEll4 Of Sv~don 34 and .along tho centerline ofTen-
1Wile Road to a found Brass (~al~.mirt4ng the l~e~tion Corliel; oomlllOn Io St~glions 34 and
35, T. 4'N:, RAW., B.M., Ada COunty, Idaho and Seolions 2 and':}, T.3N.,.'R. 1W., B.M.,
Ada County, Idaho and also marki~.the:centerlineint~o~.s~tlon of said T~ l~Jle Road and
Ustick Road; thence H.89°43'00"W. 934.94 feet along th~ south boundary o}'the said
SE1/4 of Seotion'34 and along the said ¢~terline of.Ustick Road to a point, said point
being witnessed, by a s~ !/2" iron. pin'wig'oh bea~ N.3?°25'4i."W. 31.60'fe~;. thence
N.3?°25'41"W. ?81.1?.feet to a point marking fiio REAL P. OI3N'T OF BEGINNING;
thence N.~4°48'00"W. 332 f~et to a lining"
thence N. I4°48'00"W. 2.58 f~t to a point;.
thence S3T~25'4I"E. 5.55 feet to the point ofbegi~'nr~lL containing 0.0001 .a~es, mom or
Subjvzt to any ea.~ent~ o~:'~ights of way Of record or in uge. '.
..... .. ' ' ~ . ' .~.~. -
· .': ..: .. ' ' .,."'"L; .' ;'.i":.'c.'.:' · .. '.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
U.S. TO PETERSON
1.'
A parcel of land being a portion of the South Half Soutl~east Quarter of Section 34,.
Township 4 North, Kange 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho,. sa/d parcel being
more particularly described as.follows:
Commencing at a found 1/2" iron pin marking the El/4 Comer of said Section 34,' T. 4N.,
K. IW., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, thence S.0~17'35"W. (formerly S.0°12nN.) 2643.52 feet
along the east boundary of the said. SE1/4 of Section 34 and along the centerline OfTen
Mile Road to a found Brass Cap marking the Section Corner common to Sections 34 and
35, T. 4N., R. 1W., BUM., Ada County, Idaho and. Sections 2 and 3, T.3N., R. 1W., B_M.,
Ada County, Idaho aud' also marldng the cea .t~line int~rsection'.of.said Ten lVfile Road and
Ustick Koad; thence 1~:89~43'00~/. 934.9~; feet alpng the south boundary of the said
SEll4 of Section 34 and along the said ccnterline ofUsfick l~ad to a point, said point
being witnessed by a set 1/2°' iron.pin which bears. N37°25'41"W. 3'1.60 feet; thence
N.37°25'41 "W. 861.63 feet to a set 1/2' itoh pin; thence N'.43°06'33~/. 45.13 feet to a
set 1/2" iron pin marking a pbint of curve to'the left4 thence along said curveto lelt a
distance of I52.83 ~ said curve having a delta of 30°05155", a radius of 290.92 fec%
tangents of 78.22 feet and a long chord of 151.07 feet which bem-s N.58°09~30"W. to a set
I/2" iron pin; thence 1~1.73°12'27~7~r. 105.95 feet to a set 1/2" iron pin marking a point of
curve to the right; thence ~ong s~id curve to the fight, a distahce of 50.79 feet, said curve
having a delta of 28°57'29', a r~dius of 100.50 feet, tangents of 25.95 feet and a long
chord of 50.26 feet which bears N.58°43'42'~N. tO a point marking the REAL POnNT OF
BEGINNING;
· thence continuing along said curve to th~ riser a'distance of 7.1.72 fe~t,.said'cu~--ve hay:aug
a delta of 40°53'07', a radius of 100.50 feet, tangeais of 37.45 f~et and a long chord of
70.20 feet which bearsN.23°48'24'r~/, to a set 1/2' 'iron pin;
thence N.03021'51%V. 140. g0 fe~t to a ~et 1/2" iron pin;
thence N. 80°31'41 ~E. (formerly N.80~3 I'00~.E.) 37.90 feet to a point;
Su. bje'ct to any easemen~ or'rights 0fway:0f record' or in use.'
thence S.0012'41"W. (formerly. S.0°12~r.) 2IL02 feet to the point o'fbeghminlg '-, 16, L~'~ .
· . .
LEGAL DESCK ffO
.U.S..TO . ETERS0N
PARCEL 2
EXHIRIT "F"
A parcel of land bek~ a poi-tion- of the S6uth Hal~ S0utheast Quarter of Sec.'on 34,
Township 4 Norfl~ Range I West, Boise Meridia~ ,aata County, Idaho, saidparcei being
more particularly dei~ribed as follows:
Commenei~ at a fi~tmd 1/2" iron pin marking the El/4 Comer of saifl Seaion 34, T. 4N.,
· I~IW., B.lVL, Ada County, Idaho, thence S.0~17'35WL (£ormerly. S.0°12~.) 2643.52 feet
along the ~ boundar~ ofthb saiii SE1/4 o£$eetion'34 and along'the eentertine often
Nfile Road to a fo;md Brass Cap marking the Section Comer common to Sections 34 and
35, T, 4N., R. 1W., B.M., 'A~la.. County, IcL{gao md Sections 2 a~d 3, T.3N,, IL1W., B.M.,
Ada County, Idaho' and also marking.the cent~ intexsecfion of'said Ten Ivlile Road and
Ustick Road; thence t',I.$9°43'00"W. 934.94' fe~t.alo~g the south bo~iary o£the said
SE1/4 of S~'tion 34 and along the said c~e of U~tick Road'i° a' point~. ~aid point
· being witnessed by a set 1/2" irbn pin whicfi .bears N.37°25'41'W. 31.60.feet; .thence
H.37°25'41 ~/. ?86.72 feet to ~ point m~rking the REAL POINT OF BEGIiqN1HG;
· thence continuing N.Y/~2$'41'W: 74~91 feet to · set 1/'2" iron pln;'
thence N.43°06'33'W. 45.13 feet.to a set '1/2" iro. n pin'marking a point of curve to the
thence along said curve to lei~ a dis~ance of. 123..24 feet, said curve haiAng a delta of
'24° 16'15 ", a radius of 290.92 feet, tangents of 62.56 feet and a long chord of 122.32 feet
which bea~ N.S~°I4'40~W..to a pod. t;
thence N. sg°42'00"E. 133.83 feel: to 'a'l~oint;.
thence S. 1.~°48'00"E. 168.46 feet-to the'p6int' -°fb~g, co~ 0.I9 acres, more or
less.
· Subject to a~y .easements or righis of way.of r.eeord or iu use.
7O45
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
U.S. TO PETE1LSON
PAKCEL 3
~ ~c~Z.of ~a ~-~g · po,ion of the sonu~ ~.i~ S0uth~,st-q~t~. of S~aon ~,
To~p 4 No~ ~ge 1 W~ Boi~ Med~ Ada Co~, I~, s~d p~cd berg
more p~~ d~ ~ ~ows:
Commencing at a found 1/2a iron pin marki~, g the El/4 Corner of ~aid Section 34, T~ 4N.,
· R. 1W., B.M., Ada C~unty, Idaho, thence S.0"1735"W. (fonnerly.S.0°12'W.) 2643.52 feet
along the ~t boundary of the said SEll4 of se~ion 34'and'albng the mmterlin¢ of Ten
lV~le Road to a Found,Brass Cap marking the Se~on'Gomm' common to Sections 34 and
35, T. 4N., R. 1W., B.M., Ad~. County, Idaho and. Sectio. m 2 aud.3, T..3N.,.R. lW., B.NL,
Ada County, Idaho and al~o markin, g the cent~line iht .e~-.tion of...mid'Ten me Road and
Ustick Koatt; thence .19'.89"43'00"W. 922.00 fO,~t along th.e so .u~. boundary of the said.
$E1/4 of.$~-tion 34 and along the said c,~nterlino of Ustick Road.to a point marking the
REAL POINT OF BEG~G: ...
thence lq.0°12'00"E. 141.40 fe~t to ~'point;
thence N.54°48'00"W. 323.43 feet'~o a point;
thence N.37°25'41"W. 368.42 feet to a point;
thence S.54°4g'00"E. 732.30 feet to a point4
thence S.0°12'00'~r. !98.82 fe~ (formwly.198.8 fe~..) t.o a'po~t lying onthe said south
boundary of the SEt/4 of SeCtion 34;"' '
thenc~ H.89°43'00'~. 110.00 f~.t along the said south bo .undary o£the SE1/4 of Section
34 to the point of'begirmin' g, coi2tmining 1.76 act .e~ mOr6 or 1~:
Subject'to'any easements or tights'or'ray ofrec0rd or in me.
/..,~r:;
7O45
. .:.,xZze~~, ,
HUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC.
701 S. Allen St., Suite 102 · Meridian, ID 83642
:TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR:
~. DELIVERIES m PICK UPS DATE
208/322-8992 · Fax 208/378-0329
Attn: !
Job No:
Project:
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
__ As Requested ,~-~
Attached
WE ARE PICKING UP__ (*See remarks)
__ Under Separate Cover,
Via
Use Record
Information Review and Comment
THE FOLLOWING:
__ Bidding
__ Approval
Cost Estimating
__ Print(s) Plan(s __ Copy of Letter
Specifications Shop Drawing(s)
Copies Date Sheet No.
__ Sample(s)
__ Disk(s) (*See Disclaimer)
Description
REMARKS:
Copy To: -- With Encl. By:~
-- With Encl. Signed:
DISK DISCLAIMER:(PLEASE READ AND SIGN). ALL USERS OF THIS ELECTRONIC DATA SHALL BE AWARE OF THE PRECISION, OR LACK OF PRECISION,
THEREIN. WE ARE FORWARDING THIS ELECTRONIC DATA FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE ONLY, NOT AS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC, IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES INCURRED DUE TO RELIANCE OF THIS DATA.
FOR HUBBLE USE ONLY:
TOTAL TOTAL TIME .ECEIVE~Y:
TIME: TIME: DELIVERED: ,!.~(/'
CLIENT COPY
lo: ~;z~y L;J. et'K
3Un ~/ Or! 04.: X6p
Neridien Fire I)epar~men~ ~9S0390
p.!
Sune ! 7. 2002
TO;
SUB.CT:
FROM:
Meri,~ Planning & Zoning Conmission
UGlily Busluess Subdivision Revised Fllel~ P~
$o~ph Silvn, D~puty Chief, Fi~ P~r,~n~on ~
01-017
RECEIVED
JUN I :3 2002
GITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICF
The following will be t~ tequ~erncnts and/or cam:ems to provide m,~imum levels of ftm pro~ction fo,
· e proposed project.
I. That a fire-flow ~s t~.quired by the Uniform Fi,~ Cod~ is ptovid~ to service the ~rir~ !urn]oct
Fixe hlglnmls shall b, p~ecd an average of 350' ~patt 1997 UFC Appcndix HI-A
2. Ol~atioml 6se hydrants and l~-,potar~ et perrrane~t sucet -~ig~ arc r~iutr~i l~d'or~
combwla'ole commotion begins. UFC 901.4.2 & ~013
3. Acoep~,,,~ of the wa~ supply for f~e proration will be by the Meridian
Wagr Department.
4. Final Approval oflhe ire hydrant Ioca~iom shall be by thru Merichan Fize Depa.,unent.
All radii ehall ~ 28' imide and 48' oumde radius.
6. [usur~ that all ~ undeveloped parcels are t~iulaiZxed fr~ of combustible vegetation pcr
s~tioa 1103.2.4 of ~¢ Uniform Fire Code.
7. The rogtwny{i shall ~ a nintmum of 37' wide and built tu Ada County Highway Stand-ds. UFC
g02.2.1
$, AIl Cul de sa~'s m{~ll have a zadium of $0'.
9. The projeot shall be provided wiib l~vo r~an~ of scc~s frum m mai~ n,mcnai.
10. TI~ proposed I~ildiz~e & ~ slutll comply wi~ tl~ 1~ U~o~ F~e ~ and ~pli~bic
Naho~i F~ ~on ~fim~ ~.
1 I. Lois ~ 3, 4 & 9 shall be pmvidexl with a minimuiri ora 20' wi~ Fire Lane fur accc~ tO t~c
lo~ -,
JUN 18 08 88:58 888 6854 PAGE.01
Meridan Parks & Recreation
Memo
From:
Date:
CC:
Planning & Zoning Commission
Tom Kuntz
April 17, 2002
City Clerk & Planning & Zoning Staff
RECEIVE
APR 1 8 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
RE: Revised Utility Business Park Plat - File #PP 01-017
The Parks and Recreation Staff respectfully submit the following recommendations in
regards to the Utility Business Park.
Staff supports the need for the one-acre park identified in Block 1, Lot 12;
however the mini-park should be developed and maintained by the developer
of the Business Park. This issue is addressed in the Parks Action Plan on
page 2 - 5, under 2.2.1 Mini-parks (see attachment).
The city has established a Five Acre minimum for maintenance by the Parks
Department due to costs.
Staff comments from the original plat regarding the need for pathways along
the two drain ditches still pertain to the revised plat. To summarize those
comments, the developer should be responsible to provide a 10' wide hard
surface pathway with a 30' easement along the 5-mile and 9-mile drain. The
pathway should be build to park department standards. The developer should
also be responsible to provide surety in the form of a letter of credit for one
half (1/2) of the construction cost of a future pedestrian bridge over 9-mile
drain.
C:~Documents and Settings~Administmtor~vly Documents\l - AdministratJonWlisc. Jobs~,lemos~PZ Plat Comments Uti Prk.doc Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
Meridisn Comprehensive Parks rand Recrea~On 5)~tem Plan
ZOO 1
Z.Z. ! MINI-PARKS
~. Ex~ting Inventor.'
Definition: Mini-Parks or Tot Lots are small one-lot parks designed to
provide a small playground and open space area within a subdivision.
Because of their size (less than one acre) they are limited to the
facilities they can offer. They are designed primarily for small
children.
Existing Conditions: Currently, there is one mini-park in the
Meridian area and it is owned by the West Ada Recreation
District. It is:
Tammy Street Park (Recreation District) 0.50 Acres
B Desi~Tn andDevelopment
Polic/~¢:
1. General Land Use Guidelines:
The development and maintenance of Mini-Parks sho~ild
be left to the responsibility of the land developer and
homeowner groups. Their intent is to provide local open
space and minimal recreation use for a local subdivision.
b. The following policies apply to private developments that
provide mini-parks within their project.
Co
The development of mini-parks may also be encouraged
as part of multi-family developments where densities
exceed 20 units per net developed acre.
ge
Site Selection Criteria:
a. Mini-Parks should be no smaller than 20,000 square feet.
b. The site should be central as possible to the area it
serves.
c. The site should be mostly flat and usable.
d. If possible, walking distance should not exceed one-
quarter mile, and not require crossing of busy streets.
3. Design and Development Standards:
a. Appropriate facilities include:
· Children's playground
· Open grass playarea
· Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks,
drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.)
b. The site should be visible from a local residential street
and have no less than 100 feet of street frontage.
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations
Page 2-5
City of Meridian
City Clerk's Office
(208) 888-4433 Fax (208) 888-4218
33 East Idaho, Meridian, ID 83642
Phon~
//~rgent /R~or Review ri Please Comment
~rom:
PC~les:
Date:
CC:
ri Please Reply [] Please Recycle
Meridian Parks & Recreation
Memo
From:
Date:
Re:
Planning & Zoning Commission
Tom Kunlz
October 11, 2001
Utility Subdivision
titY of Meridian
ty Clerk Office
The Parks and Recreation staff would like to submit the following comments in regard
to the Utility Subdivision located in the northwest comer of Ustick and Ten Mile
Roads for the October 18, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting:
Five Mile Creek and Nine Mile Drain are identified in the new Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan as future locations of pathways. We would recommend that a
lO-foot-wide, hard-surface pathway with a 10-foot landscape buffer on both sides of
the pathway be provided by the developer. The pathway should be constructed on
the south side of Five Mile Creek and the east side of Nine Mile Drain. Additionally,
the Parks staff would recommend the developer provide a lO-foot-wide pedestrian
bddge across the Nine Mile Drain where Five Mile Creek and Nine Mile converge.
The Parks Department is willing to meet with the developer to discuss pathway,
bddge and fencing design specifications. Once the pathway and landscaping are
completed to City standards, we would be willing to accept ownership and
maintenance responsibility in addition to working out a License Agreement with
Nampa Meddian Irrigation District.
· Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
20-Jun-02
PROJECT NUMBER
PP 01-017
PROJECT NAME
Utility Subdivision
NAME
FOR
AGAINST
sm(
JU~ 2 0 ~002
CITY OF ~{ERIDD. N
TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHAPTER 65 LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING
67-6537. APPLICATION TO GROUND WATER. When considering amending,
repealing or adopting a comprehensive plan, the local governing board shall consider the effect
the proposed amendment, repeal or adoption of the comprehensive plan would have on the quality
of ground water in the area.
JUN 2 0 2002
CITY OF
· inequity, especkfil? ~ h,:;: on~ neighbor-hood is shouldering the burden for the entire city.
· noise
· odors
· prevailing air ,-
C.., .
· emissions, inci~,th:~ fi~e c,',mhi~ed effect of emissions from neighboring sites
, traffic patterm~ .md..~,~ ~'~ ............ .~ ~acc. for truck movement
· buffer zone:~
, waste voiumc
, No materials ~-cc~',v,sr'y ~:~:~ :?n',cessing outside of building
· public versus cc, trm~crc[a~ a.aste streams
,~ ~ ;~ood plane
proximky to ',~ aCccway. -
· Limit future capacity
· dust and traff2c pattern~
, compliance issues~n~edicai and hazardous waste, industrial wastes
· use of close~ cc. ntainers, compactors, balers, and other consolidation equipment; wrapping
and containerizaSon ~.~f wuste
· tipping floor ch:aa~ng requiremems
· emergency operations, in~ud[ng spill containment
· housekeeping
· queuing and sci:e&~iing c~f truck traffic
· minimizing truck :mksk~ns a~:d noise during deliveries, unloading, and loading
· site securit~ and < er:tro~ ,'~f iliega! dumping
· Public inspect~,.ms
· complaint "-' ,s
· Pathways
· Roadways ~a;~rnum
· rninimum traft~c
· existence of bu i~t~'c z<~mc:; and natm'al screening (e.g., natural vegetation, elevation
differential)
· wind directkm s~'ith respect to adjacent land uses
· shallow
· . ~ ,t:, ex.,st.rg 3i'ld prQected !and uses
compatibility ;~' ' '
setbacks and iscqarion
· ~r:.~m s;~nsifive areas
· onsite alld c..
, management o ;' h:;z~u'dou.s or dangerous waste, including temporau storage, regulato~
.
notification, ape. ca .,, an,;l3lt:,~ty precautions
· fire preventio}~ .~d coarr','~l, include outside emergency response
' *F,:. ~,t~nt tho* the disposal site, the haul route, or transfer
equipment goes do.an
· contingency p~m [n zvc:v :)f' loss of power or loss of communications
Building and grounds rnair~'(enance
Building orientation v,.ith t'~: ;peet to predominant wind direction
Road sweeping and
JUN 2 0
Clllr 01'
Waste processing only inside building
Perimeter fencing to cont:.:in litter
Avoid horizontal ledges where litter accumulate
Enfomement of !~.~ad ta~ing requirements
Mufflers and noise abatement ol~ trucks and equipment
Exhaust hns ~'~'~h air l'i!te?s
Odor-masking ~isr-s> ~te,n
Removal of ali waste by c::::i oi'dav
Traffic Signs, ,;~:~.'.ds, an~.:~ 9avement markings
Operating he, uts :~.~')d :;eii,,'c?v s~:hedu les
Intersection/e~m'~:~c~ dcs~?.n
l.imit size to ':-t~,r,-~er ~ay ¢r~t;xs'fSr station
I.imit operating hour:~ ,:emp~fil>!e ~,'ith the surrounding comm~i~.
Traffic is frequent:) .t u'anqfcr qa:it>n's most significant community impact.
Waste collecticn trucks can t*e up to 40 feet long. Transfer trailers that move
waste to a disposat :'ac'ility are ~.ypically 50 to 70 feet long. These vehicles need wide
roadways with gradua! 3iopes and curves to maneuver efficiently and safely. Also, the
site will need spac,:~ for parking transli~r vehicles.
At peak times, vehicle,: must o~'ten wait to check in at a facility's "gate-house"
or "scale house." It is i:nportam that the queue (line) not block public streets or
impede vehicular (~r ?edesn'ia;.'. traffic.
Providing acce!er:.:tie:~ am'l deceleration nlanes that allow vehicles to enter and leave
the flow ofoffsite !raffic smoc,~_l:l?, reducing congestion and the likelihood of accidents.
Truck and traffic compa[ib[lily: Transfer stations often receive surges of traffic when
collection vehicles i~,,.vc fi~ishecl their routes. Transfer station traffic varies locally,
but tentl~ to pc:ak i,~'ice ;: ~::y. '/'he lb'st peak is often near the middle of the day or
shiR. and the scco::q :~: :h,: end ,..,.t' tl:e .:lay t,r shiP,. Therefore, the best sites for transfer
stations are Iocate:.~ a,.:,a:, t?om ..:re. as that have midday traffic peaks and/or school
bus and pede.,:tria,z~ ',:rat~c.
()pen spaces, fence:<. ~x,und wall:~, trees, berms, and landscaping.
· Number ofresider, ce.~ impacte[!.
· Financial supporl ~'c,:' regulat,~.r:, agencies to assist with facility oversight.
· lndependent*.hird-parly inspection of thcilities.
· A fee paid to the i~:~c:::! ~:ov~rpmcnt for evew ton of waste received at the facility,.
· Free or reduced-cost use of ibc facility for the community's residents and buSinesses.
· Funding for road ~r :iri iity im?'overnents.
· Financial suppol~ !~>r c. rher cc:mmunity based activities, such as pathwaYs.
Develop a clear ?>,:ess r;vr ad.~rass!ng community concerns at the disposal facility
Building orientatic.,n ~o prcvai!?i~? wind
Description ofacc.~ptahle and ,.~nacceptable wastes, and procedures for diverting
restricted waste beti.>re and ai'~vr ~r:loading.
Tile term "neighb,~r"shoukt bc broadly interpreted, as some of
those impacted mjghf not be immediately adjacent to the transfer station. For example,
vehicles traveling ;.o aad ti'om it cr.'.msfer station could significantly affect a residential
neighborhood a m :lc :~;.ay i f'tht~se vehicles travel on residential streets.
An important part o t' s c[cccssfui i:'::.ns~'er station operations is engaging in constructive
dialogue with the ,.:ur:'om~ding
odor reporting he, t!
transl'kr station t?x; :~,.'oid ccn::e~:~t:.~:~ ,.teas,residential areas, and other sensitive areas.
Transfer stath)r~s ,:..,:~ ?~e a si~.r~ilSca;,t source of noise, which might be a
nuisance to ~lei[..,i':-3or:q.i.ieax,? '.:'uci< tra[r~c and the operation
of heavy-duty t~t:!;~i), ~xlai[.~a:~.'n m'e the primary, sources
of noise from ;~ m~, '~>:ti~'.r stati,~r,, t'~P2~ite tra?fic noise in the
station's vicinily ~i!~ be 9er,~eive:t as noise from the station itselfi Equipment noise
includes engines, bac!,:u~ alar'r,s (tseepers), hyd~,'aulic power units, and equipment buck-ets
and blades bragging a~,.l scraping on concrete and steel surfaces. The unloading of
waste or recyclablcs (i.'.anicula.:iy glass) onto a tipping floor, pit, steel drop box, or trailer can
also create substai, tial n(:ise, ;i,zpendii~g on the type of waste, fall distance, and surthce.
Stations that use statioa;u> solid waste compactors or engine-driven tamping equipment
bare additional sources of mecl~anical equip:nent noise with which to contend.
Keeping as man3 ~!oors closed :~,:iring station operating hours as practical.
Providing sound-ahs0rben'., matcri'.~ls rm building walls and ceilings.
Odors
MSW, fi)od w~tste, and certain: .,:ard wastes such as grass have a high potential for odor
generation. Odor's !nigl'~t incre~.~e de, ring warm or wet weather. Thus, transfer stations
handling these wastes :'~¢ed to zgdress odor management based on current and projected
adjacent land uses.
Carefi~lly oriin~rm!..,.2~e b.'.iiic!i~:g and its doorways with respect to odor-sensitive
neighboring pt'opal:t5, :.t~d cio,. mga'., many doors as practical during operating hours.
Sealing concrete a~d .:,thc:' se;r~;)m',~us surfacesto prevent absorption of odor-producing residues.
Incorporating od~>r ne:~t:'alizi%..'. ?stems.
· IVlinimizing otb. site w,:~te ~m~::(~.~ .., both in the thcilitv, and in the loaded trailers, by
immediately Ioading odorous or p~;tentiatly odorous wastes into transfer trailers and
quickly transf~n:ing them !o ti';~-: ,:l;s?sal site.
Air emissions at trmsfcr smti.-ms result from dusty, wastes delivered to the transfer station,
exhaust (particularly cliesel) 5',.,m mcbile equipment such as trucks and loaders, driving
on unpaved or des..:.,,' s~.a'i, hces. ~:r~d ~leanup operations such as street sweeping
· Paving all traffic ca~'t2/ir~g st~r~ces.
· Keeping pawed s~r~hc.:s and qi.:,visg 'floors clean, and ensuring any street sweeping
operations use suf~.~,cicnr. water t{, avoid stirring up dust.
· Diverting odoro~.~s w~.sre loads ?o t:acilities with less sensitive surroundings.
Minimizing idling of equipmc,~t by turning offengines when not in use.
· Cleaning truck b,~dies and tir:.~$ ~o reduce tracking of di~r onto streets.
· Using enclosed trailers ~,,h.e~::ver possible when loaded trailers must sit on site temporarily
before transfer.
· Practicing "Sr:-,t-in. dos: .,out" '~aste handling practices so wastes are not allowed to sit on site for long
periods cji' time.
· Keeping building c:.lt.,:h ?~t,~% ['Ioof drains and drainage systems clean so odor-causing
residues do not bu:ld up,
· lnstalli~g mistin~ .s3 stec,.~s to, s;.~p!,,ress dust inside the building or using a hose to spray
dLISty wastes tis thc3' are :::;io;:ded al!d n~ovcd to the receiving vehicles
· IVlaintaining en~".n~; in ?to?er ;~!.,,¢rating condition by performing routine tune-ups.
l,ocatine stations, ;w.qde l ..... t;.)~a '.' zones.
landscape ancl ve~:..:~::,~x,5 r.:) :::~ ~::r areas to ;educe total runoff.
Cover custom, er ,,,..bio,e:; lite :i~.::' problem is ol~,en most prevalent on routes leading to the
station. Dry. !igh: :nar.2;ials :;uch :,s i.'.iast/c g:oce,'3' bags can be blown from the backs or
tops or' vchicics. ,.~' l:r~:,i :.il~ t. iF..'.oh~_,_ area.
Conducting a :l ,.,,asr.- h:'.adiin.~ a,,,~ processing activities in enclosed areas.
Rodents. insects, and sca~.'engin[; birds.
· Eliminating or sc:'ecuin;; crack:~ er openh~.gs in and arom~d bulldog fo~dations, wrote
containers, and ho:d~ng ace~
, Strictly enforcin~ k~ad cox, cfi% or fa~ing. Decline uncovered loads
· Providing windbreaks to r~eGcct wind away
totally enclose :he wests storage area or to use a solid fence and gate the site.
Facility capacity ~nd expected ,:,::er_.=ting life.
Public recor(~ o,r ::n? t;;'.t:sual events that took place at the transfer station, including
accidents and di_~::.~e:'it.:~ ~:t' '.',:~::cc~prable waste.
A summa~,' o1: c:,~.~!,i;~i:'~.:, r_c~'i'.'e<i ::r~d the actions taken to respond to the complaints.
Allow only IMm:i,:ipid .,~:ii:l ~'. as~.e i.,¥1SW): Generally defined as discards routinely collected from
homes, busi,'~c.,.;szs at~d ,.n:.ri'c~:,.i,.~:s, a~tci the nonhazardous discards fi.om industries, or Construction and
demolition debri.q (C& !5): h~c ;~.,cies broken concrete, wood waste, asphalt, rabble. This material can often
tie separated for b¢:~wficial
If collected - Tipping lee to be paid to City: The unit price charged at the disposal
site or transfer station m a,:cem wast,.', usually expressed as dollars per ton or dollars
per cubic yard.
Waste screening: inspecting i:~coming wastes to preclude transport of hazardous wastes,
dangerous ,~ubstan,.:~:, er mar~:':.td:s that are incompatible with transfer station or landfill
operations.
Joseph $itva
Deputy Chief
Mcridinn Fir~ Department
540 E. Franklin Rd.
Meridian, Id $3642
(205) 888-1234
Meridian Fire Depamuent '
June 17, 2002
TO: Meridian Platming & Zoning Conmaission
SUBJECT: Utility Business Subdivision Revised File[~ 1~1~ 01-017
FROM: Joseph Silva, DepuB~ Chief, Fke Pr~wation ?
The tbllowiag will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide mira'mum levels of fire protection fca'
the proposed project:
1. That a fire-flow as required by the Unifonn Fire Code is provided to service the entire project.
Fire hyckants shall be placed an average of 350' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A
2. Operational fire hydrants and tempera,3, or permanent slxeet sigm are required before
combustPole con~maetion hegira. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3
3. Acceptal~,e of the water supply for lite protection will be by the Meridian
Wat~ Department.
4. Final Approval of the fire hydrant loeatiom ~hall be by the Meridian Fia-e Department.
5. Ali radii shall be 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
Imure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation per
section 1103.2,4 of the Uniform Fire Code.
7. The roadways shall be a minimum of 37' wide and built ~o Ada County Highway Standards. UFC
902.2.1
8. All Cul de sa¢'s shall have a radius of 50'.
9. The project shall be provided with two means of access from a main arterial,
I0. The proposed buildings & uses ~hall comply with the 1997 Unifotxn Fire Code and applicable
National Fire Protection Association Standards.
1 I. Lots #2, 3, 4 & 9 shall be provided with a minimum of a 20' wide l;a-e Lane for access to these
JUN 17 '82 16:19
PAGE.e1
MAYOR
Robert D, Co~e
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bini
Tammy deWeerd
Chefie McCandless
W~iam L. M. Nary
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433. FAX (208) 887-4813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-:2499 Fax 288-2501
PUBLIC WORKS
BUI/.DING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-~211. Fax 887-1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533. FAX 88S-6854
MEMORANDUM:
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
From: David McKinnon, Planner II ~k
Brace Freeldeton, Senior Engineering Teeh.~.~.~
Re: Utility Business Park Subdivision
June 10, 2002
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7 2002
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE;
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.60 Acres fxom RUT to I-L by
Falcon Creek, LLC (File AZ-OI-O15)
· Request for Preliminary Plat of 12 Building Lots on 34.60 Acres in a
Proposed I-L Zone by Falcon Creek, LLC (File PP-OI-O17)
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the
applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted
by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SUMMARY
The following report has been revised to reflect the changes to the preliminary plat
that have been proposed by the Applicant. Staff received the proposed changes on
May 10, 2002. The requested zoning designation is Light Industrial (I-L) for lots 1 and
2, and Limited Office (L-O) for the remaining lots (3-11). The 1-acre park in the
northwest comer has been removed from the plat leaving eleven (11) lots in the
subdivision. The cul-de-sac has been shortened, and the flag lots have been
reconfigured to provide one of the lots access to Ten Mile road and another to access
Ustick Road. A six (6) foot wide sidewalk has been added to the full length of the cul-
de-sac.
The Applicant has submitted a site plan and elevations for the SSC office,
maintenance building and waste transfer station. The Applicant hopes that the
Commission and Council will not require a conditional use permit for the SSC uses
because the use is a permitted use in an I-L zone. The submitted site plan and
elevations are consistent with the required submittals for a conditional use permit
application.
AZ-01-015, PP ~01-017 Utility Subdivision
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 2
On February 19, 2002, the City Council approved a text amendment to the City's 1993
Comprehensive Plan that added the following statement to the current Plan:
Limited light industrial development may be considered immediately adjacent to the
City's waste treatment plant.
The City Coundl approved (but has not yet adopted) a new Comprehensive Plan on
June 4th, 2002. The new Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map designates the
area surrounding the waste water treatment plant as "Mixed Use - Waste Water
Treatment Plant" (MU-WTP), which would limit the type of uses allowed on the
subject property in the future and will require a conditional use permit for any use
proposed in the MU-WTP area. The City Council discussed the following types of
uses that would be appropriate (or inappropriate) within the new MU-WTP land use
designation:
Professional Office
Warehouse
Flex-space
Business Park
Mini-storage
No New Residential
The approval and adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan does not and should not
directly impact the annexation and preliminary plat requests, however upon
adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan aH lots within the subdivision that are not
already approved for development will be required to obtain a conditional use
permit prior to development.
The Applicant, Falcon Creek LLC, has applied for the annexation, rezoning and
preliminary plat approval of a 34.6-acre parcel of land, located south of the Meridian
City Wastewater Treatment Plant. The applicant's preliminary plat request, if approved,
will split the property into eleven (11) building lots. The requested zoning designation
for Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed subdivision is Light Industrial (I-L) and the proposed
zoning designation for Lots 3-11 is Limited Office (L-O).
The Meridian City Code (MCC) defines the Light Industrial Zoning District as follows:
The purpose of the I-L Light Industrial District is to provide for light industrial development and
opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to
commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale
establishments which are clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements such as
noise, odor, dust, smoke, glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed
structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location,
AZ-01-015, PP-.01.017 Utility Subdiv~ion.AZPP,DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 3
topography, existing facilities, and relationship to other uses. This district must also be in such
proximity to ensure connection to the Municipal water and sewer systems of the City. Uses
incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited.
The MCC defines the Limited Office District as follows:
The purpose of the L-O district is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional,
research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar
uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product
manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emission of a nature offensive to the
overall purpose of this district. The L-O District is designed to act as a buffer between more
intense nonresidential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use.
Connection to the Municipal water and sewer system of the City is a requirement in this
District.
The Applicant has submitted development plans for Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision.
The proposed uses for Lot 2 include a waste transfer station, commercial vehicle repair,
storage and office. Staff will address the development plan for the SSC project in detail
later in the report.
The Development of all lots in the subdivision (induding Lot 2) will be subject to a
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement will require a conditional use
permit for aH uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in both the I-L and L-O zones
and will prohibit the following uses:
Truck Stops
Asphalt and Concrete
Bulk Storage of Flammable Materials
Fabricated Metal Products
Fuel Yards
Leather Products
Lumber Yards
Mobile Home Manufacturing
Molded Plastic Products
Processing Plants
Railroad Yards and Shops
The Applicant has shown a five-foot (5') wide pathway adjacent to the Five Mile and
Ten Mile Creeks outside of the subdivision boundary.
LOCATION
AZ-OI-015, PP-01.017 Utility Subdivision.AZPP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 4
The subject 34.6-acre parcel of land is located on at the northwest comer of Ustick and Ten Mile
Road. The property is adjacent to the Meridian Waste Water Treatment Plant and is bounded on
the north by Five Mile Creek and Nine Mile Creek on the west.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Meridian Wastewater Treatment Plant and Ten Mile Mini-storage, zoned I-L.
South: Englewood Subdivision and Dakota Ridge Subdivision, zoned R-4.
East: Hartford Subdivision and Bridgetower Subdivision, zoned R-4.
West:. A residential home (Charles Crane), zoned R-2 (City) and agricultural land,
zoned RUT (County).
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments,
both the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and
circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards
and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed
zoning amendment."
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
"A.
Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a
,Comprehensive Plan amendment;
Staff finds that the requested zoning I-L or L-O is not in compliance with the
adopted Generalized Land Use Map, which designates the land to be agricultural/
rural residential. The recently approved, but not yet adopted, new Comprehensive
Plan designates the subject property as MU-WTP, allowing for a mix of uses (as
noted above. The new Comprehensive Plan does not include the recently
approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would allow "limited light
industrial uses" adjacent to the WTP.
This alone does not indicate that the requested zoning is not in harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that there is evidence provided within the text to
determine that the requested zone change may or may not be harmonious with the
comprehensive plan.
The Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (pg.24) offers the following
policies that will support the requested I-L zoning:
3.5 Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing
industrial uses.
AZ-01-015, PP-01-017 Utility Subdivision. AZ.PP.DOC
Planning 8: Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 5
$.6 Industrial areas should be located within proximity to major utility,
transportation and service facilities.
$.10 Industrial uses should be located where adequate water supply and water
pressure are available for fire protection.
The following policies raise questions concerning the requested I-L zoning:
$.4 Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise odor, air
pollution and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with
surrounding residential structures.
The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan text amendment: Limited light
industrial development may be considered immediately adjacent to the city's
waste treatment plant. (Staff does not have a definition for "Limited light
industrial" uses, however the Light Industrial definition is listed above in the
report.)
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the
future;
Staff does not anticipate that the land to be annexed will be rezoned in the future.
Ce
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning - for example, a
residential area turning into commercial area by means of a conditional use
permits;
Staff finds that the property will be developed in a manner consistent with the
new zoning and/or consistent with the new MU-WTP land use designation.
De
Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that
the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new
railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed
in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area;
The existence of the waste treatment plant in this area has created many questions
concerning what uses are appropriate adjacent to such a facility. The City
Council has determined that "limited Light Industrial" uses may be considered
immediately adjacent to the WTP.
The City Council held a public meeting on April 17, 2002 concerning the land use
designation of the area, and introduced the aforementioned MU-WTP land use
designation, and discussed what uses would be appropriate in the new designation
as noted above.
AZ-OI-OIS, PP-OI-OI7 Utility Subdivision. AZ, PP~X2
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 6
The "limited light industrial" comprehensive plan amendment is part of the 1993
Comprehensive Plan, and is not a part of the new Comprehensive Plan.
Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the
essential character of the same area;
The uses proposed by the applicant (office and industrial) will change the existing
rural/residential character of the general vicinity. The current Comprehensive
Plan's Future Land Use Map indicates that the intended character of the area is
"agricultural/rural residential". The new Comprehensive Plan will change this
designation to the aforementioned MU-WTP. Staff recognizes that the
agricultural/rural residential designation of the subject property is inadequate in
light of the growth of Meridian in this area.
The Applicant has proposed just one (1) specific use at this time; a facility for the
Sanitary Services Corporation (SSC) (parking and maintenance of garbage trucks
and a solid waste transfer station). Development plans have been submitted for
the proposed uses and should be highly scrutinized at this time to determine if the
uses are appropriate and harmonious with the existing and intended character of
the general vicinity.
Staff has reviewed the submitted site/landscaping plan and elevations for the SSC
complex and offthe following observations concerning the proposed uses:
· Staff is uneasy with a waste transfer station that is essentially a three sided
100'xl00' building (three 100' walls and a fourth wall with a large 76' wide
opening). Staff agrees with the orientation of the opening, but the inability to
close a door and secure the building fi:om winds, weather, and animals is a major
concern. The lack of an operating door will also hinder the ability to control odors
that may emanate fi:om the transfer station. The proposed venting of the building
does not stop odors fi:om leaving the open end of the building.
· The Applicant has addressed the issue of noise that will come from the use of
industrial compactors within the facility and have proposed to locate the
compactor entirely within the building, enclosed by concrete walls.
· The applicant is not proposing to landscape the entire perimeter of Lot 2, just the
part of the lot that they will be developing at this time. Staff would prefer to see
the entire perimeter of the site landscaped at the same time, as it is one lot.
Furthermore, the landscaping for the perimeter of the lot will be adjacent to the
proposed multi-use pathway.
AZ-OI-01$, PP-01-017 IJtil~ Suhdivision. AZPP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 7
· There are no fencing details provided by the Applicant, however the application
materials submitted to the city indicate that they would like to install a chain-link
fence with barbed wire around the portion of the site to be developed at this time.
Staff feels that the fencing for the emire lot should be done at the same time. Staff
does not support the chain-link security fence on the property line immediately
adjacem to the proposed pathway adjacent to the Five Mile Creek.
· Staff supports the wider than required landscape buffer on the south side of the
waste transfer station.
· Staff supports the design of the proposed office/maintenance building, but
would recommend breaking up the large expanses of metal siding with some form
of wainscot or other architectural treatment along the eastern side of the building.
The applicant did not provide elevations of building "C" (the truck parking
building). Staff would like the opportunity to review the design of the structure
prior to recommending approval.
· Staff has concerns that the proposed waste transfer station, large commercial
vehicle repair and storage uses are not "Limited Light Industrial" uses when
considering the MCC definition of the Light Industrial Zone.
The aforementioned use and all other proposed uses, as submitted by the
Applicant, will be required to go though additional zoning approval (certificate of
zoning compliance or conditional use permit) prior to coustmction and operation
on this property. If the Commission and Council determine that the proposed use
and that all other uses will require a conditional use permit it should be noted in
the development agreement.
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
Go
The Commission and Council have received and listened to a large number of
negative eornmems regarding this project and how it will be disturbing to the
neighboring residential uses. The Commission and Council should continue to
take and rely upon public testimony to determine if the proposed use(s) actually
be will be disturbing or hazardous to the neighboring residemial uses.
When making this finding please consider the fact that the SSC property (Lot 1,
Block 2) is adjacent to the WTP and that the lot is several hundred feet (200+)
away from the closest residential use.
Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the
AZ-OI-OI5, PP-01-.017 Utility Subdivi~ion. AZ. PPDOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 8
establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any of such services;
Staff finds that additional roadway improvements will be required to handle the
additional traffic generated by this development; however ACHD has approved
the applicant's project with surrounding roadway improvements to be installed at
a later date. All other public services and facilities appear to be adequate to
service this property.
He
Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community;
Staff finds that there will be not additional requirements at public cost and that the
annexation and zoning of the property (exclusive of the proposed uses) will not be
detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any
persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Thc proposed uses will bring in more noise, traffic and smoke into the area from
increases in employee and work related vehicles, odors from garbage trucks, odor
and possibly debris from the waste transfer station and noise t?om motor vehicle
service bays. Staff finds that the proposed industrial uses may be detrimental to
the persons and property in the surrounding residential areas.
The aforementioned Comprehensive Plan policy 3.4 of the Land Use chapter
requires industrial uses (not office/mixed uses as allowed in the MU-WTP)
adjacent to residential uses to have noise, odor and smoke generation equivalent
to the surrounding residential areas. The proposed uses will generate more noise,
smoke and odor than any of the surrounding residential development.
Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Staff finds that the proposed uses will affect traffic on the surrounding streets.
The increased number of employee vehicles and large commercial vehicles
entering and exiting the property will create additional traffic that does not
currently exist at this time. Staff finds the vehicular approaches to the property,
when constructed with the required roadway improvements, will not create
interference with the existing traffic on surrounding public streets.
AZ-01-015, PP --01-017 Utility SubdbAsion. AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 9
Ke
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Five Mile Creek and Nine Mile Creek are immediately adjacent to the site, both
of which are scenic and environmentally sensitive. Staff recommends the
applicant be required, at minimum, to prepare an Environmental Impact
Assessment for the site and the uses proposed within the site.
The applicant has indicated the future construction of a five foot pathway along
both creeks that will help to preserve and showcase the natural and scenic features
of the creeks. The proposed pathway is not, however, in compliance with the
requests of the City Parks Department. The Applicant will be required to work
with the Parks Department to develop and construct the pathway system in
accordance with the Parks Department requirements for the pathway construction.
Le
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)"
Staff finds that the annexation of this property, if approved with a detailed
development agreement, would be in the best interest in the City of
Meridian. Staff supports the rezone of Lots 1 and 2 to Light Industrial (I-
L) and Lots 3-11 to Limited Office (L-O.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Development Agreement: As noted above, staff feels that a detailed development agreement
should he in place prior to the annexation of the subject property. The development agreement
should at least the following issues:
· Limitations of future land uses and the requirement of conditional use permits for all future
development, (including Lot 1, Block 1).
· The construction, timing, design, cost, landscaping, maintenance and location of the pathways
adjacent to the Nine-Mile and Five-Mile Creeks.
· If the Commission and Council determine that the SSC project should not be required to go
though the conditional use permit process, the conditions of approval (such as limiting hours of
operation, landscaping, fencing, building design, potential use and design of the undeveloped
portion of Lot 2, etc...) should he included in the development agreement. Please refer to item
"E" above for issues relating to the SSC project that should be resolved prior to recommending
approval
ANNEXATION AND ZONING COMMENTS
1. The legal description for the entire subdivision, submitted with the application, appears to
meet the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the
AZ-01-015, PP -01-017 Utility Subdiv~ion. AZ. PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 10
parcel contiguous to existing city limits. New metes and bounds legal descriptions shall be
required for each of the proposed zoning designations.
2. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. Essential City
services are available to the subject property.
Any existing domestic ,well~ and/or septic systems within this project will have to
be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when
services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-
domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
A detailed development agreement shall be entered into between the city and the applicant.
The development agreement shall include, but not be limited to, requiring conditional use
permits for future development, limiting and prohibiting certain types use, pathway
construction, hours of operation, and the possible conditions of approval for the SSC Waste
transfer and headquarters.
RECOMMENDATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
Staffrecommends that the Commission and Council determine if they feel that the SSC project is
an appropriate use for this locatiorr Staffdoes not object to the location of the waste transfer
station at this location, however staff is concerned with the large opening on the north side of the
building. If it found to be an appropriate use, and that it is not in need ora conditional use
permit, staff recommends the following conditions of approval be adopted and included within
the development agreement:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited from 6am to 10 pm, Monday-Saturday, (with minimum
Sunday operation as needed). No transfer station operation on Sunday.
2. Design of the proposed buildings.
3. Landscaping and fencing details.
4. Prohibit use of property west of proposed gate, until approved via a CUP.
5. Noise buffering.
6. Debris and trash containment.
Staff recommends approval of the submitted annexation and zoning request regardless of
whether or not the SSC project is approved of at this time.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2. and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance of a proposed
subdivision the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
AZ-OI-OIS, PP-01-017 Utility Subdivision. AZPP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 11
As noted above, the subdivision is in conformance with some of the Comprehensive
Plans policies (3.5, 3.6, and 3.10) and is not in harmony with the Land Use Map policy #
3.4 and the recent text amendment. If the Commission and Council find that the requested
annexation and zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In order to be in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan the applicant has proposed pathway to be
installed along Five Mile Creek.
b. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are readily available to the lots within the proposed
subdivision, provided changes as may be required by the Public Works and Building
Departments are made.
c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement
program;
Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement
d. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for supporting
services.
e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff does not foresee any health, safety or environmental problems that have not been
addressed earlier in this report that should be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention.
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Sanitary sewer and water service to thi.q site shall be via existing and new service lines
from the existing mains adjacent to the property.
The sidewalks shall be detached along Ustick and Ten Mile Road and a five-foot (5')
wide (minimum) landscaped parkway shall be installed between the curb and sidewalk in
accordance with the adopted Landscape Ordinance.
The applicant shall work with the Parks Department to determine the location,
landscaping, and other improvements associated with the proposed multi-use pathways.
Creek. Ten (10) copies ora revised site plan indicating the location, width, landscaping
AZ-01-015, PP--01-017 Utility Subdivisioa. AZPP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 1 O, 2001
Page 12
and associated improvements of the pathway(s) shall be submitted at least ten (10) days
prior to the next public hearing.
The submitted landscape plan is not approved. The submitted landscape plan includes
conifers in the street buffer, all of which will have to be replaced in order to comply with
the adopted landscape ordinance. Additional landscaping shall be required adjacent to
the Nine Mile Drain to buffer the residential property to the west. Staff recommends at
least one (1) tree every twenty (20) lineal feet, and a solid sight-obscuring fence in
addition to all Parks Departmem requirements for landscaping adjacent to the pathways
[minimum five (5) feet]. Ten (10) copies of the revised landscape plans shall be
submitted to the Planning and Zoning staff for a review of completeness at least ten (10)
days prior to the next public hearing.
o
A permanent perimeter fence shall be required around the entire subdivision, unless the
City of Meridian agrees in writing that a fence is not required. Fencing details shall be
submitted with the final plat submission.
A detailed irrigation plan including performance specifications shall be submitted as part
of the required landscaping plan for the final plat.
All of the required street buffer landscaping, and perimeter fencing shall be installed prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on any lot created by the
subdivision.
o
Any tree over four inches (4") in caliper that is removed from the property shall be
replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of
trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as
replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed.
All parking shall be retained on-site for all buildings and businesses within the
subdivision.
10.
A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required
and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking
areas. Storm water treatmem and disposal must be designed in accordance with
Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication, "Catalog of Storm Water Best
Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties" and City of Meridian standards and
policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which
has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to
development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary
applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection
Wells on the final plat.
11.
Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan
review process.
A7_~1-015, PP-01-017 Utility Subdivision. AZ.PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 13
12. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
13.
Revise the preliminary plat map to show the existing City of Meridian sanitary sewer
easement adjacent to and across the subject site.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Code. Wells may be used for non-domestic
purposes such as landscape irrigatimx (This Condition applies to the existing farm house
on Lot 8 of the subdivision.)
Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter
for the subdivision name, lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to
conform.
o
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the
final plat.
Two-hundred, and om-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required
at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be
installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire
hydrants.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
In addition to the analysis performed earlier in the report, staff offers the following additional
Comprehensive plan analysis
The 1993 Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of goals and policies relevant to this
application. The following sections most directly apply to the proposed project and are repeated
here for the Council and Commission's consideration during the hearing process.
Goal 3 is "to encourage the kind of economic growth and developmem which supplies
employment and economic self-sufficiency for existing and future residents, reduces the present
reliance on Boise and strengthens the City's ability to finance and implement public
improvemems, services, and its open space character."
Economic Developmem
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere that
encourages...eommercial enterprises to locate in Meridian.
1.3
The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developmems
should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and
features of each area.
AZ-OI-OIS, PP-01-017 Utility Subdivision. AZPP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
June 10, 2001
Page 14
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the current configuration of the preliminary plat.
AZ-01-015, PP-01-017 Utility Subdivision. AZ. PP.DOC
May 13, 2002 PP 01-017
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 16, 2002
APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 18, 2002 - Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Utility
Subdivision - 3365 North Ten Mile Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
SANITARY SERVICE:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
See previous Item Packets
See attached letter from Sherri L. Moro & Daniel T. Whitted
Date: Phone:
Materials presented at pul~lic meetings shall become properly of the Clly of Meridian.
Trans~e[~"
Stations:
Involved Citizens
Make the Difference
/I
&EPA
MAY 1 $ 20O2
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Considere :i for Ybur
You've Just l~ed ~at a sold w~te ~s-
fer s~on developer ~ pm~s~g ~ build a
fa~ ~ yo~ ~mm~. ~e m~y ci~-
~, you may h~e con~. ~u~
~ce~ about ~ten~ s~e~ ~d
he~ ~pac~. You may ~n wonder What
a ~ ~er ~Oon ~. ~ ~ple te~s. a
~fer s~flon ~ a fa~ wh~
~ ~ded ~m sm~ ~~d
~l~ed ~to l~er ve~Cl~ for
a ~ ~p~ ~.
~te ~er ~s m~e solid ~te ~e~on mo~ e~-
~ent ~'~u~ ove~ ~po~on ~s~. ~ e~ions~
ene~ ~ ~ck ~c, ~d mad we~ ~d t~. ~ ~v~ you
~d yo~ ~mm~ money ~d lowe~ ~e cmt of yo~ solid
wa~e m~gement ~.
~ ~l~on of a s~e f~ ~y w~te-~lat~ ~ty ~ ~ a
sensi~ve ~sue. ~~ly for ~ose
mo~ ~ple ~li~ ~t s~ fa~i~ ~ n~ded ~d ~ be
n~ded in ~ ~t~. In ~me ~, however.
about a specific location for a
waste transfer station and
whether the facility will be
properly managed.
You and your neighbors can
help influence decisions on
Ixansfer stations. This booklet
provides key information you
will need to develop an opinion
about a proposed or modified
transfer station. It also provides
ways or ideas on how to get
involved to enhance the value
of the waste transfer station.
Well-~nanaged waste 'transfer :
s~atiOns are: .
· Located, ~ and operated I0 ensure the
, Located so as to mininize incompatibility with
the character of the surrounding area.
· Located where traffic patterns to or from the
facilty mininize the impact on existing traffic
fk~v~
· Consistent with state, bcal or tribal regulations
and solid waste management plan~
A waste transfer station is a light industrial-type facility where
trash cOllection trucks discharge their loads so trash can be
compaCted and then reloaded into larger vehicles (e.g., trucks,
trains and barges) for shipment to a final disposal site, typically
a landfill or waste-to-energy facili~. Transfer station operators
usually move waste off the site in a matter of minutes or hours.
Transfer stations serve both rural and urban communities. In
densely populated areas, they are generally fully enclosed.
Waste transfer stations handle:~e trash that you set out for
collection. At many transfer stations, workers screen incoming
wastes on the receiving floor or in an earthen pit, recovering
materials from the waste stream that can be recycled and sepa-
rating out any inappropriate wastes (e.g., tires, large appliances,
automobile batteries) that are not allowed in a disposal facility.
Whyl Are Transfer Stations Needed?
Communities need transfer stations to move their waste etlt-
ctently from the point of collection to distant, regtonal landfills
or waste-to-energy plants. By consolidating solid waste collec-
tion and disposal points, transfer stations help communities
reduce the cost of hauling waste to these remote disposal sites.
Waste transfer stations may
be the most cost-effective
when they are located near a
collection are~ The use of
transfer stations lowers collec-
tion costs, as crews spend less
time traveling to and from
distant disposal sites and
more time collecting waste.
This reduces costs for labor,
fuel and collection vehicle
maintenance.
Why are transfer stations growing in popularity around the
United States? Besides reduced transportation costs, here are a
few of the benefits. The ~waste transfer station:
· Reduces overall community truck traffic by consolidating
smaller loads into larger vehtcles.
· Offers more flexibility in waste handling and disposal
opflon~ Decision-makers can select mong different disposal
options and secure the lowest disposal fees or choose a
, desired m~°d ofdtsposal,(e.§., lawlmltqg, waste~-energy).
· Reduces air pollution, fuel consumption, and road wear by
consolidating trash into fewer vehicles.
· Allows for screening of waste for special handling. At many
transfer stations, workers screen incoming wastes on con-
crete floors or conveyOr belts to separate out readily recyda-
ble materials or any inappropriate wastes (e.g., tires,
automobile batteries) that are not allowed in a landfill or a
waste-to-energy facili~.
· Reduces traffic at the disposal facility. The fact that fewer
vehicles go to the landfill or waste-to-energy facility reduces
congestion and operating costs and increases safe~.
· Offers dtize~s facilities for convenient drop-off of waste
and ret~dables. Some transfer stations have a designated
area, ~-ten called a convenience center, where residents drop
off waste or recychbles in collection containers.
What Can ! DO About/¥1¥ Health and
afe.¥ Concerns?
Traffic, noise, and odor may exist around waste transfer sta-
tions. Other problems that can result from an improperly
designed or operated facility, include:
· Rodents and btrcls.
· Litter.
· Air emissions.
Thoughtful design choices and well-managed operations can
and do address potential negative impacts. This section will
describe typical concems and offer suggestions that you can
.t~e to your transfer station developer to help resolve your con-
cerns. A more detailed discussion of ways to reduce the impacts
of waste transfer stations is provided in EPA's Waste Transfer
Stations: A Manua/for Decision-Making, Draft EPA530-D-OI-O05,
FebruaO, 2001.
Traffic
Transfer stations reduce overall
traffic by consolidating smaller
loads into larger vehicles. The
transfer staUon, however, will
generate additional amounts of
traffic in its immediate area.
This traffic can contribute to
increased road congestion, air
emissions, noise, and wear on
roads. For this mason, waste
transfer stations are often locat-
ed in industrial areas that have
ready access to major road-
ways. Travel routes and resulting traffic impacts typically
receive significant attention dm*lng transfer station siting and
design. Some important design and operating features that
should be used include:
· Selecting sites that have direct access to truck routes, high-
ways and raft or barge termirmls.
· Providing adequate space within the facility site so that cus-
tomers waiting to use the transfer station do not interrupt
traffic on public roads or impact nearby residences or busi-
nesses.
· Designating haul routes to and from the transfer station that
avoid congested areas, residential areas, business districts,
schools, hospitals and other Sensitive areas.
· Designing safe intersections with public roads.
Noise
Heavy truck traffic and the operation of heavy-duty facility
equipment (e.g., conveyors and front-end loaders) are the pri-
mary sources of noise from a transfer station. Design and oper-
ating practices that help reduce noise include:
· Confining noisy activities within buildings or other enclo-
sures as much as possible.
Using landscaping, sound' barriers, and earth berms to
absorb exterior noise.
°i' ~ ~e'i~.so~ ~ truffle flows are n°t adjacent to
· Providing setback distances, called buffer zones, to separate
noisy activities from adjacent land uses.
· Conducting activities that generate the most amount of noise
during the da~
Odor
Garbage. particularly food waste and grass, has a high potential
for odor. Proper facility design can significantly reduce odor
problems. Carefully positioning the building and its doorways
with respect to netghbors is a good first step. At the transfer
building itself, exhaust faro with air filters and rooftop exhaust
vents can further reduce off-site odor impacts.
Some of the operating procedures that can help reduce odors
· "First-in, first-out" waste har~ltng practices that keep waste
on site only for short periods of time.
· Removing all waste fi'om the Upping floor or pit by the end
of each operating day so that these surfaces can be swept
clean and washed down.
· 'Good housekeeping" measures, including regular cleaning
and disinfecting of surfaces and equipment that come into
· Water misUng and/or deodorizing systems.
Rodents and Birds
Rodents and birds can be a nuisance and a potential health
concern at waste transfer stations, but few basic design and oper-
ational elements can control them. For instance, good housekeep-
Lng practices are a simple and effective means of minimizing
their presence. These practices include removing all waste deliv-
ered to the facility by the end of each da3~ and cleaning the
receiving floor daily (small. rural facilities may require several
days to accumulate a full container of waste for transport),
Receiving waste only within an endoseci structure and otherwise
Sparks Waste Transfer Station Changes
New Hampsh~e, the ~'s ~ ~n~d ~ ~ke mm ~r
a~ ~ ~ a ~ of gsu~ a~ po~l ~,
f~ t~ ~ ~n, ~ ~d con~ ~ from
~~ ~ ~ ~~, i~ A~rn. In a~n,
~m ~t ~~ ~f fm ~ tremor ~t~n.
~~ ~ t~ ~ a~ o~ ~ ~~ ~r~s
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tm~ s~n's ~gn a~ ~t-
~ m ~ ~ ~ a~r~ fr~ ~ ba~ng up
~ fm ~l a~
~ ~s ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ am ~t
~ ~ a~ f~ ~~ ~ a~ ex~d~ ~-
~.~a ~~~ ~ ~~~ya~ ~Y-
Town ofr~ials also hired a consultant to address additional dtizen concerns. The com-
pany worked with the consultant to develop methods for safely managing storm-water
runoff from the transfer station. The revised design included new drainage structures and
roadway rnodification~ As a final condition for receiving a transfer station permit, the
company developed an operating manual that employees will be required to follow. Town
officials reviewed the operating manual and after additional modf'~..ations, the town
Litter
In the course of facility operations, it is likely that stray pieces
of waste may become litter in and around the waste transfer
station. Measures that can help reduce litter include:
· Positioning the main transfer building so that predominant
winds are less likely to blow through the budding and carry
litter off-site.
· Installing perimeter landscaping and fencing to reduce wind
speeds at the transfer station site and to trap any litter.
· Ensuring that ~tarps on open top trucks are secure.
· , Providing skirting around loading chutes.
· Removing litter frequently to reduce the opportunity for it to
travel offsite.
· Patrolling nearby access roads to control litter from truck
traffic.
Air Emissions
Air emissions at transfer stations can come from unloading dry,
dusty waste delivet~l to the transfer station, exhaust from
trucks, loaders and other equipment, and driving over unpaved
surfaces. The following can reduce air emissions:
· Requiring trucks delivering and picking up waste at the facil-
ity to reduce unnecessary engine idling.
· Working with fleet operators to reduce engine emissions
(e.g.. engine improvements or use of cleaner fuels).
· Spraying dusty wastes with water as they are unloaded.
· Ensuring that street sweeping operations use enough water
to avoid kicking up dust.
· Paving all surfaces where trucks operate.
Every solid waste management facility is required to obtain cer-
tain government permits. Permit requirements may be estab-
1/shed by state, local, or tribal governments. Regulations, which
serve as the basis for permits, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdic-
t/on. Typ/cal types o/perm/ts that a Wansferstation maybe
required to obtain include:
· Solid waste facility permits--usually issued by state, local,
or tribal agencies, which can govern siting, design, and
operation. ~,
· Site devel°Pment permits-usually issued by local or ~bal
agencies, which include zoning requirements, building per-
· Environmental siting approvals~which are addressed by
various levels of government and can pertain to wetlands,
flood plains, culturally signfficant sites, or other protected
Nor a state-by-state checklist of major transfer station regula-
tory issues see EPA's document, Wast~ ~q~ms£er Stations: A
Manual ~or Decision-Matin~, Draft F. PA5$O-D-OI-O05, Febru~./
2001, Appendix A.
How Do [ Ge'~ l,~volved?-
Conmmnicate
· TaLk with authoriUes that'p~an, permtL and regulate waste
transfer stations at the state leveL (See the list of state solid
waste contacts at the end of this guide).
· Seek to understand the role of the various agencies. Learn
about the types of decisions they have authority to make and
the activities they can/nfluence or control.
· Talk to the waste transfer station developer and find out
about his plans. The developer may be either a private
company or government agency. Make sure the developer
is aware of your concerns as early as possible so he can
take steps to address them. Find out the name and phone
8
number of the developer's contact
person whom you can call for lnfor-
maUon, to check on progress, and to
share your concerns.
Check the site against the rules of your
state or locality. Ask your state or trib-
al government representative for
copies of the regulations or where you
can find them.
Get on m:~tl!ug lists of the developer.
local agendes (e.g., zoning, planning,
solid waste), and state agencies.
toed pern ~i~ t i)~.f?
re,~c'h mutually acceptat )Jc
ings as early as possihte.
--U.S. EPA, "Social Aspects of Sit,ns RCRA
Hazardous ~3ste Facilities," April 2000.
Participate
· Attend pubUc information meetings, hearings, and decision
meetings to express your tnterests.
· Request. a visit to the developer's completed and operating
waste transfer stations.
· Work with state and/or local oversight agencies to see how
you can assist tn monitoring the waste transfer staUon's
performance.
Negotiate
· Your state, tribal or local government agencies will deter-
mine ff the proposed waste transfer station meets current
regulations. However. you and your neighbors may want to
work with the transfer station developer to negotiate a sepa-
rate agreement documenting commitments that you expect
the developer to keep. This agreement can include both per-
formance measures m ensure the community is not unduly
impacted as well as possible benefits the developer will pro-
vide to offset the facility's impacts. Benefits can range from
commitments to employ local residents, construction of day
care centers, parks or other facilities that enhance the com-
munity to actual payment of a fee to enable the community
to provide other neighborhood improvements.
9
Important elements of an effective pubic partid-
pation process may include the followin~
· Advance notice of any proposed public or pri-
vate sokl wasm transfer stations.
· Advance notice of opportunities for public
,.i~ilW°lvemen~ in the approval process.
· :.~:LOCal decision off'~alS.:hear~andaddress corn-
and cor erns
-~::! :~ ::~: :::.,'. :':;-,:~!':.. ::.~- :-. :i;i:'.~-?ii~::i~:~;~.:?:;:!(~:~ ~..~.': :::~':~: !. ~..: ..
warranmd, the assistance of independent lech-
nical experts.
and adc~ controversial issues
· Avaibblty of imefpmmrs for pubic meetings
and rr~ fact sheets, pubk notices and
other outreach mamrials.
· Feedback from stam/triba~ocal officials on
how they intend ~o address cornmurity con-
ceres.
It's important to get
involved early to share your
concerns with the waste
transfer station developer
and government regulators
and discuss what the devel-
oper can do for you and your
How can communities
open up the.lines of
communicatlon.
Contact your local
govemment.
Find answers to the following
questions:
The Planning Process
· Where can you obtain a
copy of the locality's solid
waste plan?
· What is the process for
approving or amending the
solid waste plan? Determine
ff it has been followed.
· Who is tn charge of waste
management planning and
slUng new faciliUes?
· What is the process for establishing a new facility or modify-
Lng an existing one?
· What area/communities will this facility serve?
· Who is the appropriate contact at the local level for project-
specific information?
· Has an application for a new or modified facility been sub-
mired to the local government, state, or tribe? If so, ask for a
copy or where you can view it.
· Are the facilities publicly or privately owned?
10
Applicable Regulations
· What regulations/standards apply to waste transfer staUon
siting, design, operaUon? Who enforces them?
· Find out if there is a soUd waste planning commtttee and, if
so, when tt meets.
· Do the zontng ordinances specify where waste transfer sta-
Uons are allowed and the process for spectal excepUons to
the existing zoning plan?
Opportunities for Public PartiCipation
· What oppo ,~ties are there for public input?
· Is there a central repository for documents for public review?
· When is the zoning hearing and what are the procedures for
partidpaflon?
Contact your local elected offldal.
Find answers to the following questions:
· What information is available on the project?
· What is the schedule for building the facility?
· What is the size of the facility?
· What are the proposed tonnages that the facility will handle,
and what communities will they be coming from?
· How much traffic will the
facility generate?
· When is the public meeting
scheduled?
Contact y~r state soUd waste
or tribal environmental
agency.
Find answers to the following
questions:
· What aciministrattve require-
ments exist, including pubUc
hearings for waste transfer
stations?
11
· What is the process for requesting a public hearing?
· What are the regulations that apply to transfer stations? Do
they address your concerns. If not, why not?
· What is the permitting and regulatory process? Does regula-
tory authority rest with the state agency, a local agency or a
combination of the two? If located on a reservation, does
authority rest with the tribal council or another tribal envi-
ronmental entity?
· Where can the public review the state application for a waste
transfer'station?
How do I get involved;
Form or join a community advbory panel.
A community advisory panel (CAP) should reflect local diversi-
ty and include residents, businesses, and industry. CAPs can
provide tnsight and external input and may oversee administra-
tion of host benefits or ameniUes agreed upon as Part of siting
discussions. For instance, a CAP might be formed to administer
funds allocated for job training programs.
To formulate your position on the proposed waste transfer
station, review the information you have collected. Identify
operating and design measures that will protect the public
interest. Write down your concerns and thoughts in a concise,
logical, and constructive manner. Attempt to understand other
perspectives and acknowledge them while meeting your goals.
Select your best spokesperson to present your position at the
public meeting or hearing.
Find answers to the following questions:
· What benefits would the waste transfer station provide?
· How will the waste transfer station affect the community and
the environment?
· How will the community be affected by truck traffic?
· What types of litter, noise, and vector controls will the facility
have?
12
· Will all waste be removed or containerized at the end of the
day?
· How will storm water and wash water runoff be managed?
· How will the community be economically impacted?
· What type of odor control wiU the facility have?
· How will the waste transfer station save you money?
· What potential hazards may be expected and how will they
be addressed?
· Does the community get any specJ~ benefits?'
Secure follow, up on your concerns from the local
regulatory authority.
Ask questions such as the following:
· How will the local regulatory authority monitor resolution of
your concerns?
When will you be able to
meet with project manage-
ment?
Who will provide long-
term oversight of fadlity
operaUons?
· What provisions are being
made so that the public
can review the facility's
operating history and per-
lar operations begin?
involved in site inspec-
tions and reviews?
· Will the authority help schedule a visit to a similar facility?
13
What kinds of community benefits might be
negotiable.
Based on the experience of communities around the country,
there are many neighborhood benefits that can be negotiated ff
you communicate and meet with the waste transfer station
developer. The range of community benefits depends on several
factors, indudtng av~tlzbiltty of alternate sites, population densi-
ty, land use of surrounding areas, and the economics of the pro-
posed facill~. Benefits that communities have asked for include:
· Landscaping, lighting, and local park areas.
· Limitatioiis on waste generatio~i Smn'ces (e.g.. off reservati°n.
out of county, out of state).
· Funding of pubUc mad/infrastructure improvements.
· Restrictions on truck traffic, including designated routing.
· Guaranteed preference to the community's residents for
employment.
· Commitment to regularly pick up Utter and sweep streets in
and around the waste transfer station. /
· Participation in site inspections and operation reviews.
· A hotitne with the name and phone number of someone that
will act on and respond to complaints.
· Restrictions on operating hours.
· Commitment to cleaning up the tipping floor at day's end.
· Free or reduced-cost use of the facility for the community's
· Improvements to community schools, recreation programs,
fire department, etc.
· Free recyclables collection and/or processing.
· Guarantees for homing values.
· A fee paid to the local government for every ton of waste
received at the facility.
You can also negotiate to require that community representa-
t. ives have access to the facility during operations to monitor
14
Citizens Decided l~ar~sfer r, ta~.~.~n CouJd t_~se Some
Santa Fe Style
Thanks to the Santa Fe, New Mexico, Solid Waste Management Division's door-to-
door informational campaign and the involvement of concerned citizens, the sold
waste transfer station was designed in a way aesthetically pleasing to the residents. City
~:~.::~ ~ a.'0urnber of dtiz~ CO~'~ the design aad proposed::
o~ation 0f..~:..tra~ Mii~, inc~a req~'~:~.t~ station to cen~ to
odor'and dust, ~ :the ~ dfect of the transfer station. The city responded with a
nun-bet of changes that includec~
· B~lding and upgracing roads to ensure large transfer trucks would travel north'of the
neid~rhood, away from major stree~
· Having crews daa"y pick up ~tter that rright blow or fal onto neighborlx, od streeL~
· Washing down the transfer station twice each week and rernovir~ transfer station
waste at the end of each day.
· ^ powerful ventilation system to limit odors.
· Incorporating the design of the transfer station to be in the Santa Fe architectural style.
It is important to note that the citizens most affected by the transfer station had Ated
for some time near the city's closed landfill. Over the years, cky officials consistently
responded to citizen concern about illegal dumping and stray litter from the landfi#,
resulting in a positive, trusting rehtiom~ with the commurdty. This relationship likely fadL
itated the public involvement promss.
performance. Safety concerns and potential for interference
with datly operaUons must be addressed if this provision is
included.
How Do ! Get More in.,,rmahon.
Information Available From EPA
The foUowing pubUcattons are available through the RCRA
Hotline. To order a document, call 800 424- 9346 (or 800 553-
7672 for the hearing-impaired). In Washington, DC, the number
15
is 703 412-9810 or TDD 703- 412-3323. The RCRA Hotline is
open from Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., EST.
· Waste '[l~nsfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making
(EPA530-D-01-005) (Draft, February 2001.)
· Social Aspects of Siting RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities
(EPA530-K-00-005.)
· Decision-Make~'s Guide To Solid Waste Management
(EPA$30-R-95-023)
· , Sites for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective
Public Involvement (F_.PA530~W-90-019)
Review c°'mmittee Protects community's Best ~nterests and
Negotiates Host 'Fee
An initial ~ choice for a m transfer station in Leon Comt~ Flodda, failed to gain
kthe approval of citJzem and local business owners, In respome, the county board
held a series of pubic meel~s and workshops for almost a year, to evaluate approxi-
freely 15 potential alternative sites for the transfer station. Attended by hundreds of peo-
ple, this pubic process resulmd in a final site se~ction, after which the county board
appoin~l a site development review committee whose mission was to develop operat-
ing and design ~ that world meet the needs of businesses and residents in this sub-
urban area of We~t Talahassee.
The committee comprised a neighborhood assoo'~_'etion representative, a local business
representati~ a university professor, a private consultant, and transportation, pubic
works, and solid wa~e officials from city and county government. The comrnittee
requested transportation and noise studies to help it develop recommendations for
reducing the tram-let station's environmental impacts.
~ from a t~p-toad to a compec~-type design that would reduce noise, building '
made funds available to improve the sound absorption of the transfer station's inlerior
wals. The review committee also developed operating crileria addressing other potential
hazards and nuisances to the commu~ty. One requirement induded having an industrial
hygienist monitor the safety of the transfer station annually.
To compensate the community for hosting the transfer station, the committee
approved a "host fee" of 50 cents per ton of waste. The community will use revenue
from this host fee, expeceed to generate $75,000 in the transfer station's first year of
operation, to pay for neighborhood knl:m:wements such as local sewer repairs~
Leon County's transfer station has yet to be built, however. Despite extensive pub~
involvement, a §roup of acrjaoent property owners is challenging the final sile selection,
even though they participated in the decision-making proces~
16
Additional Information from EPA
· The Model Plan for Public Participation, EPA National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Contact EPA Office
of Environmental Justice (http://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/ej/
nejacpub.html).
· Constructive Er~gagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice
for Dialogue Among Facilities, Workers, Communities, and
Regulators (EPA745-B-99-008) June 1999. COntact EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental PubliCations at
1-800-490-9198 or vtaltthe Web at www. epa.gov/
stakeholders/siteguide.htm.
other Selected Sources of Information
· SoUd Waste Transfer in Illinois: A Citizen's Handbook on
Planning, Siting and Technology. Contact Dupage County
Solid Waste Department, Wheaton Illinois. Telephone: 630
682-6755.
· National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Regulatory Strategy for Siting and Operating Waste
Transfer Stations (report #500-R-00-001). Contact Kent
Benjamin at EPA at 202 260-2822 or visit the web at:
http: //es.epa.gov / oeca / main/ ej / nejacpub.html.
Selected Internet Resources
· EPA*s Office of SoUd Waste (www. epa.gov/msw)
· EPA's Office of Environmental JusUce
(http: //es. ep~ gov / oeca/ main/ ej /index. html)
· EPA's Office of Civil Rights (http://www. epa.gov/civllrights)
State Solid Waste Contacts
Alabama
Alabama Depa~-i~,ent of Environmental Management, Land
Division, Solid Waste Branch, P.O. Box 301463, Montgomery, AL
36130-1463, Phone: 334/271-7730, Fax: 334/279-3050
Alaska
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
Environmental Health Division, Solid Waste Program, 410
17
Willoughby Avenue, Juneau, AK 99801-1795, Phone: 907/465-
5350. Fax: 907/465-5164
Arizona
· Arizona Department of Environmental QualJ~. Waste Programs
Division, Solid Waste Section, 3033 North Central Avenue,
Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602/207-4208, Fax: 602/207-2383
Arkansas
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecolog~ Solid
Waste Division. P.O. Box 8913. Little Rock, AR 72219-8913,
Phone: 501/682-0600. Fax: 501/682.0611
California
California Integrated Waste Management Board, 8800 Cai
Center Drive, Saeramanto. CA. 95826. Phone: 916/255-2182.
Fax: 916/255-2227
Colorado
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, 4300
Cherry Creek Drive South. Denver. CO 80222-1530. Phone:
303/692-3300. Fax: 303/759-5355
Connecticut
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau
of Waste Management. 79 Elm Street. 4th Floor. Hartford, CT
06106-5127, Phone: 860/424-3021, Fa,,c 860/424-4060
Delaware
Delaware Department Of Natur~ Resources and Environmental
Control. Air and Waste Management Division. H~rdous and
Solid Waste Management. 89 Kings Highway. Dover. DE 19901,
Phone: 302/739-4764, Fax: 302/739-5060
District of Columbia
DC Department of Public Works, SoUd Waste Administra~on,
2750 South Capitol Street. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20032, Phone:
202/645-7044, Fax: 202/645-6040
Florida
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Waste Management. Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste, Solid
Waste Management Section, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee,
FL 32399-2400. Phone: 850/488-0300. Fax: 850/414.0414
18
Georgia
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Protection Division. Land Protection Branch. Solid Waste
Management. 4244 International Parkway, Suite 104. Atlanta.
GA 30354. Phone: 404/362-2537. Fax: 404/362-2654
Hawaii
Hawaii Department of Health, Environmental Management
Division. Office of Solid Waste Management. 919 Ala Moana.
Room 300. Honolulu. HI 96814. Phone: 808/586-4250.
Fax: 808/586-4370
Idaho
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. Solid Waste Program.
410 North Hilton Street. Boise. ID 83706. Phone: 268/373-0502,
Fa,,c 208/373-0417
Illinois
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land, SoLid
Waste Management Section, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL
62794-9276. Phone: 217/785-9407. Fax: 217/557-4231
Indiana
Indiana Depa~h~-~ent of Environmental Management. Office of
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. P.O. Box 6015.
Indianapolis. IN 46206-6015. Phone: 317/232-3210.
Fa,,c 317/232-3403
Iowa
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources. Land Quality
Bureau. Solid Waste Section.
900 East Grand Avenue.~
Henry A. Wallace Bldg.. Des
Moines. IA 50319-0034. Phone:
515/281-4968. Fax: 515/281-
8895
Kansas
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment, Division of
Environment, Bureau of Waste
Management. Forbes Field,
19
Building 283. Topeka. KS 66620. Phone: 785/296-1612.
Fax: 785/296-1592
Kentucky
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of
Waste ManagemenL Solid Waste Branch, Frankfort Office Park,
14 Reilly Road, Frankfort, KY 40601 Phone: 502/564-6716,
Fmc 502/564-4049
Louisiana
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Solid
~.d Haz~:Ious Waste, Solid Waste Division, P.O. Box 82178,
Baton Rouge,' L'A 70884-2178, Phoiie! 225/765-0249,
Fax: 225/765-0299 '
Maine
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of
RemediaUon and Waste Management. Division of Solid Waste
FaciliUes Regulation. 17 State House StaUon. Augusta. ME
04333-0017. Phone:2 07/287-2651, Fax: 207/287-7826
Maryland
Maryland Department of the Environment. Waste Management
AdministraUon. SoUd Waste Program. 2500 Broening Highway.
Baltimore. MD 21224. Phone: 410/631-3304. Fax: 410/631-3321
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Depm~U~ent of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Waste Prevention, Solid Waste Division, One Winter Street,
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617/292-5953, Fa~ 617/292-5778
Michigan
Michigan Deparht~ent of Environmental Quali~,, Waste
Management Division, Solid Waste Program, P.O. Box 30241.
Lansing. MI 48909. Phone: 517/335-9523, Fax: 517/373-4797
Minnesota
Minnesota PoUution Control Agency. Policy and Planning
Division. 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194.
Phone: 651/297-8502, Fa~c 651/297-8676
Mississippi
Mississippi Deparhnent of Environmental Quali~, Office of
Pollution Control, Solid Waste Management Branch, P.O. Box
2O
10385, Jackson, MS 38289, Phone: 601/961-5171, Fax: 601/354-
6612
Missouri
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Quality, Solid Waste Management Program, P.O.
Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Phone: 573/751-5401,
Fa~c 573/526-3902
Montana
Montana Department of Enviroomental Quality, Permitting and
Cqmpliance DtviSion, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620.0901,
p~ne: 406/44~S270~ Fax: 406/444-1374
Nebraska
Nebraska Department of E, nvtronmental Quality, Waste
Management Division, 1200 N Street, Suite 400, Lincoln, NE
68509-8922, Phone: 402/471-4210, Fa~c 402/471-2909
Nevada
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection; Bureau of Waste
Management. Solid Waste Branch. 333 West Nye Lane. Capitol
Complex. Carson City. NV 89710. Phone: 702/687-4670.
Fax: 702/885.0868
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Deparhuent of Environmental Services. Waste
Management Division. 6 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301-
6509. Phone: 603/271-2905. Fac 603/271-2456
New Jersey
New Jersey Depm-huent of Environmental Protection. Division
of Solid and Hazardous Waste. P.O. Box 414. Trenton. NJ 08625,
Phone: 609/984-6880. Fac 609/984-6874
New Mexico
New Mexico Environment Department. Environmental
Protection Division, Solid Waste Bureau, 1190 St. Francis Dr.,
P.O. Box 26110, Santa Fe, NM 87503, Phone: 505/827-2855.
Fax: 505/827-2902
New York
New York State Department of Environmental Conserfatton,
Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials. 50 Woff Road, Albany,
NY 12233-7250. Phone: 518/457-6934. Fax: 518/457-0629
21
North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Division of Waste Management. Solid Waste Section.
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, NC 27611-7687, Phone: 919/733-0692.
Fa,,c 919/733-4810
North Dakota
North Dakota Department of Health, Division of Waste
Management, P.O. Box 5520,.Bismarck, ND 58506-5520, Phone:
701/328-5166, Fax: 701/328-5200
Ohio:
Ohi°i~mnantal ProteCtio~ A~'~ Division of SOlid and
Infectious Waste Managemont:P.O~ Box 163669. Columbus. OH
43216-3669, Phone: 614/728-5333, Fax: 614/728-5315
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quali~ Waste
Management Division, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, OK
73102, Phone: 405/702-5]00, Fax: 405/702-5101
Oregon
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Waste
Management and Cleanup Division Solid Waste Planning &
Program Development Section, 811 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Portland,
OR 97204. Phone: 503/229-5072. Fac 503/229-6977
Penfls¥1varda
Pennsylvania Dep~hhent of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Land Recycling and Waste Management. Division of
Municipal and Residual Waste. P.O. Box 8471.Harrisburg, PA
17105-8471, Phone: 717/787-2388, Fax: 717/787-1904
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Waste Management, 235 Promenade Street.
Providence, RI 02908, Phone: 401/222-4700, Fax: 401/222-3813
South Carolina
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control, Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management,
Division of Solid Waste Management, 2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: 803/896-4007, Fax: 803/896-4001
22
South Dakota
South Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Services, Waste
Management Program, 523 East Capitol. Foss Bldg.~ Pierre, SD
57501-3181, Phone: 605/773.3153, Fax: 605/773-4068
Tennessee ,~
512/239-6787,'Fax: 512/239-2007 ~' ""
Utah
Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Division of SoUd
and Hazardous Waste, Solid Waste Section, P.O. Box 144880.
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880, Phone: 801/538-6170,
Fmc 801/538-6715
Vermont
Vermont Depm~h~ent of Environmental Conservation, Waste
Management Division. SoUd Waste Management, 103 South
Main Street. Waterbur~ VT 05671-0404, Phone: 802/241.3444,
Fac 802/241-3296
Virginia
Virginia Department of Fanvironmental QualitY,. Waste Divisi°n,
P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, VA 23240-0009, Pho~ 804/698-
4221, Fax: 804/698-4234
Washington
Washin~on State Department of Ecology, Waste Management
Programs. Solid Waste and Financial Services Program. P.O. Box
47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600. Phone: 360/407-6103.
Fac 360/407-6102
West Virginia
West Vttginia Dep~u-h,~ent of Environmental Ptotectton, Or, ce
of Waste Management, Solid Waste Management Section, 1356
23
Hansford Street, Charleston, WV 25301-1401, Phone: 304/558-
5929, Fax: 304/558-0256
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Depm-h~lent of Natural Resources, Air and Waste
Division, Bureau of Waste Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison,
WI 53707. Phone: 608/266-1327, lax: 608/267-2768
Solid and ,~.!:,
"~ ~ , American
Sam°a 96799, Phone: 684/533-4141, Fax: 684/633-5801
Guam
Guam Environmental Protection A§enc3~ Air and Land
Division, P.O. Box 22439, GMF Barrigada, Guam 96921, Phone:
671/475-1658, Fax: 671/477-9402
Northern Mariana Islands
Division of Environmental Quality, Commonwealth of the
Northern Marlana Islands, 3rd Floor, Morgen's Bldg., San Jose,
P.O. Box 1304, Satpan, MIa 96950, Phone: 670/234-6114,
Fax: 670/234-1003
'Puerto Rico
· Environmental Quality Board, Office of the Governor, Land
Pollution'Area, P.O. Box 11488, Santurce, PR 00910, Phone:
787/763-4448, Fax: 787/766-0150
Virgin Islands
Depa~-h,~ent of Planning and Natural Resources, Government of
the Virgin Islands, Division of Environmental Protection,
Building 111, Apartment 114, Chrlstiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820,
Phone: 809/773-0565. Fa= 809/773-9310
24
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
16-May-02
PP 01-017
PROJECT NAME
NAME
Utility Subdivision
FOR
AGAINST
CIT~ 0~- ~IEIUDIA~N
Shacon Smith
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sonya Day [days~ci.meddian.id.us]
Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:26 AM
'Sharon Smith'
FW: P & Z Meeting Scheduled for 5/1612002
RECEIVED
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
..... Original Message ....
From: Wes Warren [mailto:wesmail@cableone.net] On Behalf Of
christiemail@cableone.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:16 PM
To: days@ci.meridian.id.us
Subject: P & Z Meeting Scheduled for ,5/16/2002
May 15, 2002
Sirs,
We are unable to attend the meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 16,
2002, but wanted to make sure that we were able to send our voices to
you, our local board. Our interest is regarding the rezoning of the
corner or Ten Mile and Ustick Roads.
As members of the surrounding community, we feel that rezoning here for
industrial use (truck maintenance, expanded waste site, etc.) would be
an adverse addition to the community. The surrounding area is basically
residential, with most of the subdivisions made up of young families
with children. We feel that the increased truck traffic would not only
bdng the noise and po. IIution associated with them, but a high safety
dsk towards our children who use Ten Mile as a way to walk or bike to
school or other locations close by. Additionally, there is always the
lure these areas have for the kids (especialy boys) to check out the
trucks and other equipment, thus putting them closer to more dsk of
injury. As any parent knows, no matter if it is forbiddion, or signs
are posted to keep out, kids will get in to check things out if they
want to bad enough.
I believe that a much more suitable location for the propective
busnesses would be closer to the freeway, perhaps near where the
proposed Ten Mile on and off ramps would be. Freeway locations are not
highly sought out for homes and subdivisions, for obvious reasons, so
would be ideal for an industrial area where increased truck traffic
would not be noticed as much, and would be a much lesser safety risk, as
fewer children live in that area.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Wes and Christie Warren
Concerned Neighbors and Parents
3148 W. Kendrick Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
christimail@cableone.net
OHUBBLE ENGINEERING, INC.
701 $. Allen St., Suite 102 · Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-322-8992 · Fax 208-378-0329
May 15, 2002
Mcridan Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE:
RECEIVE]
M~¥ I 5 2002
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERk' C~F~P,F
Request to TABLE the Public Hearing for Annexation, Rezone and Preliminary
Plat Applications for Utility Business Park Subdivision, Falcon Creek, LLC
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
On behalf of Falcon Creek, LLC, the owner and developer of the proposed Utility Business Park
Subdivision, I am respectfully requesting the tabling of the public hearing for our annexation,
rezone and preliminary plat applications and the moving of this hearing item to your June 18,
2002 meeting agenda.
We are requesting to table our public hearing due to the architectural and design details of the
Sanitary Services site not being complete. We want to be able to provide staff, the Commission
and the neighbors a preliminary Plat and site plan they can review and support prior to a public
hearing. We are working with Sanitary Services and their architect to address each concern and
would like the additiOnal time to finalize all of the details.
Thank you for understanding our desire to present a complete application to you and your staff
and tabling our annexation, rezone and preliminary plat applications until your June 18, 2002
agenda. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ashley B. Ford
Senior Planner, Hubble Engineering, Inc.
Representative of Falcon Creek, LLC -Utility Business Park Subdivision
Apfi125,2002
RECE VEI
Dear Major, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission:
CiTY OF MERIDIAI
CITY CLERK OFFIC
My husband and I have lived at 2864 W. Joust Street in the Candlelight Subdivision for the
last year and a half. We have been following the progress and attending the meetings for the possible
development of the land located in North Meridian at Ustick and 10 Mile. We are very concerned
how the applicant wants to develop this property. We understand that the next public heating is
scheduled for May 1,t. We will be out of town that day but understand that you are accepting written
testimony up to April 25. Please enter this letter into public record.
Let me say first that my husband and I understand that land must be developed and that the
applicant has the fight to make a profit. That is what makes this country America. However, we do
feel that land should be used wisely and our city should be developed with the future and the safety
of its residents in mind. We understand there is a need for expansion for the SSC and Western
Recycling, however, we do fed that it wood be better suited next to other industrial areas not right
next to neighborhoods.
A group of residents met with Mt: Forrey on April 13m to discuss possible development.
We told Mr. Forrey we wood support low density residential along Ustick, L-O limited quiet offices
in the middle with entrances off 10 Mile next to the sub station, small quiet industrial along the edge
of the Waste Treatment Plant and NO Transfer Station. This plan allows the applicant to sell and
make a profit off the land and to keep the area "harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing character of the general vicinity". Rezoning the entire plat to Light Industrial even with
conditional use permits does not follow Meridian City Code. ...The development of manufacturing and
wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or o~'ectionable elements such as noise, odor,
dust, smoke, glare, and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures;..
We would love to have the park located in that area as originally planned. We do however,
understand that the City only has so much money to spend on parks and since the owners that Max
Forrey represents won't take a smaller profit on a small section of the land, we wood like to see the
1 acre proposed park be relocated away from the Northwest comer of the plot. Locating a park in
that area does not allow any real use of the land by residents and does in our eyes raise some safety
issues.
We love living in this area and had planned on staying here for many, many years. However,
if we can't find some sort of mutually acceptable comprise that won't drastically change our living
environment we will be forced to move away from this area.
Please feel free to contact either my husband or myself with any questions. Thank you for
your time and commitment to the future of Meridian.
Sincerely,
Sherfi L. Moro & Daniel T. Whitted
April 15, 2002
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC
April 18, 2002
ITEM NO. 5
PP 01-017
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 7, 2002 - Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Utility
Subdivision - 3365 North Ten Mile Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATI'ORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
SANITARY SERVICE:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
See previous Item Pockets
See attached Staff Commenls
See attached Comments
See atfached Comments
See attached Comments
See (ditched Comments
OTHER: See attached letler~ Itom Roger and Claire Sands and Robert and Mary Helen Hempel
Contacted: ~.. ~ ~,l/'c) Date: Z././~'-- ~ Phone>,'~d~'~-e~'~'~
~teriab pm~enl~d at public me~tin~ d~all I~¢ome pmpmty o! ~® City o! Mmidian.
Robert D. Hempel
3350 W. Kirkam Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
208 -895 -8094
RECEIVED
2 7 2002
C~ty of Meridisn
City Clerk Office
Mamh26,2~2
Meridian City Clerk
City Hall, 33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
To all whom it may concern:
As a resident of the Ten Mile Greens development, I would like to voice a protest to
the proposed change in zoning to allow the trash trucks to utilize the N. W. corner of
the intersection of Ten Mile and Ustick roads.
It seems almost unbelievable that you would allow all of the first class residential
development to go on in this area of the city, including the hundreds of thousands of
dollars that have most recently gone in to the Hubble Homes project, and then
deface the area by allowing the proposed industrial development to get a serious
hearing. Do you think they would have made this investment, had they considered
you might allow the industrial development to go just across the street from them?
Do you think they would ever realize the just return they might expect on their
investment? It was my understanding, when we built here, that a small park was
proposed for that corner.
I ask you what your response would be if YOU had just bought/built in the area?
My Bible says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Hoping you will vote to refuse the defacing of this area by an industrial
development.
Sincerely,
Meridian City Clerk
City Hall, 33 E Idaho Av
Meridian, kL 83642
Dear Council Members,
RECEIVE
APR - 9 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
It is my understanding that the site at Ten Mile and Ustick is still a consideration for industrial zoning
although the school district is looking elsewhere for property for a school bus bant
It is gratifying to know that citizens are working to prevent this same location from becoming a waste
Transfer station and recycling station with trash trucks coming and going daily.
We as citizens and taxpayers in Meridian are against the zoning for industrial use at the northwest
Comer of Ustick and Ten Mile and believe this should be zoned as residential single family homes in
conjunction with surrounding area. Thank you.
Roger A. Sands
Claire R. Sands
MAYOR
Rober~ D. Corrie
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
William L. M. Nary
Keith Bird
Tammy deWeerd
Cherie McCandless
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433 * Fa~ (208) 887-4813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-~218
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499 * Fax 288.2501
PUBLIC WORKS
(208) 898-5500 · Fax 887-1297
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 * Fax 887.1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
(208) 88~5533 * Fax 888-6854
TRANSMI'I-rALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meddian City Clerk's Office
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: April 11, 2002
Transmittal Date: April 4, 2002 Hearing Date:
File No.: PP 01-017
Request:' Revised Plats for Utility Business Park
April 18, 2002
By: Falcon Creek, LLC
Location of Property or Project: 3365 North Ten Mile Road
David Zaremba, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Jerry Centers, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Leslie Mathes, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Keven Shreeve, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Keith Borup, P/Z (No VAn, VAC, FP)
Robert Corfie, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Tammy deWeerd, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
Chede McCandless, C/C
Water Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attorney
City Engineer
City Planner
Parks Department
Your Concise Remarks:
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FP/PPoflly)
Ada County Highway District
Community Planning Assoc.
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho PowerCo. (FP/PPonly)
U.S. West (FP/PP only)
Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonly)
Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PPonly)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County (Annexation only).
o~ F~ i.q" n'~/'~ o/~
RECEIVED
APR - 9 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
DISTRICT HEALT .H.DEPARTMENT
CENTRAL Environmental Health D,v,sion
Rezone #
COnditional Use #
Preliminary / Final / Short Plat
O1.
~2.
(~3.
1~4.
(~5.
Return to:
I~ Boise
I~ Eagle
I~ Garden City
.,l~--.Meridian
I~ Kuna
[~ACZ
I~ Star
EIVED
We have No Objections to this Proposal. ApR 1 0 2002
We recommend Denial of this Proposal. -~ C.itF of Meridian
City Clerk Offlee
Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provi~ before we can comment on this Proposal.
We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require moro'data conceming the depth of:
rq high seasonal ground water 13 waste flow characteristics
[3 or bedrock from original grade 13 other
I~l 6.This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
I~ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources conceming well construction and
water availability.
After writte,0 approval from approPriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
/~-central sewage 13 community sewage system13 community water wall
13 intedm sewage /J~lr..central water
13 individual sewage 13 individual water
The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Weffara,
Division of~nvironmental Quality:
/4~t-¢entral sewage Q community sewage system 13 community water
...... ~ ~;sewage dry lines ,,,El~;antra! water .
Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
I~ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
13. We will nquire plans be.submitted fora plan roview for any:
13 food establishment O swimming pools or spas 13 child cato canter
O beverage establishment O grocery store
Reviewed By: ~
Review Sheet
CDHDg/O0 ~
~ENTRAL
DEPARTMENT
MAIN OFFICE . 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL, · BOISE, ID 83704-0825 . (208) 375-5211 . FAX 327-8500
To preve.t and treat disease and disability; to promote healthy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our em'iromnem.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated through a grassy swale
prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and
surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design
of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm
water disposal and design a storm water management system that is
preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals that could
be used for guidance are:
State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices For
Idaho Cities and Counties.
Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997.
Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook
Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000.
Ada / Boise County Office
707 N. Armsrong PI.
Boise. iD 83704
Enviro Health: 327-7499
Family Planning: 327-7400
Immunizations: 327-7450
Senior Nutrition: 327-7460
WIC: 327-7488
FAX: 327-8500
Serving Valley, Elmore, Boise, attd Ada Counties
Ada-WIG Satellite Office Elmore County Office
1606 Robert St. 520 E, 8th Street N,
Boise. ID 83705 Mountain Home, ID 83647
Ph. 334-3355 Enviro. Health: 587-9225
FAX: 334-3355 Family Health: 587-4407
WIG: 587-4409
FAX: 587-3521
Valley County Office
703 N, 1st Street
P.O. Box 1448
McCall. ID. 83638
Ph. 634-7194
FAX: 634-2174
Ada County Highway District
David E. Wynkoop, President
Dave Bivens 1st Vice President
Judy Peavey-Derr, 2nd Vice President
Susan S. Eastlake, CommissiOner
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
318 East 37th Street
Garden City ID 83714-6499
Phone (208) 387-6100
FAX (208) 387-6391
E-mail: tellus@ACHD.ada.id.us
TO:
SUBJECT:
Hubble Engineering
701 S. Allen Street, Suite 102
Meridian, Idaho 83642
April 9, 2002
MPP01-017
Revised plat for Utility Business Park
3365 N. Ten Mile Road
RECEIVED
APR 1 1 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
On October 17, 2002, the Ada County Highway District Commissioners acted on Utility Subdivision. The
conditions and requirements also apply to MPP01-017.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office at (208) 387-6170.
Sincerely,
Planning & Development
Cc:
Planning & DevelopmentJChronfProject File
Planning & Development Services ~
Construction Services
Drainage/Utilities
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Planning Review Division
Development Application Report
Preliminary Plat - Utility/MPP01-017/MAZ-01-015 n/w/c Ten M lie Road/Ustick Road
This application has been referred to ACHD by the City of Meridian for reviexv and comment. The
applicant is requesting annexation into the City of Meridian from Ada County, and a rezone from RUT
to l-L. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for an 8-lot industrial subdivision on
34.6-acres. The site is located at the northwest comer ofTen Mile Road and Ustick Road. This
development is estimated to generate 3,006 vehicle trips: per day based on the submitted traffic impact
study.
The knoxvn uses in this develOpment include a bus facility for the Meridian School District, a trash
facility, and a future Idaho Power substation.
Roads impacted by this development:
Ten Mile Road
Ustick Road
ACHD Commission Date- October 17, 2001 - 12:00 p.m.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
Facts and Findings:..
A. General inf°m~ation
Owner- Falcon Creek LLC
Applicant- Hubble Engineering
RUT - Existing zoning (county residential)
I/L - Proposed zoning (city industrial)
34.6 - Acres
7 - Proposed building lots
I -Proposed common Jots
400 -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets
256 - Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
West Ada - Impact Fee Service Aret~
Meridian - Imp:~ct Fcc Assessmc ~I District
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bo
Do
Ten Mile Road
Minor arterial xvith bike lane designation
Traffic count of 4,381 on 5-2-00 s/o Ustick Road
Traffic count of 2,168 on 5-11-99 n/o Ustick Road
Better than C-Existing Level of Service
Better than C-Existing pluS project build-out Level of Service
900-feet of fi'ontage
50-feet existing right-of-way (25-feet fi'om centerline)
96-feet required right-of-way (48-feet from centerline)
Ten Mile Road is improved with 25-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting
the site. - ................... ;..:., ...2_ .......................
Ustick Road
Minor arterial with bike lane designation
Traffic count of 3,314 on 5-2-00 ~v/o Ten Mile Road
Traffic count of 5,318 on 8-16-00 e/o Ten Mile Road
Better than C-Existing Level of Service
Better than C-Existing plus project build-out Level of Service
925-feet of frontage
70-feet existing right-of-way (25-feet north from centerline)
96-feet required fight-of-way (48-feet from centerline)
Ustick Road is improved wi th.26-feet of pavement.M.th no curb, gutter or_sidewalk abutting the
site.
On September 10, 2001, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and
evaluated the transportation' system'in-the vicinity: O~w2001';'the staffmet as the District's
Technical Review Com,,itte~ and ~viewed tl,~ i.~la~t~la o:fthis p,c, pos~d development 0n the
District's transportation system. The results of that analysis constitute the following Facts and
Findings and recommended Site Speci fic Requirements.
This item has bedfipostponed to the O~'Fd6~-/'l 8', 200'1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi6h .......
per a request of the applicant in order to allow ACHD review oflhe preliminary plat.
NORTH MERIDIAN PLANNING AREA
In April of 2001, ACHD staffretained the services of Washington Group International to
conduct a six-square mile traffic study of the northwestern Meridian area fi'om Ustick Road Io
Chinden .Boulevard, and fi'om Meridian Road lo one-halt'mile wesl of Black Cai Road. The
study revealed lhal the tra.fl]c capacitics ol'lhe surrounding roadways (LJstick Road. McMillan
Road, Ten Mile Road. Linder Road) wilh the proposed developments is expected to push tile
roaclwavs to their 2020 planning thresholds upon build-oul o ~ the prqiects.
After completion of the original study, and after meeting with representatives of tile Meridian
City Council: Ada County Commissioners. ACHD Comrrfissioners, and COMPASS, the study
was expanded to_a-l~2:mile area 'from Eagle Road to McDemlott Road and Ust_i_ck Road to
Chinden Boulevard. This has been deemed the "North Meridian Planning Area". The traffic
impact study is nearing completion and details the need for expanded roadways, signalized
intersections, and intersection improvements (see the study "conclusions" listed below). Tile
next phase of the study, the economic phase, cannot be prepared until the traffic impact phase is
complete, and will focus on the cost of the improvements deemed necessary by the study,
including right-of-way costs. The outcome of the economic study xvill provide the District with
an estimate of the costs to improve the roadways in the North Meridian Plarming Area to handle
the traffic generated by the proposed developments in the area.
Staff anticipates that an extraordinary impact fee or Local Improvement District (LID) will be
implemented/establish~d~for-the No~h-Meridian Plariai~g Area in order-for.the roadway system
to be adequately upgraded to handle the traffic generated by the development in this area. This
current preliminary plat under review would also be subject to any extraordinary fees that the
District may impose. - .......
The following is the Executive Summary from the completed traffic study:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed 12-square mile study area between US 20/26 and Ustick Road alld between
McDem'~ott Road and Eagle Road (Sections 25-28, 33-36 ofT4N R1W and sections 29-32 of
T4N R1E), is selected Ada County Highway District (ACHD) for anticipated development build
out. The following are the principal findings and recommendations of the study:
By the year 2020 the study area is anticipated to develop an additional 17,599 dwelling milts,
2,744,000 sq. fi of office buildings, 1,929,000 sq.ft, of retail buildings, 12 elementary Schools,
2 senior high schools, 2 junior high schools, 38,260 sq. ft of church buildings, and
approximately 60 acres of park.
The build 'tort-scenario of the study area is projected:'t~Jgenet:ate ali a,,erage daily traffic(A-D:[)
of 276,764 vehicles per day (vpd), of which the peak hour traffic (PHT) will be 28,206 vehicles
per hour (vph). Out of these trips approximately 10% of the trips remain internal within each
section, and 6% of the trips are pass-by trips.
Tile distribution of tile traffic fi.om h}l '~6r tl gt'i 'ay ama sections indicate that appi:6X'ifi:ffiik-13'--
30% traffic directed towards south. 27% of the traffic directed towards east. 21% of the traffic
directed towards west and north. Tile rem~h'ning 22% o£ lhe traffic is distributed within the
study area.
At build out, traffic on tile arterials is expected to significantly increase (see Table 4).
All of the arterial interseclions in the study area are currently operating at acceptable level of
service of~'C'' or betler.
By the year 2020, the mRjority ofstudy intc'rscctions arc pr~!jccted lo meet the peak hour tral'fic
signal warrant.
A proportionalc share oflhe impacts ol"lhe indix'idual seclions at each ofthe study area arterial
intersections is summarized ill 'Fable 6.
Several mid-mile intersections may xvarrant traffic signals title to the heavy left turn traffic
volume.
Chinden Boulevard is forecasted with 5-lane section in the study area. Right turns lanes may be
required at some access and arterial intersections.
McMillan Road is forecasted with a 5-lane section east of Black Cat. McMillan .Road is
forecasted with a 3-lane section west of Black Cat. At arterial intersections and at access
intersections right turns lanes may be necessary.
Ustick Road is forecasted with a 5-lane section east of Black Cat. Ustick Road is forecasted
with a 3-lane section west of Black Cat. At arterial intersections and at access intersections
right turns lanes may be necessary.
Linder Road forecasted with a 5-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections and at
access intersections right tums lanes may be required.
McDermott Road is forecasted with a 3-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections
and at access intersections turn lanes may be reqUi~i *
Black Cat Road is forecasted with a 3-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections
right turn lanes may be required.
Ten Mile. Road is forecasted with a 5-lane section, in the study area. At arterial intersections
and at access intersections turn lanes may be required.
Meridian Road requires a 3-lane section north of McMillan and 5-lane section south of
McMillan in the study area. At arterial intersections right turn lanes may be required.
Locust Orove Road requires a 3-lane section in the study area. At arterial intersections right
turn lanes may be required. At Ustick Road a 5-lane section is forecasted.
Staff recognizes that the amount of right-of-way dedicated with this project is overwhelming, and
that ACHD may not have the funds to purchase such a large amount of right-of-way. In ti'tis
situation .it is likelythat impact fee offset agreements will be utilized to offset the amount of
money that ACHD ,,viii pay out-of-pocket to acquire the right-of-way.
TRAFFIC STUDY SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT
The applicm~t hired EarthTech Engineering to perfom~ a traffic analysis of this site. The analysis
has identified the following conclusions, and this information has been verified by District staff:
· The area of influence ,,viii be Ten Mile Rd./Ustick Rd. and the four adjacent intersections. The
primary area of study will be the intersections ofTen Mile Rd./Ustick Rd.. Ten Mile
Rd./Chmxy Rd., Ten Mile Rd./McMillan Rd., Uslick Rd./Black Cat Rd.. Ustick Rd./Linder Rd.
· The proposed development is projected to generate an average daily traffic (ADT) of 3006
vehicles per day (vpd). of which the peak hour traffic (PHT) is 379 vehicles per hour (vph).
· The proposed development will acccss the site fi'om Ten Mile Road.
· Ten Mile Road will have sufficient capacity ~o absorb the IraflSc generated by lhe proposed
development.
· The Ten Mile/Ustick Business development emrance will l~mction at LOS B.
· Background traflic will include Iral'fic ii'om lhe Bridgelower Subdivision in Meridian.
· The imersection of'Fen Mile.Rd. and Cherry l.n. will operate al a constant LOS C with existing
traffic lhrough lhe 2010 analysis.
H.
· The intersection often Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd. will operate at a constant LOS C with
existing traffic through the 2010 analysis.
· The intersection of Black Cat Rd. and Ustick Rd. will operate at a constant LOS A xvith
existing traffic through the 20 ! 0 analysis.
· The intersection of Linder Rd. and Ustick Rd. will decline to a LOS F with the background
traffic alone. Adding the development's traffic will degrade the intersection's operation further
into the LOS F. Adding left-turn bays on all approaches oftheintersection will improve the
operation, but it will stay at LOS F. A signal would be required to improve the LOS.
· The intersection ofTen Mile Rd. and Ustick Rd. will operate at a LOS D under background
traffic conditions, and. LOS F with the total 2010 traffic. Constructing left-turn bays on all four
approaches at the intersections ofTen Mile Rd./Ustick Rd. and Linder Rd./Ustick Rd. will
increase the operations to a LOS D.
Additional Comm/~nts:'
1. The traffic study recommends that the installation of a traffic signal be installed at the
intersection of Linder Rd. and Ustick Rd. to improve the LOS to an acceptable level. A
determination will need to be made as to what the applicant's proportionate share should be for
the installation of this signal.
2. The Five Year Work Program - FY 02-06 - does not include projects that are applicable to the
development area.
Staff does not recommend that the applicant be required to pay their proportionate share of the
signal and intersection improvements at Linder Road and Ustick Road, or at Ten Mile Road and
Ustick Road, if an extraordinary impact fee or other funding source is established for the North
Meridian Planning Area.
As directed by the ACHD Commission on October 17, 2001, the applicant should enter into a
developrnent agreement with the District that addresses two concerns: right-of-way, and a
possible extraordinary fee/LID or other funding source necessary to improve the sun'ounding
roadways. The Commission is concerned with right-of-way costs, tin'ting of acquisition, and
payment. The agreement should.also include acknos,vledgement tha~ this developrnent may be
subject to any extraordinary impact fee or LID established by the District, and that if no funding
source is established, the applicant will be required to pay their proportionate share ot' roadway
improvements as noted in the submitted traffic irnpact study lbr Ibis development.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the Dislrict. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file hr|tubers) roi' details.
Jo
Ko
N.
SIDEWALK ON TEN MILE ROAD
District policy requires the construction of 5-foot wide concrete sidexvalk :for developments with
fi'ontage on functionally classified roadways. Ten Mile Road is functionally classified as a minor
arterial. The applicant should be required to construct a 5-foot v,;ide detached concrete sidewalk
on Ten Mile Road located 2-feet within tile new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and
elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. If the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-
way, provide an easement for the sidewalk.
SIDEWALK ON USTICK ROAD
District policy requires the construction of 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk for developments with
frontage on functionally classified roadways. Ustick Road is functionally classified as a minor
arterial. The applicant should be required to construct a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk
on Ustick Road located 2-feet within the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and
elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. Ifthe sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-
way, provide an easement for the sidewalk.
The applicant should provide a recorded cross access easement among the parcels in the
subdivision for access to the public streets.
PUBLIC ROAD ACCESSING TEN MILE ROAD
The applicant is proposing to construct a public street offofTen Mile Road, located at the north
property line, to access a portion of the proposed subdivision. The street is located
approximately 850-feet north of Ustick Road, and there are not any existing or proposed streets
or driveways on the east side often Mile Road. District policy requires public streets to align or
offset a minimum of 300-feet from any existing or proposed streets. The proposed public street
location should be approved as submitted with this application.
District policy requires commemial streets to be constructed as 40-foot street sections with curb,
gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks within 58-feet of right-of-way. The proposed street
wit! serve an industrial subdivision and should be constructed as a commercial street section, as
proposed.
CENT. ER TURN LANE ON 'FEN I~,ilLE ROAD
The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Ten Mile' Road for the Ten
MiNe Road/Utility Street intersection. The ttlrn lane should be constructed to provide a mi,linmm
of 100-feet of storage w/Ih shadow tapers for both the approach and deparlure directions. Note:
This improvemenl may require the applicant to provide pavement widening on Teu Mile Road to
provide sufficient pavement for thc turn lane. Coordinate the design o fthe turn lane with District
sta'fl':
District policy requires driveways 011 local streets to be located a minimum of 50-feet from a
l~tlblic street inlel'seclion. Any driveways 0!1 lhe proposed local/commercial street should be
located a minimum o.l"5()-IE'et wesl often Mile Road.
Graveled driveways abutling public streets create maintenance problcrns due to gravel being
Irackcd ohio lhc roadway. In accc',rduncc with Pislricl policy. Iht al~plicanl shot~ld be rC(.luircd
I hiJil,.' c,l~r~
Qo
pave the driveways on the proposed public street their full xvidth and at least 30-feet into'the site
beyond the edge of pavement.
Construct an ACHD approved turnaround at the end of tile proposed street: Submit a design of
the turnaround for review and approval by District staff.
TEN MILE ROAD FULL ACCESS DRIVEWAY
The applicant is proposing to construct a full access driveway on Ten Mile Road located
approximately 260-feet south of the proposed public street, and 440-feet north of Ustick Road.
The driveway will serve an existing single family dwelling that is to remain, and will also be a
shared driveway with the subdivision.
District policy requires driveways on Ten Mile Road to align or offset a minimum of 230-feet
from any existing or proposed driveways (based on:~?~¢~d limit of 45mph); and requires
driveways to be located a minimum of 440-feet from a signalized intersection for full access, and
220-feet from a signalized intersection for right-in/right-out access. The proposed, full access
driveway does not conform to District policy because it is located too close to the southern
driveway based on the current speed limit. Based on inforn'mtion received from Traffic Services
staff, the speed limits in this area will be lowered upon build-out of the area. If the speed limit
abutting this site were dropped to 40 mph, then the proposed driveway would be located in
conformance with District policy.
Staff recommends approval of this driveway as a full access driveway .for the following reasons:
1. The driveway will be a shared access, and will serve an existing dwelling that requires
access.
2. The speed limit on Ten Mile Road will be reduced as development occurs, and the driveway
will be in confon'nance with policy at that time.
TEN MILE ROAD RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT DRIVEWAY
The applicant is proposing to construct a right-in/right-out driveway on Ten Mile Road located
approximately 220-feet north of Ustick Road. District policy requires driveways on Ten Mile
Road to alignor offset a rrfinimum o£230-feet fi-om any :existing or proposed driveways; and
requires driveways to be located a minimum of 440-feet fi'om a signalized intersection Ibr full
access, and 220-feet fi'om a signalized intersection Ibr right-inMght-out access. The intersection
.ofTen Mile Road and Ustick Road is not cun'ently signalized, but based on the development
applications that ACHD has received in this area, a traffic signal will be needed at this
intersection wili'fin the next five to seven years. The proposed driveway located 220-feet north o1'
Ustick Road should be approved with this application as a right-inMght-out only driveway.
Due to the ma. jot inlerseclion improvements that will be constructed in the next several years,
staffrecomrnends that the applicant sign the driveway for riglat-in/right-oul in lieu of
constructing a median. When the intersection is signalized and fully improved, medians should
be included on the design plans ibr ull Ibur legs ol'the inlerseclion.
USTICK ROAD RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT DRIVEWAY
The applicant is proposing to construct a right-in/right-out drivexvay on Ustick Road located
approximately 220-f'eet west often Mile Road. District policy requires drivexvays on Ustick
Road to align or offset a minimum of 230-feet fi'om any existing or proposed driveways; and
requires driveways to be located a minimum of'440-f'eet fi'om a signalized intersection for full
access, and 220-feet from a signalized intersection for right-in/right-out access. The intersection
often Mile Road and Ustick Road is not ctm'ently signalized, but based on the development
applications that ACHD has received in this area, a traffic signal will be needed at this
intersection within the next five to seven years. The proposed driveway located 220-feet west of
Ustick Road should be approved with this application as a right-in/right-out driveway.
Due to the major intersection improvements that will be constructed in the next several years,
staff recommends that the applicant sign the driveway for right-in/right-out in lieu of
constructing a median. When the intersection is si~iilized and fully improved, medians should
be included on the design plans for all four legs of the intersection.
USTICK ROAD FULL ACCESS DRIVEWAY
The applicant is proposing to construct a full access drive~vay on Ustick Road located
approximately 720-feet west often Mile Road, and 450-feet west of the proposed right-inMght-
out driveway. District policy requires driveways on Ten Mile Road to align or offset a minimum
of 230-feet from any existing or proposed driveways; and requires driveways to be located a
minimun~ of 440-feet from a signalized intersection for full access, and 220-feet fi'om a
signalized intersection for right-in/right-out access. The intersection of Ten Mile Road and
Ustick Road is not currently signalized, but based on the development applications that ACHD
has received in this area, a traffic signal will be needed at this intersection within the next five to
seven years. The proposed driveway located 720-feet west often Mile Road should be
approved with this application.
This driveway will serve as the inbound driveway for the bus facility. The busses will loop to
the north and exit out of the proposed public street to Ten Mile Roa& Staffrecommends that the
applicant construct a deceleration lane for this drivewa~¥: because the busses will be arriving at the
facility at the same time, and a deceleration lane woUld reduce the congestion for the through
traffic.
Graveled drivexvays abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being
tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, the applicant should be required to
pave the drivexvays on Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road their full w'idth and at least 30-feet into
the site beyond the edge ofpavcmcnt and install pavement tapers xvilh 15-foot radii abutting the
existing roadway edge.
Any proposed landscape islands/medians will'fin the public right-of-way dedicated by this plat
should be owned ~Uld maintained by a homeoxvners association. Notes ol'this should he required
on the final plat.
W. Any exisling in'igation fi~cililies should be relocated outside o'Fll'~e ri~hl-o'l'-way.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street fi'ontages abutting the site should be
borne by the developer.
The applicant should be required to locate any proposed gated entry a minimum of 50-feet fi'om
tile edge of pavement of a public road. Coordinate tile location of any proposed gated entry with
District staff.
In order to reduce trips to and fi'om this development it is recommended that Tenants occupying
the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for
employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride
staffwill coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more
inforrnation contact Pat Nelson at 387-6160.
AA.
In order to reduce trips to and from this development,,:i~4s recommended that the tenants
occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Transportation Management
Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a
boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development.
A Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization
(TMO) is formed with a coordinator that works as a liaison between businesses and private and
public transportation providers to increase the use of alternative transportation and other trip
reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs, vanpools, carpools, bicycle and walking
enhancements). An mmual survey will be required of the TMA/TMO to monitor participation in
alternative transportation programs and forwarded to the ACHD Commuteride Office.
Special Recommendation to. City of Meridian:
In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying
the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for
employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride
staffwill coordinate the Alt~.~atiye TransportatiOn: Program with the applicant. For more
information contact Ms. Pat Nelson at 387-6160.
°
In order to reduce trips to and from this development, the tenants occupying the proposed
building(s) should be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association
(TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) IIlai is fom~ed with a botllldary
that includes this site or is a4jacenl lo lhis development.
The following Site Specific Requiremeqls and Standard Requirements must be met or providecl
for prior to ACltD approval of the final plat:
Site Specific iRequirements:
o
o
Unless otherwise specified in a development agreement, dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way fi'om
the centerline ofTen Mile Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final
subdivision plat or execution of a wawanty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other
required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-
way dedication after receipt of all requested material. Tile right-of-way purchase agreernent
rnust be completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by
the ACHD Commission.
Unless other,vise specified in a development agreement, dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way from
the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the parcel by rneans of recordation of a final subdivision
plat or execution ofa wan'anty deed prior to issum~c,,eot'a building permit (or other required
pein'fits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of-way
dedication after receipt of all requested material. The right-of-way purchase agreement must be
completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the
ACHD Conamission.
The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with ACHD that outlines right-of-way
acquisition, costs, timing m'~d payment; and shall also include an agreement that this
development shall be subject to any extraordinary impact fee, LID or other funding source
established by the District to improve the surrounding roadways; or shall be subject to the
development's proportionate share of surrounding roadway improvements as established by the
applicant's traffic impact study.
Construct a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on Ten Mile Road located 2-feet witl'fin the
new right-of-way. Coordinate the location and elevation of the sidewalk with District staff. If
the sidewalk mear~ders outside of the right-of-way, provide an easement for the sidewalk.
Constmct'a 5-foot wide cletached con'cretegidewalk on Ustick Road located 2-feet within the
new' right-of-Way. Coordinate the location and elevatiOn of the sidewalk with District staff.
the sidewalk meanders outside of the right-of-way, provide ar! easement for the sidewalk.
Provide a note on the plat indicating cross access arnong the parcels ill the Subdivision
access to the public streets.
Construct a center turn lane on Ter! Mile Road for the Ten Mile Road/Utility Street intersection.
The turn lane shall be constructed to provide a minimun~ of I {)0-1~et ofslorage with shadow
tapers tbr both fhe approach and departure directions. Note: This improvement may require tlie
applicant to provide pavement widening on Ten Mile Road 1o provicle sufficient pavemenl Rw
the tuna lane. Coordinate the desJ? of the turn lane with District stafl~
Conslruct a public strecl offofTcn .'X,'lJlc Road. located at tile north property line: ;ts proposed.
Construcl the slreel as a 4(.)-I~oI slrccl section with curb. gutter, and 5-l~ot xvicle concrele
~idewalks within qg-I'~el ol'ri,.,hl-o Lxx.'~ v
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Locate driveways on tile proposed public street a nlinimum of 50-feet west often Mile Road.
Pave tile driveways on the proposed public street their full width and at least 30-feet into the
site beyond tile edge of pavement. The rnaximum driveway width allowed by District policy is
35-feet.
Construct an ACHD approved turnaround at tile end of the proposed street. Submit a design of
the tumarot, nd for review and approval by District staff.
Construct a full access driveway on Ten Mile Road located a minimun'~ of 440-feet north of
Ustick Road. This driveway will be a shared access and will serve the existing single family
d~velling.
Construct a right-in/right-out driveway on Ten Mil~ ~°ad located approximately 220-feet north
of Ustick Road, as proposed. Sign the driveway for "right-in/right-out". Coordinate the
signage plan with District staff.
Construct a right-in/right-out driveway on Ustick Road located approximately 220-feet west of
Ten Mile Road, as proposed. Sign the driveway for "right-in/right-out". Coordinate the
signage plan with District staff.
Construct a full access driveway on Ustick Road located approximately 720-feet west often
Mile Road, and 450-feet west of the proposed right-in/right-out driveway, as proposed.
Construct a deceleration lane on Ten Mile Road for the western-most proposed driveway that
w.il! se~.e...the_.b_u_s_fa_cili, ty~....Coordinate the design of the lane with District staff.
Pave the driveways on Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road their full width and at least 30-feet into
the site beyond the edge of pavement and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the
existing roadway edge.
Any proposed landscape islands/meclians will'fin the public right-of4vay dedicated by. this plat
shall be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this shall be required on
the final plat.
Utility street culs in pavement less Ihan five years old are not allowed unless approved in
writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers} for
details.
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
All utility relocation costs assocbtcd ~vilh i '~proving street fi'onta.ges ~tbuttin.g the site shall be
borne by tile developer.
21.
iLocate any proposed gated entry a nfinimt, m of 50-feet from the edge of pavement of a public
road. Coordinate the location of any proposed gated entry with District staff.
22.
Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel
access to Ten Mile Road or Ustick Road is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with
this application, shall be stated on the final plat.
Standard Requirements:
A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein
shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request
shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation
of why such a requirement would result in a su~~;h,~ .ardship or inequity. The written
request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00-a.m. on-the day scheduled for
ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the ·
Commission on the next available meeting agenda.
Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action
do not provide sufficient time for District staffto remove the item from the consent agenda and
report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those
items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission.
After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action
shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor ~vithin six days of the
action and shall include a minimum fee of$110.00. The request for reconsideration shall
specifically identify each recluirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of
data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its ori.~inal decisio~a. The request
for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the
Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified
of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building constructibn in'
accordance with Ordinance #19_~. also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact
Fee Ordinance.
All design and construction si'mil be in accordance xvith the Ada Counly Highway District
Policy Manual, IS'PWC Standards and approved st,pplements. Construction Services
procedures and all applicable ACH D Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An
engineer registered in the Stale of hJaho si'mil prepare and certil3, all improvement plans.
The applicant shall submit revised plans tbr staffal:~proval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other reqtfired permits), which incorporates any..' required' design changes.
Construclion, use and property development shall be in conformance wilh all applicablc
reqt irements of the Ada County I'"li,2.1'm.'ay District prior lo District approval for occt pi: ~cy.'
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way.
Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to
ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (I-800-342-1585') at least two full
business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact
ACHD lraffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any AC'HD conduits (spare or filled) are
compromised during any phase of construction.
o
No change in the terms and conditions of this approval si'mil be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the:property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all niles, regulations, ordinances, plans,
or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in
interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject
property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant
to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
Conclusion of Law:
ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system xvithin the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development
Division at 387-6170.'
Submitted by:
Commission Action:
Plannin,~ and Development Staff
October 17. 2001
· Joseph Silva
· Deputy Chief
· Meridian Fire Department
· 540 E. Franklin Rd.
· Meridian, Id 83642
(208) 888-1234
Meridian Fire Depam ent
April 11, 2002
RECEIVED
APR ! 2 2002
City Of Meridian
Oi6y Clerk Office
TO:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Utility Business Subdivision File # PP 01-017
Joseph Silva, Deputy Chief, Fire Prevention
The ;following will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide minimum levels of fire protection for
the proposed project:
:1. ~a~a fire-flow as required by the Uniform Fire Code be provided to service the entire project.
Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 350' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A
2. ~:~mtional fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3
3. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian
Water Department.
4. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
5. All radii shall be 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
6. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation per
section 1103.2.4 of the Uniform Fire Code.
7. The roadways shall be a minimum of 37' wide and built to Ada County Highway Standards. UFC
902.2.1
8. All Cul de sac's shall have a radius of 50'.
9. The project shall be provided with two means of access from a main arterial.
10. The proposed buildings & uses shall comply with the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
MAYOR
Robert D. Cotxie
CrFY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Tammy deWeerd
Cb. erie McCandless
William L M. Nary
HUB OF TREASURE I/./tLLF. y
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433. FAX (208) 887-4~13
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 8884218
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 288-2499. Fax 288-2501
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2.211 · Fax 88%1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533. FAX 888-6854
MEMORANDUM:
April 12, 2002
To:
From:
Re:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
David McKinnon, Planner II~
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech"-ff--~_
Utility Business Park Subdivision
RECEIVED
.APR ! 5 2002
Ci~ Of'Meri~a.n.
Ci~ Clerk Office
· Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.60 Acres bom RUT to I-L by
Falcon Creek LLC (File AZ-OI-OI~)
· Request for Preliminary Plat of 12 Building Lots on 34.60 Acres in a
Proposed I-L Zone by Falcon Creek, LLC (File PP-OI-OI 7)
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the
applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted
by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SUMMARY
The following report has been revised to reflect the changes to the preliminary plat that
have been proposed by the Applicant. Staff received the proposed changes on April 3,
2002. The property has been re-noticed in accordance with the Planning and Zoning
Commission's request. The applicant has increased the number of buiidable lots from
seven (7) lots to twelve (12) lots..The requested zoning designation is still Light Industrial
(I-L). The applicant has removed the "Bus" use from the property, and has reduced the
landscape buffers to twenty-five feet (25') from thirty-five feet (35').
On February 19, 2002, the City Council approved a text amendment to the City's 1993
Comprehensive Plan that added the following statement to the current Plan:
Limited liuht industrial development mav be considered immediately adiacent to the City's
waste treatment ulant.
The Applicant, Falcon Creek LLC, proposed the following text amendment that the City
Council denied:
Industrial Development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to or near the City's
Waste Water Treatment Plant.
AZ-01-015, PP-OI-OI7 Utility Suix~mion
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 2
There have been no amendments to the Generalized Land Use Map and the subject
property's land use designation is still "Agricultural/Rural Residential". )
The Applicant, Falcon Creek LLC, has applied for the annexation, rezoning and preliminary plat
approval of a 34.6-acre parcel of land, located south of the Meridian City Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The applicant's preliminary plat request, if approved, will split the property into twelve
(12) building lots. The requested zoning designation for the entire subdivision is Light Industrial
(I-L).
The Meridian City Code (MCC) defines the Light Industrial Zoning District as follows:
The purpose of the I-L Light Industrial District is to provide for light industrial development and
opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to
commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale
establishments which are clean, quiet, and free of haz~s or objectionable elements such as
noise, odor, dust, smoke, glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed
structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location,
topography, existing facilities, and relationship to other uses. This district must also be in such
proximity to ensure connection to the Municipal water and sewer systems of the City. Uses
incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited
The Applicant has not submitted development plans for any parcels within the subdivision;
however, the applicant has requested approval of the development of Lot 1, Block 1, for Western
Recycling; Lot 2, Block 1, for Sanitary Services Corporation; and Lot 12, Block 1, as a one-acre
park site. The applicant has requested that the following "uses" [listed in the Schedule of Use
Control (MCC11-8-1) as permitted uses in the I-L Zone] for Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision:
Equipment- Heavy, Farm etc. (sales and repair)
Machine Shop
Motor Vehicle Repair
Public Utility Yards
Recycling Plants
Solid Waste Transfer Stations
Warehousing and Wholesaling
The Applicant has proposed prohibiting the aforementioned uses on all other lots within the
subdivision. Furthermore, the Applicant has proposed that the remaining lots (Lots 3-11) be
subject to a Development Agreement. The Development Agreement that would require a
conditional use permit for all other uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the I-L zone,
according to the Schedule of Use Control (MCCll-8-1), and prohibit the following uses (in
addition to the uses listed above):'
Truck Stops
Asphalt and Concrete
Bulk Storage of Flammable Materials
Fabricated Metal Products
AT.,-0 I-015, PP-01-017 Utility Subdivision_AZ. PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 3
Fuel Yards
Leather Products
Lumber Yards
Mobile Home Manufacturing
Molded Plastic Products
Processing Plants
Railroad Yards and Shops
The submitted site plan includes a cul-de-sac in excess of four-hundred and fifty feet (450').
The Applicant has proposed a one (1) acre park in the far northwest comer of the property.
LOCATION
The subject 34.6-acre parcel of land is located on at the northwest corner of Ustick and Ten Mile
Road. The property is adjacent to the Meridian Waste Water Treatment Plant and is bounded on
the north by Five Mile Creek and Nine Mile Creek on the west.
SURROUNI)ING PROPERTIES
North: Meridian Wastewater Treatment Plant, zoned I-L.
South: Englewood Subdivision and Dakota Ridge Subdivision, zoned R-4.
East: Hartford Subdivision and the proposed Bridgetower Subdivision, zoned R-4.
West: A residential home (Charles Crane), zoned R-2 (City) and agricultural land, zoned RUT
(County).
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
Acca)rding to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning.4mendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council ar~ required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment."
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
"A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment;
Staff finds that the requested zoning I-L is not in compliance with the adopted
Generalized I. and Use Map, which designates the land to be agricultural/rural
residential.
This alone does not indicate that the requested zoning is not in harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that there is evidence provided within the text to
-01-017 Utility ~hd~ision. AT_~P.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 4
determine that the requested zone change may or may not be harmonious with the
comprehensive plan.
The Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (pg.24) offers the following
policies that will support the requested zoning:
3.5 Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing
indus~al uses.
3.6 I~al areas should be located within proximity to major utility,
transportation and service facilities.
3.10 Industrial uses shouM be located where adequate water supply and water
pressure are available for fire protection.
The following policies raise questions concerning the requested I-L zoning:
3.4 In_d,__:strial uses adjacent to residential areas shouM not create noise odor, air
pollution and visual pollution greater than levels normally associated with
surrounding residential structures.
The recently adopted' Comprehensive Plan text amendment: Limited light
i~:strial development may be considered immediately adjacent to the city's
waste treatment plant.
Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that
the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new
railroad acce~ been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed
in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area;
The existence of the .waste treatment plant in this area has created many questions
concerning what uses are appropriate adjacent to such a facility. The City
Council is still trying to determine what uses would be appropriate adjacent to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City Council will hold a public meeting on
April 17, 2002 concerning the future land use designation of this area, in addition
to other topics of debate concerning the new Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has recommends a "Mixed. Use" land use designation on the new
Comprehensive Plan.
Will the proposed' uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the
essential character of the same area;
A7_.~O 1-01 ~, PP-OI-OI7 UfilRF b~isioltAZ. PP.IX~
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 5
The uses proposed by the applicant will change the existing rural/residential
character of the general vicinity. The Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use
Map indicates that the intended character of the area is "agricultural/rural
residential".
The Applicant has proposed only two (2) specific uses at this time, a recycling
center and a facility for the Sanitary Services Corporation (SSC) (parking and
maintenance of garbage trucks and a solid waste transfer station). No
development plans have been submitted for the uses, therefore the design and
construction of the buildings for the proposed uses can not be reviewed for
appropriateness at this time.
The aforementioned uses and all other proposed uses, as submitted by the
Applicant, will be required to go though additional zoning approval (certificate of
zoning compliance or conditional use permit) prior to construction and operation
on this property. At that time, the design and appropriateness of the uses will be
highly scrutinized.
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council shall rely on public testimony to determine whether
or not he proposed uses will be disturbing or hazardous to the neighboring uses.
Staff finds that, based on previous public testimony, the proposed uses will be
disturbing to the existing residential uses.
Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the
establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any of such services;
Staff finds that additional roadway improvements will be required to handle the
additional traffic generated by this development. ACHD and the applicant are
working together to determine the extent of the required improvements. All other
public services and facilities appear to be adequate to service this property.
Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community;
Stafffinds that there will be not additional requirements at public cost and that the
annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic
welfare~
AZ-01-015, pP-01.017 ~ Sulx:~is~PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 6
Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any
persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
The proposed uses will bring in more noise, traffic and smoke into the area from
increases in employee and work related vehicles, odors from garbage trucks and
noise from motor vehicle service bays. Staff finds that the proposed industrial
uses will be detrimental to the persons and property in the surrounding residential
areas.
The aforementioned Comprehensive Plan policy 3.4 of the Land Use chapter
requires industrial uses adjacent to residential uses to have noise, odor and smoke
generation equivalent to the surrounding residential areas. The proposed uses will
generate more noise smoke and odor than any of the surrounding residential
development.
Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Staff finds that the proposed uses will affect traffic on the surrounding streets.
The increased number of employee vehicles and large commercial vehicles
entering and exiting the property will create interference that does not currently
exist at this time.
I.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Five Mile Creek and Nine Mile Creek are immediately adjacent to the site, both
of which are scenic and environmentally sensitive. Staff recommends the
applicant be required, at minimum, to prepare an Environmental Impact
Assessment for the site and the uses proposed within the site. It is not possible for
staff to discern whether the uses allowed within the I-L zone would be designed
or operated in such a Way that no natural or scenic features of major importance
will be lost or damaged by approving the annexation and re-zone.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)"
Staff finds that the annexation of this property at some date in the future would be
in the best interest of the City; however, Staff does not support the rezone of the
entire property to Light Industrial (I-L).
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 7
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The recent text amendment to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan indicates that limited light industrial
uses may be considered in this area only if the industrial uses are immediately adjacent to the
Waste Water Treatment Plant (Lots 1, 2, and 12).
Therefore, Staff recommends that only those lots that are immediately adjacent to the Waste
Water Treatment Plant (Lots 1, 2, and 12) have the possibility of being zoned Light Industrial (I-
L).
Staff supports a less intense zoning designation such as L-O or C-N for Lots 3-11, in addition to
requiring a conditional use permit prior to future development.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING COMMENTS
The legal description submitted with the application appears to meet the requirements of the
City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to existing city
limits.
2. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. Essential City services are
available to the subject property.
Any existin8 domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are
available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
A development agreement shall be entered into between the city and the applicant. The
development agreement shall require that all uses within the subdivision be approved though
the conditional use permit process. (This will allow the city to place additional conditions
on the proposed uses in order to mitigate or otherwise control the negative impacts of created
by the listed uses.)
RECOMMENDATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
Staff recommends that the Commission and Council determine what uses that they find
appropriate for the subject property, and then to zone it accordingly. If the Commission and
Council determine that the property should have m°re than one zoning designation, a new legal
description will be required for each zone.
Staffrecommends denial of the annexation if the entire property is to be zoned Light Industrial
AZ-OI,.OI$, PP -01-017 Utility ~ubdivisimu~.~P.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 8
PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS AND REOUIREM~ENTS
Sections 12-3-3 J.2. and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the acceptance ora proposed
subdivision the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of this title and at least the
following:
a. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
As noted above, the subdivision is in conformance with some of the Comprehensive
Plans policies (3.5, 3.6, and 3.10) and is not in harmony with the Land Use Map policy #
3.4 and the text amendment. If the Commission and Council fmd that the requested
annexation and zoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, then the
subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive plan as well, with one exception,
pathways.
The adopted Meridian Comprehensive Plan indicates that a pathway should be installed
along the Five Mile Creek. The applicant has not proposed-a pathway along this
waterway. In order to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan a pathway should
be installed along Five Mile Creek.
b. The availability of public se~ices to accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services are readily available to the lots within the proposed
subdivision, provided changes as may be required by the Public Works and Building
Departments are made.
c. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement
program;
Staff finds that the subdivision' will not require the expenditure of capital improvement
funds.
d. The public f'mancial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for supporting
services.
e. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Staff does not foresee any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the
subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention.
AZ-01-015, PP-01-017 Ufil6y SUlX:KvisimLA~PP. DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 9
ADDITONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Lot 12, Block 1 of the proposed subdivision is a one-acre parcel of land that has been set aside
by the developer as a "Development Area - Provided to the Meridian Parks and Recreation
Department for pathway park use." The location of the parcel is in the far northwest comer of the
subdivision, adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Sanitary Services Corporation
parcel, with no vehicular or pathway access. The park will not be easy to maintain as there is.no
access, and it will be hidden from public view, creating possible safety problems in the future.
Staff does not support the proposed one-acre park in this location.
The proposed cul-de-sac is in violation of the Meridian City Code that prohibits cul-de-sacs bom
being over four-hundred and ftfty feet (450') in length (MCC 12-4-2 F). Staffwill not support a
variance for this cul-de-sac. The applicant should reduce the length of the cul-de-sac, or provide
a through road connecting to Ustick Road.
Lot 8, Block 1 appears to staffto be an unusable lot due to its awkward shape (it surrounds Lot 7
on three sides). Staff recommends revising the plat either to eliminate Lot 8, or to reconfigure
the lots so that LOt 8 will be useable lot without requiring the furore re-platting of Lots 7 and 8.
SITE SPECIFIC COMME~S
Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via existing and new service lines
from the existing mains adjacent to the property.
The sidewalks shall be detached along Ustick and Ten Mile Road and a five-foot (5')
wide (minimum) landscaped parkway shall be installed between the curb and sidewalk in
accordance with the adopted Landscape Ordinance. Ten (10) copies of a revised
preliminary plat shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Staffat least ten (10) days
prior to the next public hearing for this project.
The preliminary plat shall be revised to accommodate either a cul-de-sac that is less than
four hundred and ftt~y feet (450') in length or a through street that will connect Ten Mile
and Ustick Road through the subdivision. A five-foot (5') wide sidewalk shall be
required along the cul-de-sac or street. Ten (10) copies ora revised preliminary plat shall
be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Staff at least ten (10) days prior to the next
public hearing for this project.
The City of Meridian will not accept Lot 12 for park/pathway use unless the developer or
the Business Owners Association m_aintains the lot. Any changes to Lot 12 will require a
revised preliminary plat. Ten (10) copies of the revised preliminary plat shall be
submitted to the Planning 'and Zoning staff for review at least ten (10) days prior to the
next public hearing for this project.
The applicant shall work with the Parks Department to determine the location,
landscaping, and other improvements associated with a Multi-use pathway along both the
Five Mile Creek. Ten (10) copies of a revised site plan indicating the location, width,
AZ-01-015, PP-01.017 Utility ~dxllvisixLA~PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 10
landscapin8 and associated improvements of the pathway(s) shall be submitted at least
ten (10) days prior to the next public hearing.
The submitted landscape plan is not approved. The submitted landscape plan includes
conifers in the street buffer, all of which will have to be replaced in order to comply with
the adopted landscape ordinance. Additional landscaping shall be required adjacent to
the Nine Mile Drain to buffer the residential property to the west. Staff recommends., at
least one (1) tree every twenty (20) lineal feet, and a solid sight-obscuring fence in
addition to all Parks Department requirements for landscaping adjacent to the pathways
[minimum five (5) feet]. Ten (10) copies of the revised landscape plans shall be
submitted to the Planning and Zoning staff for a review of completeness at least ten (10)
days prior to the next public hearing.
A note shall be added to the face of the plat requiring the Business Owners Association to
maintain the twenty-five-foot (25') wide street buffer easement.
A permanent perimeter fence shall be required around the entire 'subdivision, unless the
City of Meridian agrees in writing that a fence is not required. Fencing details shall be
submitted with the final plat submission.
A detailed irrigation plan including performance specifications shall be submitted as part
of the required landscaping plan for the final plat.
10.
All of the required street buffer landscaping, and perimeter fencing shall be installed prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building on any lot created by the
subdivision.
11.
Any tree over four inches (4") in caliper that is removed fi.om the property shall be
replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of
trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as
replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed.
12.
Ail parking shall be retained on-site for all buildings and businesses within the
subdivision.
13,
A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required
and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking
areas. Storm water treatment and disposal must be designed in accordance with
Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication, "Catalog of Storm Water Best
Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties" and City of Meridian standards and
policies. Off-site disposal into a surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which
has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to
development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary
applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection
Wells On the final plat.
AT.~0141:J. PP-01-017 Utility $ubdivisiomA~PP.DOC
Planning & Zoning Commission]Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 11
14.
Assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan
review process.
15. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department.
16.
Revise the preliminary plat map to show the existing City of Meridian sanitary sewer
easement adjacent to and across the subject site. ..
GENERAL COMMENTS
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section $-7-517. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigatior~
Please submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's final approval letter
for the subdivision name, lot and block numbering. Make any corrections necessary to
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing,
landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the
final plat.
Two-hundred, and one-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required
at locations desi81~ated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be
installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire
hydrants.
COM]PREI:IENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
In addition to the analysis performed-earlier in the report, staff offers the following additional
Comprehensive plan analysis
The 1993 Comprehensive Plan contains a variety of goals and policies relevant to this
application. The following sections most directly apply to the proposed project and are repeated
here for the Council and Commission's consideration during the hearing process.
Goal 3 is "to encourage the kind of economic growth and development which supplies
employment and economic self-sufficiency for existing and future residents, reduces the present
reliance on Boise and strengthens the City's ability to 'finance and implement public
improvements, services, and its open space character."
Economic Development
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create
encourages.., commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian.
a positive atmosphere that
AZ-OI-O 15. PP-OI-OI7 Utility Subdivision. AZ. PP.DOC
Plann~ing & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
April 12, 2001
Page 12
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffdoes not support the current configuration of the preliminary plat for the following reasons:
Lot 12, the "park/pathway" lot, is poorly located and the City of Meridian P~'ks
Department does not want to maintain a small park with no access.
Lot 8 of the proposed subdivision is not a useable lot in its current configuration
surrounding Lot 7.
The cul-de-sac is longer than the maximum allowable length.
The requested I-L zone for the entire subdivision does not comply with the City of
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, specifically the most recently adopted text amendment
limiting consideration of light industrial uses to areas immediately adjacent to the
wastewater treatment plant.
-01-017 ~ .~vi~P.DO~
Fast Note to Sharon Smith, Meridian City
Clerk...Here is a copy of my e-mail message to
you this morning. Thank you ... Wayne. S. Forrey
Dear Clerk Sharon Smith:
... 19 March 2002 RECEIVEr)
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
The proposed Utility Business Park Subdivision property is owned by and
will be developed by Falcon Creek LLC. The Site includes 3~,60 acres at
the northwest corner of Usfick and Ten Mile Roads adjacent,to the Meridian
Waste Treatment Plant. The developer is requesting annexation into the
City of Meridian with proposed zoning of Industrial (I-L) and Preliminary
Plat approval with a Development Agreement, The proposed Utility
Business Park Subdivision Preliminary Plat includes twelve (12) buildable
lots.
Regarding the cost to renotice the April 18, 2002 public hearing, Falcon Creek
LLC. will pay all associated costs and reimburse the City of Meridian for these
expenses.
Thank You! Wayne S. Forrey, Representative of Falcon Creek LLC.
TOTAL P.01
MAR 19 '02 11:45 2~A a~ ~ m~c ~
March 4, 2002
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Falcon Creek, LLC
March 7, 2002
ITEM NO. 5
PP 01-017
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2001--Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Utility
Subdivision -- 3365 North Ten Mile Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY AI-rORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
SANITARY SERVICE:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
See previous Item Packet & 02.19.02 City Council Min.
OTHER: See attached lelt~rs from citizens
Contacted: ~-'~ ~Jl~J~,/~J/.~ Date:~/~/~7. Phone:
Mated~S presented at public me.rigs shall become prope~ ~ the Cl~ of Meridian.
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
NAME
FOR
AGAINST
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
NAME
I~b~man
FOR
AGAINST
Tara Green
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jamd Hobson [jared.hobson@steedconst.com]
Friday, December 07, 2001 10:12 AM
clerk~ci.meddian.id.us
Re-Zoning of our Neighborhood
Meridian City Planning and Zoning,
RECEIVED
DEC 0 7 2001
Qity Of Me, dian
I for one protest the re-zoning of our neighborhood for the purpose of ~tyC]erkOffi~
building basically a truck stop for busses and garbage trucks, along with a
waste transfer station. I am not against growth and development, however
this type of industry should not be built here for safety reasons alone and
air quality on top of that. Please vote no for this proposition.
Thanks,
Jared R. Hobson
Tara Green
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sonya Day [days~ci.meddian.id.us]
Tuesday, December 18, 2001 8:07 AM
greent~¢i.meridian.id.us
FW: To Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee
..... Original Message .....
From: Peter Koetsier [mailto:PKOET@boisestate.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:17 PM
To: days@ci.meridian.id.us
Subject: To Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee
RECEIVED
DEC 12 2001
.t.Of Meridian
Clerk Office
Good Afternoon Commissioners Borup, Centers, Nary, Norton, and Shreeve:
I was at the last P&Z meeting (Dec. 12, 2001) when the future of the
property on the corner of Ten Mile and Ustick was discussed. I saw then
that the commission had little choice but to change the zoning for that
property. HOwever, I disagree with the proposed use by Falcon Creek-
LLC and would like to make an alternative suggestion. Would it be
feasible to put a city cemetery on that piece of property? Currently,
the only cementery in Meridian (that I'm aware of) is the one located
near Franklin and 1st St. There would be several advantages to placing
a cementery on Ten Mile & Ustick:
1) It would meet the constraints placed on the property by the City of
Meridian
(low density, non-residential development);
2) It would satisfy the people in the neighboring sub-divsions, by being
very simialr to a
park;
3) The draw-backs of the proposed uses by Falcon Creek-LLC would be
non-existent:
namely noise & ordor.
I'm sure that there are valid reasons why a city (or private) cementery
cannot be put near the corner of Ten Mile & Ustick, but I thought that I
would 'float' notion to you anyway.
Sincerely,
Pete Koetsier
3087 Foxtrotter Dr.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
(208) 884-5441
Meridian City Clerk
From: kmdowdle [kmdowdle@micron.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:40 AM
To: 'clerk@ci.meridian.id.us'
Cc: 'kntrdowdle@att.net'
Subject: Falcon Creek Industrial Zone
December 7, 2001
Dear County Commissioners:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission:
RECEIVED
DEC 1 2001
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
I was in attendance at the meeting yesterday evening, listening to both sides of the discussion.
Mr. Foray (spelling) made some compelling points to show that they have done all that they can
do to show good faith and become good neighbors. He obviously wants to work with the
homeowner associations and public at large to get input on how to minimize this project to the
adjacent communities. He seems willing to comply with ordinances of the city and work hand in
hand with planners ect. However I am still very much opposed to the project on basis of the
types of usage it would provide, regardless of buffer zones and assurances by the principle
parties.
The ordinances that have been sited regarding odors, usage not being in compliance with
adjacent communities, air pollution, visible trash that will find its way into the neighborhoods, mo
matter the assurances made. They will all be broken. I understand your position on the board,
managing growth and providing areas for service vehicles and community services is a
formidable task, it has to go somewhere and this area has been rezoned to accept such usages.
But once the structures are in place that good faith won't matter, the genie will be out of the bottle
so to speak and they will run their businesses the best way they see fit. Regardless of what the
surrounding communities oppose. They will have no oversight and nobody to govern their
actions as far as I know other than, complaints to city officials. And like I said at that point it will
be too late the projects will be there and all the community will be able to do is either put up with it
or move out of it. These are not acceptable options. I do not want to see this area become an
industrial/trash center that would obviously affect prospective home buyers and quality of life.
I would propose to reverse the zoning of this area from its Light Industrial status as it stands, back
to its original zone classification. If the public hearing were open on that subject a few months
ago, I either did not pay attention to them or didn't't bother to find out about the change from
Rural or Agriculture to the now Light Industrial. We have not gone down the road so far to
making this area Industrial that it could not be reversed and would favor this option. In fact it
seems that there has been many changes of areas from the 1993 Comprehensive plan, in which
everybody based their moving to this area on. Lets see what it takes to make another option
available, rather than saying what we can't do.
I cannot image only having 3 options for usage to the area as was stated in the meeting, either
residential, parks or Mr. Forays project. Asked for other options I will leave that in your hands to
become creative with the solutions, but to have a "mini trash dump" and bus station, this is not
acceptable and this will profoundly affect the 3 subdivisions that surround the site. Mr. Foray
stated that they have looked for suitable sites and have found this one. They must feel pretty
good about it because it seems they have purchased the property.and are now trying to change
the zoning ect. They are motivated based on what they have invested, that is their problem not
ours; they assumed the risk, we should not have too. I would say that they need to look harder
and find a better location, if turned down I am sure they will find the proper motivation to look a
little harder.
The Parks representative there made inference of putting a park there "has not shut down" if I
understood his comments correctly or that there might be avenues to such a proPosal. I would
ask you to re-explore your options there. Yes there needs to be such service facilities available
but this is not the right place for it. This is very much a case of"not in my backyard" type of
project. Proper buffers could be used just as was proposed to for the industrial project to
construct a park system, and a point was made about not having a park near a stream. If that
was the case why is Tully park built next to its stream? I think that more support could be made
to support this. Just as the 1993 plan has changed and has been modified, thero shouldn't't be a
great stretch to accept a park system in this area or to see what we can do rather than hemming
us in to "this is the only option" available, proposal.
This is Mr. Foray and parties risk and their problem for now. I would ask you not to approve the
annexation or the preliminary plat which at that point would make it our problem. I would ask you
to listen to the overwhelming public opinion against this project.
Sincerely:
Kevin M. Dowdle
3082 W. Pebblestone St.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
I will add my support the following letter as well.
Falcon Creek Industrial Zone Amendment
Utility Subdivision - NW Corner of Ustick and Ten Mile
Pursuant to the Falcon Creek, LLC (Falcon Creek), October 22, 2001 application entitled
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application for Utility Business Park Subdivision, we, the
undersigned, hereby declare our opposition to the proposed changes as outlined in this
application. According to this application, Falcon Creek plans to use the 34.60 acres of land
located on the NW corner of Ustick and Ten Mile Roads for the following proposed purposes:
· New Sanitation Services Co. (SSC) headquarters, garbage truck storage, and operations
center.
· A full-scale waste transfer station.
· A 10,000+ square foot recycling facility.
· Parking stalls for a fleet of 230 diesel school busses, plus 230+ additional parking stalls for
the drivers' personal vehicles.
· A 12 bay diesel repair and maintenance shop for the school bus fleet.
· A possible truck washing facility that would accommodate public busses, commercial trucks,
and other fleet vehicles.
· A possible gas station for busses, commercial trucks, and other vehicles.
Our opposition to the above-mentioned application is due, in part, to the following safety, health,
and financial concerns:
· The safety of our school-aged children that will be attending Ponderosa Elementary School
(approx. ~ mile from the proposed site). According to Earth Tech's Traffic Impact Study for
Ten Mile/Ustick Business Park, the Ten Mile/Ustick intersection's average daily traffic (ADT)
will more than double, from 1490 ADT to 3006 ADT. Most of these additional vehicles will be
large trucks and/or busses. Children walking to and from school will be at greater risk for
injury.
· An increase in the traffic will also result in more accidents in the area. As many of these
vehicles will be large trucks and busses, these accidents will likely be more serious.
· The air quality within the vicinity of the proposed site will likely degrade substantially due to
the large amount of diesel exhaust from the many trucks and busses. As a result, the risk of
respiratory-related health problems will rise for many of the neighbors within the proximity,
especially those with asthma and the elderly.
· The air quality will further be affected by the odor associated with the trash collection vehicles
and waste transfer facility.
· The property values and/or salability of many homes in the area will be negatively affected by
the proposed changes. In addition, those homes that border Ustick and/or Ten Mile could be
negatively affected by increases in property taxes due to special road expansion
assessments.
· The roads in this area are not currently equipped to handle an increased level of traffic. Thus,
disruptions in traffic on both roads are anticipated as future road expansion projects are
started.
Based on the above concerns, and any additional concerns expressed below by
specific homeowners, we ask that the Meridian City Council decline Falcon
Creek's zoning amendment application entitled Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Application for Utility Business Park Subdivision
Page 1 of 2
,..,,,.. o,,, RECEIVED
From: Lisa Hamer [thehamers@worldnet.att.net] DEC 1 8 2001
sent: Tuesday, December 11,2001 9:03 AM (Jit3r Of Meridia.n
To: clerk@ci.meridian.id.us 12ity Clerk Office
Subject: AZ 01-015, PP 01-017, CPA 01-001: Falcon Creek Utility Subdivision
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Lisa Hamer and I live at 2433 N. Victor Way, Meridian, in the Saddleview Estates
Subdivision. I currently live about 1/2 mile from the proposed industrial park, though I have not got
out and measured it. I was in attendance at the Planning and Zoning meeting last night, December 6,
but did not stand up to speak as public speaking is not my forte.
First of all, it was insinuated by the Chairman that we were ignorant if we did not know about these
plans because they had been on the table for several years. Last year, my parents bought a house in
Dakota ridge Subdivision. They went to City Hall and looked at your comprehensive map and was
told by your employees that the comer of Ustick and Ten Mile was to be a future park. If we, the
public, are supposed to be well informed of this issue, then lets inform your own employees, rm sure
my father will write his own letter to attest to this. Also, your City planner appeared to be annoyed,
by the comments he made, the public wasn't supposed to have known about the meeting. Were you
supposed to meet in "private", change the zoning, and then let us debate what would go on that site?
Lets debate the zoning. I am aware that Falcon Creek already owns the land. Just because they
bought the land doesn't mean they just get the zoning change. It is a little presumptuous of them to
assume that the Commissioners and public would just willingly go for the deal because they own the
land.
Secondly, we bought this home in 1996. We were aware of the Sewer treatment plant and were also
aware of the Agricultural buffer. By changing the zoning you are asking to get rid of the agricultural
buffer, or sorts, completely and add something intolerable: a "mini dump" and a gigantic industrial
parking lot. People kept referring to it as "just a parking lot", but eventually someone has to start up
those huge 230+ vehicles and drive them out of that parking lot and through our neighborhoods. Yes,
buses and garbage tracks currently go through our neighborhoods, but not in those numbers. Also, it
was noted that if there was a subdivision in that location, there would be traffic if not more. Yes, that
is absolutely tree! But, we are talking about the type of vehicles, the noise from those louder
vehicles, and their diesel pollution. I'm sure the EPA would be interested in the environmental issues
that will affect the surrounding neighbors. There was a lot of debate about feet. Well, that is 100
feet, he live 200 feet, but most people live at least 500 feet .... That doesn't matter. I live about a mile
from the train tracks and on quiet mornings and evenings, the sound carries and I hear the train. Also,
in the summer we can occasionally hear the Meridian Speedway. That is a considerable distance
from my home! I am not complaining about the tracks. They were there when I bought the home,
and it is only occasional that I hear the trains or the race cars. I certainlY wouldn't have bought a
home on those tracks, though. That was my choice. My point is no amount of attractive burros and
trees and is going to keep the sound and smell from carrying.
Lastly, by putting this industrial Park on the comer of Ustick and Ten Mile, you are putting it right in
the middle of homes and subdivisions. You are asking us to be happy about degrading our quality of
life and hour home values. We will be lucky to sell our homes and break even. In a straggling
12/14/01
Page 2 of 2
economy, that will just hurt our economy even more. Lets put this industrial park further out in the
country. Let homeowners encroach upon it as they CHOOSE. By putting the industrial park at the
comer often Mile and Ustick, you are encroaching upon our homes and taking away our choice to
live by it. Our life, liberty and happiness are at stake. Is not freedom of choice a liberty afforded to
all humans in the United States? Lets not take away our choice which is an inalienable fight!
Thank you,
Lisa Hamer
12/14/01
Tara Green
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robe~_Rule~amat.com
Thursday, December 20, 2001 7:47 AM
days~ci.meridian.id.us; cierk~}ci.meridian.ld.us; con*ieb~ci.meridian.ld, us
Falcon Creek Industrial Zone Ammendment
To Whom it may concern:
My name is Robert Rule, and I am a home-owner in the Tumble Creek
Subdivision. I am deeply concerned about a zoning change that has only
recently come to my attention. I am even more concemed by the items that
have been suggested for development which would be allowed by the zoning
change, listed below:
RECEIVED
DEC 2 O 2001
C_ity Of Merid/an
City Clerk O/Sce
New Sanitation Services Co. (SSC) headquarters, garbage truck storage, and operations center.
A full-scale waste transfer station.
A 10,000+ square foot recycling facility.
Parking stalls for a fleet of 230 diesel school busses, plus 230+ additional parking stalls for. the drivers' personal
vehicles.
A 12 bay diesel repair and maintenance shop for the school bus fleet.
A possible truck washing facility that would accommodate public busses, commercial trucks, and other fleet vehicles.
A possible gas station for busses, commercial trucks, and other vehicles.
I am opposed to these developments, and the zoning change for several reasons.
The area that is being developed is right in the middle of what is
currently residential and agricultural land. I have seen no evidence of
any enviommental impact study (other than a traffic study,) and am
greatly concerned that the city has done little to ensure that the
saftey of the residents and children in the area is placed above the
interests of the developer.
The Traffic Impact Study conducted by Earth Tech showed that average
daily traffic will double at the intersection of Ten Mile and Ustick.
As a father I fear for the safety of our neighborhood children as the
cross this intersection to travel to and from school.
Over the last year and a half the residents of this area have endured
many inconveniences associated with road contruction on Ustick Rd and
Locust Grove, as these country roads are expanded to handle higher
levels of residential traffic. Ustick Road is in no way ready to handle
the traffic levels that will be required by this development. As a
resident I understand that mad development is necessary to support
normal growth and sound planning, but this type of development goes
beyond the patience the residents have already shown es this part of
Meridian undertakes its growing pains.
As a recent home-buyer, I am feel that the city of Meridian has broken
my trust by taking an area of Meridian that had been designated for
Agriculture, Residence, and Parks and allowing it to be developed for
uses that have questionable affects on the living enviornment and public
safety. Centrel to this is my desire for my home to hold its value, and
in a good economy, appreciate in value. I would think that a city that
relies on my property tax for their income would also be concerned in
sound city planning that enhances residential property value.
! could list many more, but have chosed to focus on the 4 listed above, in
the hopes that perhaps you can adress my concerns. In your role as a
public servant, I am asking that you please reply to me and adress the
following questions:
Why, as tax paying citizen of Meridian and a resident who lives near the
area to be developed, am I finding out now that a zoning change has bean
made from a friend at work? That's right my neighbors were un-aware of
this, and I only learned about the issue because I happened to overhear
something from a friend. Has the planning and zoning commission
forgotten where there revenue stream comes from? Has the City Council
forgotten who elects, and if necessary, recalls them? Does the Mayor
believe that Major Zoning Changes like this one are best made in secret.
I hope that you can provide me with intelligent answers to these
questions. I try very hard to stay informed, but it seems to me that
the city could have done a better job of getting the word out.
Has an enviommental impact study been done? If so could you please
provide me with the resuits?
Why was this zoning change made? Was it because it was in the best
interests of city growth and planning to put an industrial facility in
the middle of the fastest growing residential area in Meridian? If so,
please explain why the commission and/or the city council believes this?
I look forward to your answers. If for some reason you can not provide me
with this information, then please get me in touch with someone who can.
Best Regards,
Robert Rule
2257 W. Pebblestone ST
Meridian, ID 83642
Tara Green
From: Sonya Day [days~ci.meddlan.id.us]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 10:24 AM
To: greent~ci.meridian.kl.us
Subject: FW: Garbage Transfer and Bus Site
RECEIVED
JAN 2 8 2002
----Original Message--- =
From: D.1Fulkerson [mailb3:djfulkemon@velocitus.neq
~ent: Friday, 3anuary 25, 2002 10:26 PM
To: days@ci.meridian.id.us
Subject: Garbage Transfer and Bus Site
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Greetings,
I understand that the garbage transfer station and bus garage is still being considered at the Northwest comer
of Ten Mile and Ustick. I live in the Kentfleld subdivision very near there and would like to express my
concern over this proposal. While I see the need for such a site, I believe this location is too close to the
proposed elementary school and to the existing subdivisions. I am very much opposed to this site for this
type of activity. There is currently a lot of foot traffic, bike traffic, and family/community activity in this area.
rm hoping that the City Council as well as Meridian Planning and Zoning will assure that this facility finds a
more suitable location for these facilities. Please advise.
Respectfully,
Janice Fulkerson
887-0077
2370 N. Morello
Meridian, ID 83642
1/28/2002
Tara Green
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
r.j.oldham~att.net
Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:45 PM
Clerk~ci. Meridian.ld. US
DFRY~cableone.net
Industrial Rezoning Changes
I serve on the Home Owners Assoc. for Dakota Ridge
Subdivision. We voted to object to the proposed changes
in the Meridian Growth Plan as industrial parks or
parcels in this are do not fit with existing building
nor approved but uncompleted projects. The reasons are:
-Will increase air and noise polution. We now get
odors from the sewer plant. The smell from 250+ buses
and 25 or so garbage trucks will add odors and smell to
our are.
-The roads will not accomodate the increased
additional traffic of all this new approved but
uncomplted activity, plus a new elementry school
(Ponderosa)scheduled to open in Sept.2002 plus the
additional buses and garbage trucks.
-New construction costs are significantly higher than
that of existing facilities. The rental costts
associated with new construction are correspondingly
higher. This added cost will be past on to taxpayors in
our city. Why?
-Why have 2 seperate industrial zones in this area.
The location of the proposed new zone is not close to
major highway access or major arterial roadways. There
has not been any disclosure of any enviromental studies
to support this nor the impacts on existing property
values
-Many of us invested majors dollars in new homes due
to the existing city plan. We were led to believe a park
would be where you now propose this industrial park.
-My impression at your last meeting from your legal
counsel was concern that this information became public
at all. It seems you intended to "ram it down our
throats" to begin with.
-It is also my understanding the engineering study
you engaged on the sewer plant included a recommendation
to fix the raw sewerage leak into 10 mile creek at a
price of approx. $500,000.00. How can you approve any
changes with this condition. This also has not been
disclosed to the public.
-The current chairman of the Council is a builder/
developer who may well have a legal issue, conflict of
interest, as he could be in a position to have future
economic benefit from these changes. He should not vote
on the matter at least.
-The developer has stated he would work with area
home owners to submit plans to substantiate his position
that the project will enhance this area. We need to see
what those plans are before any approvals to our
neighborhood zoning is completed.
Ray Oldham
3734 W. Patel Drive
Meridian, Idaho
288-1250
RECEIVED
C_i~ O£Me~d/a~
Cit~ Clerk Office
Tara Green
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
8onya Day [days~ci. meridlan.id.us]
Monday, February 11, 2002 10:44 AM
greent~ci.meridian.id.us; stiless~ci.meridian.id.us
FW: Ten Mile & Ustick
...... Original Message ......
From: Jeffcoe48@cs.com [mailto:Jef~coe48@cs.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 5:43 PM
To: days@ci.meridian.id.us
Subject: Ten Mile & Ustick
RECEIVED
FE:' uo2
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
I surely hope that you people will realize the MASSIVE changes in this
area
since the 1993 study. The proposed bus maintenance site and the waste
management site need to be moved much further away from the area you're
currently looking at.
I'm a voter with a long memory.
J. Coe
Meridian Resident
02/16/02
Bernard & Patricia Kelly
2738 N. Aronmink Ln.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RECEIVED
FEB ! 9 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
City Clerk's Office
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Ref: Proposed development at Ten Mile and Ustick roads for industrial use.
We as homeowners and tax payers here in Meridian are very much against
the above development for industrial use. The word subdivision for a parking
area for Meridian School District, headquarters and parking for a trash
collection company and waste transfer station is ridiculous. They belong in a
Industrial Park away from the many subdivision in this area. There are so
many Industrial Parks off of Franklin, Fairview, First Street in Meridian and
Pine Street. Why can't they put there (subdivision) in one of those areas where
they would be away from our homes and children.
There is enough traffic on Ten Mile right now. All day long we have trucks,
tractors, and tpany other vehicles racing up and down the street far into the
night. What wl]! it be like if you allow the above to move in.
Lets put this Industrial Development in a proper setting where it belongs. Not
in our back yards.
Sincerely,
Bernard & PatriCla Kelly
Will Berg
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stol~heduml~laol.com
Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:28 AM ~
corrleb~ci.meddian.id.us; deweerdt~ci.meridian.id.us; mc;
birdk~ci.meddian.id.us; naryb~ci.meridian.id.us;
Stoptheduml~laol.com
A note about scale ..
Dear City Council,
At the December 6th, 2001 P & Z meeting I submitted a video tape of just 10
buses leaving the current bus barn. It is only 3 minutes and it will help
you understand what would happen to our residential neighborhood every
morning, With all year round school this includes summers when windows are
open for cooling. They are not being rude. They are required to test their
horns and flashers everyday. The backup alarms are just because. Will Berg
said he has this tape available for you.
Please consider there are currently 230 proposed buses.
This is a little embarrassing so I won't ask you at the public hearing but
you can do this under your desk. As an exercise to understand the scale of
this invasion please extend all your fingers. This is ten buses. Now close
and open both hands 23 times. That would be 230 buses. Please consider this
is just for the current population. When Meridian doubles in the next few
years that would mean we will have 460 buses. Open and close hands 23 more
times.
Thank you again,
Charles Crane
3600 W. Ustick Rd, Meridian
RECEIVED
FEB ! 9 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Will Berg
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
8topthedump~aol.com
Tuesday, February 19, 2002 12:59 AM
corrieb~ci.meridian.id.us; deweerclt~}ci.meridian.icl.us; mccancllessc~ci.medclian.id.us;
birdk~ci.meridian.id.us; naryl~ci.meridian.id.us; bergw~ci.meddian.id.us;
stiless~ci.meridian.id, us; Stopthedump~aol.com
Effect on ground water at Utility Subdivision.
Dear City Council,
Please protect our water by rejecting Industrial zoning in
uses include hazardous substances including diesel. Spills
groundwater and then into the nearest waterway or well. Do
encourage Industrial development next to a major city well
of Ustick) or next to Ten Mile and Five Mile creek? This loca
our groundwater and waterways to contamination since they are
from the proposed Utility Subdivision.
Please note Idaho Statute: TITLE 67 ·
STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 65
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING
67-6537. APPLICATION TO GROUNDWATER. When considering amending,
repealing or adopting a comprehensive plan, the local governing board shall
consider the effect the proposed amendment, repeal or adoption of the
comprehensive plan would have on the quality of ground water in the area.
reference:
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=670650037.K
Thank you,
Charles Crane
3600 W Ustick Rd., Meridian
RECEIVED
FEB 1 9 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office