HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Tree Farm AZ
Lv
AZ 06-004
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Treehaven, LLC
April 6, 2006
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres
from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres). R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45
acres) for The Tree Farm - north side of Chinden Blvd. on both sides of Black Cat Rd.; west of Spurwing Sub
ITEM NO.
11
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached Revised Staff Report
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
P- ~ ()M yyVJV f\ ~
t~\~
¥
(/tv
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS'IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: S e attached '.ette~s from Derick O'Neill and Sherrie Ewing . . j
Contacted:. Date: - -tXJ¡ Phone:"iÇ:5 {ti - ?CI.>ð 1 ^
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
l~~E (; E ~rVEI)
, '. :.~ °, :2006
clr '( OF f'v1ERIDIA~\J
~~'~!T\r CI_E:C::~;( C'-FICr-:-
Hearing Date: 4/6/06
Planning & Zoning Commission
C. Caleb Hood, CUlTent Planning Manager
Meridian Planning Department
208-884-5533
. ~
1~ .
~ ;;dl~n ':.; '\.
IU.\H(' ii
\~~z~~>!,,-~,¡. ("!c"i!:!:.y..~~,>,:,-:(i!
1.lo,i
The Tree Faun Annexation
AZ-06-004
Annexation and Zoning 0058.57 acres from RR (Ada County) to R-2 (Low-
Density Residential)(66.02 acres), R-8 (Medium-Density Residential)(167.02
acres), R-15 (Medium High~Density Residential)(79,82 acres), C-N
(Neighborhood Business)(17.26 acres) and C-C (Community
Business)(28.45 acres) for The Tree Faun, by Treehaven, LLC.
This application was heard at the March 2, 2006 Commission meeting. The Commission continued
this item to give the applicant and the neighbors opportunity to work out some issues and staff the
opportunity to incorporate some of those ideas into a revised staff report. The applicant has met
with some of the nearby neighbors. The applicant has submitted a letter in response to the concerns
raised by the Rabehls through their legal counsel at the last meeting, and summarizes the meetings
with the other nearby property owners (see letter from The Tree Farm, dated March 24, 2006).
Since the last meeting, staff has also met with the applicant and the owners of the TECO ONE and
Aldape properties. Staff has revised some of the development agreement provisions in Section 10 of
the Staff Report below. Staff has also updated some of the new information regarding some of the
outstanding issues in Section 10. Changes from the original staff report have been bolded and
underlined. while other changes have been stf'uek threHgh.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Treehaven, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres to R-2
(Low-Density Residential)(66.02 acres), R-8 (Medium-Density Residential)(l67.02 acres), R-15
(Medium High-Density Residential)(79.82 acres), C-N (Neighborhood Business)(l7.26 acres)
and C-C (Community Business)(28.45 acres). The subject property is cUlTently zoned RR (Rural
Residential) in Ada County. The applicant has submitted a concept plan with the subject
Annexation and Zoning application; the applicant is not proposing any new land uses,
development or subdivision at this time.
The site is located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately )::í of a mile west of
Black Cat Road extending east to approximately Ten Mile Road Road. This site has
approximately 5,300 feet of frontage on Chinden Boulevard. This site is composed of ten parcels
which are owned by five different property owners. There is an existing wholesale nursery, three
single-family homes, and several outbuildings on this site. The subject property is within the
area proposed to be a part of the City of Meridian's Area of Impact and proposed Urban
Service Planning Area.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject Annexation and Zoning application was submitted to the Planning Department for
review. By City Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Commission makes recommendation to the
Council on Annexation and Zoning applications. Any comments related to the Annexation
application (AZ-06-004) will be included in the Commission's recommendation to the Council.
Staff is recommending approval of The Tree Farm Annexation (AZ-06-004), with a Development
Agreement for this proi ecL
The Tree Fatm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGEl
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the
City CoWlcil of File Number AZ~06-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
March 2, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: (add
any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Number AZ-06-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
March 2, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the
annexation request.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number AZ-
06-004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s):
(you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location: 4410 W. Chinden Boulevard/4740 W. Chinden Boulevard; north
side of Chin den Boulevard in Sections 21 and 22, Township 4 North, Range 1 West
b. Owners:
MDC, LLC
4410 W. Chinden Boulevard
Meridian, ill 83642
&
Doug and Meredith Carnahan
4410 W. Chinden Boulevard
Meridian, ill 83642
&
Jo Ann Eggers Trust
7169 N. Spurwing Way
Meridian, ill 83642
&
Jo Ann Eggers Trust and US Bank Successor Trustee
P.O. Box 64142
St. Paul, MN 55164
&
Connie Avery
4740 W. Chinden Boulevard
Meridian, ill 83642
c. ApplicantlRepresentative: Derick O'Neill
d. Present Zoning: RR (Ada County)
e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use - Community, Medium Density
Residential, Low Density Residential, and a Potential School Site are all designated for this
property on the proposed Future Land Use Map.
f. Description of Applicant's Request: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres to
The Tree Fann Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
R-2 (Low-Density Residential)(66.02 acres), R-8 (Medium-Density Residential)(l67.02
acres), R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(79.82 acres), C-N (Neighborhood
Business)(17.26 acres) and C-C (Community Business)(28.45 acres).
g. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The Tree Faun is a 362.65 acre planned community
located north of Chinden Boulevard, directly west of Spurwing Country Club. The property is
cuITently in Ada County and outside of the Meridian area of impact. However, it is part of the
CUITent Comprehensive Plan Amendment in process. The proposed comprehensive plan calls
for medium and low density housing as well as a neighborhood commercial and community
commercial component. The applicant has met with the City of Meridian numerous times to
refine a concept plan to match the new outlined comprehensive plan (please see Applicant's
Submittal Letter.)
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as detennined by City Ordinance.
By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title II Chapter 5, a public hearing is
required before the City Council on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 13 and 27,2006
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 8, 2006
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 20, 2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): There is an existing wholesale nursery (tree faun), three homes and
other outbuildings on the subj ect site.
b. Description of Character of SuITounding Area: This area is primarily rural residential in
nature. This area, especially south of Chinden, is rapidly transitioning from rural to urban.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
I. North: Phyllis Canal; Rural residential; Agricultural, zoned RR and RI (Ada
County)
2. East:
3. South:
One-acre lots in Spurwing Subdivision and WestWing Subdivision, zoned RR
(Ada Couny)
Proposed Bainbridge Subdivision, zoned L-O and R-8; Several rural
properties in Ada County, zoned RUT
4. West: Agricultural and rural residential, zoned RR (Ada County)
d. History of Previous Actions: The City is cUlTently in the process of amending its Area of City
Impact to include the subject area. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application is
on the City Council agenda for March 7,2006. On March 7. 2006 the City Council voted to
approve the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. which includes incorporatine: the
subject area on the Future Land Use Map.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities:
1. Public Works:
Location of sewer: This parcel cuITently has no sewer available to it. It is master
planned to sewer to the future North Black Cat Trunk which will not be available
ti11late 2007 or early 2008.
Location of water: There is no City of Meridian water main currently available to
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6,2006
this site. United Water and the City of Meridian are cUlTently in negotiations that
would allow United Water to provide water service to this site.
Issues or concerns: Sewer will not be available till late 2007 to early 2008.
2. Vegetation: There are some existing trees on this site that should be protected or
mitigated for when this property develops.
3. Floodplain: N/A
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: Any irrigation ditches, laterals and canals (not Phyllis) that
cross this property should be tiled when this property develops.
5. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards associated with this property.
6. Proposed Zoning: R-2, R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C
7. Size of Property: 358.57 acres
f. Subdivision Plat Infounation: The applicant has not submitted a preliminary plat with the
subject annexation application. Staff recommends that the City enter into a Development
Agreement (DA) with the subject property owners. Such agreement should include the
provisions in Section 10, Analysis, below.
g. Landscaping:
I. Width of street buffer(s): Per City Code (UDC 11-2A) and the Comprehensive
Plan, a 35-foot wide landscape street buffer is required adjacent to Chinden
Boulevard, an entryway corridor. Per the UDC a 25-foot wide street buffer is required
adjacent to all arterial streets; a 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to
collector streets; and, a lO-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to all commercial
streets. When this property develops, the City should require full compliance with the
street buffer requirements of the UDC.
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: Per City Code (UDC Table 11-2B-3) a 25-
foot wide landscape buffer is required between commercially zoned properties and
residential uses/zones. When this property develops, the City should require full
compliance with the land use buffer requirements of the UDC.
h. Required Commercial Standards: C-N and C-C
Setbacks
Collector Street
Proposed Required
N/A 10'
N/A 35'
N/A 20'
N/A 65'
Proposed Required
N/A 20'
N/A 20'
N/A 20'
N/A 7.5' per story
N/A 15'
Landscape (Local/Commercial)
Entryway Road (Chinden)
Maximum Building Height
i. Required Residential Standards: R-2
Setbacks
Front/Street Side Living Area
Side Accessed Garage
Front Accessed Garage
Interior Side
Rear
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
Frontage N/A 80'
Lot Size N/A 12,000 square feet
R-8
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front/Street Side Living Area N/A 15'
Side Accessed Garage N/A 15'
Front Accessed Garage N/A 20'
Interior Side N/A 4'
Rear N/A 12'
Frontage N/A 50'
Lot Size N/A 5,000 square feet
R-15
Setbacks Proposed Required
Front/Street Side Living Area N/A 10'
Side Accessed Garage N/A 15'
Front Accessed Garage N/A 20'
Interior Side N/A 4'
Rear N/A 12'
Frontage N/A 0'
Lot Size N/A 2,400 square feet
j. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: As mentioned above, the applicant is not
proposing to develop/plat this property at this time. There should be future east-west and
north-south collector/arterial roadways constructed within the boundaries of this site which
would connect Chinden Boulevard and Black Cat Road over the Rim.
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On February 10, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in
this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian
Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. The
Meridian Fire Department and the Meridian Parks Department were the only departments or
agencies to provide comments. These comments are "standard" and have not been included as
conditions of annexation. Once a development plan(s) is submitted staff will provide the applicant
with specific comments and conditions from all commenting agencies and departments.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Mixed Use - Community", "Medium Density Residential" and "Low
Density Residential" on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII
of the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use designation is defined in part as an area that is situated
in highly visible or transitioning parts ofthe City where innovative and flexible design
opportunities are encouraged. The Mixed Use - Community designation allows residential
density between 3 and 15 dwelling units per acre, up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential
The Tree Fann Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
building area, and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Medium density residential areas are
anticipated to contain between three and eight dwellings per acre, while low density residential
areas are anticipated to contain up to three dwellings per acre.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply
to the subject property (staff analysis in italics below policy):
.
Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services.
(Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1)
When the City establishes its Area of City Impact, it plans to provide City services to the
subject properties. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner:
. Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the
developer's expense.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County SheriJJ's
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
The suqject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
.
.
.
.
.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
.
Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels. (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action I)
The applicant is proposing residential zones adjacent to the existing residential and
agricultural properties to the north, east and west (all zoned RR or Rl in Ada County). Both
parcels proposed for commercial zoning are internal to the development. The applicant is
proposing commercial zoning adjacent to proposed residential zoning districts. However, the
impacts to the proposed/future residential properties by the commercial properties can be
limited through the constrnction of roadways, land use buffers, fencing, and design of the
future subdivision. When development applications are submitted for this site, staff willfully
evaluate the compatibility of the proposed land uses.
Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density
residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger,
more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural
.
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRlL 6,2006
residential densities. (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 8)
Staff recognizes that there are some existing low density residential land uses near this
property. Staff believes that the locations of the proposed R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning
designations are generally appropriate as the larger lots will primarily be on the north side
of the development, and the higher density will be nearer Chinden Boulevard, a major
arterial street. However, the applicant is proposing an R-15 zone adjacent to WestWing
Estates, a proposed low density area on the Future Land Use Map. To provide a transition
between the subject development and the future low density re~development of WestWing
Estates. staff recommends that a strip of R-8 be provided alonf! the east side of this site. This
strip should be able to accommodate at least one lot depth ofR-8 sized lots (at least 125-feet
deep). If amended as proposed by staff, the proposed zoning should effectively provide the
transition between the adjacent roral parcels and the proposed urban development. Staff
recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any written or verbal testimony
providedfrom neighbors when determining the most appropriate zoning designationfor this
property.
.
"Permit new. . .commercial developments only where urban services can be reasonably
provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter
IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action 6)
This development is currently not serviceable by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer
system. Sewer service for this development will be via the future North Black Cat lift station.
{{this development is approved, it shall be subject to the North Black Cat sewer system being
available. City of Meridian municipal water is currently not available to this site. The City of
Meridian and United Water are currently in negotiations that would allow United Water to
provide water service to this parcel. Solid waste and other services can be provided to this
property.
.
"Locate new community commercial areas on arterials. . .near residential areas in such a way
as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective D,
Action 3)
Chinden Boulevard is a designated arterial roadway. Stqff finds that the proposed community
commercial zoning and future commercial uses on this property should complement the
nearby residential land uses.
.
"Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter
VII, Goal I, Objective B)
Approximately 45 acres of the subject site are proposed for commercial zoning. The subject
application does not propose any new uses, and designates the commercially zoned
properties as mixed use commercial. The existing tree jàrm that is to remain, and the future
commercial and retail sites, add to the variety of non-residential uses within the City's Area
of Impact. Staffis supportive of the proposed commercial zoning.
.
"Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal
IV, Objective D, Action 2)
On the submitted concept plan, the applicant is conceptually proposing a mid-mile access to
Chinden Boulevard, and extending Black Cat Road to the north across Chinden Boulevard. A
The Tree Fann Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
.
third access to Chinden Boulevard, located a few hundred feet from the Black Cat Road
extension, is shown on the Concept Plan. Conceptual access points to Black Cat Road are
also proposed. No other access points to/trom Black Cat Road or Chinden Boulevard are
conceptually proposed to/from this property. When this property develops, staff recommends
that access to this site be primarily provided by the future internal roadway/driveway system
and not Chinden Boulevard and Black Cat Road. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed
access points to Chinden Boulevard and Ten }.1ik Black Cat Road, as shown on the
submitted concept plan, with the exception of the proposed driveway access point to the
Community Commercial area from Chinden Boulevard. Staff recommends that access
restrictions to Chinden Boulevard be placed on this property throuzh provisions in a
Development Azreement. Stafffitrther recommends that the access points to Black Cat Road
be evaluated and restricted when this property develops.
Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and
collectors in adjacent developments. (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13)
Currently there are no opportunities to connect to f;xisting roads in adjacent developments.
Staff believes that when the roadway/driveway system in The Tree Farm is constructed, this
parcel should provide access to the parcel to the east (Henkel 25.8 acres), west (McMullen
property, Owyhee Mountain Ventures property, and Schwenifelder property), and north
(TECO One property and Onne property). Please see Analysis below.
.
"Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback,
vegetation, low walls, benns, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 4)
As depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, the applicant should be
required to construct a 35-foot wide landscape berm with dense vegetation along Chinden
Boulevard, when this site develops. The applicant should also be required to construct a 25-
foot wide landscape buffer along the future Black Cat Road. The entire buffer should lie
outside the ultimate right-of-way.
.
"On-street bikeways should be incorporated on all future Collector streets." (Chapter VI,
Figure VI-5)
All future collector streets should contain bikeways.
Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this
application:
.
"The capacity of arterial. . .roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway
connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimize access
points on arterial. . .roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page
72)
"Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of
existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, page 79)
.
Staff.finds that the proposed R-2, R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C zoning designation are generally
harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan (please see Analysis below). Staff
recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be
provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's proposed zoning amendment
request is appropriate for this property.
The Tree Fam Annexation - AZ~06-004
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Allowed Uses: UDC Table 11-2B-2lists the pennitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the
C-N and C-C zoning districts. Landscape nurseries/tree fanus are conditionally allowed in the
C-N zone. There is an existing nursery on this site, which the applicant is proposing to retain
(see Analysis below). UDC Table 11-2A-2lists pennitted, accessory, and conditional uses in
the R-2, R-8 and RRl5 zoning districts. Except for the existing tree faun (nursery), all future
development on this site should comply with the allowed uses tables of the UDC.
b. Purpose Statement of Zones: The purpose ofthe residential districts is to provide for a range
of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the
City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts.
Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and
corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range.
The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the
community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated
which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the
scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to
streets and highways.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
I. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive
Plan, and the development surrounding the subject site, staff believes that the
requested R-2, R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C zones are appropriate for this property. Please
see Exhibit C for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings.
Legal Descriptions: The annexation legal description submitted with the application
(stamped on January 13, 2006 by Gordon N. Anderson, PLS) shows the property as
contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian.
There is some confusion over who owns, or has a right to, some property in this area.
According to the Ada County Assessor, MDC, LLC, one of the subject property
owners, owns additional property around property owned by TECO ONE, LLC (see
Exhibit D). This property has not been included within the subject annexation request.
The owners of the TECO ONE property and the Aldape property further to the north,
have expressed concern over this area. It appears that the most practical location for a
future public street over the rim is where the existing Basco Lane is constructed. The
adjacent property owners have concern over getting a roadway over the Phyllis Canal
and down to the Aldape property, especially if MDC, LLC owns that property and
does not make any provisions for a future roadway in this location. Staff does not
believe that the subject applicant should be required to construct a street to the Aldape
property where the current Basco Lane exists, but staff also has concerns with
allowing MDC, LLC to own this property (if in fact they do) without making some
provision that allows this area to become a public roadway in the future. Staff
recommends that the applicant. at the public hearing, address this concern and clarify
ownership of this area. If areas not included within the subi ect annexation application
are owned by MDC. LLC. that land should be included as part of the subi ect
annexation application. Staff recommends that the Commission find that this "issue"
has been adequately addressed by the applicant prior to making a favorable
recommendation to the City Council. The applicant has provided staff with a map
(see Exhibit E) and a letter (see Attachment #3. from the letter dated March 24.
The Tree Fann Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6,2006
2006) that explains that Treehaven and MDC will include Parcels 1. 2. 3. & 5 in
the annexation request. as parties associated with the applicant own these
parcels. However. it is still unclear who owns Parcel 4. which is basically the
southern part of Basco Lane that bisects the two TECO ONE parcels. Please see
the "Basco Lane" special consideration below.
As mentioned in Section 8 above, staff has some concerns over the proposed R-15
zoning adjacent to the existing WestWing Estates Subdivision. The proposed
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map anticipates that WestWing Estates will
redevelop with low density residential uses. To allow the residential densities in this
area to transition effectively, staff recommends that a portion of the 35.16 acres
proposed for R-15 zoning adjacent to WestWing Estates be zoned to R-8. The
applicant shall provide a new lerwl description to staff that depicts a strip of R-8. that
is at least 125-feet deep. adjacent to western boundary of WestWing Estates. The
revised legal descriptions for the R-8 and R-15 zones shall be submitted at least 10
davs prior to the City Council hearing.
Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted a concept plan with the subject annexation
request (See Exhibit C). Staff is generally supportive of the proposed land uses on the
concept plan and the general roadway layout. Although the City is not specifically
approving this plan for development, the specific concepts and proposed land uses,
should be included within a Development Agreement (DA) for this property. NOTE:
There is a 3.8 acre parcel, just west of the proposed Black Cat Road extension, that is
owned by the Rahbels and not a part of the subject annexation request. This 3.8 acre
parcel is not cUlTently subject to annexation, or the land uses proposed with the
submitted Concept Plan.
Access: On the submitted concept plan, the applicant is showing the extension of
Black Cat Road across Chinden Boulevard, and to the north property line. Staff is
supportive of this access to Chinden Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a second
access to Chinden Boulevard located half-way between Black Cat Road and Ten Mile
Road. If this access is constructed as a public street and aligns with the public street
approved in Bainbridge Subdivision to the south, staff is supportive of this access to
Chinden Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a third access to Chinden Boulevard,
located a few hundred feet west of the proposed Black Cat Road extension. Staff is not
supportive of this commercial access. As part of the DA for this propertv. staff
recommends that access to this site from Chinden Boulevard be restricted to section
lines and at the half mile between sections. as required by UDC 11-3H -4B2b. Further,
staff recommends that the two access points to this site from Chinden Boulevard be
constructed as public streets and align with the existing or previously approved public
streets on the south side of Chinden Boulevard. Black Cat Road is designated as a
minor arterial. Access to Black Cat Road will be evaluated and approved by the City
and ACHD when this property develops.
Spurwing Wav: Although staff does not recommend making it a part of the DA, staff
recommends that the applicant work with Spurwing Subdivision to the east to
somehow provide secondary/emergency access to Spurwing Way. If an emergency
connection can be made between the subject site and Spurwing Way, staff believes
that this will be of great benefit to the emergency service providers in this area.
The Tree Fann Annexation ~ AZ-06-004
PAGE 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
Stub Streets: There are several under-developed parcels adjacent to, and sUlTounded
by, the subject property. As part of the DA for this property. staff recommends that the
subject propertv provide public street access to the parcels to the east (Henkel. Parcel
No. R9323930190). west (McMullen. Parcel No. S0421438700. Owyhee Mountain
Ventures. Parcel No. S042134660. and Schwenkfelder, Parcel No. S04214281O0).
north (TECO ONE Parcel Nos. 50422427960 and S0422244700 and Orme. Parcel
S0421417200), and the enclave parcel (Rabehl. Parcel No. S0421449000). When
this property develops, staff may recommend that additional stub streets be provided
to adjacent parcels. These aàditioHaI smb stre8ts iRelud@, bHt are not limited to: th8
other OrHl8 property, Parcel No. 80122223401, aHd tHe Allitape property, Parcel
No. 80422212513, wHich are both 011 the Ilorth side of the Phyllis Canal. This
potEmtial requirem8at \vill be depeIllitent HpOR the feasibility of getting a road(s)
aoross the Phyllis Callal in those areas, aRlit other aooess OptiOHS that may be
provilit81it to the OrHl8 aHà Þ.ldape properties from the south aHd \vest.
Basco Lane: Basco Lane is a private lane that currently provides access to several
properties in this area. Basco Lane currently intersects Chinden Boulevard
approximately ~ of a mile west of Ten Mile Road and continues north across the
Phyllis Canal. Access to the TECO ONE, LLC properties as well as the Aldape
properties is currently provided from Basco Lane. It is unclear to staff who has an
interest in this lane and who does not. A majority, if not all of Basco Lane from
Chinden Boulevard to the Phyllis Canal is owned by MDC, LLC. City Staff has
contacted the Ada County Assessors Office and Melanie. Ada County Staff. has
confirmed that taxes for Parcels 3 and 4 are beinl! sent to 4410 W. Chinden
Boulevard. MDC's office. When the subject property develops. the Basco Lane
access to Chinden Boulevard should be abandoned.
As mentioned at the previous public hearinl!. staff has concerns over an existinl!
restriction easement over Basco Lane. In 2001 a restriction was recorded that
limits any expansion of Basco Lane. Said restriction states that MDC a!!rees to
not develop a public road on the property that will access the property to the
north of the Phyllis Canal (Aldape) without the express written consent of
Anderson and Thomas. As of the print deadline for this report. staff has not seen
any written consent from either the Anderson or the Thomas party. Staff would
like the applicant to clarify how this recorded easement will be terminated. as to
not prohibit a future public road from beinl! constrncted I!enerally where the
existinl! Basco Lane is.
Rather than usin!! Basco Lane. Treehaven intends to provide access to the TECD
DNE parcel via a collector road stub on the south side of the TECD parcel. in the
I!eneral area of the existin!! Basco Lane (near or at Parcel 4). To remove any
impediments that may be in Treehaven's control affectinl! access to the Aldape
property. Treehaven has proposed to dedicate to ACHD any portion of Parcel 3
necessary for a public road. once a pubic road is desi!!ned and approved throul!h
the !!ulch (north from the proposed TECD stub). Further. Treehaven is willin!! to
Quit claim any ril!ht. title. or interest they may have in Parcel 4 to TECD.
Aside from the Question of who owns Parcel 4. there does not seem to be an
al!reement between Treehaven and TECD about who should actually construct
the collector road between the south side of the TECD parcel and the south side
of the Phyliss Canal. Treehaven belieyes that their proposal to 2Ïye TECD.
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
throu!!h ACHD. enou!!h property for a collector street. is their fair portion. Staff
is not sure what is equitable in this case. It appears now that Treehaven does own
property between TECO and Aldape. This means that the TECO parcels do not
touch the Aldape property. Treehaven does. However. it also appears that
Treehaven does not have enou!!h property to actually construct a collector
roadway throu!!h their property to the south side of the Phvliss. To remedy this.
TECO has stated to staff that they would be willin!! to !!ive Treehaven enou!!h
property for a collector ri!!ht-of-way. as Ion!! as Treehaven constructs the
collector to the Phvliss. Then there is the Question of who is responsible for
construction of the brid!!e across the Phvliss Canal. Historicallv. half of a brid!!e
cost is received from each adjacent property owner. Staff does recommend that
one. and only one. public street stub from the south be provided to the Aldape
property. This recommendation is based on the difficulty of 2rade and costs
associated wth a second street. which is not necessary for the Aldape property to
develop. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on all public testimony
when determinine what is a fair and equitable solution to the public street access
Question. Please see Development Aereement provisions #11 and #12 below.
Existing Uses: There is an existing wholesale nursery (tree farm) and three single-
family homes on this site. The tree farm, and one of the existing homes, is currently
taking access to Chinden Boulevard. The existing single-family homes are principally
permitted uses in the proposed zoning districts. Nurseries, or Urban Fauns, however,
require Conditional Use Permit approval in the proposed C-N zone. Because the
nursery currently exists. staff recommends that the tree faun be allowed to continue
operating as is. without CU approval. However. prior to the City Engineer's signature
on the first final plat on the subject property. the nursery should be required to obtain a
Certificate of Zonill!! Compliance (CZC) permit and bring the site into compliance
with all UDC standards. These standards include, but are not limited to: parking and
drive aisle improvements, landscaping improvements, taking access from Chinden
Boulevard at the y¡ mile location, and compliance with sign regulations. Staff
recommends this provision be included as part of the DA for this site.
UDC 1l.5B-3D2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to
require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City
that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA
is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent
with the comprehensive plan designations and does not negatively impact nearby
properties.
Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be
entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of
annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the
City Attornev. Bill Nary. at 888-4433 to initiate this process. Staff recommends that
the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal Department to draft a
development agreement for The Tree Farm as follows:
I. That all future development shall 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.
2. That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with
The Tree Fann Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
the applicant's conceptual plan unless otherwise modified by other
provisions of the DA.
3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in
accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of
development.
4. That the future uses and lots on this site shall confoun to the District
Regulations and Allowed Uses contained in the Unified Development Code
(UDC), in effect at the time of development.
5. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer
and water service extension. that are customary with City policies.
6. Døvelopm0IH of this property eaR Bot begiB till gra':ity ffiea1'lS beeoffie
available via the North Blaek Cat Trunk. Sewer service to this property
shall be via e:ravitv means to the North Black Cat Trunk. The City of
Meridian does not e:uarantee sewer service in the timelines outlined in
the UDc. No interim or temporary lift stations shall be allowed.
7. That any existing 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 pwposes such as landscape irrigation.
8. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be
subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development
Code.
9. That when a preliminary plat is sabmitteG to the City final plat records on
this property. no direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard will be allowed on
this site; that when this property develops, the Basco Lane access to Chinden
Boulevard will be abandoned; that access to this site from Chinden
Boulevard will be restricted to the section line roads and half mile between
sections only; that the two future access point to this site from Chinden
Boulevard be constructed as public streets that align with the existing or
approved public streets on the south side of Chinden Boulevard; and that said
public streets be constructed in accordance with the adopted North Meridian
Auto Circulation Map of the Comprehensive Plan.
10. That at such time as plats and uses are proposed, access to Black Cat Road
extended shall be e""ÛlaatøG aBd restrieted subject to approval by the City
and the Transportation Authoritv.
II. That when this property develops adjacent to one of the parcels listed below,
the applicant agrees to provide public street access to the east (Henkel, Parcel
No. R9323930190), west (McMullen, Parcel No. S0421438700, Owyhee
Mountain Ventures, Parcel No. S042134660, and Schwenkfelder, Parcel No.
S0421428100), north (TECO ONE Parcel Nos. S0422427960 and
S0422244700 and Orme, Parcel S0421417200), and the enclave parcel
(Rabehl, Parcel No. S042 1449000). The exact location of the public stub
street(s) to the TECO ONE parcels shall be determined by the City and
the Transportation Authority with the preliminary plates) that abut the
TECO ONE parcels. Once a public road is desie:ned and approved
throue:h the e:ulch (eenerally where the existine: Basco Lane is). MDC
ae:rees to dedicate to ACHD any additional portion of property ACHD
deems necessary in Parcels 1-3. as shown in Exhibit E. to allow for and
to be incorporated into a public rie:ht-of-way down to the Phyllis Canal.
12. That additional stub streets to adjacent properties may be required as part of
preliminary plat approval. except to the north. Howeyer. if the current
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 13
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARfNG DATE OF APRIL 6, 2006
Basco Lane can not be nsed as a DubUc street to cross the PhvUss Canal
(see Provision 11 above). the City may reQnire one additional stub from
this DroDerty to the north (AldaDe DrODertv. Parcel #SO422212513). at
the western boundary of the western TECO ONE Darcel. The exact
location and equitable Dortion (includinl! ril!ht-of-way and construction)
of the subject Dotential DubUc street shall be determined bv the
TransDortation Authority.
13. That the existing tree farm (nursery) and existing single-family homes on this
site be allowed to continue their CUlTent uses; that prior to the City
EÐgiHeør's sigtJ:ature OR th@ first fmal plat issuance of the first buildinl!
Dermit on the subject property, the nursery should be required to obtain a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit and bring the site into
compliance with all UDC standards; and that these standards include, but are
not limited to: parking and drive aisle improvements, landscaping
improvements, taking access from Chinden Boulevard at the ~ mile location,
and compliance with sign regulations. NOTE: If any existinl! structures
encroach into any future required landscaDe buffer. they may be allowed
to remain with Alternative ComDUance aDDroval.
14. That all landscape street buffers and land use buffers will be constructed in
accordance with the UDC provisions in effect at the time of development.
15. That all contiguous property currently owned by MDC, LLC is part of the
subject annexation application. includinl! Parcels 1. 2. 3. & 5 as shown in
Exhibit E. That a new lel!al descriDtion. that incorporates the above-
listed Darcels. shall be submitted to the Planninl! DeDartment Drior to
the next DubUc hearinl!.
16. That TreehavenIMDC and all related entities shall Quit claim any ril!ht.
title. or interest they may have in Parcel 4 of Exhibit E to TECO ONE.
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject application AZ-06-
004. for The Tree Farm. with the Development A!!reement provisions listed in Section 10 of
the Staff Report for the hearing date of April 6. 2006.
11. EXHIBITS
A. Legal Descriptions
B. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
C. Concept Plan
D. Ada County Assessor's Ownership Map
E. Updated Ownership Map
The Tree Fann Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 14
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006
Exhibit A - Legal Descriptions
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION
~~~~.
A parcel of land situated in Section 22. TownshIp 4 North. Range 1 West of the Boise
Meridian. Ada County. 'daho, being more particularly described as follow;
Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Sect/on 22. said point being marked by an
aluminum cap, thence along the South line of said Section 22. North agol7'3¡:;" West,
1293.61 feet to the True Pernt of Begll'\nlng; thence continuing along South line of said
Section 22, North 89'"17'39" West a dIstance of 1353,62 feet; thence contfnuÎng North
89"17'09" West a distance 0( 2647.16 feet to the comer common to Seclions 21, 22, 27 and
28; thence along the South line of said Section 21 North 89°24'46" West a distance of
1307.51 feet; !hence leaving sakI South line North 00"22'50. East a distance of 203g.0a feel
to a point on the SoU'ttt bank of the Phytlls Canal; Thence along said South Bank !he
following (9) courses and distances; North 80°33'30' East a distance of 494.25 feet; thence
North 60"40'00" East a distance of 951.83 feet; thence South 00°31'08" West a distance of
69.65 feet: thence North 65°46'04" East a distance of 651.16 feet; thence North 79°37'32"
East a distance of 145.64 feet; thence South 00"55'34" West a distance of 6.00 feet; thence
North 78°21'21' East a distance of 245.06 feet, thence South 84°30'54" East a distance of
198.80 feet; thence South 80°22'45" Easl, 442.89 feet; thence leaving said South ineSouth
00"28'13" West a dlstanœ of 494,11 feet; thence South 89030'02" East a distance of 777.64
feet la a point being (v.t1en measured at right angles to) 330.00 feet distant from the
Westerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Seclion 22; thence along a line being parallel
with and 330.00 feet dislant from said Westeny line, North OOOJO'O3" East a distance of
84.85 feet; thence South 42.14'38" East a distance of 18.67 feet; thence SouthOQo~6'23.
West, BO.SO feet; thence South 86°31'2r East a dlstanöe af 189.70 fe,et¡. Ih~Çe $ollth
47°28'09. East a distance of 249.32 feet;thenœ North 00"26'21" East., dì~tanoe or 461.56
feet 10 a poInt on the south bank of the Phyllis Canal; thence along said South bank the
following four (4) courses and distances: South 89"25'59' East'e dIStance of 230.01 feet;
thence North 65°26'24" East a distance of 330.36 feet; ~. ~rth 73"44'36" East a
distance of 467.78 feet; thence North 79"58'07" East a d~ bf 931.30 feet to a point on
the East line' of said Sectfon 22; thence along said ,.E8,I\; lii1e, SQqllJ. 00°28'39" West a
distance of 400.03 feet to the East one-quarter corner,ö{J3ald S~n,22, said point being
marked by a brass cap; thence contJnutng along ~ld'è'BSt line, Squth 00°20'09" West.a
distance of 1317.57 feet to a point marked by a 5/8. tebar, then~ !Saving Said Eas~ line,
North 89°18'34" West a distance of 1291.77 feet to a point marked with a 5/8° rebSr; thence
South 00°25'06" Weat a distance of 1316.97 fBetta the Point of Bt!gfnnlng.
Annexation Parcel contains 358.57 acres, more or less.
B~E~~ '
¿:J'
JAN 1 7 2006
--j7:~:~::':=': -:-s ::,--;:~-
P.lOB,UB.IH5. ¡ .?IH RRH./P,4
EXCEPTING THEREFROM a parael commendngin the Southeast oói'"ner of Section 21,
said point being marked by an aluminum cap. tliEmce North 00°16'30' East a distance .of
914.93 feet to the True Point of BeginnIng; thence North 44°20'00' West a dislanœof
137.71 feet; thence North 58"26'30' West a distance of 138.52 feet, thence North 83°03'00.
West a distance of 187.58 feet; thence South 81.20'00" West a distance of 156.89 feet;
thence North OÖ~33'30" East a dIstance of 245.48 feet thence North 19°31'00" East II
distance of 103.10 feet; thence North 67°23;00. EaGt a dJs;tance of 104.89 feet. thence North
86"36'00" East a distance of 351.39 feet (formerly North 86"32'30" East a distance of 357.98
feet); thence South 00"16'30" West a distance of 495.93 feet to the Point of Be Inning.
. ~",~L LANb J'.
I'~ UT~'
'J}¡'r~ .fð
!! vV1.- .
7314
Q,'().I'J Ji)r{~ ~
':0 ~ ,,>¡:.:,- ,9
~A'; OF\" ~"
wi¡ N. A~'\)~
....----.- m -------
Exhibit A - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
!!~~o
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 1
ZONED R-15
Legal DescrIption
A parcel of land situated in the South Half of Section 22. TownshIp 4 North,
Range 1 West of the BoIse Meridian, Ada County. Idaho, being more particularly
described as foUow:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of saId Section 22, saId point being marked
by an aluminum cap, thence along the South line of said Section 22, North
89"11'39" West, 1293.61 feat to the True Point Of Beginning,
Thence continuing along said South line, North 89"17'39' West, 1353.,62 faet the
Southeast comer of the Southeast Quartsr of said Section 22; thence continuing
along said South line, North 89"11'09" West, 50.05 feet to a point; thence leaving
said South line. North 00"42'51" East, 154.07 feet to point; thence along a curve
to the right have a radius of 700.00 feet, an arc length of 403.37 feet and through
a central angle of 31"00'58", with a chord bearing of North 17°13'20" East, a
chord distance of 397.81 feet to a point of reverse curvature: thence along a
curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet, an arc length of 292.41 feet,
through a central angle of 33~30'26', with a chord bearing North 16~58'36' Easl,
a chord distance of 288.26 feel to a point; thence North 86°59'29" East, 143.11
feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve to the left:. having a radius .of
450.00 feet. an arc length of 514.04 feat, though a central angle of 65~26'58",
with a chord bearing North 54~16'OO" East, a chord distance of 486.54 feet to a
point .of reverse curvature; thence along a curve te the right, having a radius .of
800.00 feet, an arc distance .of 545.60 feet, through a central angle .of 39"04'33""
with a chord bearing North 41"04'48" East. a chard distance of 535.09 feet to a
point; thence North 6O~37'O4 East, 178.07 feet to a point; thence South 29°22'56"
East, 335.65 feet te a point; thence South 00°25'06. West, 1316.97 feel ta a
point. the Point Of BegInning.
Said parcel containing 35.16 acres more of Jess.
End description
Project No. 05132
December 14, 2005
1'"0 $U"YE~INÇ S£n'IC[S
351 ( lIour...,. LA,- . Suire r. Htlldlo.. to 81642
p ZOB_B88,I~n. ,<
Exhibit A - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2,2006
!:!!~o
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 2
ZONED R-2
Legal Description
A parcel of land slluated in Section 22, Township 4 North. Range 1 West of the Boise
MeridIan. Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly desaibed as follow:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 22, said point being marked by an
aluminum cap, thence along the South line of said Section 22, North 89&17'39" West a
distance of 1293.61 feet; thence North 00"25'06" East 8 distance of 1316,g7 fsello the
True Point Of B"9Innlng;
Thence North 29622'56' West a distance of 335.65 feet; thence North 60"37'0" East a
distance of 218.64 feel to a point Of curve; thence along a curve to the feft having a
radius of 300.00 feet. an arc length of 302.88 feet and through a central angle of
57"50'47", with a chord bearing North 31°41'41" East a distance of 290.18 feet to iii point
ot reverse curve; thence along a curve to the right having a radius or 500.00 feet, an arc
length of 335.63 feet and through a central angle of 38°27'39", with a chord bearing
North 22"00'06" East a distance of 329_37 feet; thence NOrth 41"13!56" East a distance
of 517.90 feet to Ii poInt of curve; thence arong a curve to the left having a radius of
200.00 feet, an arc length of 182,76 feet and through a central angle of 52"21 '25", with a
chord bearing North 15°03'13" East a distance of 176.47 feet; thence North 11007'30"
West a distance of 80.25 feet to a point on the South line of the Phyllis Canal: thence
along said South fine. North 79&58'07" East a distance of 639.11 feet to a point on the
East line of said Section 22; thence along said East line, South 00°28'39" West a
distance of 400.03 feet to the East one-quarter corner of said Section 22, saíd poinl
being marked by a brass cap: thence continuing along said East fins. South 00020'Og"
West,8 dIstance of 1317.57 feet to a point marked by a 518" rebar; thence leaving said
East line, North 89°18'34" West a distance of 1291.77 feet to a point marked with a 5/8"
rebar being the Point of Beginning.
Containing 38.70 acres, more or less,
End of Description
Project No. 05-132
December 14, 2005
lAIID SORVf',MG S{RVlt[S
HI L WOtBrlDlltr In, " £U'I@ f, Hllidiun, 10 836H
P ZD888UHS .
Exhibit A - Page 3
ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP
EXHIBIT ^
FlSD,O'" :
i~d-erso~-SUrV!!Y GrolJp,Com'. .
Page r of 2
PARCEI.3
ZONED R-8
A par~el ofland situated in Section 22, fownship 4 North, Range 1 West of the Boise M...,-idiJ1n.
Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly dcsClibed as follow:
Commencing at the: Southeast cornCJ of said Section 22; thence: along rbe South line of said
Section, South B9°ITJ9" Weill a distance of J 293_61 feet; Iheneç continuing along SoLlthUnc of
said Section 22, North 89° 17'39" West a dist.Ulec of lJ53,62 feet to a point; thenc.e: contiuumg
North B9°I7'O9~ West a distance of 2647.16 feet to the comer common to Seclions 21,22,27
and 28; thel1\;e aloflg the south line of said Scçtiun 21 North 89°24'46" West a distance 1">(
lJ07JI feet; thence leaving said South line North 00°22'50" F.ast II di~tance of859_78 feel to Uu~
TRUE .POINT OF BEGINNING:
l.IIO !'.Y£TIHC SERVICES
Thence North 00"22'46" Eut a distant" of 1 179,29 feel to iii point (lit the SoUlb hank.of tlte
Phylfìs Canal; Thence along said South Bank- the Following (9) COUf$C~ and dístan~e,~: Noel ¡
80°33' 30" Ell[ II distance of 494.25 feet; thence: North 60°4(1'00" Easl a distance of 9.5 1,85 feet;
thence South 00°3"08" West II distance of 69.65 teet; !lIenee North 65"46'04" East ¡j diMancc of
651.t 6 feet; thence North 79°]7'32" East, 8763 feet; thence South 11 0 19'02" bast, 356.I)5fçctto
II point of curvatul'c; tbence alang a curve to the right. having II radius of 200.ijO feet all an:
length of 96.06 feet and through a central angle of 27~JI'O7", with II chord I)caring SoUth
07°33'19" Foul, II chord distMco of 95.14 fect to II point; thence South 06?12'OS" West, 237.43
feet to II point; thence along a curve to the right, having a radius of 750.00 feet, an arc distlUtcc of
575,0 I Feet and through II central lingle of 43°55' 39", witf1 a chord bearing South /j5~51 'OJ" £ast,
a chord digtance of 561.0) feet 10 a point of revCllc curvature; Ihence alol1g a curve to tbe left
having a radius: (If 250.00 n:et, an arc distance of 188-1 S feet aDd through a celltnl! angle of
4)°07'41 ", with II chord bearing South 65°27'04" East. a chord distance of 183-77 feel to a point;
Ibem;e South 87°00'S5" East, 81.62 feet (0 a point of curvature:; thence along a CLln'l': to the leLl,
having 8 radius of 400.00 feet, an arc dislanœ of 196.26 feet and through a central iillglc of
28°06'46", with a chord beatin ! North 78°55'42" East, a chord distance of 9430 feet to a point;
thence along a cUJVc 10 the right having II radius of 450,00 feel and Ihrough a central angle of
97°59'50" , with a chord bearing North 41 °30'(W East, 679.22 feet; thence SoLId) 89°~U'O2"
&st, 777.&4 fret to B point; thence North OQo30'Or F.ast , 84.85 feel to a pornl; thence S()u(h
42° 14 '38" East, 18.67 feel to II point.; nll~nce 80mb Of °26'23" West, 8050 fc:çt to a poim;
Thence South 86°31'27" East, 189.70 feel (0 a poiJll; Thence Soulb 47°2S'U9"l3ast, 249.32 feel,
10 a point; thence North 00°26'21 ,. Ea&!, 461.56 feci to II puint; Tberlce SoutlJ 89Q2S'S9" E¡1Sl
230.01 feet 10 a point; thence North 85°28'34" East, 3,3(),36 feel 10 a point; thence North
7]°44'36" [;ast, 467,18 feel to a poim; Thence North 79°58'07" Hast, 29.2,19 feet 10 ~ point;
thence South 11 "07'30" East, 80.25 feet to a point [)f curvalure; thence along a curvc to the right,
having a radius of 200.00 feet, an arc distance 182,76 feet and through a central Bugle I'I'
52°21 '26".haviug a chord bearing South 15"OJ'U" We~t, a coord dÎ~ance of J 76.47 feel to a
point; tbence Soutb 4)°13'56" West, 517,90 feci to II point of curvature; thence Alon¡:t a curve III
the leli, having a radiLls (If 500.00 feet, an arc distance of 335,63 feel and through ;, central <logle
of J8°27'~<¡". with II chord bearing South 22"00'06" West. a chord distance (,f MM LAND
,:'\~) -"'."":-"... ^ ..
"'~':"';'é"-\Ht:~,?> C/
...' ",/
it~ 1 \/' L., \;
7J ~ '
(.\ ~,/ 3 ~,J <5.) "
<)""1 ~ c'
'?ò~'...t~~~
UN N, 1\ t-\~-<ç:
.HI L WUlerlowlr In,. . ~Ullt 1. Muidi.n, 10 ~5&~1
P_208.8HUJ45 .
Exhibit A - Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
Page 2 of 2
PARCEI,3
ZON}-<D R.(
~!~9o
329.37 feet to a point of reverse curvature: them:e along a curve tl1 tlte right.. having a
radius of 300.00 feet:, an !lIe distance of 302,88 feet and through a central angle of
38"27'39", with a chord bearing South 31°41'41" West, a chord dÎstaJ.ICC of290.IS feet
to II point; thence South 6(}c31'O4" West, 396,71 feet to a point ofcurvRture; them:c along
a l:urve to the left, having a radius of 800.00 feci, an arc distance of 545,60 tCl~t aad
through a œntrnl angle of 3'P(}4'33", with a chord bearing South 41°04'48" West, a
chord distance of 535.09 feel to a point of reverse curvalun:; thtmce along a curve to th~
righl, having a radius of 450.00 ft.'et, ail arc distance of 514,04 feet and through Ii ccntral
angle of 65°26'58", with a chord bearing South 54°16'00" West a chord distunct of
486,54 feel to a point; thence South 86°59'29" West, 143.11 feet 10 u point; lhence alung
a curve to the left, having a radius of 500 lOOt, an arc distance of 29,99 feel and through II.
central angle of 03°26'12", with a chord bearing North 01°29'43" West, II chord distance
of 29.99 feet to 8 point: thence North 03"'12'49" West 8 distance of 72.76 feet to II. pøÎnt
of cwvature; tl¡ence along a curve to the left. having a radius of 200,00 feet. an arc
distance of 156.88 feet and through a central angle of 44°56'32", with II dwrd bcaring
North 25°41'05" West, a chord distance IIf152.89 feel to II. point; thence Nurth
48"09'21" West, 172.87 feet 10 a point of curvature; thence along II curve to tbe left,
havíng a radius of550.0() feel, an arc length of 70].23 feet and tluough II central angle of
13"03 '0 (", with a chord bearing North 84"40'52" West, n chord distance of 654.69 feel
to a point; thence South 58"47'38"' West, 502.91 feet to a point of curvature; thence along
Ii "..urve to the right, baving a radius lif 1200.00 feel:, and arc distance of 949.72 feet and
tht'tlugh 11 central angle of 45"20'44", with II chord bearing South 81"28'00" W~1, a
chord distance of 925.11 feel to a point; thence North 75"5] '3K" West II distallce of
601,78 feet; thence North (JOn 16'30" East a distance of 463.90 feet; Ihence South
86°36 '00" West a distance of 357.39 foot (fonncrly South 86"32 '3D" We~t a distance of
357.98 feet): thence South 67"23'00" West II distance of 104.R9 feel; thence South
79"31 'UO" Wesl ¡ distance of 103.70 feet thence South 00"33'30" West u disfanl:e of
245.48 feet; thcnce North 8 ("20'00" East a distance of J56.89 feel; thence South
83QQ3 '00;' East a distance of 187.58 reel: thence South 5S"'2ö'30"Easl a distance of
138.52 teet; thence South 44°20'00" East a distance of 78.25 feet; thence Nnrth
75"'51 '38" West, 264.25 feet; to a point of curvature; thence along a cw-ve to the Icft,
having a radius of 750.00 feet, an arc length of 421.71 feet and through a central angle of
32"'12'58", with a cJlOfd bearing South 88"0] '53" West, a chord distance nf 416. 17 feet
to a point thence South 71 "55'24" West, 352.27 fect to a point of curvature; thence along
a curve to the right, having a radius of 500.00 feet, an arc dislancc of 155.(J6 feet and
through II cclltral angle of J 7°46'08", with a chord bearing South 80°48'28" West, a
chord distance of 154.44 feet 10 D point: thence South 89°41 '32" West a distance of
105.04 feet 10 a point, the Point of Beginning.
Said parcel c()nlaining t67.02 acres, more ('r h:ss.
t~NJ ~UIVEY.IIt' 1("'I[[S
J51 r IIn¡eriOUI t~.. . Suite f. Kerldlon 10 8.!h'~
p, cO8.ÐÐfllH'J .
Exhíbit A - Page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
~~~o
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 4
ZONED R.2
Legal Description
A parcel of land situated in Section 22, Township 4 North, Range 1 West of the Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as fOllow:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 22, said point beIng marked by an
aluminum cap, thence along the South line of said Section 22, North 89°17'39" West,
1293.61 feet; thence continuing along South Line of said SectIon 22, North 89°17'39"
West a distance of 1353_62 feet; thence continuing North 89°17'09" Wesl a distance of
2647,16 feet to !he comer common to Sections 21, 22, 278 and 28; thence along the
south line of said Section 21 North 89°24'46" West a distance of 1307,51 feet; thence
leaving said South line North 00°22'50" East a dístanoe of 2039,08 feet to a poÎnt on the
South bank of the PhyHis Canal; Thence along said South Bank the following (9)
courses and distances: North 80"33'30" East a distance of 494,25 feat; thence North
60"40'00" East a distance of 951,83 feet; thence South 00~31'08" West a distance of
69,65 feet; thence North 65~46'04" Easte distance of 651.16 feet~ thence North
79°37'32" East a dfslanœ of 87.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 79°37'32" East a distance of 658,01 feet; thence South 00Q55'34" West a
distance 016.99 feet; thence North 78°21 '21" East a distance of 245,06 feet; thence
South 84°30'54" East a distance of 198.80 feet; thence South 80"22'45' East, 442,89
feet; thence leaVing said South line South 00°28'13" West, 494.11 feet to a poln~ thence
along a curve to the left having a radius of 450.00 feet, an arc length of 769.67 feet and
through a central angle of 97"59'50", with a chord bearing South 41°30'03" West,
679,22 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 400.00 feet, an arc;
length of 196.26 feet and through a central angle of 28"06'46", with a chord bearing
South 78°55'42" West, a chord distance of 194.30 feet to a point; thence North 87"00'55"
West, a distance of 81.62 feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve to the right,
having a radius of 250.00 feet, an erc dIstance of 188,18 feet and through a central
angle of 43.07'41", with B chord bearing North 65°27'04" West, a chord distance of
183.77 feet to 8 point of reverse curvature; thence along a curve to the left, having a
radius of 750.00 feet, an arc distance of 575.01 feet and through a central angle of
43"55'39", with a chord bearing North 65"5"03" West, a chord distance of 55103 feat to
a point; thence North 06°'2'05" East, 237,43 feet to a point of curvature; thence along a
Curve to the left, having a radius of 200,00 feat, an arc length of ga,O6 feet and through a
central angle of 27"31'07". with a chord bearÎng North 07°33'29" West a chard distance
of 95, 14 feet to a point; thence North 21°19'02 Wasl. 356.05 feet to feel to the Point of
Beginning,
Said parcel containing 27,32 acres. more or less-
End of Description
Project No. 05132
December 14, 2005
LAHO 5VIIVEflHG 5£11'1&($
HI l Wilen...., III . S"IInF, Me'ldlQII, 10 BHH
~_lOUB8 IHS .
Exhibit A - Page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
ASCi"
Alld~~son-Suf-vey GrOl;p,comO
EXHIBIT A
PARCELS
WNED CN
legal Description
A parcel of rand situated In the south one-half of the Northeast Quarter and in the
South Half of Section 22, Township 4 North, Range 1 West ot the Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly descrIbed as follow:
Commeoong at the Southeast comer of said Section 22, said point being marked
by an aluminum cap, thence along the South line of said SectIon 22, North
89°17'39" West, 2647.23 feet to the Southeast comer of the Southeast Quarter of
said Section 22: thence continuing along said South line, North 89°17'09" West,
60.05 feet to the True Point Of Beginning,
Thence continuing along said South line, North 89°1 TOO" West, 1243.07 feet to a
point; thence leaving said South line, North 01°59'10" East, 343.83 feet to a point
of curvature, thence along a curve to the right. having a radius of 150.00 feet. an
arc distance of 221 .56 feet and through a central angle of 84°37'42", with a chord
bearing North 44°18'01" East. a chord distance of 201.96 feet to a point of
reverse curvature; thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of 1000.00
feet. an art length of 470.27 feet and through a central angle of 26°56'40". with a
chord bearing North 73~O8'32" East, a chord distance of 465.95 feet to a point of
reverse curvature; thence along a curve to the right, having a radius of 500.00
feet, an arc distance of 494.38 feet and through a central angle of 56°39'05"
having a chord bearing North 87"59-'45" East, a chord distance of 474.48 feet to a
point; thence South 63°40'43" East, 311.09 feet to a point of curvature; thence
along a curve to the left, having a radius of 700.00 feat, an arc distance of 383.59
feet and though a central angle of 31°23'49., having a chord bearing South
16°24'45" West, a chord distance of 378.80 feet to a point; thence South
00°42'51" West, 154.07 feet to a point, the Point Of Beginning.
Said parcel containing 17.26 acres, more or less.
End description
Project No. 05132
December 14,2005
l(NÐ $Uft'(IIN~ S[H"C!~
351 ¡ Voter lour In.. . Sulle I "!ridlon- 10 8~6d1
'-Z08-88U31~. .'
Exhibit A - Page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
RSI:IO^"':"
Andel~~--SllIV-;YGroUP^~-ol~ '~,
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 8
ZONED R-15
LegelDescription
A parcel of land situated in the south one Half of Section 22, Township 4 North. Range 1
West of the Boise Meridian. Ada County, 'daho, being more particularly described as
follow:
Comrnencing at (hI: Southc&st COtner of said Section 22. said point being marked by an aluminUln
cap, thence along lhi: South line of said Section 22, North 89<>17'39" We¡¡L, 2{147,23 feet 10 the
Southca!J1 comer of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 22; thence CO)1tinultlg a.long said South
line, North 89°17'09"" West, 1293.12 feet to the True Poiat Of Beginning,
Thence cOnliIming along said South line, North 89°17'09" WeM, 992-11 tèet lu a poil1l; thence
leaving said South line, along a curve to the right, having a radju~ of 2400,00 feet, an arc Icngth
of 839,93 feet ur¡d through a cenlxal angle of 20"03'06", with a chQl'd bearing North 15"42'16"
East, a chord distanceof8.35JiS fect to a point; thence South 75°5"38" Ea,qt, 16.37 feet 10 B. point
of curvalure; thence arong a CW'Ve to the lell, having a radius of 1200.00 fect. all arc l~lgth of
949,71 feet and through a central angle of 4S"20'44", with a chord bearing North 81°28'(/0" East,
a chord distance of 925.12 feet to a point; thence North 58°47'38" Eut, 502.91 feet to II point "f
cUrvature; ÜJence alOng II curve to the right, having a radius of SSO.OO feet, an, arc distill1ce of
701.23 feet IInd through II eentnl! angle of 73"03'01", with II chord bearing South 84"40'52"
EaSt, a chord diJltance of 654.69 feet to a point; Ibetlce South 48°09'21" EElSt, 172.87 feet to a
point of curvatUre; Ihen.ce along a curve to the right, having a I'Sdju$ of 200.00 feel, an arc length
of 156.88 feet IU1d through a central angle of 44°56'3,2", with a chord bearing South 25"41 'OS"
EaiH, a chord dis(l/UCC of 152.89 feet to a point; thence South 03°12'49" East. 72.76 feet I" a Ntnt
of curvature; thence along a curve to the right, having a radiu5 of 500.00 feet, an arc distance of
322.40 feet and through a central angle of 36"56' 3K", wilh a long chord bearing Soulh 15" I 5 'Jon
West, a chord distance of316.84 feet [0 II poim ufrcvene Cw"Vature, thence 81011& a curve to the
left, having a radius of 700.00 feet, an IIfC distance of 19.78 feet and through a Ct"lltl'IIJ angle of
1 °37'09", with a chord bearing South 32"S5'14" West, a chord distance of J 9,78 feet 10 a point;
thence North 63"40'43" WC6t, 311.09 fee{ to a pam! of curvature; thence afong a curve In U¡e left
having a radius of 500.00 feet, III arc length of 494,38 feet and t!trough a central angle of
56°39'05", with a chord bcMing South R7"59'45" West, a chord distance of 474.48 feet (0 a point
of reverse c\JTVatw-e; thence alung a curve to tbe tight having a radius 0[ 1000,0(1 fect, an arl'
length of 470.27 feet and through 1\ central arigle of 26°56'40", with !I chord bearing South
73"08'32" West, II chord distance of 465.95 feel to s point of reverse curvature; Ih'CJ)cc along a
curve to the len., having Ilmdh.l5 of ISo.oo teet, an. arc. length 0[221..56 feel and through ¡¡ centml
angle of 84"37'42", with a chord bearing South 44"18'0'" West, a chord distantc 0(201.9(, fœl
to a poinl; thence South Of "'9'10" We~(, 343.83 feel to a point, the Point or Beginning.
Said parcel containing 34,95 acres, more of less,
End description
Project No. 05132
Deccmbçr 14,2005
lND .URlrYIIIC ~[!IYlcÉ~
HI [ Wdllrrn'UI In., , Sllil~ f. ~etidIQ~, 108300
P 208,860.1145 . , , I.' I -
Exhibit A - Page 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
RSEI'
Anderson sl;r~~Ýb~o;IP'¡;O'~O
EXHæIT A
PARCEL 7
ZONED CC
Legal DtlScciplion
A parcel ofland situated in the Southeast Quarter ofScctiol1 21 and the Southwest
Quarter of22, Township 4 North, Range I West urtbe Boise Metidillo, Ada County,
idaho, being more particularly described as follow:
Contl11encmg at the Southeast I.:omcr (If said Section 21, the True Point of Beginning;
Thence along the South line ofsaid Section 21, North 89"24'23" West, 868.32 feet to !I
point; thence leaving said South line, Nmtn 00"34'29" East, 37.20 feet to a point; thence
North 03°00'02" Ea.'>t, 346,62 feet 10 Ii point of curvature; thenl.'e along 8 curve to' Ihe
right, having Ii !"!.dius of 80lWO feel, an arc distance of228.96 feet 8lId I11rough a cenlral
angle of16°23 '54", with a choJd bearing Norlh 11 °IJ . 59" East. B chord distance of
228.18 feet to a point of reverse curvature; Thence along a CUlVe to the left, having 11.
radius of 400.00 feet, an arc lengl11 245.40 feel and through a central angle of35"O9'OY"
with a chord bearing North 01°49'23" East. a cnnrd distance of241.57 feet to a poin!.;
thence North 1 S045 '09" West, 115.34 feet to Ii point; thence North 71 °55'24" Easl,
125.94 feet 10 a point of curvature; thence along a curve lQ the right, having II radiu¡; of
750.00 feet, an arc distance of 427,71 feet and through a central angle oO2°12'S8", wìth
8 chord bearing North 88°01' 53" East. ) chord distance of 416.17 feet 108, point.; Thence
South 75"51 '38" East, 264.25 feet to a p{)ìnt; thence South 44" 20'00" E83t, 59.46 feet;
thence N{)rth 00" 16'30" East, 32.03 feet; lhencc Soulli 75"5 I '38" East, 60 1.78 ti:!et:
thence along a curve lo the lefl, having a radius of 2400.00 feet, an arc 1ength of 839,93
leet and through 8 central angle of 20°03 '06", with a chord bearing South 15"42'16"
West. a chord distance of 835.65 feet to a point on the South lil1cofsaid Section 22;
thence along said South line, North 89°17'09" West, 361.93 feet to the Point of
Beginning,
Said parcel containing 28.45 acre!!. more or less.
End of Description
Project No. 05132
January 13,2006
l,~n ~'RYrYINC traWlcrs
Hl [ WIle ""'" I. , . Suile r, ~.,jdIÐ., 10 HUH
P lDS.BB8T34\ .
Exhibit A - Page 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
!:!!~o
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 8
ZONED R-15
Legal Description
A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 4
North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more
particularly described as follow:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 21. thence along the
South line of said Section 21, North 89°24'23" West, 668.32 feet to the True
Point of Beginning;
Thence continuing along said South line, North 69°25'31" Wast, 439.19 feet to
a point; thence NoM 00°22'50" East, 859,78 feet to a point: thence North
89°41'32" East. 105.05 feet to a poInt of curvature: thence along a curve to the
left, having a radius of 500.00 feet, an arc distance of 155.06 feel and through a
central angle of 17°46'08", with a chord bearing North 60°48'28" East, a chord
distance of 154.44 feet to a point; thence North 71°55'24" East. 226,33 feet .to a
point; thence South 15°45'09" East. 115.34 feet to a pojnt of curvature' thence
along a curve to the right, having a radius of 400.00 feet. an arc length of
245.40 feat and through a central angle of 35°09'05", with a long chord bearing
South 01°49'23" West. a chord distance of 241.57 feet toa point of reverse
curvature; thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of BOO.DO feet, an
arc length of 228.96 feet and through a central angle of 16°23'54", with a chord
bearing South 11°11 '59;' West. a chord distance of 228.18 feet to a point;
thence South 03°00'02" West, 346.62 feet to a point; Thence South 00"34'29"
West. 37,20 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Said parcel containing 9.71 acres. more or less.
End of Description
Project No. 05132
December 14, 2005
LAlli) SU~V£YIN'G ~tØVIC[S
351 L WU.II...r lll, . s"". f, H.lldig~, 10 Ð5bH
PlD8,8ÐH/H5- ','
Exhibit A - Page 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2,2006
Exhibit A- Page 11
-~'-t) ----
"
"I
I~I
Y""""""'--l----"' ~,~- --- T~-'" ß,,---- ........"---.. ..~
" i 'J'
t~I" ~¡J I; I .:
~ ~ 'I .
~ ~ ¡ ~
t \ ~ ' ' I ,
'i \, '",.._""" !
~! \yJ
_n~ i-7 \
:'1 ~
;:.,¡ ~:
l'
!
Î I :
~~"~-j
¡ I \
¡ I.. "'---)'"'
'.i tJ',<!
'.ì : ~. ~'.~
1
'" I
~\ ~-~~J
\ø'
!¡ I
'~
IÄ
\
\.
'\
u
~ I¡
...... :z:~
z §~
< ...¡:
...., :2
--"'~'-""'" ---- "'"Î',
'~
I~
.,,0 : ~
"--"'- 1;:' I ~
'---" ~..~ ,i~
""\ ,~
¡i
, ~
, .
/~.l_- ! i
. ~~ I
.. '-.--"'---~' I
( "Ii
\ ¡J~¡E ~
c, ~ ,
. ~ ê I
\ ~~I\ i
1"~ ""-._---A~
, i
I
~
~
--.:
':;¡ L':i
;~~ .... <)
'- '1:: ~;;
--,..0: '"' Q
11i t? i£ :'¡-
>.. l' - ;) ð
"" -i: -- IE
is:¡ >:) ';'t
. ~-
ã.~,
}i
"'"
" °
-,..,
~ ,~::
!!. .
~1 "I
~ "~
'\
~ ------.-""-
"-,,-
""""
----'-.,
1
~
~
, . \ \
~---,,-..~...- -..........----f
'" ,
01"'1 I
*~" ~
--...L '....:..",--- .J
L~' ~
_"J ...
~i' ..fi~
e .. J~
: l .:~
þ, ~ L~
C ~ ". ~
É! ,j,,~-
j
¿ ,-
c;
kJ
.---.J
(~ H'
:il
T
'>
- '1
~ ~'
-- ~
,
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
B. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
I. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to
grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan;
The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to R-2, R-8, R-15, C-N
and C-c. If the applicant provides some R~8 zoning adjacent to the west side of
WestWing Estates, staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will
comply with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report for more
infonnation.
Exhibit B - Page 1
2.
The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the
proposed district, specifically the purpose statement;
No development is proposed concurrent with the zoning map amendment. Staff
finds that there are several uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed within
the requested zoning districts. If the applicant complies with the provisions
outlined in the development agreement, staff finds that the proposed commercial
and residential districts will be in compliance with the specific district
regulations. Staff finds that future development of this property should comply
with the established regulations and purpose statements of the residential and
commercial zones.
3.
The map amendment shall not he materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when
determining this finding.
The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery
of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City including, hut not limited to, school districts; and,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse
impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing
services to this site.
4.
5.
The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3E).
The proposed zoning amendment will provide zoning districts that are consistent
with what the City has envisioned for this area. Staff finds that all essential
services can be made available or will be provided by the developer to the subject
property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. In
accordance with the fmdings listed above, staff finds that Annexation and Zoning
of this propertv would be in the best interest of the City. if the applicant provides
revised legal descriptions for the R-8 and R-15 zones. and enters into a
Development Agreement (DA) with the City. as mentioned in Section 10 of the
Staff Report.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
C. Concept Plan
Exhibit C - Page 1
\'---'ì' nf
\
j
)
( r---- I, \; .
'--f~-'~"~'-~" ~-:-j=---
¡
\. ~J'"'" "::'" t;;"
1;'
i
I
\
-' .
I ~
\ ,(
L._~-:,
l
\
~
1 1
;. ! I I~
J II ! ~ II j! i
In ,!¡ rt-~ i~ JUI ~ ~ lIt !
r. fL tJ J r" I I f I
ODD Illlii I
hj~
'-:J
J
j
~ ~--~!i
l[rJi
h=--: ~
~I
~
¡].i
jJ""i~ .
fin
.i~'j
~ ~.
lilt
7
E<
1-.-'
ra""
LL.
Q)
QJ-
1-."-
f-",
Q,J""
..c z
I--ç
'-'
II
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
D. Ada County Assessor's Ownership Map
-,
I
,¡--:7/1 A . T"
LL-LJ : .' ~Ep. 1\1'[ \
, A pp¡~\¡ Oli-/"'C:O
I í:::;,\ {,\Ç)C, lLL
Nt
"-------"._--,---
ALDAPE
_...._.._,.._-,._-"...~S-60LAN\-E--
PAt"'-"'----,----- \,
'l..Lls '--"'---,,\
--""~~\\~;7~""""-""""""""" 11_,."
:~//7~~t!l Z/7Z/;ZZf"
~,. I
~-"" '~
"'~ì"", TECD :g
<Ii I~
//1
. '11______--"..
i
'---.--._--".,,-"---,,--- ,/ I
-----"--, oWnership according
to Ada County I
via ArcView GIS
"". --"""'"--"",""".,,,- ",--- .---
TECD
-------
MDC
'"
MDC
".j
~--TO C ttINo£rJ
Exhibit D - Page 1
CiTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2,2006
E. Updated Ownership Map
.t:;
~
z<
Exhibit E - Page 1
.,,------,-_.- -----.-.
i
i
I
I
I
I
~ I
..., ,
~\
~-. \
" ,
...., ,
"
..
..
..,,:- I
, $ x i
.§51 !",,"""---"'-'
;>'
ë.
It
I
..! ,
f 'I
N------l '<-,.
v:' . - --- ..
'" -~!~~;~-....
.,... '.~ ..
..~-..,--- I
-4;~ i
.\'t
,
i
_.._----,-
,.
:: ¡
~ £
~ i
:i I-:.:
:>::
~
--------.--.,,-..,.
"
~~
~~
- Ë
... ",",
õ
"E
5 i';'
ð~
šj
"""
r.., If ~
...¡ 'ö u
~!;
. .. ]ð
c
¡j ~
f- "- ~
.. .:
,~ 1
~ i
~ ~
~
,~
~
t
;;::
"'"
;¡
~--_.._..._'~
~ '
.
t
'---_..~_....,... .
1
.------.'......--¡
"--.
-~---,-.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 59 of 90
Rohm: I think we are done with that one. We have one left. Thank you, everybody. I
wonder if we should have commented on if, in fact, an easement could be obtained for
the sidewalk in the motion, as opposed to -- because it -- if they couldn't get an
easeme_n!-for the sidewalk, then, Becky has proposed something that would --
-----,-.
Borup: That canufiE¡-handled when that's developed and the right of ways given and
stuff, isn't it? ------~----------------
Rohm: I dotl)J<now. It's more of a question than anything else.
---
--
Borup: I think it's just important to have something to walk on.
Rohm: If that out parcel -- if they won't grant a sidewalk easement, then, it will have to
be --
Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, since the anticipation, I
guess, of the applicant in her testimony was that they thought they could get that
worked out between now and the Council hearing, since the Council is going to have to
hear it anyway, I think they could probably address it there. If it hasn't happened or isn't
going to happen, they can do it then.
Item 22:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15
(79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree
Farm by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides
of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision:
Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the last Public
Hearing on AZ 06-004 and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on your
agenda this evening is just a small little 358 acre annexation, requesting several zones,
an R-2, which is the two low density residential, 66 acres; an R-8 medium density
residential zone, 167 acres; an R-15, medium high density residential, 79.8 acres. And
a neighborhood business C-N zone, 17.26 acres. And, finally, a C-C, community
business district, at 28.45 acres. The site is located on the north of Chinden Boulevard.
It's approximately a quarter mile west of Black Cat Road, extending east and, then,
continuing east. So, this is the western boundary. Continuing east they have about
5,300 feet of frontage on Chinden Boulevard. It's composed of ten separate tax parcels
and five different property owners. There are some existing uses on the site. There is
an existing tree farm in this approximate location and there are some other homes on
the site. I think there is another one back over here somewhere. I did want to just
mention this property is not currently within the city's area of impact. It is up on the City
Council's agenda for this next Tuesday, the 7th, as part of the north Meridian comp plan
amendment the city is proposing to annex in the subject site on this map and I
apologize for the scale. The subject property is going in this approximate location and
Meridian Planning 8: Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 60 of 90
extending back and goes like this. It butts up to SpulWing on the eastern side. There is
a potential school site shown here. I guess I'll run through the proposed comp plan
designations for the property real quick. This is a mixed use community designation.
As I mentioned, a potential school site. The yellow is a medium density residential and
the green is low density residential. The applicant has submitted a concept plan with
the subject annexation and zoning application. There is not a preliminary plat or no land
uses are being proposed at this time or subdivision at this time. This is a copy of a
concept plan. In the staff report I did touch on several of the concepts and the street
systems and adjacent parcels and things. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed
concept plan. I think I will just touch on a couple of those real quick. The first thing, I
guess, was the legal descriptions with the property. There is some discrepancy over
ownership in this north area and I will get to that here in a second. I have asked the
applicant to kind of clarify their understanding of who owns what kind of up in that area,
because I talked to their surveyor and it's not real clear. The chain of title is a mess and
just -- you will probably hear, I imagine, from a couple people about what's going on up
there today and, like I said, I have another exhibit that I will jump back to soon. The
comp plan -- I just want to -- while we are talking about descriptions, along the western
boundary of this -- this is West Wing Estates. They have a 75 percent open space lot
that is up for redevelopment here soon. It was done in the county, I think 1991 or
something like that, in their 15 year moratorium to be platted, is up here shortly -- soon,
anyways. And they are showing low density residential on the proposed future land use
map. The applicant was proposing to have an R-15 adjacent to that property to create a
transition. Staff is recommending that it be R-8 and, then, they have at least one block
of -- more R-8 and -- R-15, R-8, excuse me, and, then, the remainder parcel could come
back in, redevelop their open space with a low density residential for that transition from
your R-15 higher density stuff to an R-8 medium and, then, the anticipated low on the
property. So that is a request of staff. Stub streets. There were several stub streets
outlined in the development agreement and the staff report. Basco Lane -- and I'm not
going to spend too much time on Basco Lane. It is an existing private lane that takes
access to Chinden Boulevard and, then, comes up and crosses the Phyllis Canal and
heads -- continues north. That is one of the primary access points for several parcels in
here. I'm not exactly even sure who all has an interest in that at this time. There is an
agreement that was formed with Anderson and MDC, which is a subject applicant owner
and one other party that I'm forgetting the name of. There is some language in that -- in
that agreement that does restrict that lane being used for, basically, anything other than
what it's being used for now and some other language that basically says that you
cannot build a public street here in this location. Again, it's basically for as is and not
future development. I did submit a memo to the Commission earlier and the applicant
before the hearing, based on a letter that we received from the applicant yesterday and
sitting down with the applicant and discussing the staff report with them. There were a
couple of the conditions or provisions of the development agreement that in working
with Mike Cole as well, we decided that it would probably work best to reword some of
those conditions, so just to have that handy, I guess. I'll not spend too much time on
them. Numbers five and six on page 11 had to do with sewer and water service. Just
some points of clarification there in that, that it's just -- they are standard requirements,
really, and just spelling out that this site is not sewer-able at this time and it will probably
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 61 of 90
be at least a couple years before sewer is even available out there. Number nine talks
about the current access points and it was the intent of staff that when a development
application is submitted, then, we will condition it, but your access points to Chinden go
away, not that once you submit an application, then, all of a sudden your accesses go
away, but as through the development process we will condition it that existing access
points to Chinden Boulevard need to be abandoned and only provided at the half mile or
at the arterial intersections, as UDC requires. Number ten. Basically staff did not feel --
Black Cat is shown as a future arterial. Staff did not want to propose, restrict, analyze,
even, access points to Black Cat at this time and make that a provision of the
development agreement. We will have another shot when they come in for preliminary
plat approvals in the future to look at access points and see what makes sense.
Chinden I did want to say, hey, you get these ones and that's it. Black Cat will have
another shot at it. We can say this is what ACHD -- this is what their policy is and these
are where your access points are, rather than approving them at this time. So, number
ten just says that they are still subject to review and approval in the future by us and
ACHD. Number 12. This has to do with the current Basco Lane. The last exhibit on
the staff report had what I have access to and that's the Ada County assessor's records
as ownership. So, when I click on a parcel it will give you the information that they have
for who owns the parcel. They aren't always right. I will not say that they are. But
that's what we generally go off of when we try to show ownership of parcels. Condition
number 12 has to do with this question of how do you get to -- there is a large -- and I'm
not even sure how many acres they have -- down over the Phyllis Canal down below
and it goes to the river. But, really, the best location to have a public street come down
and serve this property, as well as Black Cat -- sorry I'm going off the map -- Black Cat
extended in the future, is to have this crossing be here. There is an existing access and
it just -- based on topography, makes the most sense. However, there is this ownership
question. So, number 12 just says if the current Basco Lane can't be used or the
easement that I was mentioning earlier, this easement agreement, muddies things up
and not all the parties can agree to use this crossing for a public street. Then, another
access -- another stub street somewhere -- somewhere in this area, more than likely
right along the western property boundary here, will be evaluated and even required if
this can't -- can't happen in that location. So, that's kind of what number 12 does, is it
makes it -- you know, the preference is for a road to come down here. If that can't
happen, we need to get a road over there, so it needs to come in this location. And
number 13 is just a -- the current tree farm owner or someone representing the tree
farm anyways, had some concerns about an existing structure or structures on the tree
farm not being able to comply with the setback requirements, because they are already
too close to Chinden. This is something that's pretty standard that we deal with on a
fairly regular basis anyways with residential homes that will encroach five or ten feet
even, to required landscape buffer and we do have a mechanism through alternative
compliance just for those instances where there is existing structures or there is other
conditions that don't make full compliance feasible. So, the intent is not to have them
have to knock down structures. As a business they are lawfully created in the county
and will landscape around them or add some additional trees to kind of meet the intent
of the landscape buffer anyways. With that I will note that we did receive a letter -- I
received a letter this afternoon from White Peterson. I don't know if Mr. Nary got a copy
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 62 of 90
to all of you or not. It was quite lengthy. There is 20 pages or so in it, anyways. I just
got it this afternoon. But did want to make a note that we did get that today and I think
with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Staff is recommending approval
of the subject application.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would have a couple of questions. One of them is on page three and this
would be a clarification. Paragraph six, land use, E, existing constraints and
opportunities, item two, vegetation, there are some existing trees on this site that should
be protected or mitigated for when this property develops. That's an understatement.
It's a tree farm. My question is is there a distinction between planted trees for
decoration and retail stock or wholesale stock that is not intended for -- to remain there?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't think we have written that into the
UDC, but certainly it's not the intent that every time they sell a tree they have to plant
one to mitigate for it. So, I think when the preliminary plat comes in and if there are any
trees that need to be removed that have -- that have been planted there not for sale,
that they will need to mitigate for those trees or protect those trees, hopefully. So, we
will work with the parks department in the future to have them go out there and say what
trees need to be protected and what trees need to be mitigated for.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. And you mentioned Basco Lane and, actually,
on page 12 and maybe it appears somewhere else. Page 12, item 9, when the property
develops, Basco Lane access to Chinden Boulevard will be abandoned. Somewhere
else in the report it mentioned that the reasoning for that was that Basco Lane was on
the quarter mile. By your drawings it appears to be on the half mile and would be the
correct place to have a collector and a public road that would go all the way to the
Aldape property. Am I saying that correctly? And the only reason I'm familiar with that
is it came up at the Comprehensive Plan amendment hearings.
Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you're right, the -- and I'm sorry I
didn't have that exhibit, but there is a frontage or back-age road shown along Chinden
on that map you're talking about, the north Meridian transportation system map or
whatever we call it, that is part of this comp plan amendment. So, that the entrance
comes in at the half mile and the collector -- it doesn't have to be a straight collector, the
applicant is proposing a collector street system and it may loop as the whole collector or
have one leg of it or the other be the collector. I mean it's to be determined. But they
have agreed that a collector from Chinden to the north will be constructed when they
come in for preliminary plat. So, that is something --
Zaremba: And one way or another that will go all the way to the north property line?
Hood: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 63 of 90
Zaremba: Okay.
Hood: And, then, so that, then, the existing tree farm can take an access to that future
roadway and not utilize the access now. So, those can go away.
Zaremba: One other question on page 12, item 15, all contiguous property currently
owned by MDC at level C is part of a subject annexation application. I agree with that.
That that should happen. I think the City Council will agree with that. We don't like out
parcels owned by the same people, but my question is 11 -- Exhibit A is legal
descriptions. Would that change the legal descriptions that need to be provided?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, it's still a question to me. Mr. O'Neil came
into the office yesterday, had an exhibit. There may be a piece of property that MDC
owns that's not contiguous, so that should probably be written into that number 15, that
any contiguous property that MDC owns be part of the --
Zaremba: It does currently --
Hood: Okay. So, if -- and that's why I say, this is really -- I have not seen any two
documents that show it the same. There is really a question mark out there of who
owns what.
Zaremba: I guess the issue is that the way you showed it as the County Assessor
apparently has it and since that's the taxing authority, I would hope they are correct
some of the time. Not that I want to speak to the motivation of the current applicant, but
that would be a perfect spite strip -- spite strip if they wanted the road not to go all the
way through and I don't think we should allow that.
Hood: And I will let the applicant address that a little bit more, but that's exactly what
staff's concern was, too, is that if, in fact, you own this, then, there is no way for the
TICO One parcels on the east side to go anywhere. I mean they can't, then, provide
that access to the Aldape property and that's why the condition that I read in earlier.
Then, another stub needs to happen somewhere else, because the road does need to
get down to those folks and if it can't happen there, it needs to happen somewhere else.
And these -- that's the ideal situation for it to happen right there. And I think the
applicant is willing to allow them to use that, but there are some other folks that are
subject to this agreement that mayor may not be willing to cooperate and that's where
the -- I have not seen correspondence from them saying we are willing to allow anything
other than what's in the agreement that they created five years ago, whenever that
easement was created to happen on Basco Lane. So, right now just looking at it, it
doesn't look like it can be a public street there, based on the existing easement. So,
that's why we have kind of written in the plan B. Not the ideal situation, not the
preferred route to go, but if that happens and we -- they can't all get together, then, we
still need to get a road down there. So, does that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 64 of 90
Zaremba: Thank you. Yes. I'm done.
Rohm: All right. Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
O'Neil: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Derrick O'Neil, 222
East River Walk, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. I'm here tonight as a representative of the
Treehaven, LLC, the applicant for the project. We will definitely deal with some of the
issues that were talked about, but before that I'm going to step back and, as you said
earlier, this is our opportunity to sell to you why we believe this is a good project. So,
I'm going to do that in a ten minute -- or a ten second version -- ten minute version, as
opposed to the time and effort that we have put into this so far. So, the first thing that I
want to do is remind you tonight that the purpose we are here for is for the annexation
and zoning of 358 acres, plus or minus. It is a large piece of property and I will get to
that in a little bit. We will come back in; you will have another chance to see preliminary
plats and more details, et cetera. You guys are certainly aware that this property -- I'm
going to try to wait to see if we can get caught up. Take you through some exhibits.
What I'm going to do is just jump passed the first slide and talk to you about -- a little bit
about the team involved in the project. That's my slide four, but I will just fast forward
until we get there. Treehaven, LLC, is a partnership between the Carnahan family -- the
Carnahan family that's here tonight and they are long time Treasure Valley residents.
They are the owners of the current Jaker Nursery, which people have referred to as the
Tree Farm. They also have a house there. And so they have been around a long time.
And, then, O'Neil Enterprises is our company, Pete O'Neil and myself. We have been
developing in the Treasure Valley for the last -- over 25 years. What we have focused
on is master planned residential communities. That's all we have done. And we have
done it primarily here in the Treasure Valley, projects that I'm sure you're aware of. The
rest of the team is our land planner, Downing, Thorpe, and James, who is out of
Boulder, Colorado. They have been with us since the early '80s. What they focus on is
land planning for master planned residential communities. Our engineer is River Ridge
Engineering. Legal is Givens Pursley. And marketing we have a company is Stohl's
Marketing Group. We put the team together first before we start anything on a piece of
property. So, that's our team. Now that I'm caught up with the slides, I'm going to get
you kind of oriented in a little bit different way. I think Caleb did a great job and just an
anecdotal note I need to mention, tonight you guys had over 700 lots that were in front
of you, not even including this. I got my draft staff report mid last week, which is earlier
than I have gotten a staff report in any other jurisdiction. So, how you're keeping up
with it I don't know, but these guys are doing a good job to keep up with it. In a regional
context, I think it's important for you guys, you obviously are really aware of this area.
This is the property right here. Eagle here. Star here. This is the rim. Phyllis Canal.
So, the area below the rim. This is the much discussed McDermott. I'm not saying that
that's in alignment, but that comes pretty much down McDermott and shows that
somehow it's going to have to get across and over to there. All the stuff in white was --
up to two months ago what's been approved and being built. This is all now white
based on what you have done in the last couple of weeks. This is the Bainbridge
project. You were talking about access. Bainbridge access winds up exactly where we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 65 of 90
are at, one of our main accesses will line up. This is SpulWing. That gives you a fairly
good idea of where we are in the world, of the regional area. As it relates to the
property -- go to the next slide there, Jason. This doesn't show up real great, but it is
358 acres, plus or minus. There are two specific out parcels and the folks that are
going to testify tonight would be the owners of this parcel and, then, the owners of this
parcel. They are the two out parcels that are not owned or a part of the application.
And those are, really, the two issues you're going to hear tonight. This is Basco Lane,
the discussed item. This area, if you drive down Chinden, you're familiar with the red
barn, that's the red barn. That is the Jaker nursery. And, then, you can see the rows of
trees that are in there. Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct. We had, actually,
comments on that same deal. If we have to preserve all the trees, we are going to be in
deep trouble. There are some existing trees out there, though, that we will work hard to
preserve that are big. In fact, there is a great willow tree here and that's part of what we
do, we like to preserve and enhance landscape. And, certainly, the Carnahan family
does. The Phyllis Canal, which runs here, right now there is two -- this is Black Cat and
Black Cat stops here and, then, there is access to this property and it continues down
here. There is about a 50-foot bluff from the top of the bluff down to the base of the
canal. There are two areas, one currently crosses the canal and gets to the Aldape
property down here and, then, the other has a little bit of a cut and is a logical area that
ultimately could come down and cross over here. The rest of it is pretty steep bank.
Then SpulWing Country Club here. This is the West Wing Estates, the non-ag or farm
set aside that will convert back into the project at some point in time. So, that's a
general property location. Yeah. And the Carnahan's house. Excuse me. That's
Doug's house right there. That covers, essentially, the existing conditions. That's
something we like to look at at the very beginning. We look at all the existing
conditions, also irrigation laterals -- there is some irrigation here, there is irrigation here,
all the elements that would require us to underlay a master plan. Next slide, Jason.
We already talked about the project team. Next slide. Planning process. For us, we do
an awful lot of work before we start drawing anything on a plan. We start out with
existing features, conditions, drainage topography, existing buildings, et cetera. The
next thing we do is have neighborhood meetings, in addition to the required meetings.
We met with SpulWing, we met with surrounding owners, and it was a bit shock for
many of them to say, geez, this 360 acres is going to be turning into a community. After
we went through the kind of community most of them got very comfortable with what we
were trying to do, but certainly you guys hear testimony all the time of people that are
having trouble with that. So, we like to get their input to begin with. Then, we go to
every agency we can think of that has something to do with the property, all the way
from the highway district, Department of Transportation, drainage, and we sit down with
them and say what are your concerns and we talk with them. Then we look at the
Comprehensive Plan or the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for zoning
requirements and we look at those and try to overlay those. And, then, lastly, but very
important, we look at market conditions and competition. What's happening around us?
What kind of projects are being done. Do we want to be just like everyone else or are
we going to provide some alternative product, et cetera? We go through that for the
planning process. Next slide. We end up with after probably 40 or 50 sheets of paper;
we end up with what we call a concept plan. And that concept plan is based on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 66 of 90
belief in master planning. We really believe that and you guys have seen that all night
long. You have seen out parcels, you have seen small parcels, you have seen the
benefit of having larger acreage assemblage and be able to master plan so it all has a
plan and in the future you're not worrying about stubs, you're not worrying about a lot of
things that you guys have seen tonight. So, master planning is a very important
concept to us. And in doing so, we do it in a way that can allow separate different types
of uses to co-exist well together. Commercial uses, higher density uses, residential,
lower density uses. And we have done that in every project we have done and it's really
-- they have worked well together. So, master planning is a key thing. Our goal -- we
have about ten goals in terms of what we set out to create as the key elements for a
community. Our first goal is to create an authentic sense of place and we can do that
here, very fortunate, in that there is an existing tree farm. That's where we have
debated that -- as someone talked earlier tonight about what to name the project and
Tree Farm seems a very logical name. It may not be conventional, but it's very logical.
That's what the property has been and there is a lot of identification to that. The next
thing is there is an existing barn on the property that's used as offices for the retail
nursery and we anticipate keeping that and having that a critical element as you enter
the project, to create an authentic sense of place, to say that, you know, something was
done here and they are keeping some of that. So, that's a key element. That second
goal that we always work to is having greater diversity in housing. We really believe
that. And we believe that for not only the product type, but also pricing. We believe that
a greater diversity of housing creates a just more diverse social community. It creates a
lot of different types of people. We think that's very positive. So, from a housing
perspective, we took and looked at the existing constraints and condition in the comp
plan and you will see that we have put the majority of our density along Chinden
Boulevard, along with some commercial, and, then, we start scaling our density back
until we get to the rim and we put some higher density housing. Black Cat -- Black Cat
here. There is some discussion that it will come down the rim and maybe some day
connect up to McDermott and across the river. So, we have put some different housing
types along there with the thought that the highway district and the city is -- said that this
would be an arterial at some point in time. So, our plan anticipates somewhere
between 1,000 to 1,200 units and on the property that equates to just over three units
per acre. Again, most of that density is along Chinden and, then, it moves back. About
15 percent would be estate housing or larger home sites. And, then, about 35 percent
would be single family -- traditional single family housing. Thirty percent would be
lifestyle housing and lifestyle housing, in our definition, is a smaller home site, a patio
home, a cluster home, that is for -- what people were talking about tonight, empty
nesters, retirees, single people, people in transition. And, then, the last component of
our housing would be village housing and village housing would be condominiums,
townhomes, or apartments. And that would be closer to the Chinden Road. So,
diversity of housing is very very important. In diversity of housing, not just one area,
one type, and, then, go like that, but we also have been able to mix different types of
housing next to each other and around each other. We think that's important. The next
element was everyday convenience in social interaction. We have a part of the property
here, which is C-C, community commercial, and we are working on a plan now that
would turn that into a combination of retail, office, restaurant, and things that would not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 67 of 90
only benefit this area, but all the residents around here. Designing a way to become
very compatible with the project here. And, then, the next element that's key and a goal
to us is connection to nature and open space. Over 15 percent of the project,
approximately, will be open space and our open spaces, what we like to do, instead of
having just an all-in-one area, we like to link open spaces from one part of the project all
the way to the other and put pathways within those open spaces, so you can from one
point to the other. So, you see our open space ribbons separating neighborhoods, but
also connecting neighborhoods. So, we have not only the connectivity of the roads, but
we have pedestrian connectivity as well, so you don't always have to be on a road to get
to areas. Next goal is -- for us is health and well-being. We have a significant
community facility and neighborhood commercial area here. That community facility is
on about a ten acre site and that would be for the use of the tree farm residence, it
would tie together with our neighborhood commercial where we see child care, we see
coffee shops, we see a retail nursery and not necessarily the wholesale nursery, but a
retail nursery as our anchor in this neighborhood commercial area. It would have a
workout area, a swimming pool, and be a very extensive place for people in the
community to gather and recreate. Also, open space before that. And, then, we have a
few other goals. Sustainable development. We are working on some things that
incorporate responsible use of water recycling, storm water runoff, and energy
efficiency. Then, lastly, to other key items. School. You notice on the comp plan that
there was a school designated somewhere in this area and we have met with Wendell,
we have talked to him -- until he saw this plan he didn't even -- he didn't even think of a
school on the north side of Chinden. He saw this plan and he said, boy, there probably
is a need for that. But it's not -- because the other school that you're working on is right
over here in Keego Springs, I believe. We have met with them. We are willing to work
with them. He hasn't decided that this is the only location and best located, but we
certainly see a school as a positive to the community. We will continue to work with
them and are excited about that potential. And, lastly, which I should have started with,
because it's really how we overlay our plan, is transportation. And, obviously, the key
elements with transportation are access to Chinden. We have met with the Department
of Transportation, met with the highway district, and our key accesses -- only accesses
are at the required -- what they are now requiring half section lines. So, this lines up
directly across from Bainbridge and, then, this lines up directly across from Black Cat
Road. And, then, you can see -- people have been calling this a backage road. I don't
know that I would define it as that, but it accomplishes that. This is a collector --
commercial collector status road that allows a buffer or separation between more
conventional residential uses and that and, then, we have a collector road here and,
then, it connects over to here. And, then, stub streets, obviously, is a big topic. Every
project you had has referred to that. So, we are going to -- stub streets were discussed
and we are okay with a stub to here and we are okay with a stub somewhere in this
neighborhood and Doug Carnahan is going to talk to that in a minute. So, from a timing
standpoint, we are expecting a preliminary plat for the first phases in spring-summer of
2006. We are expecting to start construction so it's concurrent with the sewer that will
be brought to Black Cat right now. Public Works has told us that's late 2007, early
2008, and we want to time up with that. We realize that that's in process and we are
going to pay close attention to that. We are not going to get a project built without
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 68 of 90
having sewer. We are going to need to do that. And, then, the other think that I think is
important -- and you guys have seen, is that on a project of this scale, we would have a
very difficult time coming in and giving you a preliminary for the entire project. We will
give you a preliminary plat for the first phase and, then, we will go forward and we can
give you preliminary plats on larger parcels, but to preliminary plat 1 ,000 lots for us is'
taking the flexibility out of it, A, and it's also not letting us respond to the market and we
think that's very very important. What's good today may not be good five years from
now, seven years from how, ten years from now, and we see this as a ten year project
plus some. So, that goes through kind of the sales pitch in a very very fast format. I
want to talk quickly about the --
Rohm: Derrick?
O'Neil: Yes.
Rohm: We have got 15 minutes here, so you're going to have to conclude fairly quickly.
O'Neil: Okay. I'll conclude quickly. I want to talk about the staff report comments. We
are in general agreement with the conditions for the development as modified with the
March 2nd, 2006, memo that Caleb sent you. There is two conditions on that, Condition
12 and 13, that Doug wants to talk to and I'll let him do that and we will kind of go from
there. I'm going to turn it over to Doug, who is going to speak as a property owner and
a business owner, if I can real quickly.
Rohm: Quickly.
O'Neil: Yes, I will, and he's going to get to -- he's going to get to the issues that I know
that the public is going to talk about.
Carnahan: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Carnahan, I
live at 4410 West Chinden Boulevard. Derrick gave you a pretty good history and
context of the property, but what I wanted to do is just visit that again very briefly. Let
me start with about 17 years ago my wife and I bought the property that's bounded in
the green. It's 110 acres. We bought that, because we had a nursery that was started
in Eagle and we moved our -- expanded operations and so started on that area in the
green. And, then, about ten years ago, if you look at the area outlined in the blue up
near the rim there, that's where we decided to build our home and that's where we
reside today. And not today, we do plan to stay there. About five years ago, if you look
at what's bounded in yellow, that's when we added incremental property to our holding
to expand the nursery. But about three years ago it became clear, the die was cast,
development was going to take place in a major way in this area, and so we opted to
acquire another property that's further out in Middleton and started to move our growing
grounds out there. So, we never really fully planted out that area that's bounded in the
yellow. When we acquired the property in the yellow -- you heard reference to an
agreement with the person Anderson and the other name was Thomas. Well, at the
time we bought it the condition they put upon it, they said we will only sell it to you if you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 69 of 90
agree you will not approve any public access or any expanded access over Basco Lane
without our permission. And I said what's that about? And they said, well, we own all
the property -- both sides of the Boise River north of the Aldape property and what we
are interested in is we are turning that into a wetlands conservation area, we are going
to preclude any development and make it a very natural state and we would just like the
opportunity to put a -- to have some voice if anybody is to be doing things of increasing
density or putting things down there, we'd just like some voice in there. I have
subsequently talked to them and they have said we are not trying to stop any
development, that's not our goal, but just keep in mind we are interested in knowing
what's going on. So, that's a little bit of history I'll get to in some more detail. First I'm
going to put on my -- Jason, can you flip back one slide? First I'm going to put on our
nursery hat and, as I said, over time all of our growing grounds will be gone, but if you
look in the purple, as Derrick said, we are going to retain the use of that space and we
are going to use it for an office and a distribution yard. We have some infrastructure
there, we have a number of buildings that some of them are relatively new and
expensive and large and we have a limited amount of things that we can change and as
the expansion of Chinden takes place, we are going to have some difficulties with
setbacks, et cetera. There is a condition that we have to file a certificate of zoning
compliance. We are concerned. We are concerned our business will be shut down,
because a new set of conditions are going to be thrown upon us that we just can't
respond to. And so we are very concerned. Our request is that -- there was some
discussion about a use of alternative compliance. We would request that we are
allowed some privilege for a broader use of alternative compliance, because we just
can't take all our buildings, start moving them -- we have some real limitations. We
have got canals, irrigation systems, we have got a number of things that we just can't be
moving and picking up and changing or it will disrupt our operation significantly. So, we
have operated there for 17 years and we want to use that space just the same. We will
comply if it's reasonable, but we may not be able to comply in every case. So, we
would ask for some help on that one.
Rohm: Sir?
Carnahan: Yeah.
Rohm: I think, really, at this point in time you have done a pretty good job -- both of you
of selling your project and I think maybe what would be best is if we gave the others an
opportunity to voice their concerns and, then, you folks have the last word to come back
up and respond to any questions from -- or comments from the audience. But,
technically, we have already over -- we have exceeded your time here and I think that if
we go ahead and allow them, then, you will have an opportunity to respond.
Carnahan: Okay. But just can I ask one question?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 70 of 90
Carnahan: So, I heard quite a number questions about the Basco Lane, about why --
what property did we not add, because it's not contiguous. I have answers to all those
questions. I was going to walk through them. If you would like to hear answers to those
questions, I'm happy to do it.
Rohm: Yeah.
Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the Basco Lane seems to be something that's been
ongoing for a number of months, so if we can quickly get through --
Rohm: It has been all along.
Borup: If we can quickly get through that, I think that would be pertinent.
Rohm: Let's go through that and that's it.
Carnahan: Okay. So, this is Basco Lane. But let me -- on the prior slide you saw
where my house is located. We are concerned that there is only two access locations
from the upper ground to the lower ground. The logical place is Black Cat on the one
hand and the ravine that Basco goes through today. Okay, Jason, can we have that
next one? So, let me reference some parcels. This line is -- south of it is owned by
Treehaven, the applicant. North of it, except for some parcels I'll mention, are owned by
TICO One, which is owned by family that's also connected with the Aldape family. This
parcel here I do absolutely not own. So, that's why we did not make the parcel that I do
own, which is this one right there, that's why we did not include it in the application,
because it's not contiguous. The issue is right -- with this letter, the issue is access right
there. The concern is is that that's controlled through this letter with this other group of
people, but I talked to them and I'm convinced that we can solve that problem. The
issue -- the way the statement is written and the language of the staff report, they say
there is two alternatives; we either put it right where Basco Lane is or you put it way up
the cliff, which makes no sense at all. What really needs to happen is it has to move to
the west and it has to move to the west, because if you look at -- right there were the
road is in the red, that is -- you can maybe see the trees. That is a wooded hillside.
What we own in that area is a wooded hillside. If you try to build a road, it's currently 12
feet wide in that area, you are going to have a lot of problems with removal of trees, that
-- those are the trees on the property that are mature, they are 80 years old, that's a
huge stand of trees all in that area. Also, if you don't have the rights to go across that
property, why not just go like this? I wrote up a document that I feel totally comfortable
with and let me try it on. A condition of approval for our development. The City of
Meridian shall withhold signing of the final plat until one of the two following conditions
are met with regard to providing public access from Basco Lane to the Aldape property
north of the Phyllis Canal. One, MDC, LLC, provides easement across the parcel it
owns -- and I have an exhibit. A legal description. That will allow a public road
connection to the north of the Phyllis Canal. Two. An alternative plan for the public
road access across the Phyllis Canal near Basco Lane as agreed to by the Meridian city
planning staff. What I would suggest -- Basco can't stay where it is. It can't, because
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 71 of 90
there is another owner intervening there that's going to take years to find. Just move it
over. It's owned by people that are the same family. Just move it over and let me deal
with the issue of clearing that one up, which I feel comfortable taking that on and we can
get our access. Does that answer the question?
Rohm: I think it does. This application tonight is for zoning, not for roads or anything,
and so I'm not sure that that has to be resolved tonight, but I appreciate your testimony,
but I think the application that's before us is just for the zoning itself, so --
Zaremba: I would suggest, though, that that could be included as a development
agreement.
Rohm: And possibly will be. Thank you.
Carnahan: Sure.
Rohm: Okay. Bill Nichols.
Nichols: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bill Nichols, 5700
East Franklin Road, Suite 200, Nampa, Idaho. I'm here to speak for the Rabehls. Mr.
Rabehl would like to talk about his property a little bit with you, too, and I realize the
hour is late, but I will try to make my points short and to the point. You have the position
statement, which Bill Gigray in our office prepared and submitted and I apologize to
staff, it was delivered to the clerk's office yesterday and we should have tried to get it to
you the same day and I apologize for that. That was my doing, because I know Will
likes to get those things and I said give them to Will first. I want to point out some things
with regard to this and I will try to be brief. First of all, the Comprehensive Plan that
applies to this application is the Comprehensive Plan that's in place at the time the
application is made, not the Comprehensive Plan that's adopted later. And there is a
case Blaser, I believe was the name of the case that dealt with that issue in Ada County
and the holding is that the comp plan at the time the application was filed. So, to
consider this application when it's not in your area of impact, it's not in the urban service
planning area, violates those provisions from that case law in the urban -- the local land
Use Planning Act. Your current code requires that the annexation only occur within
property that's in the urban service planning area and this is not. Sewer and water are
not available and they won't be available until late. There was a reference in the staff
report to negotiating with United Water and I sat where Mr. Nary sat for over four years
and that's like Anathema and I can't understand why you would entertain an application
where you would not have control over who supplies water, because if you give up
control over the water, you also give up control over how you collect your sewer
charges. The annexation without a development plan, specific develop plan, despite
Mr. O'Neil's reasoned argument, doesn't make sense and the reason it doesn't make
sense is as I can point out to you -- have you ever heard of Kodiak development and the
problems that you had with that one when it was annexed and it was zoned without a
specific development plan? That's one. The second one is the Kissler Cobb Rewe
annexation. That one was also with a concept plan and that one also presented
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 72 of 90
problems to the city, because at one point it had you in a lawsuit over it and I submit to
you that it's ill-advised to not have a specific development plan. A concept plan is just
not specific enough. Annexation and zoning is your opportunity, through the
development agreement, to get concessions from the developer and have those
binding. Once it's annexed and zoned, the entitlement lies and, then, you're faced with
just dealing with little preliminary plat issues. So, I submit to you it's not appropriate to
do that. There is also, as revealed in our position statement, there is a bit of a boundary
issue with the Rabehl's property and the Eggers' property. And, lastly, I would point out
that the Highway 16 extension and the necessity of perhaps using Black Cat for that
mitigates against some kind of annexation and a concept plan when you don't know
what's going to happen with that. With that I will stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Any questions of Mr. Nichols?
Zaremba: I would like a clear identification of where the Rabehl's property is.
Nichols: It would be this property right here.
Zaremba: It's the out parcel in the middle?
Nichols: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. That was it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.
Nichols: Thank you, Commissioners.
Rohm: Tuck Ewing.
Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado, Boise. I represent
TICO One, which are these two parcels of dirt right there. One three acre parcel and
one six acre parcel. I'd like to start off by saying I apologize for my bad speaking. I'm
not a very good public speaker, so I will do the best I can, but -- and I'll keep it short. I'd
like to say that we are in support of the annexation and proposed zoning that we have
seen on their maps and we think it will be a good addition to the City of Meridian. At this
stage we've really only got one major concern and, obviously, I think we all know what
that is, it's Basco Lane and it's the access issue between our parcels of dirt there. And
can we get that blown up map? This map was -- as staff said, pulled off of Ada County
assessor's map and that's the map that we currently have been using as well. I know
there has been discussions with Mr. Carnahan and Mr. O'Neil to the fact that there --
that could potentially be wrong, but at this stage I have not seen anything that shows
why that's wrong or the map that Mr. Carnahan put up with the strip that he showed.
So, the best thing that I guess that we can go off of right now is what Ada County is
showing and is showing as their tax parcel. I guess our position on this thing right now
is that the agreement that was made between the other parties, as far as the no access
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 73 of 90
down to the Aldape property, is definitely an issue, but it's really not an issue of Aldapes
or TICD's, it's really an issue of MDC's and MDC is the one that's ultimately putting this -
- MDC, along with Treehaven, putting this application in and so we feel they need to
take care of that issue and we need the collector completely through this project clear
through. They say they are taking the collector clear to their north property line, but
their north property line really doesn't end with us, it really goes clear down to here. We
are not suggesting that they have to come in and -- we have even went as far as saying
that we would consider it, given the dirt needed to put the road through there of our
property. So, I guess that, finally, the last thing I'd like to say is we'd like to see the legal
description on this, if this annexation is approved, the legals show what Ada County has
on their records and if the applicant disagrees with Ada County's records, I would like to
see it tabled until such time that we had the real -- what really happened here, so that
we could have that clarification before the annexation happened. So, with that I will
answer any questions.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. You touched on it a moment. You heard the
suggestion that even the terrain would be more appropriate to have the roadway come
through part of your property, as opposed to going through what's indicated as MDC. I
have not been out there and looked at it, so I have no idea how valid that suggestion is,
but can you comment on that?
Ewing: Well, we can get with staff and show them -- we have got topography maps and
everything. But this six acres -- actually, this right here falls right in the existing Basco
Lane and from that point it actually starts going up the grade and, then, from over here it
starts coming up as well. So, my opinion of it is that this strip right now really lies in the
ultimate -- where the drainage ends, the water runs, and the road runs right now. Like I
said, we wouldn't be against working with the developer and even given them dirt if they
need some more, because, obviously, they do narrow down in a couple spots right up
there at the south end and, then, again, up at the north end, but I think ultimately it's
going to fall -- that road's going to fall somewhere in that location and it's not, in my
opinion, going to be to the west, because of the geographic features that exist today. I
know Mr. Carnahan talked about the trees, but I don't know that the trees will outweigh
the amount of effort that's going to be needed to dig the side of the mountain off to
move it over.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Sherry Ewing.
S. Ewing: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Sherry Ewing and I live at
2934 Lake Hazel and I am representing the Aldape property and the Everest property,
which is also down in the Aldape property. And my main concern is I just want to say
that we need adequate access for emergency vehicles, for the future development of
the property going to the Phyllis Canal, and I'm really feeling like we really need two
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 74 of 90
access points, Basco Lane being one and another one on the development. And the
reason that I'm saying that is that's the only access that we have to our property. Black
Cat does not connect to the Aldape property at all. So, that's one thing. I also want to
make it clear right now that TICO One and the Aldape property have no ties. So, that
was a misstatement from the other party. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Then who is the owner of TICO One?
S. Ewing: TICO one is John Ewing, Tuck Ewing and Ben Ewing. And I have nothing to
do with that, even though my last name is Ewing. And, then, the Aldapes is my parents
and, then, the Everest is my sister. So, I don't have anyone in there.
Borup: Okay. And your current access now is down Basco Lane?
S. Ewing: That's the only access we have. The only access we have.
Borup: But it did look like it narrowed down pretty tight, at least as far as what the
assessor's note was showing, is that -- so that's just a real narrow road in those areas?
S. Ewing: There is a dirt road that goes down to the canal and across the bridge.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: I do have a question. And this has come up several times in Meridian. The
ones that come to mind are Wingate Lane and Venable Road, where the ownership of
an easement has been either in question or in a difficult situation. I would guess that
your parents have some document that proves that they have the right to pass over
property that they don't own and there would be some value to that document. The city,
of course, doesn't enforce those things; it's a legal matter between the neighbors. But
at the present they would have the right to enforce that document I would think. At least
for the current use. The drawing that I see and even the statement by staff that Basco
Lane should be abandoned, doesn't deal with that. And I guess -- I guess my question
to you is is there anything that you or your parents could think of, because there is value
to that easement, that maybe you could trade with the developer to -- you know, for
giving up part of that easement, which you don't have to do?
S. Ewing: Well, that easement was, actually, obtained by my grandfather, who bought
the property in 1912. And at that time it was a wagon wheel road. And so I think what
they are trying to do is keep it to two houses down there and agricultural. And, of
course, we would like to develop it, we would like to possibly put a park down there and
none of that would be possible with what they are wanting to give us right now. We
would be land locked; basically, because that's the only way we have to get to our land.
Zaremba: Well, I may need a legal comment on this, although Meridian isn't going to
take up the legal aspects of it, but if you have the right to pass over that land, even with
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 75 of 90
a wagon wheel or one car or whatever, they can't take that away. Their plans show
Basco Lane not existing. You have the right to say that's not possible, I believe.
S. Ewing: That's not possible.
Zaremba: And that gives you something to trade to say to them I need a complete
connection or I need to continue all the way to Chinden the access that I currently have.
Is that typical of an easement?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, yeah, I think it is typical of an easement.
I mean, certainly, that's -- I mean you have raised the issue that we have dealt with
before, but certainly if they have an easement and have a continuous right to have
access through that property, they certainly have the right to maintain that. But it is
between them and the property owners. It appears -- I guess I'm in the same quandary
as the rest of the staff as to where the ownership pieces lie, but if you have an
easement that gives you access all the way to Chinden, you're going to maintain --
you're going to be able to maintain that and have to deal with the property owners to
how that's going to be. I think what's being proposed by the applicant was to simply
move the access to a different spot, but still maintain the access there.
Zaremba: I guess that was another part of my question. Does the easement or the
access have to be maintained exactly where it has historically been or will an alternative
satisfy it?
Nary: It depends on what it says.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: I don't know. That's probably between the Aldapes and the Carnahans and
maybe the Ewings.
Rohm: Thank you, Sherry. Appreciate that. The next names are Art and Sandra
Rabehl. How do you say that?
Rabehl: Rabehl.
Rohm: Rabehl.
Rabehl: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Arthur Rabehl. My wife and I reside at 6745
North Black Cat Road. And we are the little parcel that is in question right there. We
have lived there for the past 38 years now and, of course, it's a dead end road that as
far as the highway district is concerned ends at my driveway. From there on it's the --
the road that does go passed there is just for access to the farming of the property
around me there. But the highway district when they take and grade or anything, they
grade to my driveway, because that is as far as they go. I want to take and state that
I'm not opposed to development and so on. I mean it's something that's inevitable. It's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 76 of 90
going to happen and we know that. But we want to take and protect ourselves as well
as we can from things that are going on and -- because we do have quite an interest out
there that we want to take care of. At the present time, like I say, we are on Black -- on
the end of Black Cat where there is no traffic, no pedestrians, whereas if this project is
to take and go on as it is stated, there is going to be an enormous amount of traffic, it's
going to completely change the way things are right now. As far as the view, like I say,
from where we are there you can look to the Bogus Basin, all of Boise front, up north to
Squaw -- that's changed, but Squaw Butte. And you go off to the southwest you got the
Owyhee mountains and so on, a very clear, beautiful view. With all these houses that
they want to take and put in, we are going to see walls, roof tops, a lot of people, a lot of
cars and if you go to the south there is going to be stores down there and you're going
to see the back of the store walls. We got a couple other concerns and that is that I
take and raise some pigs out there and some cattle, hay, and so on and what's the
complaints going to be when it smells a little bit? I mean I have heard of grandfather
rights and things like this, but it seems like after a little bit complaints are raised and
pretty quick you're squeezed out and as I say that's a real concern to me. The other
thing that I have got is that we have a boundary issue that has arisen. When we bought
the property out there I would say 38 years ago, we had 4.08 acres. Now, we are listed
at 3.85 I think it is and I haven't sold anything.
Rohm: You're shrinking.
Rabehl: It shrunk. What we did do with the former owners, which was Bill and Berrith
Crookham is on this corner right there Bill was having troubling going around that corner
and he's got a road all the way around that -- the west -- it went around this way like this
to start with. And he was having trouble getting around there with his equipment in that
corner down there. The other part was that the irrigation ditch went through here and
zigged up into my area more, so he came to me and he said, Art, would you take and
consent to changing the ditch? At first he said let's go this way and straight and I said,
no, I said let's go south and straight and he said okay, we do that, can I take and have a
little piece of your corner down there, which I had agreed upon and he agreed. And so
that is the only change that we have had in the property, but, actually, I picked up more
ground on this side than what he got on this side, but I lost on the tax assessment now
and so there is an issue there that we have and that we are going to have to get
squared away and get that settled before we can really move on I think. I mean
because at the present time what they are -- Doug is getting could be my ground and I
don't want to be annexed at this time. So, that's where I stand on that, so -- do you
have any questions?
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask was the land swap agreement recorded or was it
just a gentleman's handshake?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 77 of 90
Rabehl: That was a gentleman's handshake, which we -- we both know now that we
should have done -- you know, had it surveyed at that time and done it, but we didn't. It
was just a -- you know, a gentleman's agreement and that's what we did.
Zaremba: So, if the county doesn't know about the swap, your acreage shouldn't have
changed.
Rabehl: But there is a map out there that -- and I don't have a copy of it here. That
does show an overlay of the corner up there as it was and as it is now, it's a fence line,
and, of course, as you can see, this line here is going to be straight where the ditch
actually is, it doesn't show the zigzag, so I'm not for sure how they come up with these -
- because we didn't file it, which, like I say, that was our mistake that we didn't do it, so -
Borup: Sir, when you originally bought your property, did you have a survey at that time
with the metes and bounds description?
Rabehl: Yes. Yes, we do.
Borup: So, that's still the same description that your deed shows today, then.
Rabehl: Right. Right.
Borup: So, it seems to me like that should be your property.
Zaremba: That 4.8 acres.
Borup: Well, I don't know how many acres it is, but that should be your property,
whatever your deed shows.
Rabehl: But the -- like I say, we got the -- dug out the tax papers and they showed us
with less property and Doug mentioned that, so I'm not for sure what the heck--
Borup: I think whatever is recorded at the recorder's office would take precedence over
tax information.
Rabehl: I hope it does, but that's something we need to check out, because we are not
for sure now just where we do stand.
Borup: So, it would probably be worth checking out.
Rabehl: Yes.
Rohm: Thank you.
Rabehl: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 78 of 90
Rohm: John.
J. Ewing: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I'm John Ewing, 2934 East lake Hazel, Meridian,
Idaho. Just a quick point. My feeling is is that -- and I know this is for annexation, but
Basco lane keeps coming up. Our property, TICO One, my two boys and I's property, I
feel like that -- and I'm just going to kind of repeat some of the things that were said real
quick, but there is an issue with who owns that land. I think that I would like to see this
not be granted until we knew who does own the land. I will make it real clear, we will do
-- we will be good neighbors and we can work and see if we move, but definitely if we
move the road to the west, we have got as big an issue or they do of going down there
as they do between the yellow and the white and the -- and the purple area here. So,
you know, the only thing I can see different is the 300 and some acre development
wants to take this six acres right there and take part of it. But, anyway, the bottom line
is is I would like to see who owns the property through there, with legal descriptions,
and before this is approved I think that the owners of that land, if it's not them, be
notified -- legally notified that these hearings are going on where they can put their two
cents worth in and so that's my feelings on it. I will stand for questions or sit down. I'm
still in the green.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: I have got a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Your last comment that
someone should be notified if they own -- what were you referring to there?
Ewing: What I -- you know, this is something new. Ever since my two sons and I have
owned that property, we have always been told that we did not own the land that
actually the tree farm did.
Borup: Which land are you referring to?
Rohm: Basco lane?
Ewing: Basco lane. The land through our -- you know, actually, the other map is a lot
better. We were always told we didn't own any of this. We were told we didn't have
access to any of this. We have had quite a bit -- and we also was told that this was also
-- all of this land that's dashed was owned by the same owners that have the tree farm.
Carnahans. Now, it's just been the last week that this has come up that they don't own
it and stuff and I'm not saying they do own it, I don't know. You know, I'm not saying
that they --
Borup: But you said someone needs to be notified, another owner.
Ewing: Well, what I'm saying now is as if they are saying they don't own the section in
here and they don't own this, somebody's got to own it. And all I'm saying is is I have
always heard --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 79 of 90
Borup: Okay.
Ewing: -- that property owners within so many feet of a project --
Borup: No. I understand what you're saying. You're saying if they don't own it,
somebody else does and they need to be notified. Do you feel comfortable that the
survey that you have is accurate on the property that you do own?
Ewing: Well, yeah, it was a certified survey and --
Borup: Okay.
Ewing: -- and we have got it. We can still find all of our pins. I guess to answer your
question, I feel very good that ours is right, but, you know, if our neighbors come and
say our survey is wrong and they show us and -- you know, and our -- and everybody
accepts that, that's all right. 1--
Borup: Okay.
Ewing: I think it's as good as you can ever think that any of your surveys are.
Borup: I understand.
Ewing: Yeah.
Borup: Thank you.
Ewing: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Just a comment on that. It would seem to me that the tax
assessor's office would send out a bill every year. If that bill's not being paid, then, this
property is in default and the county would take it and auction it off. If it has been paid,
would the county assessor tell us who sent the check? Does anybody know the answer
to that?
Borup: Well, they probably would, but just because the county bills you and the person
pays it, if you own multiple properties, it's hard to figure out what goes to where and,
believe it or not, they do make mistakes.
Zaremba: Well, there would have to be two mistakes. The county would have to be a
mistake in who they were sending it to and that person would have to mistakenly pay it.
Borup: But it happens a lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 80 of 90
Zaremba: I guess I wonder is it possible to find out who has been paying it, if it's been
paid?
Borup: I think so.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to -- does this burden fall to us to sort out the Basco
Lane problem or does it not fall to the property owners in question here?
Rohm: Well, I think that, ultimately, is falls back on the property owners themselves, but
what I'm kind of thinking after taking the testimony tonight, that we have got a lot of
information here that needs to be absorbed and I personally don't think that I'm
anywhere close to being ready to move forward with this and I think that as a
Commission we would not be doing justice to the application or any of the other
concerned parties by acting on this tonight and my personal opinion is that we should
continue this and have an opportunity to read the 22 page letter issued by Mr. Gigray's
office and also take into consideration all the testimony we have heard tonight and
possibly even confer with staff some more and -- and I don't think that there is anything
that we can move forward with tonight that would provide any concrete solution to
response to the application and that's --
Borup: And that may be, but, Mr. Chairman, I do have two questions I'd kind like to see
if staff may be able to answer.
Rohm: I mean I'm not saying that we need to shut it down right at the moment, I'm just
saying that I don't think that we are going to get a -- I wouldn't recommend we make a
motion to conclude this thing, but go ahead.
Borup: The two questions I have -- and I don't know if it was a right assumption, but
assuming responsibility on access to the north would go as far as ownership of the
applicant would be, would that be correct?
Hood: That is correct.
Borup: Okay. So, the only -- so, the part that -- whether Basco Lane is pertinent to this
would determine where that north -- or that north access point would be or the north
stub street. If the property does end right there, that's where that would end. If they do
own it clear to here, then, I assume -- so, it sounds like -- is that where the question --
the contention is? I don't know if it's -- I shouldn't say contention, but that's where the
question may be? So, someone has to determine where the north property would go to.
So, I think this ownership is pertinent to that extent -- in that aspect. The other thing --
the only thing I had a question on is that of the legality of -- I mean this is not in our area
of impact. Have we ever looked at anything before as far as an annexation when it
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 81 of 90
hasn't even been in the area of impact? Is there any legal aspect we should be taking
into consideration here or are you comfortable with proceeding as we have started?
Rohm: I think that we have taken into consideration applications along our east line of
our area of impact where it butts up against the city of Boise and there has been swaps
all along that -- that east line and --
Borup: But this is a parcel that's not in any city's area of impact.
Rohm: It's not in the City of Meridian's area of impact and that's where it is similar to
property along the east line of the City of Meridian where we will go into areas that is
outside of our area of impact.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Go ahead.
Zaremba: I believe I recollect reading somewhere in the staff report that that issue is,
actually, going to be heard by the City Council March 7th, which would be next
Tuesday. That's one more reason for us to continue this and not try and make a
decision tonight. The action of the City Council, we -- if they act on our
recommendation, which was to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, then,
upon that happening this will be in our area of impact.
Rohm: Exactly.
Zaremba: So, like I say, that's one more reason to continue it. I also feel that there are
a number of issues -- and I won't call them legal issues, but border issues to identify
exactly what property is being annexed and agree with staff, if there is common
ownership of any parcel that's not included, it needs to be included. We don't want little
pieces left over. There must be some way to prove that or not prove that. And that's
something that would be cleared up during a continuance. I'm sensitive to the fact that
applicant's and developers usually want to move stuff forward as fast as they can and I
would be more sensitive if there were already a plat or CUP coming with it. This is only
an annexation. We aren't slowing them down. The sewer won't be there for two years.
So, they can't really start moving anything. I don't believe we are doing any damage to
the applicant to continue it.
Rohm: I would concur with that. I would also offer one additional comment that in all of
our considerations on development, we are always talking about having a continuance
of accessibility from one property to the next. I don't see this as any different than any
other application in that regard. If, in fact, this property is to be developed, it is going to
have to provide an opportunity for egress to the property to the north, whether it's Basco
Lane or some other road that's adjacent or otherwise, because there is no way that they
can land lock their neighbors to the north. And I just throw that out as a comment, not
necessarily for anything to be resolved tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 82 of 90
Zaremba: It might be appropriate to have the applicant come back and speak.
Rohm: You may come up, yes. No. No. We are not trying to stop you from discussing
anything.
P. O'Neil: There is no problem with a continuance. I think we can clear up -- I sense
some confusion --
Zaremba: Sir, you need to state your name.
P. O'Neil: Yeah. I'm Pete O'Neil, 100 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. Yeah. I think
there has been some confusion and what I'd like to do is try to shed a little light on that if
I might. As -- you know, I can't help but make the observation that the bulk of the
conversation tonight was dealing with parcels that weren't part of any master plan that
kind of got left out and stub streets and access onto Locust Grove and so on and so
forth. We've worked hard for 25 years just to try to include things so you avoid that. We
haven't been successful yet, because the Ewings decided not to be part of the
annexation process. The Rabehls initially were part of it, they were advised that they
should pull out, so they did. We have met with them before, during, and after all of
these processes. So, let me make a couple of observations. In terms of our
understanding of can you annex property that is not in the impact area, we were asked
by the City of Meridian to request consentual annexation of our property. If that came
before the impact area change, so be it. So, we were doing what we were requested to
do by the city. City services, we have discussed that, we understand that's all in
process. The services for us are no different than the services for the acres and acres
and acres of projects you approved to the south of Chinden before the services were
there. So, there is really not a big issue there. As far as the Rabehls are concerned,
you know, I really respect somebody who moved out to the country a number of years
ago to live in the country, just like the Carnahans did, just like John Ewing bought the
property and so on. So, the fact is the world's changing out there. You're not going to
be able to protect four acre ranchettes forever and that's unfortunate, but, you know, the
progress, if that's what it is, has moved west and things are changing. Now, we are
trying to be good neighbors, want to work with everybody. If there is a property dispute
on Ruvel's property that we can help resolve, we are happy to do it. We have the legal
description of Eggers and the legal description that we are matching up, we have told
them we will do what we can to resolve. So, I don't think that's -- those are serious
issues. We'd like to work with them. We probably got ahead of ourselves by having an
appraisal done on the property, so, you know, at least a starting point on what would
happen if we gave you some money and you can go duplicate your rural lifestyle
somewhere else. We have acquired the Avery's property, which is on the corner of
Black Cat and Chinden for the same purposes. The Ewings' access concerns, the
Aldape access concerns, are legitimate concerns. As it relates to Ewing, we have made
it very clear and I think they understand that this is a collector road and we will give
them a stub with all the services on the collector road to the neighboring property to the
north. The fact that there is an easement that goes through their property to Aldape's, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 83 of 90
don't think it's our responsibility to build a collector road over an easement, regardless
of who owns it, you know, across a neighboring piece of property to the next piece of
property. But I guess the lawyers can figure that out. The Aldapes have a -- and we
have met with them several times -- a very serious concern. They don't want to be land
locked. They don't want to be limited to two houses, an easement to two houses. We
have never said we are going to limit them to an easement to two houses. There is
ample room and Mr. Carnahan showed how that would work, of getting a collector road
down the canyon. He will do what he can to make sure any property that he controls
will be available for that right of way. Some of it's going to have to come out of Ewings'
property when they come in with an application to access the property to the north.
Now, to Tuck's point, this legal confusion -- legal description confusion, he's dead right.
I mean we met with John and Tuck ten days ago, we are looking at the same stuff and
we got two or three different pictures of it. We have had the smartest title people and
the smartest lawyer people in town and they don't even agree. We received two days
ago, you know, the latest update on who owns what. Doug actually went out with a
surveyor again on the ground, so on and so forth. We promised the Ewings that we
would sit down, share with them everything we have learned, they can share with us
everything they have learned, and I'm absolutely convinced, A, there is a resolution to
who owns what, and, B, regardless of who owns it, there is a way to get from the
Ewing's south boundary to the Ewing's north boundary without screwing up their
property and allowing the Aldape access. I will say that to -- for us to provide two
accesses to the Aldape property I think is unreasonable and unfair. You're opening up
a can of worms of 1,400 acres below the Phyllis Canal north to the river, which, as you
know, is grounds for World War III with your neighbors to the north and so on and so
forth as to who controls that ground. We have suggested Basco Lane is one approach
to that ground to the south -- from the south and Black Cat is the other. Now, whether it
comes from Duck Alley or whether it lines up on Pollard or something to the east or
west, there is a much bigger issue than one property owner's property there and I don't
think that's a subject of this annexation or agreement -- or up to us to resolve. It's up to
bigger powers and bigger problems and bigger politics to resolve. I will say as
developers of the property on the rim and Doug as the owner, we care what happens
down there and we are going to want something nice to happen down there, so it's
pleasant for the owners and it's -- we are planning open spaces on the rims, so
everybody can enjoy the views and so on and so forth. So, I think that's -- that's all I
can add and we are not opposed to a continuance, but I just thought rather than leaving
all of these things dangling, they are not quite as confusing as they are made out to be
and I -- Doug might reiterate his commitment to making this happen.
Rohm: Yeah. Actually, I think it's clear enough that I'm pretty sure that just a
continuance at this point will suffice and all of this will be worked out over the next
couple of weeks and I would say also that the area of impact adjustments that the
Commission has forwarded onto City Council recommending approval includes this
property that you're talking about, just as Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, and so I
don't think that there is anyone on this side that is the least bit interested in stalling this.
We are all on the same page. We are all trying to work to the same goal. So, that's -- if
we -- I or any of us left you with the impression we are trying to stop this, I apologize.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 84 of 90
P. O'Neil: No. I understand that. I just wanted to clear up -- and there is one other
issue that --
Nary: You need to get closer to the mike, sir.
P. O'Neil: Bill Nichols mentioned that you can't annex and zone without having a
detailed plan. Then, I have been operating illegally for 30 years, because that's the way
I have done every project we have done. We have done PUD's. We have got annexed.
We have got zoned. We have got concept plans. And we come back in with detailed
plans. I think that provides a much better end product than coming in with these
monster subdivisions of cookie cutter lots. But mean I would argue that all day with
anybody who wants to.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
P. O'Neil: Could I say just one -- I'm concerned. I'm concerned because I saw four
people stand up there and say we are trying to restrict access and do -- what I said was
that we support public access through there and we are willing to have that condition
upon our agreement and I heard all this -- I don't know where it came from. I just
wanted people to understand real clearly. We support public access down that location
in the ravine. I don't want to chop down a bunch of trees to do it, but we support it and
we can deliver it and I just don't want there to be any confusion on that, because there
sure was based on what I heard from the comments and I know who owns those
parcels. I absolutely have certainty on who owns those parcels. So, just to clear that
up.
Rohm: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? I just wondered if I could at least address the legal issues that
the Commission has raised and some of the comments, if you would like. I don't know
when you're going to continue it, so I don't know who will be sitting here. What was
raised -- a couple of different issues were raised and one was the Blaser case, which is
an old case from the Cty of Boise, but that's not an area of impact case, that's a city
limits case, and whose law applies at what point when property is annexed into the city
and that case involves entitlements that pre-existed annexation. So, the court -- the
Idaho Supreme Court in that case addressed it pre-existing entitlements to properties
that were in the county that were annexed into the city of Boise. I don't necessarily think
it's analogous to this situation. Idaho Code allows for cities to annex consentual
properties that are contiguous, whether they are within or without the area of impact. As
all of you have stated, the City of Meridian has requested an area of impact adjustment,
that process is ongoing; it is in front of the City Council Tuesday for their final
consideration. If they do make a final decision on Tuesday, it still has to go to the Ada
County commissioners for their agreement as well, but once it is approved by the city,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 85 of 90
the city can begin to apply its land use zones and land use regulations to those
properties at that particular point. This obviously -- the Commission is a recommending
body. So, this project would not reach the City Council until after that other one or your
recommendation could be for the City Council not to consider it until they have
completed that area of impact adjustment process. The staffs recommendation isn't to
annex the property until that's all completed anyway, because applying the appropriate
zones and the like is part of the process. So, there really isn't a particular legal issue
there. The city code allows the city to annex an area outside its area of impact. There
is a conflict with the Ada County code, but that's for the Ada County commissioners to
decide on whether enforcement is appropriate. If they choose to enforce, I guess they'd
have to enforce it against the city of Eagle as well, which they have chosen not to do,
because they have the exact same conditions with the city of Eagle and they have
allowed Eagle to annex outside its area of impact and have chosen not to enforce the
Ada County code in relation to the city of Eagle. So, there isn't a legal issue on
annexation. This city has the right to annex property that is contiguous, that is
consentual. So, that isn't an issue. I don't believe Mr. Nichols' stated as Mr. O'Neil
heard, that we cannot annex property that is only on a concept plan, I think he was --
maybe I misunderstood him. I think what he was saying is he wasn't recommending to
you as a Commission to recommend it, nor would he recommend to the City Council,
who has the ultimate decision, to do that and he cited two examples and I know Mr.
Nichols knows I know the Kodiak project and the Kessler Rewe project just as well and
there were some issues and some problems that those two projects had when they
were annexed based on concept plans. But as this Commission knows and the City
Council knows, the Uniform Development Code has cleared up many of those issues
about what happens to properties when they get annexed, how to deal with these
conceptual plans and attach them to the underlying development that's going to come
in, how do development agreements that we have been doing may address those types
of concerns. But, again, those are all discretionary choices that the City Council can
make and choices that this body can make as a recommendation to the City Council.
They aren't prohibitions to annexation; they are simply considerations that this body can
make as a recommendation going forward. The final issue that was raised was on
water and whether or not it's wise to annex property when the water issues may still be
up in the air. We, actually, have made significant progress as a city with United Water
on some of the areas that they are either currently serving or would like to serve. I
guess we are confident and comfortable that those issues can be worked out. And,
again, most of these services, I think as Mr. O'Neil stated, you approved projects
tonight that there aren't services available currently and there aren't services that may
be available for a year, year and a half, two years. These projects know that. We
include that in the conditions of approval, so there is certainly no hiding the ball there.
They recognize what they take at this particular point if they choose to annex
consentually. So, I just wanted to address those legal concerns, so that as -- if you're
going to continue this matter as it appears you may, that is an issue I would hope
maybe -- if you have a question we can answer it tonight, but that you don't have to re-
factor in or concern yourself with for the next time period and if you want to focus on
some of the other issues, like whether or not this issue on the north and the access road
and those type of things need to be cleared up before you feel comfortable making a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 86 of 90
recommendation, you can focus on those things and not these other legal issues. And,
certainly, you want to have opportunity to read the objection that's filed by the White
Peterson, but I, hopefully, have addressed at least the issues that were raised tonight.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments and I think at this point in time what I
would recommend is we get a motion to continue this until the -- at least the April 6th
regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning and we will have opportunity to
digest and we may end up having to continue it yet again.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: Before we do that, I would add one comment to Mr. Nary's excellent remarks,
and that is to Mr. and Mrs. Rabehl. There is provision for us to include what's called the
Right-To~Farm Act, and which protects you from complaints of people that got there
after you and that is something that's usually attached to the plat, not to the annexation,
but that issue will come up if they file a plat and right on the plat they put Right-To-Farm
Act, which means anybody that buys a house that backs up to your property line, knows
you have animals and raise hay and their complaints are not accepted.
Rohm: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: May I make a comment?
Rohm: You may.
Newton-Huckabay: Or ask a question? What exactly will we be resolving on April 6th?
I don't see any clear issues that would hold up annexation on this. I mean I understand
there are these disputes --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the things I'd like to see is the new configuration with
the additional R-8 parcel along the eastern boundary; I'd like to see a final depiction of
that.
Rohm: And it might not be a bad idea to vocalize those things that you'd like to see, so
that we will have additional information to make better decisions from whatever date we
continue it to. Before we go on, if you will -- one more comment.
O'Neil: Derrick O'Neil again. I was just going to follow up on that. It would help us a lot
and I'm sure help everyone if we could come to some things that we need to focus on,
so when we come back to you we will be addressing the specific issues that you have.
Rohm: And I concur with that, but I don't know that we can list every single concern that
there may be. I think that this is something that possibly could be continued with some
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 87 of 90
answered next time and if we continue again and -- this is a big project and I think that
it's important that we do it right.
O'Neil: I realize that and all we are asking is if you can give us direction and we will
come back and do every bit we can to solve the issues that you have.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, one of the additional suggestions I would make -- and this is
not a new suggestion, everybody has suggested this ahead of me -- that the people that
are here tonight get together off site and everybody has agreed to work together and
everybody has offered to be considerate and helpful. There isn't any way for us to
practically enforce that, but I would say during the period of our continuance if you can
all get together and air your grievances and agreements with each other, then, when we
do have the continued portion of this, I feel that would be a lot more helpful for us and
probably staff as well.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, again, I need to be clear on what the issues are, because I
don't -- I mean that would hold up an annexation?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I feel the same as Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. You
said that we'd need to consider a myriad of issues, but I haven't really heard one -- I
have only got one question in my mind, now that I think about it.
Rohm: I haven't read the 22 page --
Borup: Well, he mentioned about four things and I think that --
Rohm: I'm just telling you, I haven't read the 22 page letter written by that office and I'm
not going to limit -- one of my concerns are until --
Borup: I did read it.
Rohm: -- and that's it. So, with that being said, if anybody would like to make a motion
to continue this to a later date, date certain, I'd certainly entertain it.
Hood: Mr. Chair, can I get -- just one more thing real quick. I think you're heading in --
wanting to get out of here. But the memo that I wrote -- did anyone have a chance to
look at it? Can I include those provisions and we can discuss further? Shall I not
include them?
Borup: I think Mr. O'Neil said he agreed with your comments, if I remember right.
Hood: The last two it sounds like they had some issues with. Number 13 goes back to
that existing barn and there may be some other things maybe on Chinden that encroach
and the intent is not to have any -- cause any hardship or do any harm to the existing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 88 of 90
business. We will do everything we can to accommodate the existing business out
there and that's alii was trying to get here is that we do want to see it improved, you
know, paving the parking lots, you know, do those types of things, bringing it up to
standards, but if there are existing conditions, you are -- and someone said
grandfathered earlier. You are grandfathered in with some of those things, so -- and
they can be discussed further, I was just wondering if it would be easier for me to put
this into the staff report and we can discuss further at that point. Commissioner
Zaremba, I will also call Ada County and see if I can find -- just because someone's
paying the bill, doesn't necessarily mean they own it, but at least you could have
information on who's been paying it, if, in fact, I can get it. So, I can do these things, I
guess. I don't have -- it doesn't sound like there is a lot I can do in the next two weeks,
four weeks, however long you decide you're going to continue this out, if that's what
you're going to do, so --
Zaremba: My comment on that -- and I forget who it was, whether it was Mr. O'Neil or
Mr. Carnahan, but one of them said they know who ones it.
Hood: Yeah.
Zaremba: We didn't ask for the answer to that, but maybe you could. Appreciate that.
Hood: And I think, really, the only outstanding issue from staff's perspective, and based
on the applicant's testimony and everyone in the audience tonight that has testified, is I
think everyone agrees that the best place to get a street is where Basco Lane is today.
At least at the Phyllis Canal. Now, if the trees are there or not, maybe the road doesn't
go right exactly where -- but the crossing needs to happen where Basco Lane is. So, if
we can get -- and the applicant seems to have made some concession to say we are
not trying to hold this up, but there is this easement out there that also has two property
owners that we haven't seen anything from, so I think until we see something in writing
from them saying, yes, in fact, we will allow a public street to go there or something,
that's the issue that's still in my mind is -- he's relinquishing his third of that, but the
other two-thirds can put the kibosh on it. So--
Borup: Now, who haven't we heard from?
Hood: Well, there is -- and I don't know all the history, but back in 2001 --
Borup: I asked names was all.
Hood: Anderson and Thomas, was it?
Borup: Okay. They are not on the -- they are not on the --
Hood: They are not a part of this at all, but they put this easement together and kept a
right for that easement on Basco Lane. So, that's, really, in my mind, if that issue can
be worked out, that they can allow a street to go -- to get to the Aldape property, a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 89 of 90
collector road stubbed or partially constructed by this applicant or however that that
works out. That's not even, really, what I'm concerned more, it's more getting that
crossing there and who owns that even doesn't become as important as if can get the
crossing, so --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Caleb, I think that's -- that's what interests me as well. I'm
not so concerned to specify what the answer has to be, but it does include -- have to
include how there is going to be public access, public road access, to the Aldape
property. And the people are already in this room who can discuss that.
Borup: But this applicant -- if this applicant doesn't own that property, they can't
construct a public road here if there not a legal -- I mean if there is not a proper right of
way.
Zaremba: I'm not even sure it needs to be constructed yet, but we need agreement
from everybody that --
Borup: That they will have something to their north property line.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Yes. I think we agree with that.
Rohm: At least across the property that --
Newton-Huckabay: We have that. It's right here.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Then, the other question I would have is that on the annexation, if there is
contiguous property that is owned, should that be excluded.
Zaremba: It should not be excluded. If it's under same or similar ownership of other
parcels, it should be included. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 06-004 to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6,
2006, to give applicant and neighbors opportunity to work out some issues and staff the
opportunity to incorporate some of those ideas into a revised staff report.
Moe: Is that the end of your motion?
Zaremba: That's the end of the motion.
Moe: I'll second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 2, 2006
Page 90 of 90
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-004 to the regularly scheduled
meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Rohm: Motion passed.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: We need one more motion.
Zaremba: So moved.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close tonight's Public Hearing. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:05 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN
_I I
DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK
Mar,31. 2006 8:30AM
No,4053
p, 1
~
~~~
RECErVEn
,- .. -,," ,,"'. ," " "'-""-O""""
':>r:/ ,-', -- .' ?DUfj
","' ' , \j ¡- /".. /1 "'-R
-I~'~ "/r-
I,-i I '/ '~\,';- -, I/JIAf\i
" ":,- ,'- ":: r::;-. :'{' n 1-.--" '-:'
-""-r-tCF-
March 24. 2006
City of Meridian
Planning and Zoni~ Commission
660 E. Watertower, 8te. 202
Meridian. ID 83642
RE:
Tree Farm Annexation Request AZ~06~004
Dear Commissioners,
Tlùs letter and attachments are a fonow up to our hearing held on March 2, 2006 which
was continued to April 6, 2006.
At the conclusion of the meeting held on March 2, and upon further discussion with staff,
we have been focused on two very specific issues that were discussed at the hearinp;.
I.
Rabehl Out Parcel
A. Ownership: there was discussion about the property boundary of the
property and if our request reflected such boundaries. We have reviewed this matter and
our annexation request reflects the recorded warranty deed and descripdon dated
F ebroary 7. 1980 (Attachment 1)
B. Position Statement In Opposition to Application dated March 1 > 2006
ftom White Peterson, P.A; Wm. F. Oigray, III: We have reviewed this docwnent in
detail and have commissioned our legal council to review it as well. A response to this
Statement is attached (Attachment 2). In addition, the City Attorney has reviewed this
document and we feel that we have followed the City's process correctly and responsibly.
II.
Ewing I Teco One Property (swrounding ownership):
We have conducted extensive research on this matter in addition to meeting with
the Ewing family representatives and the Aldape family representative. Attached
(Attaclunent 3) is a swnmary description of the ownership as well as our suggested
solution to the issues as outlined in a letter to John, Tuck, and Sherrie Ewing dated March
23. 2006.
Tmhaven LtC. 2242 S. Rivcrwulk Drivc. Suit~ 200. Boise, ID 83706
Tel (208) 336-3430 Fax (208) 336.5296
MAR 31 '0608:55
PAG_E--,---~l
Mar. 31, 2006 8:30AM
No,4053
p, 2
Page 2
City of Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 23. 2006
Commissioners, we realize this is a lot of information to process, however we feel it to be
necessary to allow you to have a chance to completely understand the issues. We also
feel we have been proactive in providing you and your staff with answers to the questions
raised and believe we have dealt with this in a manner that will allow you to recommend
approval of our application to the City Council. We will be present at the hearing
scheduled for April 6 and we look forward to meeting with you and answering any other
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
\J~è ~
Derick O~ei11
tolDO
Attachments: Attachment I (Warranty Deed Instrument No. 8006701)
Attachment 2 (Response to Statement of Opposition)
Attachment 3 (Ownership Descripdon Letter)
MAR 31 '06 0e:SS
PAGE. 02
Mar, 31.
2006
8:30AM
.."'fot"7)fI '1\1 0 'I "," .
. " ,,'j' ",,' .' i, 117' ARRANT! " " SOIWI'WbI' \ ~":;~~, rl~
,. 'jI.¡, . ',"'A " ,!,,~/T,UI ,I(""'~~",
".'~j¡,;ç, ."', (~'~""l:"I/:"".)I'lli"
{',h:' '~:"}'III' 1IteeI-' WAYNE' A. . SALL and HaD I. ::SALL. 6- ,~'", 'f~ "'::'1~:~};'
l;r~r,,!t<., ,.', ,', ,buøb8Dð.nllW:l.fe .'".,'.~..:. ,i""~""rGd':..t"~fl1.'
. ~~"(.',VJi ',' " ' , . '" ~~h' :' >Ç1 '~n!fA'
~"I' ~ ,', ' , '~' .,'
.I;(>,{",":' ", "",f,' ,,"
't';:' .,' -: ï/ the -.- 40 hlre'- p1!IRt, bltplll, .... aad ~"vør Wlf.D' '. '. "," I,
'. d)"\ '.", ....n"". . II' . .~~J'
-- ~I: .1"" ,u:. 6D"'HUa ' n ~ 1A11tIIL, aDd 8A1tDKA L. ~, b~ bIDet ~d :.w~~~ '\'1
t'i"r ,,',f{""i4 ":':",",.. "" ,," """,t,.,:'r',9:l',',
II:'\' """'\""'" .' " ," , ' " 1 ",', , ", \
"\" " . iG' Vi t.
,~> ,~-. 1M -,,-..- ~!dúeo ,.~ It;
t~, .. - go-.,... , a, \ " , J .... :f!tl! I
. ~~:I:: .-:::. To 2!bBI!: 1/41 Sec. 21, 41 1~1 m~.,. P'~C:l.~Ul~"'lV F.. .~~~~,
:t'\~ " .. ..a_., d 011' 'f'} '...P!""
,', ,':V,_IO a '.8 OW8:, "rll.'::'.. 'I,' ""
. '. "'. I , , , , , ,', , ., '. -. 'Y'I '
:, '~',~f::;.!J~~~A' aace af;::land '1JhS8~ttøn~21.'~~~~ff.~,.:~RJ2ñ:' lW;~':~' ='~.M~"
~~ ""'~A"'" C,.,.."...... 'MAshaw' , ", ,', \ ,'¡JJi!!j" ~II"/ If,' ,
' 't -: """"""',r..,:r:t.I ,"', """"'~r""'I~"""
" ,;':I~," , '~r It'! " , "~. ":" 't: t". ,,/""", '
\I~':':: "',' COJllm8J1C1:Lng I,t t¡b8 88at'on'. OÐl:nar 'aDIIIIIIDQ' to S.ertonl:"
,;¡ i:~ " ',' 21.. ~'21 21 aad 281. ~. 4W.,: a. '1..::. B,tH;' "ahen. ,.Mol$Çl
if.. . , ,.;:: "J~O'"16'í'3\:1n.b8t':~~91"Ub_"~. ôþn -DD".-) IttJ\.,..,tô,\8.~~
~. ¡¡Ii " ! ,', !t; S8ec::t:onø ~1,,-~~~2J,;'~'~a ..'~~,1tti"! ,..'C ';~,lIa.:'U~ ,:' ..
" ", '. ,'~ reatL þ81n,1t'...., tsal4i!l.- ,~. , ~,.."dJJ"~' ~~caìtt8I:',\1;Hn
, ,'J:,¡' /;",1 of an :I._kIlKDU:'~'. 1tø'ftl\ tf4'P20"" W8i1t'1I1.7'l SIle'&:,
~ '. "~~,:' ".' ': .. ,'thent8 Ncmt,IJ8'.WZ6.1-30" We'It! 138.'~ f8a.t.'_1=hnca, NoEt
, .. I 10' . ..... 83cø3' .1f8øC 3:87.'8 'f..t; 'thenao :JoutDb ð'4.vz~";"W8'II.t""", .
"\~m~~,>' h" 1'6.89 .e.t;~1 '&aa, tU¡f"th8¡= . ,/,.1 0 t '
","':,'' "b88J!1DI NÞrth: "30'!t", ,.. 8;~.. '
"l~rAt'..>", nO¡, ',' , ;r, ,,(j
l'¡:j:M': ,79 J~ .~881t:" fuI.. " II.Ct , "
~f~~' ""':'~'" ,~" 10"'.$9 ~ '¡. ." ,If "/, ~t=.., " ", .~
"', ,,1;'1"";' ,j to 'hI 8acd.ôb, i1W"a 't8;'.~', ¡( ' ;',.",,11;
,~ '~~"'~';'-:. ¡:':} thanH, SoutlH,OJ.6'JØ" Welt '8I'?U!'.j C~~'fí'~8t~.:,
, . 'ph,; '. ,"'I,495..9a Eelt"'I:Þ the 'lUt P.Ut!dl~' ,~ ~~,'~':'.'j'.~,&~,~;,. ,
"""'~'...' '. 'I !.Ii" ,:.r~I'",,~,'."r"""""":',~,~"II,iIf~'"
, "~I""'" '--~:'-~--'-"-' ,.',~ .--' '" ..
'r r" ~ '\, "'a
";, ;"~';I"" ", 'J:°ctla_"(~
...'Y,""" L-'M
.. t.' \' l"r"U8
'~ .; ,,' I '. "":,
. ,," \""~"'" ,
No, 40~ttac~;".1nt No.1
. ,
"
t: .
MAR 31 '0608:56
PAGE. 03
Mar.31, 2006
8:32AM
No,4053 P, 4
Attachment No.2
G IVE(~PSLEY I.LP
LAW OFFICeS
8Q1 'If, IIÞIock $Ir~~1
PO 1IoJ.2720. 1lGi1ll, 1ø1llo8370,
TEL6""'CIH~: ;\OØ )ea.1m1
F"C$I"L~. M 311.:'~
WGB3JTF.' -""""þU,8I8,.-
O8!J G, AIIo!> ~'J.nk!in G.1Ae J.l'YiIJ lIoftn
I<IISIM ^, Ahouod [¡.lIIa 1'1, LOo\Ibtr(\1 COllII)' E W8l'd
KoUy Y. 8ørtlGur John ~, """0. RoII~rIlI. WI'¡tu
ChM\OÞ/I.. J, ee- ~nllol1ll R, ~11It.
w.t11Ml C, CGIe ""'IIJ Gre"'~ MCCunuotl
Miohl- C, C-.., C~'hiø 4. !ottilie KoII/I"~ L PuIS/..,
YhcmIa !, D/cIt.. Clirlt.- H, Mey.. RÐTIRFO
~l..... &AtUlIIII I" IiOW4,d MlIU/
.Jci1I"y t, 'dlWør Pllliçk J 1.11", JIa)!l1Olld 0, 1&;."",
"'","I A. "'/lDlltIio' Jlllill(in II, MOrllpneIV RI';'YIRE )
M81u~ C, HendtJe>kean An~8I. K. NoI....
1\1..... J, HIppIe, 0tÞ0t1I/I e, Nill1On J.- ^ Ml:Cluro
DtIIIat, K. ~- W. H"9" O'Rlo"¡"n, LL.M. III!TIRDD
AnI18 t.1C\IIIIIeI ~l8y\l.h>8d
.J, ,. Q, I.8dIe B, IINjQl\ ThOlllIla, LI..M '¡-.,e,.¡"",",
DIR!OTD/.AL: (2QØ,*'21S
lit.lAIL: QIIJj( IJI......ey,CIHII
Morch 29, 2006
City of Meridian
Planning and Zoning Ccmlmission
660 E. WatertoweJ', Suite 202
Meridian, IDS3642
Re:
Annexation/Zoning App1ìcations Filed by TrechavCß, LLC; File No. AZ-Q6.004
Our File No. 7690-3
Dear Members of the Commission:
On December 15, 200S, Treebaven, LLC submiued its A1mcxa~ion and Zoning
Applications e'Application") to the City of Meridian Planning and 7.oning CoJJlmìsHion
("Commission"). trechllwl1 also submitted to the Commission, as extúbits to the Application,
Affidavits of Legal1ntcrost executed by each landowner within the proposed are. of annexation
and zoning, including Arthur Rabcht
Thereafter, Arthur and Sandra RabchJ ("Rnbehls") sought to revoke their consent to tho
Application. Thè City has procusscd the Application wld~r the assumption thallhe Rabohls'
property is not a part or the Application, as indicated in the City ofMcriùian Staff Report, pp, 2,
12 (Røbchls not listed among property owners; Rabehl prope1ty referred to as "the ~nclave
parcel"). '
On March 1, 200(). (he r{ab~hls submitted a Position Statement fOT Ù1e Commission's
consideration, TreehaVe11 submits this tetter to address son1C of the concerns raised in that
Position Statomcnt.
Area oflmDlct
All landowners of tho property now being considered fol' almcxation have consented (0
the 81mexation. The property to be InDexed is contiguous or Ildjacent to the current City of
Meridian corporate boundary. 111ereforc, the proposed annexation is 4 Category "A" uJUlexatÍon
under Idaho Code § 50-222.
MAR 31 '0608:57
PAGE. 04
Mar. 31. 2006 8:32AM
No, 4053
P. 5
Meridian Plarming and Zoning Commission
March 29. 2006
Page 2
Because 'the proposed annexation is a Category "A" Lu1ncxatÍol1. the subject propeny need
not be within tbe City of Meridiän's Area of Impact. Idaho Code § 50w222(3)(a); ~;ee (liso
Meridian Unified Dt.ovelopment C6de § 11-SB-3(B) (deferring to Idaho Code § 50-222).
Notwithstanding Ada County Code § 9-4-2 (which limits annexation to those lands lying
within the City ofMeridhm area of impact), Idaho Code § 50..222 governs Trcchaven's
annexation applicati011 and supersedes any contrary municipal ordinance. AJJ.y county ordinance
that (;cot1iets with a duly enpetcd IdQho statute is unenforceable. III ro App/icatio1Jfor Zoning
Challge, 140 Idaho 5]2, 515,96 P.Jd 613, 6J6 (2004) (ho ding "county zoning ordinance cannot
be appHed in this situaûon because to do so would conJ1ict with statutes enacted by the
lcg'islt,ture"). This tenet j~ derived trom the }'daho Constitution itself: "Any county or
incorporated city or town may make and enforce, within its limits, all such loea] poJice. sanitary
and other :regulations as are 1\91 in conflict with its charter or with the ncneral J~. to Id. Con!.1.
Art. XII. § 2 (emphasis added).
Idaho Code * 5()".222(3) provides: "rajJ1nexa~ions Wll be classificd and processed
according to the standards tor each respective category set forth herein." (.EmphtlSis added.)
BecAuse Ada County Coda: § 9-4.2 conflicts with a duly enacted Idaho statutc. it is
unenforceable.
.IU.1roDOsect Annexation Is ReasoDa~
When reviewing any annexation undertaken by a aity, U reviewing body docs not
consider effects on individual parcels that were left out of the annexation but rather considers the
entirety oflhe annexed property. In Hendricks y. City of N(lmpa, 93 Idaho 95.98,456 P.2d 262,
265 (1969)" the Idaho Supreme Court summarized:
the total portion wmexed is to be considered as an en tì rety, and
even though Some Darts m¡~t have ~Jçft out or other areas
might ha,vc been included, nevertheless, i£the enûre portion sought
to be annexed comes reasonably within the purposes for which
annexlt1on may be made il will not bc considered that the city has
abused its discretion.
Id. (qLlolingßoiseCityv. BoJ~feCityDeve/op"'entC()..41 Id~Lho294,3]5,238P.IOO6, 1013
(l925» (emphasis added).
Furthennore, Idaho Code § 50~222(3)(a) spec-iHcally contemplates the extstcnce of
enclave parcels, which are undoubtedly oreated by prior annexation of the surrounding
properties, whether occurring in one annexation or jn successive annei'tations. It is reasonable for
the City of Meridian to annex the property proposed by Tr~haven without annexing Ihe
Rabehls' propeny.
MAR 31 '06 08:57
PAGE. 05
Mar. 31. 2006 8:32AM
No,4053
p, 6
Meridian Planning IiInd Zoning Commission
March 29. 2006
Page 3
MW1tian's Urban Service ~DRArt!
The Meridian Unified 'DeveJopn1ðnt Colie docs not require property to be within the tHy
of Meridian urban service planning area in order to be eligible tor annexation. Meridian l1nlfied
Development Code § ) I-SB-3(B). Former Meridian City Code § II ~ 16-3. which was cited by
the Rabehls in their Position Statement. ha.s been superseded by the City of Meridian Unified
DeveJopmcnt Code, effective September J S, 2005.
Dggndarv þy AweemeDC
l'rœhavcn subnùtlcd its Application based upon the only available, and presumed
accurate, Ð.utborlty--the real property records of the Adá County Recorder's office. including the
applicable warranty dGeds attached to the Application, In facL, it is ímproper for an applicant to
submit an anncxation or :tOtting application based upon anything other Hum the Joal uopeny
records properly recorded in the applicable county. It certainly is improper for Trcchaven or any
other appJicant for BlU1oxation and lOIUng to submit un application based 'upon an .P.J~adhldicated
assertion of a boundary by agreement.
The !)Jct that the Rahehls have provided notice to an adjacent landowner claiming a
boundar)' by agreement with the prior owner of the adjacent p1Ifccl is immaterial. The Rabchls
have not filed a lawsuit or taken any other neoessalY action to adjudicate or resolve Lhe claimed
boundary by agreement. Applications for annexation and zoning surely cannot be hcld captive
by Ð.Il objecting party who threatens to litigate or negotiate a supposed boundary by agrccn1cnl-
at his or her Own pace. uf course. If this were the case, then any annexation or "oning
application could be delayed indefmiteJy while an objecting pany decides to pursue and then
amble through a lawsuit or negotiation, regardless Oflhc merits of the claim. '
If the RabeWs hereol1er adjudicate or otherwise resolve their boundary by Q.grocrnent
claim 8J1d record a proper instrument in thø Ada County Recorder's Offioe. t11en Ilny necessary
adjustments can be mude to the City of Meridian corporate boundaries that will R5Ult {ron1
Treebflvcn's proposed annexation. Until that úmc, the Rabehb' unadjudicatcd claim of à
boundary by agreement with the predec:cssor to the JoAnn Eggers Trust is immatel'iat
Trcchaven '8 Application is pl"Opcr and complete.
I Indited. the merits of the Rabeh15' claim appear qmmionable. ß()undar}' by agreement ia a cClmfflonlaw
tausc of oction crealed to remody b()undary di$pules between IIdjllcont latldoWIl<"T5 who IlfCf unaware of or are in
dispute a.~ to 1& true OOwldory linc, but impl.ìcitly or spctl&ally agree to create a new boundary between their
propenics. "[TJbcI'C In\Jst be either uncertaJnty or II' dispute 8S to the I~'ca¡ on or the IrLle boundary" in order tor
neighboring landowntr5 to IIstabtish B boundary by agreement Jnll11.$u/J v. Newp(¡I'f, 13\ Idaho 521. 523, 960 P .2d
742, 744 (\998). Howevc:r,ihe notice ofboWldar)' by agree.mentthe Raboll1s sem '10 thu JoAnn Egger~ TnlSt on
February 211, 2006 (attached as an appendix to the Robehb' Position Stawment). doe, not allege this most bnsic
elclnc:nt ofa boutWllry by Dgrccmenl.
MAR 31 '06 08:58
PAGE. 06
Mar. 31. 2006 8:33AM
No,4053
p, 7
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 29, 2006
Page 4
Nodce
The City has complied with applicable Code requirements for providing notice ofthe
Application. Meridian Unified DevèJopment Code § 1 ].SA-S(E)(l)provídes: "At lcast fifteen
(15) days prior to the public heanng, the City shall publish a notice of the time and place and a
swnmary of the application in the o11ìcial newspaper of general circulatiøn in Adn County."
Section 11.SA.S(E){J) provides: "When posted or maned notice is required of two hwldred
(200) or more property Owners or purchasers ofrccol'd. alternate fonns of no lice roll be
provided as follows: (a) In lieu of mailed notice, one (1) additional notice of the lime and pjace
of the hearing and sunn11W'Y of the proposa1 shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the County, not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing, ... ,. (Emphasis
added.)
The Rabchls, eitÏ11g to superseded Meridian City Code § 1 J-JS-5(C)(1)(a), argue:!
published notice may be required in tWs matter ifmore Ihan 200 property owners arc within 300
foot ofthe subject property. They further argue the City has not determined whether 200 or more
propcrty owners are within 300 feet of the proposed development.
This issue is moot for two reasons. First, the City of Meridian provided both mail notice
to aU property owners within 300 feet of the subject property Iill1 publislwd two notices in the
official newspaper of genoral circulation in Ada County. See City oCMcridian Staff Report, p. 3.
Secondty, even if lOO or more property O'Mlers wore entitled to receive radius notice, the second
published notice is optional. Meridian Unified Development Code § I] oi5A.5(E)(3) says
<'alternate fonns of notico IWIX be provided.. ,," (Emphasis added.) This provision exists merely
as a convenience (Ot. the Oty. If the City would rather send mail notice to 200 or more propcrty
owners within 300-foot radius, then it may so choosc.
.Qm¡DtQwive Plah
The Rabchls claim that. simplybccausc the property at issue is not rence.ted on tho fUlw'c
land 1,1SC map of (he 2002 Comprehensive Plan. the proposed zoning tor such property upon
annœxation is notcollsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Thjs claim is contradicted by Idaho
law. The Jdaho Supreme Court consistently has helel thal a zoning ordinance need ,not strictly
contonn to the land use map designation of a comprehensive plan. 8rme y. Ciiy of LelV;slou, 107
Idaho 844. 693 P.2cJ 1046 (l984);81aser v. KtJoren(Û COltnty nel o/Crm1f1' h, 110 Idaho 37, 39.
714 P.2d 6, 8 (1986); Ferguson \1. Bd.. olCmmT)I Comm ~",". 110 Idaho 785, 718 P.2d 1223
(1986). Rather, according [0 the Court, the City need only consider ami find thut the proposed
zoning is generally in accord with the Comprehensive P1su.
1110 proposcd zoning is COllsÎst8nt with the Comprehensive Plan because it allows the
devolopment of a quality, integrated residential neighborhood with a variety of housing types and
residential densities, neighborhood commercial services along a major thoroughfare (Chinden
MAR 31 '06 08:58
PAGE. 07
Mar. 31. 2006 8:33AM
No. 4053
P. 8
MDIidiao Planning and Zoning Commission
March 29, 2006
Page 5
Boulevard), open space, and recreational pathways. Throughout Chapter 7" the CompreJlensive
Plan encourages exl1Ctly this type of development, as evidenced by the following specific
planning statements and goals-.
. A vibr4nt comn1unity needs a good cross.scction of housing and therefore must guard
against an abundance of subdivisions in like density and price range (p. 91);
. Allow noighborhood centers to meet everyday retail needs and provide community
services (p, 92);
. Dcvolop incmttives for a variety of housing types. suitable f()1" various income groups,
close to employment and shopping centers (p. 108); and
. Elevate/enhance quality of residential site and subdivision planning (p,l 09).
DeveloDment Aenement
The Rabchls have raised concerns that Trechavcn's proposed development will adversely
aiTccl their ability to "preserve the use and enjoyment of the Rabehls' pwperty which will
remain County RR:' Rabehls' Position Statcm~nt, p. 9. More specifically, the Rabchl$ have
asked that the development agreement exempt many approved uses from the zones proposed by
Trcchaven's Application. Such sweeping categorical exclusions and restrictions arc wmecess~ry
to protect surrounding properties and, indeed, could be short.sightcd if impo¡:¡ed solely for the
benefit of the cun-cnt land use on one neighboring property when the Comm1ssion cannot predict
how long that land use or .landowner wjJ1 remain, In tàot, the Rabehls' property currently is
Hstcd for sale,
The City ofMeridlan's Stuff Repon adequately recommends that the Commissinb and
Co\lncil direct the City's Legal Department to draft II devck)þJM.I11 t\grcèmcnt for Troehaven's
development to ensure that ~'all future development shall not involvc UScs, activities, processes,
materials, equipmcnt and conditions of operation that wiU be detrimental to any persons,
pn;lpeny or general wel1àre by reasun of exoessivc productíon of trame, noise. smoke. fumes.
glare or odors," "lbe City's proposed development agreement will adequately addrcss any
possible affects of Trechaven's proposed development on the Rabehls. property.
The Rabchls turlher claim that ¡¡'access to the existing pubic fOt\d mack Cut is also of
importance," Rabehls' Position Statement, p. 1O. This 100 has been specifically addressed Ü1 the
City ()f Meridian Stoff Repol1's recommended development agreement as follows: "when this
property develops adjacen110 one of the parcels listoo below, the app1icanl agrees to provide
pubic streot access to. "the enclave property (R¡abehl. Parcel No. SO42 I 449000)." City of
Meridian Staff Report, p. 12.
In SLlD1, (1) tho Application is proper and complete; (2) the proposed annexation is
reasonable; (3) t1:\e propony need not be within the Meridian urban service planning area; (4) the
MAR 31 '06 08:59
PAGE, 08
Mar.31. 2006 8:34AM
No,4053
p, 9
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
March 29, 2006
Page 6
City provided an notice required ofÜ under the Meridian Unified Developmcnt Code; (5) the
proposed zoning is in accordance with the Comprehensive P1an;o.nd (6) the City has properly
recommended a dcvcJopment agreement to address any potential at1ècts on the Rabehls'
property. Therefore, Treehaven's Application should proceed without delny.
Thank you for your consideration of these íssues.
Sincm:Jy.
(--ì
~è.ì~
Deborah E. Nclson
cc:
Art and Sandra Rabehl (c/o William F. Oi¡ray, Esq.)
William Nary, Esq., City Attorney
DEN :kdt N '<' JIIN'I'!M~\I I\J\ )~'" '" Mwl.lia N>.l 'fl\¡ll>ohl G l lUfiI... ~..
MAR 31 '12161218:59
PAGE. 1219
Mar,31. 2006 8:34AM
No,4053 P, 10
I'\uélchmem No.3
O'Neill ~ Enterpr,.ses"c f~:;:;TE2oo,eo "' dI/lo83702
- T .1; (208) 333-2401 Emell; PO"'IIII(8oe/p111p,gom
March 23, 2006
John Ewing
c/o Ewing Company, Inc.
1500 Eldorado St #4
Bojse, ID 83704
Subject:
Property OwDersbipl Access
Dear John, Tuok, &; Sherrie:
Thank you for meeting with Derick, Eric Nelson, and me Tuesday morning, March 2181, I believe the
session was productive and, hopefully, shed some new light on property ownership issues, which have
been confusing to say the least.
Pronertv Ownership - To review the ownership issues that we discussed, please refer to Exhibit 1
(attached), which is essentially the same diagram we reviewed in the meeting.
1. Westera Property - The land between the metes and bounds described property on the top of the
rim and the south bank of the Phyliss Canal of the properties, identified as Puce]s 5 and 1 on the
map, it turns out, are still in the ownership of Jayker Tree Fann. Apparently, that came about
several transactions ago when the way the properties were described changed.
2. Eastern Property - The property Ô'om the top of the bank to the canal on the eastern MDC
property (parçe) 2 on Exhibit 1) along with the property that is along the canal and \\Ifaps up the
gulch (identified as Parcel 3 on Exhibit I) is owned by MDC LLC.
3. No Man's Land - Eric Nelson's description of how three men in 1912 divided up their lands
surrounding "the gulch", which turned out to leave a gap, shown as Parcel 4 in Exhibit J, was
very interesting, but unfortunately does not ]oave a definitive trail as to who might own that piece
of property. Two facts that are clear is that Parcel 4 on Exhibit 1 is not owned by MDC, nor is it
owned by TECO One.
Where do we 10 from here? -
J . The City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission requested that if there is any property
owned by Treehaven, MDC, or a related entity in the vicinity of the land being annexed and
zoned that was not included in the original request for annexation and :wning, that it/they be
included in the request. Troehayen and MDC intend to comply with the City's request and include
what we are showing in Exhibit 1 as Parcels J, 2, 3, &; 5 in the annexation request. As
TreehavenlMDC do not have ownership of Parcol 4, we cannot request the City include that in
the annexation, but the City may c:hoose to at its discretion.
2. In place of CWTent access via Basco Lane, Treehaven fulJy intends to provide access to the TECO
One parce] and to the Aldape property to the north of the Phyliss Canal via a paved coJJector
standard road as shown in the general site plan on Bxhibit 2. This would be "stubbed" in the
general area of the existing Basco Lane at the southern portion of the gulch. This "stub" would
not only include the right-of-way, but the utiJitie5 underneath it. It would be subject to any City,
ACHD, or State imposed "Iate-comer" fees for improvements to that point.
3. It is the desire and intent of TreehavenlMDC to cooperate with TECO One to remove any
impediments that may be in TreehavenlMDC's control a:tTeçting the access to the Aldape
property &om the southern boundary of the TECO One property to its northern boundary.
&. Specifically, once a public road is designed and approved through the "gulch", MDC
agrees to dedicate directly to ACHD any portion of property nece55/U)' in Parcel 3 to
allow for and be incorporated into a 40..foot public right-or-way. Prior to that time, MDC
MAR 31 '06 08:59
PAGE. 10
Mar,31. 2006 8:34AM
No, 4053
p, 11
will continue to grant access via Basco Lane, to the extent that it crosses any MDC
property in the area ofParoel3.
b. TrcehavenlMDC and all related entities are willing to quit claim any right, title, or
interest they may have in Parcel 4 to TECO One. We also discussed the potentia) merits
of agreeing to collectively and cooperatively work toward a quiet-title action on Parcel 4
with the expressed understanding that TBCO One would be the ultimate owner of that
parcel.
4. As we discussed at our meeting, there seems to be several advantages to TECO One owning
Parcels 1 & 2 currently owned by MDC or a related entity. Doug Carnahan has indicated his
sincere interest and desire to accommodate TECO One through the sale of these properties to
TECO One on a fair and equitable basis.
You made it clear in the discussion that who pays for the extension of the conector road from TECO
One's south boundary to its north boundary is of concern and interest to you. Obviously, it is our position
that if we deliver a finished collector road to your south boundary, as described above, we will have met
any and all obligations of the current easement and access obligation to both the TECO One property and
the Aldape property north of the Phyliss Canal While we did not discuss this at the meeting, I might point
out that even ifTreehavenlMDC owned a continuous strip through Parcels 3 and 4, which they do not, it
is not of sufficient dimension or location that it could accommodate a 40-foot right-of-way without
including property owned by TECO One. I believe it is also correct to observe that much oithe current
Basco lane through the "gulch" may be on TECO One property, and it is highly likely that any reasonable
future road design wm need to include some of both properties.
In retwn for the above, we would expect the cooperation of the Aldape Family and TECO One on the
following issues:
] . Both TBCO One and the Aldapes agree that future access through and across the proposed Tree
Farm development to property north of and below the Phyliss CenaJ be limited to two locations;
namely the new collector road connecting to Basco Lane at the top (south) of the gulch and Black
Cat Road to the extent that ACHD chooses to extend it across the Phyliss Canal.
2. The Aldape Family and TECO One agree that the paved collector standard road to be provided by
Treehaven to the south boundary of the TECO One property, aJong with the dedication of
necessary pubJic rightAof..way in Parcel 3 and the delivery of a quit claim to any right, title or
interest in Parcel 4, satisfies any access obligations that may exist associated with Basco Lane.
3. As owners of neighboring properties to the north ofPhyliss Canal, it is requested that an Aldape
family representative meet with Roger Anderson to discuss any issues of potentia) mutual benefit
or interest. As you know, Rogel Anderson is a party to the limitation on the Basco Lane
easement, but has agreed to give up control given an opportunity to have such a meeting.
4. MDClTreehaven needs to maintain an irrigation drainage access to the east of existing Basco
Lane over the TECO One property ifnecessllJ)'.
It is our hope and belief that the above outlines an approach that is in the best interests of TECD One, the
Aldape Family, the Carnahan interests, Treehaven, and the City of Meridian. We rema.in committed to
working with you to evOlyone's mutual benefit.
If this generally meets your needs and approval, I would be happy to have it put in a more fonnal
document. In any event, we look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Peter S. O'Neill
CC:
Derick O'Neill, Doug Carnahan
MAR 31 '06 0g:0Ø
PAGE. 11
3:
D
;0
W
.....
Exhibit 1
::s:
'"
~
~
ISI
CT\
ISI
Œ
ISI
ISI
N
\.Jù
,-.,
1 -- _n_____-
3 2_-
'. , - -<---, ',. .-
----,-~ ,-' -
'---<. - ~ ¡, 1;5:;--. ': '<"- . -~--.(,ppr;;;¡~;~.-
. d/"r,.:,.~.,...-!c
.$
).. - * '*
-, ~
I
!
.. --. ----~I
!
.--.-_G-- _..._-..~
"-'
CO>
CO>
0-.
co
- -
-- "),
\.Jù
~
~
s::
*
"
"'**
J
MDC LLC
Eastern
MDC LLC
Property
MDC LLC
Western Prop my
s and Meridith C.arnahan
=
<::>
" Teco.
cLLC
(h of Phyllis Canal not in MDC or
or C.anwhan in Jayker Tree Farm, nc,
ìJ
D
C)
IT!
II
1
~
CO>
~
\.Jù
.....
I\J
L
ì
"
-0
"-'
N
;Š
~
Mar.31. 2006 8:35AM
Üh
~.
H~
ï
i
J
;. ,
n'
I\,)
j '3!
',~ ~.
a; ".. ~: I
0 II
- "I:
:0 .. '
.a
fr
II
~
.þ
~
,j , .
;! :,'.'
,
cO'" ,
- ,~ -
--,
"
I
: ;'
!!
" ". .:¡¡
.
, ,
. ,
, ,
'Ii ,; II' H ; .
r;f 1(: 1.~ L ( r :~:, ~ I:;' ~
"CJ r~':'l" r","'l"~. j j !": I
~ UUU LJ II~ J
MAR 31 '12161219:121121
No,4053 P, 13
. I(~.
81 :J",';
~ -
~ Iff
~I !,~
~I
j
"
~ 1! ,~
¡¡ c; ~ 1;
., ,!~
".~;; - .
Ii ~ ~ ,= i
;"¡¡~h
1.«;¡; '"'
" ,,;¡."; ,
'H ~ ~
,. ; e ,.-
~~:.:~
./ ', ;~ ~
.. Ii".."
:1'.,
E~
~...J
~.
u..-
QJ.
QJ-
L.."-
(-~
W'"
..r:: ]'
f-::
;..,
21
PAGE. 13
March 27, 2006
'R~E eEl VEl)
MAti 2 8ZO06
GUY' OF MERIDIA~\i
,~~IT\/ CLERK C'cc'r~~
Ada County Commissioners
Ada County Planners
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Meridian City Council & Planners
Mayor Nancy Menill
Eagle City Council & Planners
Re: Meridian / Eagle Impact Area located north of the Phyllis Canal between McDermott
Road and Linder Road - south of the Boise River. I am representing my parents, Elias
and Margaret Aldape at 7570 Basco Lane.
The problem is we are located at the farthest end of both Eagle's and Star's impact areas
which means would naturally be the last properties to have sewer/services. However,
with the annexation of the Tree Haven Subdivision, south of the Phyllis canal between
Ten Mile and Black Cat, the Aldape property will be contiguous to the Meridian City
limits and will have services at our south property line.
On February 21, 2006 the City of Meridian and the City of Eagle's Mayors and City
Council Members met to discuss their impact areas. It was decided that both cities would
like to have our property in their impact areas and that they were both going to conduct
sewer/services studies to detennine which city could serve us the most economically and
in the timeliest manner. Mayor de Weerd said that as elected officials, they should also
listen to the wishes of the property owners. So after the studies are completed they would
meet again, along with the property owners to hear open testimony.
I have contacted fourteen property owners within this area to see if they had an impact
preference of Meridian, Eagle or Star. Please see the attached spreadsheet and the eight
letters indicating a desire to be in the Meridian impact area. Three of our neighbors
would like to decide after the results of the studies are known and two of our neighbors
do not want to be in any impact area - they want everything to stay just the way it is now.
I did not find anyone who had a desire to be in the Eagle impact area.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 888-7700.
Sincerely,
~~
2934 E. Lake Hazel Road G
Meridian, ID 83642
Property Contact Person Phone # Acres Letter
Prefers Meridian Impact Area
Aldape Properties Sherrie Ewing 888-7700 261.33 Y
Everist Rex & Peggy Everist 888-1888 1.00 Y
Scott Bishop Scott Bishop 895..0276 19.93 Y
Merlen Henkel Steve Henkel 362-6811 29.92 Y
Pacific Links Jock Hewitt 890-1430 104.47 Y
Ramon Arana Ray Aranarrim Gibson 887-4856/375-2212 83.44 Y
Erin Troutner Erin Troutner 850-5842 2.30 Y
Spurwing L TO Jock Hewitt 890-1430 57.28 Y
Boy Scouts Sam Thompson 376-4411 11.42 Y
Total 571.09
Neutral until results from studies are known
Christian Children's Home Phil & Susan Abbott
Gerald Timmons
Edmonds Groves
Jerry & Lynn Timmons
Craig Groves
888-5235
888-5371
344-3783
80.00
13.27
160.00
Does not want to be in any impact area
Orme Properties
Resource Renewal
Kirby & Susan Orme
Jason Kibbey
342-2139
415-928-3774
288.44
29.89
y
Prefers Eag',:}mpact Area
.,1, .
(.
Unabte to contact
Duck Alley LLC
1.84
Survey by Sherrie Ewing
February 11,2006
",
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Meridian City Council
Mayor Nancy Merrill
Eagle City Council
Dear Members,
Meridian I Eagle Impact Area Request
Re: AldapeÆverist Property -located between Ten Mile and Black Cat, north of the PhyHis Canal
to the Boise River.
TIús letter is to notify you of our desire to be included in the Meridian City impact area. We have
met with Nichoel Baird Spencer, City of Eagle, Anna Canning, City of Meridian and also with
Richard Cook, Ada County Development Services and have discussed our desire to stay with
Meridian. Our reasons include:
1. Our neighbors to the south have applied for annexation into Meridian, so we would be
contiguous to Meridian City limits.
2. Sewer services will be across the property line within a year from now, whereas Eagle
sewer services are five miles away and are not even on the projection map yet.
3. The mailing address and phone number have been in Meridian for at least 85 years.
4. The only access to the property is through Basco Lane which is south of the property and
located miles closer to Meridian than Eagle.
5. Fire and police protection are currently being provided through the city of Meridian. The
Aldape property is located only five miles from the Meridian Fire Department, whereas
Eagle is significantly farther, plus they have to cross the Boise River. And just recently
when my parents called 911 in need. of an ambulance, the Meridian Fire Department was
the first response team to arrive.
6. Four generations of "Aldape's" are attending, or have graduated nom Meridian schools.
7. We have always been Meridianites and want to remain Meridianites.
Our vision is to develop the land into a residential development with ponds, similar to other river
side developments.
If you have any questions and would like to discuss this matter with us, please feel nee to call
Shenie at 888-7700.
Since~ly, ..', ~ ,°
'"-":".~}-. '."""",,~
:Lè.'<.'~'
Peggy Everist ~
Sherrie Ewing
(Daughters of Elias and Margaret Aldape)
/-".
Dear Mayor Nancy Menill,
On this date of February 15th 2006 the cUITent owners of the real property that resides at 3205 West Duck
Alley, ofN 1/2 NENE and the NENWNE, Section 22, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, BM, Ada
County, Idaho. which are Gary Eugene Henkel, Steve James Henkel, and Linda Ann Lazaris request to be
included in as property owners within the Meridian Impact area.
As owners of the property we feel it would be the most cost effective means to provide the necessary
services for future development in regards to overcoming the access with the necessary facilities through
two ( 2 ) major water way obstacles ( Boise River and an lITigation cannel) from the Eagle area.
Gary E. Henkel
Steve J. Henke]
Linda A. Lazaris
Thank you,
Gary E. Henkel
Dear Mayor Tammy Deweerd,
On this date of February 15th 2006 the current owners of the real properties that reside at 3205 West Duck
Alley, ofN 1/2 NENE and the NENWNE, Section 22, Township 4 North, Range I West, BM, Ada
County, Idaho. which are Gary Eugene Henkel, Steve James Henkel, and Linda Ann Lazaris request to be
included in as property owners within the Meridian Impact area.
As owners of the property we feel it would be the most cost effective means to provide the necessary
services for future development in regards to overcoming the access of facilities through two ( 2 ) major
water way obstacles ( Boise River and an Irrigation cannel) wm the Eagle area.
Gary E. Henkel
Steve J. Henkel
Linda A. Lazaris
Thank: you,
Gary E. Henkel
Page 1 of 1
Sherrie Ewing
-~'~____"_M."_"~--""""-"~-""--""-"--"'-~--_._'_.'---~",--",...., "_"_""'.'-"..."--~--"--'---"
----',"-"""-"-.----"------"-- ~--".._,......__._-,---,-------
From: Sam Thompson [sthomps@bsamail.org]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:12 PM
To: sherrie.ewing@ewingcompany.com
Subject: island property
Sherrie,
It was good to talk to you today I am looking forward to meeting you in person. Per our conversation, it makes
good sense to include our property as part of the Meridian City Limits rather than the Eagle City Limits.
I hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything further.
Sam Thompson
Scout Executive/CEO
Ore-Ida Council - Boy Scouts of America
2/27/2006
February 13, 2006
Mayor Tammy De Weerd
Meridian City Council
Mayor Nancy Merrill
Eagle City Council
Mayor:
We would like to bring to you attention our wishes to have our ranch, which is located at
3200 W Duck Alley Lane, Eagle, to be brought into the Meridian impact area for the
following reasons.
Our neighbors to the west and south of us, the Aldape's and Henkel's property, have also
requested to be in the Meridian impact area.
I have discussed this with some folks on the Eagle utility board and their thoughts are that
Eagle has expanded west towards Star and not south off Highway 44 up Linder Road to
Chinden.
They mentioned the cost of running utility across two channels of the Boise River would
delay that project for years to come because there are not enough large parcels of land to
be developed to move a project like that forward. One parcel being a state park that
won't be developed, also Duck Alley which is a mile long +/- and a large parcel of land
belonging to Spur Wing Golf course that won't be developed, a children's home property
and property owned by a wildlife refuge which is putting the land in a trust to prevent
development.
It would not be feasible for us with 100 acres to try to bring utilities from State Street nor
would it be feasible for Eagle to bring the utilities to our land.
Since our neighbors the Aldape's and Henkel's are requesting Meridian impact it makes
sense to add our property at the same time. It would be easier to get utilities to our
property through the Alpape's. It would also help disperse traffic off Basco Lane to Duck
Alley. This might give some traffic relief to these developments someday.
It just seems sensible, since the Carnahan Development is asking to be in the Meridian
impact area and bring utilities to the rim above us, to keep all the property on the south
side of the river, that could be developed in our lifetime, all in the Meridian impact area
because of the utility connections and traffic disbursement and would lessen problems in
the future.
The river brings a lot of problems for our property to be in the Eagle impact area.
We feel that Meridian could serve our needs a lot easier and sooner than Eagle will be
able to. So we would like to join our neighbors, the Aldape's and Henkel's, to the west
and south of us to be in the Meridian impact area.
Sincerely,
Property Owners
Ray Arana
Tim T. Gibson
Ruth Y sursa-Gibson
Page 1 of 1
Sherrie Ewing
--"~"~, ""-----'-'--'-"-----""'--~-"""'--"""-~m"m",._.._--.._--""'""'"---"-----"'....m....._--_----------..........
""'-_""'_---_"'-_'_"----~,-,.-,."--."...-W" "'. .",,- ...,..m """'---"'-'-
From: Scott Bishop [scott@bridgetower.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27,2006 3:32 PM
To: 'Sheme Ewing'
Subject: Meridian
Hi Sherrie,
Please forward my interests in this matter of annexation to the appropriate parties. I am infavor of the city of
Meridain including my land, and any land south of the Boise river, in thier area of inpact or future annexation.
I would be happy to share this opinion at any public meetings if you think it would help. Just let me know.
Thanks,
Scott Bishop
2414 W. Duck Alley
2/27/2006
Feb 27 06 02:05p
Charlene He
208-377-9215
p. 1
February 27, 2006
Sherrle Ewing
2934 E. Lake Hazel Road
Merid~n,~aho 83642
Re: Meridian Area of impact
Dear Sherrie
This letter is to confirm our desire to be in Meridian's area of impact
rather than Eagle.
Since 1880, our family has owned property, now leased to SpurWing
Country Club, fronting on Chinden Boulevard and continuing north
beyond the rim down and across the Phyllis Canal to the south channel
of the Boise River.
This property has always been a part of Meridian and our desire is that
all of it remain that way, and not split in half with a portion of it
changed to Eagle.
ThiS property is owned by our family in the form of the SpurWing
Limited Partnership and I am the general partner.
Sincerely yours,
¿~
Jock Hewitt
President
SpurWing Corporation,
General Partner,
SpurWing Limited Partnership
Sherrie Ewinv
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Peggy Evenst [preverist@hotmail.com]
Friday, March 24, 2006 5:34 PM
shame. ewing@ewingcompany.com
Impact Area
Sherrie,
We would like to be included in the Meridian Impact Area as per our conversation.
Thank you,
Rex & Peggy Everist
1
~
"-
OCT 11 '05 13:32 FR CITY OF MERIDIAN
(
208 sæ 4218 TO P-AND-Z
(
P. 01/01
~-.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian
660 E, Watertower Lane
Stc. 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
"rtE C E11',r ErrfJ
. - - .
(,Ti' "j ¡ ):11Ì~
L ,. ,!.:."._,
Dear Chainnan Zaremba:
crrv OF f\/iERIDLAt.j
"'I~i'V r'( t:"D'r r,r::-CI("""'r:
'. ~ I , . < , ,., " . .. . ..' \
We attended the public hearing of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on
October 3rd. PJease record our views for the record and your future deliberations,
My wife and J own approximately 300 acres offarm land immediately north of the
Phy11is Canal, Our property is just north of Black Cat road. We are not interested in
developing Of subdividing Our property. We really do not want our property to be
included in any city's area of impact but favor retaining it in Ada County agricultural
land. The city of Star considers it in their area and I have received letters in the past
tram Eagle as well,
It is distressing to us that individuals would testitÿ at the meeting that Black Cat
should come off the rim. It would gut our land. It would not be reasonable to do this to
aid cornmerçjal developmènt at Black Cat and Chinden. An impression was fostered
at the meeting that there are 1400 acres of land locked land down on the river and that
the owners are hungering for roads to develop it. This is just not true. The Aldapes are
our very good neighbors. They should be given access somewhere through the Basco
Lane area. They have had this road &om early tUnes. We do not dispute their right to do
with tbeír property as they see fit but a road through Black Cat is not a solution.
There should also be limited access off Highway J 6 extension when built. Weare
opposed to access crossing our river property from Highway 16 extension.
Finally we were saddened that the meeting was al1 about developmenl "Highest use of
the land" seems to mean the most money that ean be obtained, We think the highest use
of OuT Jand is cattle grazing. It is a wonderful piece of this earth that would be gone
forever with houses and roads. A little slide went up at the beginning of the bearing that
parks will be established which appareøtJy makes all the development permissible. We
need to keep some good working fanns and allow fanners to be able to continue £heir
chosen occupation. Pressure for development and difficulty moving eqwp.rnent over
congested roads are increasing probJems.
Thank you for your time and consideratiotL
S. Kirby and Susan Drme
r
51J~ O~
~o~ tJ.a~
..'"-.-........ .....-.....-.....-------------.....
~~..
~
~~~
---.. --', ,i-; '[(; I \7b~ I)
"', ,'::: 7006
.. . ".' ,"'.
-\'LCC
April 5, 2006
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
CaJeb Hood
660 E. Watertower, Ste. 202
Meridian, ID 83642
RE:
Revised Tree Fann AZ-06-004 Staff Report for April 4, 2006 Hearing
Dear CaJeb,
Thank you for the revised Staff Report. While we generally agree with thè revised
repon, the following are several points of clarification and comments regarding the
report.
Paee 1 J. ParallJ'8Ph 3 - Anderson and Thomas easement over Basco Lane
MDC is working on a draft agreement that deals with Anderson WId Thomas'
relinquishment of this easement and would agree to having this agreement executed prior
to the first plat being recorded on the Treebaven property.
PUt II. Paruraph 4
We have stated we are willing to quit claim any rights, title or interest to Parcel 4
(Exhibit E) to TECO ONE or ACHD but will only do so ifit is used for a public road
right-of-way for access through the gulch.
PBJ!e 12. P8la2I'8Dh I
The applicant, Treehaven, LLC, does not own the property between Aldape J
TECO ONE properties (Parcels 1,2.3.5; Exhibit E). MDC and Jayker Tree Farm own
these properties and have agreed to have them made part of the annexation I zoning
application.
rr~'eh,¡)\"cn LtC 1242 E. Ril'crwnll; Drï\.:. Sliite 200. Hoi.se, II) RJ70.r,
lei (2011) 3Y,-.14~() I'n;o.; I!O~ I n(>-5;!W,
Page 2
April 5, 2006
Pac~ 12 aDd 13 - DeveloPllleøt ~ree..en. Co.ditiolU
Condition 12 -. We are okay with this condition M long as access in the general
area of Basco (.ane through the "gulch" is oot unreasonably withheld by any of the
private or public parties as..qociated with the issue.
Condition 16 - We would like to modi fy this to the following: "That MDC and
any related entities shall quit claim any right,. title, or interest they may have in Parcel 4
of Exhibit E to TECO ONE or ACHD (see my earJier language in Page 11, Paragraph 4),
only if it is to be used tor purposes of a public road and right-of-way for access through
the gulçh."
Caleb, thank you for working with us on this application. We are excited to move it
ahead and look forward to being available on Thursday to answer any questions Staff or
the Commission may have regarding this matteT.
S1lJò~
Derick 0 'Neill
Treehaven. LLC
toIDO
cc:
Anna C-8.1UlÌng, Meridian City Planrùng and Zoning
MeridiWl City Planning and Zoning Commissions
Peter O'Neill
Doug Carnahan
Attachment: Exhibit E of Staff Report for Tree Farm Annexation AZ-O6-OO4
l:!send
r ~ E,¡¡at'7~"'9
C Sin-~ Føfmy Hc~,,";¡
C Lrf&i!)'~ H~,,~,'IQ
I V$gf Ho-.l$'O9
"Stub" to Basco lane
;;:', ,-,
\.
~
~
Mí:>ed ~ ~':!j9/ W'occ Convrfrtli!l
~a Un C~mlrd'!¡¡Y C;,~~,¡ I
. . :1 ~".t, ¡,:;"" :' PþXi¡~ c."!J~
.f ,'T"~;'- ~,.'.'
O¡H~ Span a~d ~ecr&a~,~~
!""""""""':.
- Tr¡YPalh ':;tHd¡¡",
Cwc, '.,;."f.
t "
j'...
",.
Vi,'",.,'
'j.,.w,
,,¡"I";,' ~.w",
v,~\"" H:,,"Of
','n,'" I,'"~ ,;,_,I,d .-\".." --. I
-1.:1ixl'dl I", N"¡~I'tî""I'("-',, L'IJlm<:.<1\Ll
.~ ... Em, ,.
u
The Tree Farm
.'., I"" ',hUH",' ,,' :(.",
"'.
."'"
.,..' .".
~
LU
';("I~; 1:..300'
--
- -
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN..UP SHEET
DATE
April 6, 2006
ITEM #
11
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 06..004
PROJECT NAME
The Tree Farm
FOR
AGAINST NEUTRAL
v--
"--=-
..///~-
-'
WHITE PETERSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SARAH H. ARNETr
KEVINK DINIUS
JULIE KLEIN FISCflER
CHRlSTOPflER D. GABBERT
WM.F.GIGRAY,ffi
T. Guy HALLAM"
JILL S. HOLINKA
JOlIN R. KORMANTK .
WILLIAM A. MORROW
WHITE PETERSON, P.A.
CANYON PARK AT THE IDAHO CENTER
5700 E. FRANKLIN RoAD, SUITE 200
NAMPA,IDAHO 83687-7901
TEL (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 466-4405
WILLIAM F. NICHOLS"
OflUSTOPHER S. NYE
PHILIP A. PETERSON
TODD A ROSSMAN
JAMEsM. VAVREK
TERRENCE R WHITE ...
DENNIS P. WILKINSON
Email: wfg@1whitepeterson.com
. Also admitted in CA
.. Also admitted in OR
... Also admitted in WA
April 5, 2006
I{:E~ (J E ~rVEI)
Via HAND DELIVERY
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
c/o Meridian Planning Department
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
r; I} ~:O¡J/
Grcy OF MERIDIA~\J
'.=:n-'\f CLER!( CF~¡Ct:::
Re:
Our Clients: Arthur O. Rabehl and Sandra L. Rabehl, husband and wife
Developer: Treehaven, LLC
Development: The Tree Fann
Application: AZ-06-004
Request for admission of Additional Documents referenced below
Dear Commissioners:
Enclosures:
1. (Copy - oversized) Record of Survey by Alpha Engineers, Job No. 81C212-
CRO, DWG. No. 81-83, checked 5/21/81 by John Howe, Registered Land
Surveyor #832; and
2. (Copy ~ letter size) Record of Survey by Alpha Engineers Job No. 81C212-
CRO, DWG. No. 81-83, checked 5/21/81 by John Howe, Registered Land
Surveyor #832, recorded as Instrument No. 8130343; and
3. (Copy) Record of Survey Legal Descriptions for Parcel Nos. 1-4.
Information: This fIml represents Affected Property Owners, Art and Sandra Rabehl.
Requested for Admission of Additional Documents and testimony in support: On behalf of
our clients, we respectfully request the admission of the above referenced documents into the
record of this matter in support of my clients' Position No.8 of their Position Statement "Legal
Description and boundary of proposed annexation."
~1A--r¿~~
pttM . ~
CJ~
"
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 5, 2006
Page 2
We will offer testimony at the continued hearing to identifY these proposed exhibits.
Very truly yours,
Encls.
cc: Treehaven, LLC (with enclosures)
Art and Sandra Rabehl
W:\WorklRlRabehl, A 18893\Treehaven LLC Real Property matterILtr Meridian PZ re Survey 04-05-061h.doc
\
"1' a : .
. ! ,i Jt I It í ! '-'
. I a I ~ I ! lit I (f-: J.~
I ì: I JHhill~ \iHJ'111;]!':~i
. , ~!~~k~ == 1']:11 '~-' .¡J!JI
~I I 01." J .
! ........ !ftHW . ~
.. 'II U \\
ê ~a" \¡¡
. II. I :~~ .
11.
- - '
~ .«!
; t \II
!.'\ ,:....
~ ~
" ... ~'1 ~ I\-
..... ~ ~~ L!
lit . ~J' '" ~
I rc eel
I ,.1'" -.au
~ -s::: ¡II!. " .... I
, J '010 ,~~~ I
I ~ ..t¡...f. 'j
i.
--
..
..
Q
..
Q;:,
~
~
I
~
~
-
I.I~
Vj
!
~
~
-.
~
c.-.
i =ii'
. ~ !
] . i!
Ii; ....
,- wi
t Ii
~ P
: _I
.. ih
:!i "'-",
,~- ,,-;"
,"..,,",'
-,
"
'-,.' -',
,,--"-,
/'
,,"" ----,
",
,', I'
,i
¡i
II .-
, ALPHAENGINEERS,
I, i1023 CHICAGO. 208-454-9222 . BOX 1217 CALDWELL, IDAHO 83605
, ' I:
i
¡ .
INC.
I
,PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
, ' I
I' i I
, , :
For: Wi~d Bill Crookham
Basisof!IBearing: HOf~an& Fis~e Survey and legal Description
'i I '
Alpha Drawing No: 81-33
,
I
i
¡
Parcel No.1
A part of the E 1/2 SE 1/4, Section 21, Township 4 North, Range 1 West,
Boise Me:ridian,; more particularly described, as follows:
i " ' ' '
Commenciing at ¡the SE Cor. of said E 1/2 SE 1/4 (Sec. Cor.), ,monumented
with a rebar, with an aluminum cap mkd. JUB; , -
i' ! I !
thence ~ 0°16'30" E., 938.31 ft~, aJong the East boundary df said E 1/2
SE 1/4; 1 ' : I
: ' \
thence N. 73°19'44~ W., ,534.47 ft. to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
':, ¡ ¡
I ' '
thence Gontin~ing N. 73°19'44" Wl,
, 1 - , i
thence S. 0°33'30" W., 19.68 ft.;
I , I
¡I: ~ i '
thence N. 81°20'00" E.,:44.18' ft'. to: the POINT OF BEGINNING.
I I
I :
This pa~cel contains .010 acre.
45.39 ft.;
I
I
5-21-81
"
I: ; I" ' I
GENERAL OFFICES: POCATELLO, IDAHO. BRANCH OFFICES: CALDWELL, IDAHO & PORTLAND, OREGON
! ': : ASSOC!A TE OFFICE:, BUTTE, MONTANA '
i"f~:~t,~'.. ..
',<,(,;
..',. .
, ," I
ALPHA~NG'NEERS.
1023 CHICAGO . 208.4~4.9222 . BOX 1217 CALDWELL,: IDAHO 83605
.. :: " i
INC.
,.
~,
,"'-
,',
J
" I
¡i, i
For: Wild B111 croo¡kham¡
Basis ofiBearing: Hpfflßan
Alpha Drawing No': 81-33
!
: PROP~RTY DESCRIPTION
"",, ""
! ¡
¡ I
i i
& FisWe Survey and Legal Description
I :
:
parqel No.2
A part at the E 1/2 SE 1/4, Section 21, Township 4 North, Range 1 West,
Boise Meridian; more particularly described as follows:
'¡ ¡: . :
Commencihg at the SE Co~. of said E 1/2 SE 1/4 (Sec. Cor.), monumented
with a rebar, with an aluminum cap mkd. JUB;
,i: I
, i,! I
thencfi! N:. 0°16'30" L, ~14.93¡ft , along the East boundary of said E 1/2
SE 1/4;:. I,
thence N. 44°20'00" W., 46.27'ft to¡the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence c~ntinuing N. 44~20'00r W., 91.44 ft.;
, I ,
thence N. 58°26'30" W., i138.52 ft.;
¡
¡ ..:
thence N. 83°03'00" W.a 187.S? f~.;
81°20'00"
;
This
,.
I" ¡ ,
II : I I
GENERAL OFFICES: POCATELLO, IDAHO:. BRANCH OFFICES: CALDWELL. IDAHO & PORTLAND, OREGON
i .. ASSOCIATE bFFICE: BUTTE, MONTANA
'.
, ,.."
-;
.I
4LPHAENGINEERS,
i 1023 CHICAGO. 208-454.9222 . BOX 1217 CALDWELL, IDAHO 83605
! '
INC.
I
!
1! f
For: Wi:d Bi 11 Crookham
'Basis of,~eari~g: Hoffman
. I . ' '.
Alpha Drawing No: 81-33
PROPERT~ DESCRIPTION
, ;
& ~iske Survey and Legal Description
Parcel No.4
A part of the E 1/2 SE 1/4, Section 21, Township 4 North, Range 1 West,
Boise Me~idian; more particularly described .as follows:
I
,I . ,
Commenci~g at the SE Cor~ of said E 1/2 SE 1/4 (Sec.' Cor.), ~onumented
with a r~bar, with an aluminum cap mkd. JUB;
, ¡, ' :
thence Nf 0°16'3011 E.~ 1410.86 ft., along the East boundary of said E 1/2'
SE 1/4 to the POINT OF BEGINNINGi
, '
thence continuing N. 0°16'3011 E., 2.64 ft. along the East boundary of
said E 1/2 SE 1/4; .
thence WEST) 554.75 ft.; :
thence S. 0°33'30" W., 83.04 ft.;
thence N 79°411 E., lb3~07 fi. (of record as N. 79°31' E.);
thence N 67°23' E., 104.89 ft.; I
, .
thence N 86°32'30" E~, ~57.98 ft. to the POINT OF BEGINN~NG.
This partel contains' .380 acre. ¡
I
i
5-21-81
I
I,
i'
I
I,
I
I ' ,
~ENE~L OFFICES: POCATELLO, IDAHO . BRANCH OFFICES: CALDWELL, IDAHO & PORTLAND, OREGON
, . ASSOCIATE OFFICE: BUTTE, MONTANA
"
I .. I
:¡ ¡ 'I .
ALPH: .. ~NGINEERSJIINC.
.-r-¡ :,023 CHICAGO Ie 208'4~'92 2 . BOX 1217 CALDWELL, IDAHO 63605 i
.. Ii, II ii' ;
i i" .. i ii'
I" ! I I
i' ... ,.". i I ..
I .. '" . , ..
~ ':' : I i
PROPE~TY DESqRIPTION
I
..,
"..
For: Wild Bill' Crookham I
Basis of Bearing: Hoffman & Fiske Survey and Legal Description
I
Alpha Drawing No: 81-33:
1
i
i
, parcrl No.3
A part of,the E 1/2 SE 1/4, Secti¿n 21, Township 4 North, Range 1 West,
Boise Meridianj'more particularlyidescribed as follows:
Commencing at the SE lcor.: of SáidlE 1)2 SE 1/4 (Sec:. cok" monumented
with a rebar, w.ith an aluminul11lca~ mkd.', JUBj I
i Iii'
thence N. 0°16'30" E.. 914.93 ft.~ along the East boundary of said E 1/2
SE 1/4 to the POINT OF BËGINNING;! ' ..
I ...
thence continui'ng N. 0°16'30" ,t.,: 23.~8 ft.. along the East boundary of
said E 1/2 SE 1/4; I I 'II' I
'I I i
thence N.: 73°1~'44" Woo 33.86 ft. '
I : ..' : I
thence S.I 44°20'00" E.. 46.27 ft. to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
:': .. ì
,I ' '! :
This parcel 'contains .009 acre.
.. ,
: !
¡
i '
ì;
I
: !
Ii
,I
,I
I
5-~,l-81
I
I
I '
. i ¡
GENERAL OFFICES: POCATELLO.IDAHO' B~NCH OFFICES: CALDWELL, IDAHO & PORTlÞ.ND. OREGON
ASSOCIATE OFFICE: BUTTE, MONTANA
AZ 06-004
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Treehaven, LLC
March 2, 2006
ITEM NO.
22
REQUEST Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8
(167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree
Farm - north side of Chinden Blvd. on both sides of Black Cat Rd.; west of Spurwing Sub
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
No Comment
\ ~\\ \ . ~ \ ~
-to À)~
\;\~¡()
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
See attached Comments
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
See attached Comments
SETTLERS'IRRIGATlON:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: ~ t) ~ i.J..l_\
Emailed:
Date: æ
staft Ini ials:
Phone: ~ ~
Materials presented at publh: meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Hearing Date: 3/2/06
Planning & Zoning Commission
C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager
Meridian Planning Department
208-884-5533
'-~EC.~" ,ED
oJ:,¡n'k ri_~.i ,.
- ," 'q 6
',t?17,ili:rJ¡- IO\A' N
\- CITY O'F(MER )J'
"'"~:~rc\( C~--~,,~,t~_Ofr-I.CE
"':C"'~,,::-.i:~~:_¿~~j.;J;#' - ---
SUBJECT:
The Tree Fann Annexation
AZ-06-004
Annexation and Zoning of358.57 acres from RR (Ada County) to R.2 (Low-
Density Residential)(66.02 acres), R-8 (Medium-Density Residential)(l67.02
acres), R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(79.82 acres), CoN
(Neighborhood Business)(17.26 acres) and C-C (Community
Business)(28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm, by Treehaven, LLC.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Treehaven, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres to R-2
(Low-Density Residential)(66.02 acres), R-8 (Medium-Density Residential)(167.02 acres), R-15
(Medium High-Density Residential)(79.82 acres), C-N (Neighborhood Business)(17.26 acres)
and C-C (Community Business)(28.45 acres). The subject property is currently zoned RR (Rural
Residential) in Ada County. The applicant has submitted a concept plan with the subject
Annexation and Zoning application; the applicant is not proposing any new land uses,
development or subdivision at this time.
The site is located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately V,¡ of a mile west of
Black Cat Road extending east to approximately Ten Mile Road Road. This site has
approximately 5,300 feet of frontage on Chinden Boulevard. This site is composed of ten parcels
which are owned by five different property owners. There is an existing wholesale nursery, three
single-family homes, and several outbuildings on this site. The subject property is within the
area proposed to be a part of the City of Meridian's Area of Impact and proposed Urban
Service Planning Area.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The subject Annexation and Zoning application was submitted to the Planning Department for
review. By City Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Commission makes recommendation to the
Council on Annexation and Zoning applications. Any comments related to the Annexation
application (AZ-06-004) will be included in the Commission's recommendation to the Council.
Staff is recommending approval of The Tree Farm Annexation (AZ-06-004). with a Development
Allfeement for this project.
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the
City Council ofFi1e Number AZ-06-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
March 2, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: (add
any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Number AZ-06-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
March 2, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGEl
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
annexation request.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number AZ-
06~OO4 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s):
(you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location: 4410 W. Chinden Boulevard/4740 W. Chinden Boulevard; north
side of Chin den Boulevard in Sections 21 and 22, Township 4 North, Range I West
b. Owners:
MDC, LLC
4410 W. Chinden Boulevard
Meridian, II) 83642
&
Doug and Meredith Carnahan
4410 W. Chinden Boulevard
Meridian, II) 83642
&
Jo Ann Eggers Trust
7169 N. Spurwing Way
Meridian, II) 83642
&
Jo Ann Eggers Trust and US Bank Successor Trustee
P.O. Box 64142
St. Paul, MN 55164
&
Connie Avery
4740 W. Chinden Boulevard
Meridian, II) 83642
c. Applicant/Representative: Derick O'Neill
d. Present Zoning: RR (Ada County)
e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use - Community, Medium Density
Residential, Low Density Residential, and a Potential School Site are all designated for this
property on the proposed Future Land Use Map.
f. Description of Applicant's Request: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres to
R-2 (Low~Density Residential)(66.02 acres), R.8 (Medium.Density Residential)(167.02
acres), R-15 (Medium High.Density Residential)(79.82 acres), C-N (Neighborhood
Business)(17.26 acres) and C-C (Community Business)(28.45 acres).
g. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The Tree Faun is a 362.65 acre planned community
located north of Chinden Boulevard, directly west of Spurwing Country Club. The property is
currently in Ada County and outside of the Meridian area of impact. However, it is part of the
current Comprehensive Plan Amendment in process. The proposed comprehensive plan calls
for medium and low density housing as well as a neighborhood commercial and community
commercial component. The applicant has met with the City of Meridian numerous times to
refine a concept plan to match the new outlined comprehensive plan (please see Applicant's
Submittal Letter.)
The Tree Fann Annexation - AZ.06-004
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined by City Ordinance.
By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is
required before the City Council on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 13 and 27,2006
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 8, 2006
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 20,2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): There is an existing wholesale nursery (tree faun), three homes and
other outbuildings on the subject site.
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is primarily rural residential in
nature. This area, especially south of Chinden, is rapidly transitioning from rural to urban.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
I. North: Phyllis Canal; Rural residential; Agricultural, zoned RR and RI (Ada
County)
Onewacre lots in Spurwing Subdivision and WestWing Subdivision, zoned RR
(Ada Couny)
3. South: Proposed Bainbridge Subdivision, zoned L-O and R-8; Several rural
properties in Ada County, zoned RUT
4. West: Agricultural and rural residential, zoned RR (Ada County)
d. History of Previous Actions: The City is cUlTently in the process of amending its Area of City
Impact to include the subject area. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application is
on the City Council agenda for March 7, 2006.
2. East:
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities:
I. Public Works:
Location of sewer: This parcel currently has no sewer available to it. It is master
planned to sewer to the future North Black Cat Trunk which will not be available
till late 2007 or early 2008.
Location of water: There is no City of Meridian water main currently available to
this site. United Water and the City of Meridian are currently in negotiations that
would allow United Water to provide water service to this site.
Issues or concerns: Sewer will not be available till late 2007 to early 2008.
2. Vegetation: There are some existing trees on this site that should be protected or
mitigated for when this property develops.
3. Floodplain: N/ A
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: Any irrigation ditches, laterals and canals (not Phyllis) that
cross this property should be tiled when this property develops.
5. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards associated with this property.
6. Proposed Zoning: Rw2, R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C
7. Size of Property: 358.57 acres
The Tree Faffi1 Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
f. Subdivision Plat Infounation: The applicant has not submitted a preliminary plat with the
subject annexation application. Staff recommends that the City enter into a Development
Agreement (DA) with the subject property owners. Such agreement should include the
provisions in Section 10, Analysis, below.
g. Landscaping:
1. Width of street buffer(s): Per City Code (UDC 11-2A) and the Comprehensive
Plan, a 35-foot wide landscape street buffer is required adjacent to Chinden
Boulevard, an entryway corridor. Per the UDC a 25-foot wide street buffer is required
adjacent to all arterial streets; a 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to
collector streets; and, a 10-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to all commercial
streets. When this property develops, the City should require full compliance with the
street buffer requirements of the UDc.
2. Width ofbuffer(s) between land uses: Per City Code (UDC Table 11-2B-3) a 25-
foot wide landscape buffer is required between commercially zoned properties and
residential uses/zones. When this property develops, the City should require full
compliance with the land use buffer requirements of the UDC.
h. Required Commercial Standards: C-N and C-C
Setbacks Proposed
Landscape (Local/Commercial) N/A
Entryway Road (Chinden) N/A
Collector Street N/ A
Maximum Building Height N/ A
i. Required Residential Standards: R-2
Setbacks
Front/Street Side Living Area
Side Accessed Garage
Front Accessed Garage
Interior Side
Rear
Frontage
Lot Size
Setbacks
Front/Street Side Living Area
Side Accessed Garage
Front Accessed Garage
Interior Side
Rear
Frontage
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
Required
10'
35'
20'
65'
R.8
Proposed Required
N/A 20'
N/A 20'
N/A 20'
N/A 7.5' per story
N/A 15'
N/A 80'
N/A 12,000 square feet
Proposed Required
N/A 15'
N/A IS'
N/A 20'
N/A 4'
N/A 12'
N/A 50'
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
Lot Size
N/A
5,000 square feet
R-15
Setbacks
Proposed
Required
Front/Street Side Living Area N/A 10'
Side Accessed Garage N/A 15'
Front Accessed Garage N/A 20'
Interior Side N/ A 4'
Rear N/A 12'
Frontage N/ A 0'
Lot Size N/ A 2,400 square feet
j. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: As mentioned above, the applicant is not
proposing to develop/plat this property at this time. There should be future east-west and
northMsouth collector/arterial roadways constructed within the boundaries ofthis site which
would connect Chinden Boulevard and Black Cat Road over the Rim.
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On February 10, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in
this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian
Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. The
Meridian Fire Department and the Meridian Parks Department were the only departments or
agencies to provide comments. These comments are "standard" and have not been included as
conditions of annexation. Once a development planes) is submitted staff will provide the applicant
with specific comments and conditions from all commenting agencies and departments.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Mixed Use M Community", "Medium Density Residential" and "Low
Density Residential" on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII
of the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use designation is defined in part as an area that is situated
in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design
opportunities are encouraged. The Mixed Use - Community designation allows residential
density between 3 and 15 dwelling units per acre, up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential
building area, and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Medium density residential areas are
anticipated to contain between three and eight dwellings per acre, while low density residential
areas are anticipated to contain up to three dwellings per acre.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply
to the subject property (staff analysis in italics below policy):
.
Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services.
(Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action I)
When the City establishes its Area of City Impact, it plans to provide City services to the
subject properties. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner:
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
.
Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the
developer's expense.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
.
.
.
.
.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department. the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
.
Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels. (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action I)
The applicant is proposing residential zones adjacent to the existing residential and
agricultural properties to the north, east and west (all zoned RR or R1 in Ada County). Both
parcels proposed for commercial zoning are internal to the development. The applicant is
proposing commercial zoning adjacent to proposed residential zoning districts. However, the
impacts to the proposed/future residential properties by the commercial properties can be
limited through the constrnction of roadways, land use buffers, fencing, and design of the
future subdivision. When development applications are submitted for this site, staff will fully
evaluate the compatibility of the proposed land uses.
Require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing low density
residential land uses to provide landscaped screening or transitional densities with larger,
more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural
residential densities. (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 8)
Staff recognizes that there are some existing low density residential land uses near this
property. Staff believes that the locations of the proposed R - 2, R -8 and R -15 zoning
designations are generally appropriate as the larger lots will primarily be on the north side
of the development, and the higher density will be nearer Chinden Boulevard, a major
arterial street. However, the applicant is proposing an R-15 zone adjacent to West Wing
Estates, a proposed low density area on the Future Land Use Map. To provide a transition
between the subject development and the future low densitv re-development ofWestWinf!:
Estates. stafJrecommends that a strip of R-8 be provided alone the east side of this site. This
strip should be able to accommodate at least one lot depth of R-8 sized lots (at least 125-feet
deeD). If amended as proposed by staff, the proposed zoning should effectively provide the
transition between the adjacent rural parcels and the proposed urban development. Staff
recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any written or verbal testimony
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 6
.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
provided from neighbors when determining the most appropriate zoning designation for this
property.
.
"Peunit new. . .commercial developments only where urban services can be reasonably
provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter
IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action 6)
This development is currently not serviceable by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer
system. Sewer service for this development will be via the future North Black Cat lift station.
If this development is approved, it shall be subject to the North Black Cat sewer system being
available. City of Meridian municipal water is currently not available to this site. The City of
Meridian and United Water are currently in negotiations that would allow United Water to
provide water service to this parcel. Solid waste and other services can be provided to this
property.
.
"Locate new community commercial areas on arterials. . .near residential areas in such a way
as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective D,
Action 3)
Chinden Boulevard is a designated arterial roadway. Stafffinds that the proposed community
commercial zoning and future commercial uses on this property should complement the
nearby residential land uses.
.
"Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter
VII, Goall, Objective B)
Approximately 45 acres of the subject site are proposed for commercial zoning. The subject
application does not propose any new uses, and designates the commercially zoned
properties as mixed use commercial. The existing tree farm that is to remain, and the future
commercial and retail sites, add to the variety of non-residential uses within the City's Area
of Impact. Staff is supportive of the proposed commercial zoning.
.
"Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal
IV, Objective D, Action 2)
On the submitted concept plan, the applicant is conceptually proposing a mid-mile access to
Chinden Boulevard, and extending Black Cat Road to the north across Chinden Boulevard. A
third access to Chinden Boulevard, located a few hundred feet from the Black Cat Road
extension, is shown on the Concept Plan. Conceptual access points to Black Cat Road are
also proposed. No other access points to/from Black Cat Road or Chinden Boulevard are
conceptually proposed to/from this property. When this property develops, staff recommends
that access to this site be primarily provided by the future internal roadway/driveway system
and not Chinden Boulevard and Black Cat Road. Staffis generally supportive of the proposed
access points to Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road, as shown on the submitted concept
plan, with the exception of the proposed driveway access point to the Community
Commercial area from Chinden Boulevard. Staff recommends that access restrictions to
Chinden Boulevard be placed on this provertv throuflh provisions in a Develovment
Aflreement. Staff further recommends that the access points to Black Cat Road be evaluated
and restricted when this property develops.
Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and
.
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
collectors in adjacent developments. (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13)
Currently there are no opportunities to connect to existing roads in adjacent developments.
Staff believes that when the roadway/driveway system in The Tree Farm is constructed, this
parcel should provide access to the parcel to the east (Henkel 25.8 acres), west (McMullen
property, Owyhee Mountain Ventures property, and Schwenlifelder property), and north
(TECO One property and Orme property). Please see Analysis below.
.
"Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback,
vegetation, low walls, beuns, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 4)
As depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, the applicant should be
required to construct a 35-foot wide landscape berm with dense vegetation along Chinden
Boulevard, when this site develops. The applicant should also be required to construct a 25-
joot wide landscape buffer along the future Black Cat Road. The entire buffer should lie
outside the ultimate right-ofway.
.
"On-street bikeways should be incorporated on all future Collector streets." (Chapter VI,
Figure VI-5)
All future collector streets should contain bikeways.
Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this
application:
.
"The capacity of arterial. . .roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway
connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimize access
points on arterial. . .roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page
72)
"Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, ftontage roads, to reduce the number of
existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, page 79)
.
Staff finds that the proposed R-2, R-8, R~ 15, C-N and C-C zoning designation are generally
harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan (please see Analysis below). Staff
recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be
provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's proposed zoning amendment
request is appropriate for this property.
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Allowed Uses: UDC Table 11-2B-2lists the pennitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the
C-N and C-C zoning districts. Landscape nurseries/tree fauns are conditionally allowed in the
C-N zone. There is an existing nursery on this site, which the applicant is proposing to retain
(see Analysis below). UDC Table 11-2A-2lists peunitted, accessory, and conditional uses in
the R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Except for the existing tree faun (nursery), all future
development on this site should comply with the allowed uses tables of the UDC.
b. Purpose Statement of Zones: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range
of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the
City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts.
Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and
corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range.
The purpose ofthe Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP AR TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated
which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the
scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to
streets and highways.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
I. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive
Plan, and the development sUITounding the subject site, staff believes that the
requested R.2, R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C zones are appropriate for this property. Please
see Exhibit C for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings.
Legal Descriptions: The annexation legal description submitted with the application
(stamped on January 13, 2006 by Gordon N. Anderson, PLS) shows the property as
contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian.
There is some confusion over who owns, or has a right to, some property in this area.
According to the Ada County Assessor, MDC, LLC, one of the subject property
owners, owns additional property around property owned by TECO ONE, LLC (see
Exhibit D). This property has not been included within the subject annexation request.
The owners of the TECO ONE property and the Aldape property further to the north,
have expressed concern over this area. It appears that the most practical location for a
future public street over the rim is where the existing Basco Lane is constructed. The
adjacent property owners have concern over getting a roadway over the Phyllis Canal
and down to the Aldape property, especially if MDC, LLC owns that property and
does not make any provisions for a future roadway in this location. Staff does not
believe that the subject applicant should be required to construct a street to the Aldape
property where the cutTent Basco Lane exists, but staff also has concerns with
allowing MDC, LLC to own this property (if in fact they do) without making some
provision that allows this area to become a public roadway in the future. Staff
recommends that the applicant. at the public hearing. address this concern and clarify
ownership of this area. If areas not included within the subject annexation application
are owned by MDC. LLC, that land should be included as part of the subject
annexation application. Staff recommends that the Commission find that this "issue"
has been adequately addressed by the applicant prior to making a favorable
recommendation to the City Council.
As mentioned in Section 8 above, staff has some concerns over the proposed R-15
zoning adjacent to the existing WestWing Estates Subdivision. The proposed
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map anticipates that WestWing Estates will
redevelop with low density residential uses. To allow the residential densities in this
area to transition effectively, staff recommends that a portion of the 35.16 acres
proposed for R-15 zoning adjacent to WestWing Estates be zoned to R-8. The
applicant shall provide a new legal description to staff that depicts a strip of R -8. that
is at least 125-feet deep. adjacent to western boundary of WestWing Estates. The
revised legal descriptions for the R-8 and R-15 zones shall be submitted at least IO
days prior to the City Council hearing,
Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted a concept plan with the subject annexation
request (See Exhibit C). Staff is generally supportive of the proposed land uses on the
concept plan and the general roadway layout. Although the City is not specifically
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP AR TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
approving this plan for development, the specific concepts and proposed land uses,
should be included within a Development Agreement (DA) for this property. NOTE:
There is a 3.8 acre parcel, just west ofthe proposed Black Cat Road extension, that is
owned by the Rahbels and not a part of the subject annexation request. This 3.8 acre
parcel is not currently subject to annexation, or the land uses proposed with the
submitted Concept Plan.
Access: On the submitted concept plan, the applicant is showing the extension of
Black Cat Road across Chinden Boulevard, and to the north property line. Staff is
supportive of this access to Chinden Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a second
access to Chinden Boulevard located half-way between Black Cat Road and Ten Mile
Road. If this access is constructed as a public street and aligns with the public street
approved in Bainbridge Subdivision to the south, staff is supportive of this access to
Chinden Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a third access to Chinden Boulevard,
located a few hundred feet west of the proposed Black Cat Road extension. Staff is not
supportive of this commercial access. As part of the DA for this property. staff
recommends that access to this site from Chinden Boulevard be restricted to section
lines and at the half mile between sections. as reQuired by UDC 11-3H-4B2b. Further,
staff recommends that the two access points to this site from Chinden Boulevard be
constructed as public streets and align with the existing or previously approved public
streets on the south side of Chinden Boulevard. Black Cat Road is designated as a
minor arterial. Access to Black Cat Road will be evaluated and approved by the City
and ACHD when this property develops.
Spurwing: Way: Although staff does not recommend making it a part of the DA, staff
recommends that the applicant work with Spurwing Subdivision to the east to
somehow provide secondary/emergency access to Spurwing Way. If an emergency
connection can be made between the subject site and Spurwing Way, staff believes
that this will be of great benefit to the emergency service providers in this area.
Stub Streets: There are several under-developed parcels adjacent to, and surrounded
by, the subject property. As part of the DA for this propertv. staff recommends that the
subject property provide public street access to the parcels to the east (Henkel. Parcel
No. R9323930190). west (McMullen. Parcel No. S0421438700. Owyhee Mountain
Ventures. Parcel No. S042134660. and Schwenkfelder. Parcel No. S0421428 100).
north (TECO ONE Parcel Nos. 50422427960 and 50422244700 and Orme. Parcel
50421417200). and the enclave parcel (Rabehl, Parcel No. 50421449000). When
this property develops, staff may recommend that additional stub streets be provided
to adjacent parcels. These additional stub streets include, but are not limited to: the
other Orme property, Parcel No. 50422223401, and the Aldape property, Parcel
No. S0422212513 , which are both on the north side of the Phyllis Canal. This
potential requirement will be dependent upon the feasibility of getting a road(s)
across the Phyllis Canal in those areas, and other access options that may be
provided to the Orme and Aldape properties from the south and west.
Basco Lane: Basco Lane is a private lane that cUlTently provides access to several
properties in this area. Basco Lane currently intersects Chinden Boulevard
approximately 1;4 of a mile west of Ten Mile Road and continues north across the
Phyllis Canal. Access to the TECO ONE, LLC properties as well as the Aldape
properties is currently provided from Basco Lane. It is unclear to staff who has an
interest in this lane and who does not. A majority, if not all of Basco Lane from
The Tree Farm Annexation ~ AZ-06-004
PAGE 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
Chinden Boulevard to the Phyllis Canal is owned by MDC, LLC. When the subject
property develops. the Basco Lane access to Chinden Boulevard should be abandoned.
Existing Uses: There is an existing wholesale nursery (tree faun) and three single-
family homes on this site. The tree faun, and one of the existing homes, is cUlTently
taking access to Chinden Boulevard. The existing single-family homes are principally
peunitted uses in the proposed zoning districts. Nurseries, or Urban Fauns, however,
require Conditional Use Pennit approval in the proposed C-N zone. Because the
nursery currently exists. staff recommends that the tree faun be allowed to continue
operating as is. without CU approval. However. prior to the City Engineer's signature
on the first final plat on the subject property. the nursery should be required to obtain a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) peunit and bring the site into compliance
with all UDC standards. These standards include, but are not limited to: parking and
drive aisle improvements, landscaping improvements, taking access from Chinden
Boulevard at the Yz mile location, and compliance with sign regulations. Staff
recommends this provision be included as part of the DA for this site.
UDC 11-5B-3D2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to
require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City
that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA
is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion that is consistent
with the comprehensive plan designations and does not negatively impact nearby
properties.
Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be
entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of
annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the
City Attorney. Bill Nary. at 888-4433 to initiate this process. Staff recommends that
the Commission and Council direct the City's Leg al Department to draft a
development agreement for The Tree Farm as follows:
I. That all future development shall 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.
2. That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with
the applicant's conceptual plan unless otherwise modified by other
provisions of the DA.
3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in
accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of
development.
4. That the future uses and lots on this site shall confoun to the District
Regulations and Allowed Uses contained in the Unified Development Code
(UDC), in effect at the time of development.
5. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer
and water service extension.
6. Development of this property can not begin till gravity means become
available via the North Black Cat Trunk.
7. That any existing 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.
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-06-004
PAGE 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2,2006
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
8. That prior to issuance of any building peunit, the subject property be
subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development
Code.
9. That when a preliminary plat is submitted to the City, no direct lot access to
Chin den Boulevard will be allowed on this site; that when this property
develops, the Basco Lane access to Chinden Boulevard will be abandoned;
that access to this site from Chinden Boulevard will be restricted to the
section line roads and half mile between sections only; that the two future
access point to this site from Chinden Boulevard be constructed as public
streets that align with the existing or approved public streets on the south side
of Chinden Boulevard; and that said public streets be constructed in
accordance with the adopted North Meridian Auto Circulation Map of the
Comprehensive Plan.
10. That at such time as plats and uses are proposed, access to Black Cat Road
shall be evaluated and restricted by the City.
II. That when this property develops adjacent to one of the parcels listed below,
the applicant agrees to provide public street access to the east (Henkel, Parcel
No. R9323930190), west (McMullen, Parcel No. 80421438700, Owyhee
Mountain Ventures, Parcel No. S042134660, and Schwenkfelder, Parcel No.
80421428100), north (TECO ONE Parcel Nos. 80422427960 and
80422244700 and Oune, Parcel S0421417200), and the enclave parcel
(Rabehl, Parcel No. S0421449000).
12. That additional stub streets to adjacent properties may be required as part of
preliminary plat approval.
13. That the existing tree fann (nursery) and existing single-family homes on this
site be allowed to continue their current uses; that prior to the City
Engineer's signature on the first final plat on the subject property, the nursery
should be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)
peunit and bring the site into compliance with all UDC standards; and that
these standards include, but are not limited to: parking and drive aisle
improvements, landscaping improvements, taking access from Chinden
Boulevard at the Y2 mile location, and compliance with sign regulations.
14. That all landscape street buffers and land use buffers will be constructed in
accordance with the UDC provisions in effect at the time of development.
15. That all contiguous property currently owned by MDC, LLC is part of the
subject annexation application.
b. 8taffRecommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject application AZ-06-
004. for The Tree Farm. with the Development Agreement provisions listed in Section 10 of
the Staff Report for the hearing date of March 2.2006.
11. EXHIBITS
A. Legal Descriptions
B. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
C. Concept Plan
D. Ada County Assessor's Ownership Map
The Tree Farm Annexation - AZ-O6-004
PAGE 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2,2006
Exhibit A - Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006
Exhibit A - Legal Descriptions
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION
ASti ,k,
__,_mm__,u mu_~~Ì"
Anderson Survey Group.com ~
A parcal of land situated In Seclion 22, Township 4 North. Range 1 West of the Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particulany,described as follow;
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 22, said point being marked by 811
aluminum cap, thence along the South line of said Section 22, Norlh 89'17'39" West
1293.61 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence contJnuing along South Une of said
Section 22, North 89"17'39" West a distance of 1353.62 feet;, thance CQntinuing North
89°17'09" West B distance of 2647.16 reet to the comer common lo SeclioM 21,22; nand
28: thence along the Soulh line of said Section 21 North 89"24'46" West a dislance af
1307.51 feet; thence leaving said South line North 00"22'50" Easl a distanc& of 2039.08 fe<!t
to a point on the South bank of the Phyllis Canal; Thence along said South Bank the
following (9) courses and distances; North 80<33'30' East a distance or 494.25 feet; thence
North 60°40'00" East a distance of 951.83 feet; IIlence South 00°31'08" West a distance of
69.65 feet; thence North 65°46'04" East a distance of 551.16 feet; thence North 7-9"37'32"
East a distance 01 745.64 leet; thence South 00"55'34- West a distance of 6,99 feel; thence
North 78"21'21" East a distance of 245.06 feet; thence South 84"JO'S4" East a distance of
198.60 feet; thence Soulh 80"22'45- East, 442,89 feet; thence leaving said South line South
00"'28'13" West a distance 01494.11 feet; thence South 89'30'02" East 3dlstance of 777.64
feet to a point being (when measured at right angles to) 330.00 feet distant from the
Westerly Hna of the Southeast Quarter of said Sectiol1 22; thence along a line being parallel
with and 330.00 feel distant from said Westerly line, North 00"30'03" East a distance of
84.85 feet; thence South 42"14'38" East a distance of 18.67 feel; thence South 00"26'23",
West. 80,50 feet; thence South 86'31'27" East a distance of 189,70 feetrUwmC!:)$þ,Hth .'
47"28'09' East a distance of 249.32 feet; thance North 00'26'21" East a dIstance 0(401,56
feet to a point on the south bank of the Phyllis Canal; thence aløng said South bank the
following (our (4) courses and distances: Soulh 89"25'59' East's distance of,2JO,Ol fMt;
thence North 85"28'24" East a distance of 330.36 reet; thence North 73°44'36" EIiISra
distance of 467.78 feet; thence North 19"58"07" East a distance of 931.30feet to a point on
the EMt line of said Section 22; thence along said East line, South 00"28'39"West a
distance of 400.03 feet to the East one-quarter CQrner of said Section 22, said point bel119
markad by a brass cap; thence continuing along said East tine, South 00"20'09" West,s
distance of 1317.57 feet to a point marked by a 5/8" rebar; thence leaving said Eas~ line,
North 89"18'34" West a distance of 1291.77 feettoa point marked with a 518- reb<3r; .thence
South 00'25'06'" West a distance of 1316,97 fe@t tethe PoInt of BeginnIng.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM a parcel comm(Ú1CiiJg in Ihê'Southeast cÓ;Jler of Section 21,
said point being marked by an aluminum cap" Ulence North 00"16'30' East a distance ,of
914.93 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence North 44"20'00" West a distance of
137.71 feet thence North 58"26'30" West a distance of 138,52 feet; thence Núrlh 83"03'00'"
West a distance of 187.58 feet; thence South 81"20',00" West a distance of 156.89 feet;
thence North 00"33'30' East a distance úf 245.48 reet; thence North 79"31'00' East a
distance of 103.70 feet; thence North 67"23'00' East a distance of 104Ai9 feet, thence North
86'36'00' East a distance of 357,39 feet (formerly Núrth 86"32'30" tast a distance of 357.98
feet); thence South 00.16'30" West a distance of 495:93 feet to the Point of Be Inning.
~;.L LA.Nf)
'1i:,?\fJ !.J\H€:kaJ'. f.
/§ vU,<J,....
!1'1 " ::;¡
... 7314 þ~
Q,"}./J JLJ,J~ §
;q" ?!in" ì\\t'~' <~")'
"rô ' " ~~
()IVN. ¡"1'\)
Annexation Parcel contains 3G8.57 acres, more or Jess,
~f-W!.fPÞ~VAj,j ,
e~.::.~--
JAN 1 7 2006
H,n
Exhibit A - Page I
", .:
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
~~Bo
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 1
ZONED R.15
Legal Description
A parcel of land situated in the South Half of Section 22, Township 4 North,
Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly
described as follow:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 22, said point being marked
by an aluminum cap. thence along the South line of said Section 22. North
89"17'39" West, 1293.61 feet to the True Point Of Beginning,
Thence continuing along said South line. North 89°17'39' West, 1353,62 feet the
Southeast comer of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 22; thence continuing
along said South line, North 89.17'09" West, 50,05 feet to a point; thence leaving
said South line, North 00"42'51" East, 154,07 feet to point; thence along a curve
to the right have a radius of 700.00 feet, an arc length of 403,37 feet and through
a central angle of 31"00'58", wlLh a chord bearing of North 17"13'20. East. a
chord distance of 397,81 feet 10 a point of reverse curvature: thence along a
curve to the left having a radius of 500.00 feet. an arc length of 292.41 feet.
through a central angle of 33°30'26", with a chord bearing North 16"58'30" East,
e chord distance of 288.26 feet to a point; thence North 86"59'29" East, 143.11
feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of
450,00 feet, an arc length of 514,04 feet, though a central angle of 65"26'58",
with a chord bearing North 54"16'00" East, a chord distance or 486.54 feel to a
point of reverse curvature; thence along a curve to the right, having a radius of
800.00 feet, an arc distance of 545.60 fee\. through a central angle of 39"04'33",
with a chord bearing North 41b04'48" East. a chord distance of 535.09 feet to a
point; thence North 60~37'04 East, 178.07 feet to a point; thence SoUttl 29"22'56"
East, 335.65 feet to a point: thence South 00"25'06" West, 1316.97 feet to a
point, the Point Of Beginning.
Said parcel containing 35,16 acres more of less,
End description
Project No, 05132
December 14. 2005
. 'LAH"I1!>'IJ.II\lCV.!øott",ttt...
JH r )jn"d..~f L~. . Suit. r ".,"10#..10 ßJHl
r aeø8H./i\d', .
Exhibit A - Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
!!~~o
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 2
ZONED R'2
LegsJ Description
A parcel of land situated In Section 22, TownShip 4 North, Range 1 Wm.t of Ihe l3oise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follow:
Commencing at Lhe Southeast corner of said Section 22, said point being marked by an
aluminum Gap, thence along the South line of said Section 22, North 89.17'39" West a
distance of 1293,611eel; thence North 00<25'06" East a distance of 13115.97 feet to the
True Point Of Beginning:
Thence North 29.22'56" West a distance of 335,65 feet: thence North 60"37'0" East B
distance of 218.64 feel to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the left 11Bving a
radius of 300,00 feet. an arc length of 302,88 feet and through a central angle of
57<50'47", with a chord bearill9 North 31<41'41" East a distance of 290,18 feet to a point
of reverSe çurve: thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 500,00 feet, an arc
length of 335-63 feat and thmugh a central angle of 38"27'39", with a chord bearing
North 22"00'06" Easle distance of 329,37 feet; thence North 41"13'56' East a distance
of 517.90 feet to a point of cul\'e; thence along a curve tclhe lef! having a radius of
200.00 feel. an arc length of 182,76 feet and through a central angle of 52"21'25", with a
chord bearing North 15"03'13' East a distance of 176.47 feel; thence North 11"01'30"
West a distance of BO,25 feet to a point on the South line of the Phyllis Carial; thallee
along said South line, North 79'58'07" East a distance of 639,11 feet 10 a point on the
East line of said Section 22: theilGe along said East line, Soulh 00'28'39" West a
distance of 400.03 feel to the East one-quarter corner of said Section 22, said point
being marked by a brass cap; thence conlinurng along said East fíne. South 00"20'09"
West a distance of 1317.57 feet 10 a point marked by a 5/8" rebar; thence leaving said
East line, North 89"18'34" West a distance of 1291,77 feet to a point marked with a 5/8"
rebar being the Point of Beginning,
Containing 38,10 acres, more or less.
End of Descrlptíon
Project No- 05~132
December 14.2005
¿~:::':~~~;\'ì"~:'~
/'~%'\/'>¡54;:':<'"
,j¡ , " ,. ¡"" /,
;:::( 7:~t4 .";;;,--
0"\ 1/' D£<:trl!:¡. '
.",,{~ì \,..,
"':I~,'Xti! ì\1>',"':'
'; iO;::tb8';~:~;-
"',",: jllI&"f'J>Vl:IIQ'S'£II,ViC"':
L A II I'
r J
J~,I L ¡""\trto,,,! In, ' S~I!fi' 1'10'11110" In OJ64,
p ?OJ 8eUIH .
Exhibit A - Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
t;XHmrr A
!:!!~o
'agc, ('f2
PARCEL 3
lOKED R.8
A parccl oClaud ~i(uMeil in Section 2~. rownshí¡'l'l :-¡orth, R.II1{.:t, I \Veõt of the Boi~C' r-.rcrJdi:!n,
Ad,! C(1Ull1Y. rdaho, bcin~ more particularly described <IS r"Jfmv;
Cmnn1Cncing at 1he Southeast wrncr fl[ said Sccti,\¡¡ 22; Iht'ncc ¡¡Jon ! thi:. S"uth ¡incui' said
Scctit1Jl. Smtih !W°J7']?" \','eM it di¡¡tllrlce '.'1' I 29:.6J fc<.:r; thence CPl1linuíng 1110111: $01)1/\ Line lJf
!U\id Sccií(l11 22. Nonh R9"17'39" West ~ disran.c of D5J,tj2 feel. (ö ¡hlinl: II¡cllcccnnlinuing
Nonh 89<>¡?'n9" \\Ie,~1 ¡¡ distan.:e oi 2M7.16 kel \(> fht' CI.'rl1cr C\lllll11ùn to SecIÍ\!II:; 21. 22, ";.7
and 2~; Ihellce .:11011111I1c ,~òuII, line o[ said &cti"n 2J Núl1h ~9Ç'24'4fi" \\'csl a distill),'\.' of
130ì.51 feel; thence Ic,wingMid SQuth line NorthOO'22'50"'FaSladL,,¡aoccofK59.7}\ fce!to ilJC
TRUE 1'()[NT OF BEGINNING:
'. ' D'I;"(',YIHc"s'E-O'V ',', ",
n¡enc,~ Nui1J¡ 00"22'46" J:::a~t a dislant" of 1179.291'.:<'1 to a poilll 011 the SOU) ¡ blink of [Ii(:,
Phyllis Canal; Thl,;"I1C\: along said Soulll llaltk the fullowíng (9) l'purses uoJ dislMœs: N(If(h
80"33',0" EMt ¡¡ distance r)f4\,14.:!5 feet ¡hc¡ICC Nllrth 6~J'4(1'()O" Ea:~1 a distam:e lof951.85 Jéel;
thence Soulh f)OO J I 'US" Wes! II di5laflcc of ()//_65 fecI; Ibcœe Norlh 65"46'04" Elis! II dislünce ld'
651.16fcel: thc:næNorth79"JTJ2" F¡¡~!, 87<';3 feeL thene", SQUI[¡ 2)"19'02" b1i\t,356_0S feel 1(>
(j point III' curvalure; Ibence :'¡ong ,) ,'uryc It, If", righ1. h~I"ilig a r"dills or 200JIO feel. ,1)1 MV
length of %.1)6 fecI 1111d Ihml1gh a ,:cJl!r¡1! II!)g:" of 27".11 '07", with 11 ChÚfd h"aring Stalll¡
( ï".1Yly" E%L II churd dj,~1m:1CC 01'95.14 fcCIlC> ~ rrJÜH; lheu"e &,oUtll 06"12'05" Wesl, 237.4.1
feel I!> i1 "(Iim; IJicnccjllou¡,: 11 cun't: lolhe fighl, ba\'ing 11 radius of 750.(¡( fcet, 11\1 Me dislance of
575.0] feet aDd !hrough a CCI1tIal all .!;Je of 43<5.5'39". with a ct".Ird beating 5(;'\11]1 65":5 ¡ 'OJ" Ea,,!,
n chürd dimance of 561,03 fee! 10 a pnilll <.If TCI-n,1e cun'alun:: thence ohm!! II CLlI'I'C (I ¡be lei\.,
having 11 HHlíU$ of 250.()O fc('l, IUl IITl' di$lance of J 88, I ~ feel ¡'III(] l!trough >I c,';1I11';1I :\l1g1e of'
4;P()7'4 ", willi a ebwd hearing South 65'27'04" East. II t'hord distlul:t. of 11;;1-77 kel ((I a point;
t!lenl:('Somh 87~OO'55" l:usl, 81,62 feel w a ¡wiul,'f curvature; U¡CI'ICC ¡)Iong a t:lIf\'t~ In the kn,
having ¡¡ radius (If 400.00 feet, an MC l¡¡slam:c '='1' 196.26 feet alkl Jhrough II ccfllml ni1¡¡Jc or
2R~(j6"¡ð", '>\ith II chord bto.arin¡¡ North 78'55'42" .I::a,~j. a chord di¡;t¡¡uce of 94.30 feel to a point;
Ihell~" alvng a curve tOJ tllC right having a radìll$ of <151),00 feel and through II ccntral angle (If
97'59'50" , with Ii chord bearing Nonb 41"-3("03" b¡;1, 67Q,22 1'0;;,,1; Ihew:\' Simth $(/°30'02"
E1I51, 777.(>-1 feei II) II point; Ibence !'>:nrth 00':10'03" r~m , 84.R:5 feel It) 1j p(>;rJ!; lhenc,<.: South
42"14')R" EJ,~I. IH.ó7 (eel \i) ¡¡ POmt; ,(,1I;;nce :;nUlh {)()"2ú'23" W,,¡;I, SO-50 (ceol I,) ~ JNilll,:
Thenœ S~>lllh Hlio31 '27" Ells!. 11'(9,70 feet Il' J (xlml: Ilr¡;nçe SOUl ¡ 47"'28'fi(,j"FHSI, 249.32 fi:cL
to II p<'mt: IJ¡em'c NltTlh 00"26'21" Fit.!, 46J.:'i(i f(:ct In ¡¡ )lIint TheHce f;nulh 1 (j"25'S9" f:,i!~1,
230.01 feet 11.1 a pnim; thence N"rth !!5"'2B'J4" E3'1, 330_3" feel tn J 11;>Üu.; Ihence NurtJl
73"44'l6" Easl. 4IíÎ.7R [celli.) a poinl; Thcnce N(lflh ìl¡"SS'O7" EnAI, 292.19J(~c( 1(1 ¡I pojm:
¡hence S()ul]1 11 "07';10" EllS!, I C'I.15 1:C~t ",\ a f>')jnll)f wJvalllre; Illenc(\ alùn , A C.IIIV<' to :he right,
having it r;tdíus of 200,00 feet, all nre di~I~l1cc IB2j(\ fcL1 .alld through a \:t'nlrijl iJUgl" \If
52"21'26", lI,willg a chord beJUing So\llh Iso<n'Jj" Wes" it chord distaucc (If 176.'17 n-'C110,~
rXli (; Iherlec SÜUtll 4 "13 '56" \\lesl, 517,yr) [eel to (I p"'lnl PI' "urvnlurc: Illcnee <lhm¡¡ ,I C.HfI'C 10
Ihe left having a radiu$ III' 500,01'1 feN. aJ1 Me dÍ$lallce of 335:(o¡;I fecI and through a centra! ;jllg]c
oj' 38"27'39". with 11 c ¡ord l>c¡¡nng 8(\llIh 22"oo'l)(í" WC~1. II CJ1<!fd distimec of /<~tAAll
ð:';;S:'~;¡-\:I"'¿:~;< .~
/~"I"I'" I..." 1
""'I ',.'~
/;:/ "AI \1' -:, ~<~
"-" I ' 'I. '0
'-I -HI" ".
, I.}.., ,
. \"\J 3 -, j j) :',
c., ,->1-\1- ~.." ~
<,',,'<11' C'[' \\\~>~:)'
":)O~~':;::'"7;:;~i~'
" ".. ",.."
Its
1..'\ Ii
HI! I\'Ulerlo'O'..III..' ~»II.f" "."dïrll.I~HJH¡
r.ZIJluaeng.. ,
Exhibit A - Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
P;lg~ 2 of 1
PA1U.'El, ~
ZONED R.~
~~eC)
329.37 feet to it point of rcv<rsc Cllrvatur~; thencc along a curve In the right. hnving J
radius of 3()O.ü(¡ feeL an arc dblfJnœ of 302.88 leet and through a contra I Hogle of
3W27' 39", with II chord he:lring South 31 '41' 41 'j \"'<st, a chord J¡'~t¡lI1CC of :!9(\.IR fcct
to a poim: thence South 6(1°Ji'O4"\J,!cst, 396,;1 feet 10 IIIlnil11 ofClIn;atmc: ll1cm',lJ ¡,i1,ong
a curv\;, to the left, having a melius or 8<:XJ,(() fect, aJ) arc distallc<:, of 545.60 [ç~\l and
throllgh a !.:entre! angle of 39°04'33". with a chord bearing South 41 'O4'4¡:¡" W(~sl, II
chord distance of 535.09 f('<:llo a point of rc\'cr$C C\lfvuturc; Ihence 'l!ong a curvc to the
right, having a radius of 450,00 feet, IUlllCI; dislanœ of 514,04 feel IDld through :1 central
lll1!!lc pf 65"]6'58", wilh II chord b~¡¡rillg South 54"16'00" W"$I :J chord distance Df
486.54 feel to II PÙiI1t; thence South 86"59'29" \Vesl, 14J,II feet 10 if point thcnn' uloug
11 cutve 10 Ihe len, lu1\'ing II nulílls of soo tect, an arc diSLanœ üf29.()(J feeL and UH\1Ugb u
c<'l1tml angle 01'03"26'12", with a dlOrd ht:¡¡ring North 01"29'43"Wc5:I, II dJOt'd di14mll1c
of2ry,99 feel to a point; thcllce North OY 12'49" We${ a di¡;(IJncc of ìL76 feet to a. plJin!
(If c,urV/llure; Ilu,'n¡;c i:llolJg a çurvc t(I the left, J¡tlving 8 radius of 2nO,on feeL an ore
distance of 1 56.88 fCl~1 and Ilm1U!,!.h ¡¡ cclIlral angle of 44"5(i'J2", wilb a chord bcilring
North 15"41 'OS" WðlL a chord distance "f] 52.891ccl 10 a point; thence Nllrtl1
48"(l9'2J" \Vest, 172.87 feet tn ¡¡ !J()inl of curvature; IhclH.:e along ¡¡ ClIl".'!.: 1.0 thc. Joft,
having 11 radius of 550.00 teeL, an an,; length (If 7(11.23 f<:c! and thmugh II cmtral angle of
73"03'01", with ¡¡ dmrd ocaring NII!'!h 84"40'52"WcsL a chord ttistanœ (If 654.69 fecI
10 iI poinL; thence Sooth 58°47'38" Wcst, 502.91 fcctlu II 'Ioinl of c.UJ'Vall1rö; thence along
a cUr\'C 10 111C tight. having (I rndins of J2m),oo tì:.-et" and art' .Jistance of 949,72 /i.:.x't und
Ihmlfgh a central angle of 45"20'44". ",,'jlh Ii dlOnl boming Soulh 8"'2,8'00" West, IJ
chord dililancc (If 925.12 feet to a point; thence Nol1h 75°51'J!!" West a distance of
6Ül.78 feet thence North nU"16'30" East II distance of 463,90 feet; Ihence South
86"3ó'()()" West a distan.:c of 35ì.39 fCel (fonncrly South 86"32'30" Wl'!'>l a diBlan~'e: of
357.\18 fb:t); thence South 67"23 '00" \Vest a distancc of !O4.H9 feN; Ihcnce Soulh
79<31 '( (f' Wesl a òislllncc of ¡m,70 tì:-ct; ¡helle!.' SQullt OO""'J'JO"Wcst a distauœ (If
245.48 fcel; thence Norto to; I "2()'OO" East a disl¡UICC \If 156,8~) fed: thence South
IBo(ß'Otr' East II ¡Jistanl:c of 187.5~ feet; {hence SoUth 53~26'30'. E:\~t. a d¡slal c~: of
131U2 Ib:t thence South 44"20' (JO" East a distance of 73,25 [vel; 1heJj({' Non:l)
75"51 '3;;;" West. 164.15 lèct: 10 II ('l,lint of t'!u"Vahuc; thence alollg 11 curve: 1(\ (he left,
having II radius of 750.00 feel, all arc length of42L71 feet aud Lhrough II central angle of
12"] 2'58", with a chord hemin£. South SSOOJ '53" West, It chonJ dis!t\IJçc (If .~] 6,17 feet
to a point: {hence South 71G55'24" \VC!;1t. 352.27 fccltÜ a pOi111 oJ'cUrY1Itufc:th(:ncc ulong
a \:urvc W the right, having a radius of 500.00 feN, an arc distance, (If 155.06 fect and
through a central angle or 17'4Ü'(jW', with a chord \"Iearing S\'lUlh 80°48'28" Wcs1. ¡]
clwrd dislanc,c ùf 154,44 feet 10 a pnjut.; theoc.('. SouLh 89°41 '32" "Vest n dìst!UK'C of
IOSJJ4 feetl() a point, the I'oint of Beginning.
Said parcel ;;,mt¡,ining I 67,02 aêrl:~.IlI(lre or kss.
, l,A'" D, S'lf IV """.:J:""':""'$:"I.,-, It rl,'
Hi' IhlUlulI,'¡ I"" . Suit! L Herldl41 IIJ 'HI/'
r.llld adH,lit'¡ .
Exhibit A - Page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP AR TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
~~~o
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 4
ZONED R-2
Legal Description
A parcel 01 land slluated in Section 22, Township 4 North. Range 1 West of the Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. being more partícularly described as follow:
Commencing al the Southeast corner of said Section 22, said point being marked by an
aluminum cap, thence along the Soulh line of said Section 22, North 89.11'39" West,
1293,61 feet; thenœ continuing along South Line of said Section 22, North 89"17'39"
West a distance of 1353,62 feet; thence contínuing North 89"17'09" West a distance Df
2647,16 feet 10 the corner common to Sections 21. 22,278 and 28: thence along the
south line of said Section 21 North 89<24'46" West a distance of 1307-51 teel; thence
leaving said South line North 00°22'50' East a distance of 2039,08 (eel to a point on th&
South bank of the Phyllis Canal; Thence along said South Bank the following (9)
courses and di~tances: North 80'33'30" East a di~tance of 494,25 feel; thence Nortll
60"40'00' East a distance of 951,83 feet; thence South 00"31 '08" West a d¡~tançe of
69.65 feet; thence North 65'46'04" East a distance of 651.1 G feel; thence North
79"37'32' East 9 distance or 87,63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence North 79<37'32" East a distance of 658,01 feet: thence Sùulh OO~G5'34" West a
distance of 6.99 feet; thence North 78"21 '21" East a distance of 245,06 feet;thonce
South 84"30'54" East a distance of 198,80 feet thence Soulh 80"22'45. East. 442,89
feet; tllence leaving said South line South 00"28'13. West. 494,11 faet to a point; thence
along a curve to the left having a radius of 450.00 feet, an arc lengtho( 769.67 feet and
through a central angle of 97~59'50". with a chord bearing South 41"30'03" West.
679.22 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 400,00 (eel,an arc
length o( 196,26 feet and through a cenlral angle of 28°06'46". wJ\h a chord bearing
South 78"55'42" West, a chord distance of 194,30 feel to a point thence North 87'00'55"
West. a distance of 81.62 feet to a point of curvature; thence along a curve to ¡he right,
having a radius of 250,00 feet, an arc distance of 188,16 feet and through a central
angle of 43'07'41", with a chord bearing North 65627'04- West. a chord dist:;mce of
183.77 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence along a curve to the len. having a
radius of 750.00 feel. an arc dìstance of 575.(J1 feet and through a central angle of
43"55'39", with a chord bearing North 65"51 '03" West, a chord distance of 561,03 feet to
a point; thence North 06"'2'05" East, 237A3feet \0 a point of curvature; thence along a
curve to the left, having a radius of 200:00 feet, àri arc length of 96,ò(¡ feel and through a
GeniTal angle of 27"31 '07", with a chord bearing North 07"33'29" West, a chord distance
of 95.14 feet to a point; thence North 21"'9'02" West. 356.05 feetto feel to the Point of
Beginning
Said parcel containing 27.32 acras, more or less,
End of Description
Project No. 05132
December 14,2005
~-(\
",,-1\\ LA;l,'fJ\
¡I.::} ~~\>f:rw~~t:
i,.1:¡ )v t - V\, .á
;'<, 7") '-I x'
(\ ,\, .
\:\?l~ ~,) ,:,'
'<i~:~~~Æ~:~ :;,'
--111 1'.'--'.:__."";.'--- -. II".,II.
Hit Wd,.qo'~"r ".. . ~"'\e f. M.'¡di,,", 10 ¡;Pd,-
I' 1IJUBB 7H'- .
Exhibit A - Page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
~!~o
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 5
ZO~ED CN
Legal Descriplíon
A parcel of land situated In the south one.half of the Northeast Quarter and In the
South Half of Se<:tion 22, Township 4 North. Range 1 West or the Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follow:
Commendng at the Southeast corner of said Seclion 22, said point being marked
by an aluminum cap, thence along 1he South line of said Section 22, Nor1h
89"17'39" West. 2647,23 feet to the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter or
said Saction22; 1henceconUnuing along said South line, North 89"1 T09" West,
50~05 feet 10 the True Point Of Beginning,
Thence continuing along said South Una, North 89"17'09" Wes1.1243.07 feet to a
point; thence leaving said South Une, North 01.59'10" East, 343,83 feet to a point
of curvature, thence along a curve to the right, having a radiUs of 15°"°0 feet, an
arc distance of 221,56 feet and through a central angle of 84°37'42", with a chord
bearing North 44°18'01" East. a chord distance of 201.96 feet to a point of
reverse curvature; thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of 1000.00
feet. an arc length of 470,27 feet and through a central angle of 26°56'40", with a
chord bearing North 13"08'32" East, a chord distance of 465,95 feet to a point of
rever$e curvature; thence aJong a curve to the right. having a radius of 500.00
feet, an arc distance of 494.38 feet and through a central angle of 56°39'05",
having a chord bearing North 87"59'45" East. a chord distance of 414.48 feet to a
point; thence South 63°40'43" East, 311.09 feet to a point of curvature; thence
along a curve to the left, hailing a radius of 700,00 feet. an arc distance of 383.59
feel and though a central angle of 31°23'49", having a chord bearing South
16"24'45" West, a chord distance of 378.80 feet to a point; thence South
00.42'51" West, 154.07 feet to a point, the Point Of Beginning,
Said parcel containing 17.26 acres, more or Jess.
End description
Project No, 05132
December 14. 2005
.......~MMM~
/:¡ ,j I "Ji;;~i@'
/;;.t'iØ~~f:i r~é~'~:'>- oj;' :\
;:,~) /VI h" \ ;~
"'./ T314)~}
0 ,.~J~ Ðf¿,l? '~~I
G.fY/J;' 01' \\1t:-::~'1
lj. ' ,~e ~"t./
uN ~,--¡:;\I /
~/
..-:.,--:----..:- ---:......
,;¡ [ Wol~rtn..." lli. ' \uil~ I Hoodlnll. IÐ ~H4..
P lßl.Ð#IU!I~ ' '
Exhibit A - Page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
R!iDrà...
Anrh~I~(lll :;illnV ¡;fOUI)(lJlI\.3!
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 6
ZOKED R-IS
Legal Description
A parcel of land Situated In the south one Half of Section 22, Township 4 North. Range 1
West of the Boise Meridian. Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as
fenew:
COl11ll)('ncing at the Southeast cornel' of ~aid Section 22, said ]101111 being marked by an ah¡rt1inul1\
cap, (hence a ùng the South Jim' of !<aid Seclion 22. ;\'01'111 89"'I7'J9" West, 11:141.23 fed 10 the
Sunthellsl CflffiCT nfthc SOutheast Qnuncr of said S¡,criÜII12: ¡!tenet' continuing !Ilorl!! ,;;.;1id Sinnh
line, North K9"17'O?" Wcs1.1293J2 fect to ¡hI;' True Puint or Hcl1.in.niJlg,
TJICl1ç~ cntltim¡jng ;¡It'n ! !<àid SNltl1 lilIe, !\nnh S9'ITO9" We~l. 91,1~,] I {Ccll(1 a point; tbem:!'
leavin); !;¡lid Soutb lint, along a çurve to the rI.\:IJl, }¡¡wing a n.!ju¡; ",f 2400,00 ieeL all .Ire Il'1IJ;tJ¡
.'11' 839.93 (",,'{ and through ¡¡ central au!d~ of 20"(13'06". with a cl1md bearing XüJlfl 15"42'16"
East, à chord dis(m1cc 0[8.')5,65 teet to a ¡)oint; ()¡~an: Smith 75"5 ¡ '38" E¡¡¡.;t, J 6,37 (bet \011 point
of CUl'v;¡!lIn:; Ih~ncc aklfll! a curVe 10 tlw left, baling a r.ldiu$ of 1200,Ü(I feet. ¡HI arc length (If
1.}49,71 feet and through a ccntr;!! angJc of 45"20"44", with a cbordhcllrin¡¡ Nwth 81":!8'{,IO" East,
a chord .lisl:lßcc of925,12 fecI to ¡¡ )lIÜU; thence "'iorlJ.15R'47'38" Ea,~I, 502,91 jecl Wi¡ point r~f
curvature; tbence aIling 1\ tufVC (I the righl. ha\"!IIg ¡ mdius of 550,00 ft'Cl. al! arc distmIc..~ 1)[
701.23 feet and through U ccntral angle t'f 73~03'0!", with a chord bearing S(l\llh 84"40'52"
Ea~I, a chord dístanc" of 654.69 fCd to a "><1Ü)[; thence South 4!PûC¡'lJ" East, 172,87 (ect 10 a
p<>int of <'U¡"'Mure; the"c~ 1110111.1 a cun'\.' Ii) tllu r¡¡!III, having II fl'ldiw; of 20().ÜO feel, .111 arc llingll¡
of I 56.8H fl';'tt and U:trou !h ;¡ central lingle of ol4"56'J2". will¡ u chord bcnrlllJ; S(Hlth 25".1] 'OS"
East. a cllOrd distilncc n( t 52, g\ feel 10 a point; (h"nee SoUlh 03"12' 49" Fa~t, 72.76 'feel t" .1 \<)im
of curvature; 1!Jç¡¡cC 1'11011)1; 11 curve tü lhe righr. flaving a radius of 5û{H)\J .!'et~\, tm arc distance "f
322,40 feel am] tllmo!! ¡ II cctllraJ angk on6~56')S", with II long chord IlI:uring S\'Hth 1:;015'JO"
We¡¡!, a cho.rd distance of :.! 6,1:14 feet to a !""tj¡ll of rcven;ç Cufvmurc:. thence along ;j curve 10 the
len, having a radius ~1f' 700.1j() fct"t. an art: Ji"'IH<:c of 19,78 (tel ¡In!! lJlI'Hilgh 11 rel1lnd i!rlgk (If
1"37'09", with a chord hearing South 1;::"55') 4"Wt'~I. ¡¡ chonJ diSlallt:(~ of 19, 78 f!~et 10 a po in!;
thence North 63"40'43" West, :3! 1.09 fecI to ,j poinlofcurva1urc; thence uJoug ¡¡ curh, to ¡he: JdL
baving ¡ radius of SOn.DO feet, au arc kl1g1h or 494.38 feel and IIIHl\Igh ú c<:nt¡i¡1 angle of
56"39'05'". \\'i'lh Ð chord hearing SIJUlh 87~5Q'45"WC5¡, a chord dh!.3nc1: o¡'47,jAI! [(\1:1 \I) 11 poiljt
of l'eVtr.<e cun'Slure; th..~nc" along II curve to the :iighl having a radius úf jOO{)'!)(j feel. dO an:,
length !d' 470.17 fe~ and through II Ctmral angle of 26'56 '4()", wii/) II dlOrd be.uing South
U"OR'32" Wc~, II chord di,,'an,,;;:: 1)[-165.95 feci tt) a puÍlu OfrCYCfSecurvlltun,: ¡h\;ncc ð]úng 4
<.aIrY," to the klì, having a rildius of 150.00 fed, 1111 are 11"11#111 of 221,56 fcci ¡md tluongll a CL:ntr1JJ
angle ofS4".17'42", with a clwnj be¡trlng Smllh 4<1"18'OJ" West, a chord di~!anCe of2ÜL\J6 f¡;ct
1<) II ['oinl; thence Smnh 01 °59' 10" West, YLUiJ itel to H poÎll1, ¡he Poil1tOr Ih~.!!¡II ìn!l'
'slIid 1}¡lr~cI (;onl"inillg .14.95 ¡Içrc<;, mon: of k~ss.
End description
Pmjcct No, O~J3:
J)eccm[)(J¡' 14, 2('°5
---:Ik'_I_;-.--"i-~ -. _a._~.: .,--~
,j!.t r: "PI."".~I to,. . ;;II'I~ I. ~~,j~I;IIL In ßJHï
F HE~flð.I),I~. "
Exhibit A - Page 8
i;:5~TF:~:~~~i 7
{¿y~;{ ~:;\4.1
(~~J"TH4 ç)':¡)
\ \ ",)4 bl-(.¡ .::} ,". ;
,~)\ '" ~/,".f
o:VI! Of \\;)Y. 5;' I
\&'{J:~~~"~(':"'-""'--'^'o,\()V "f
~J:;;;;"/
CITY Of MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
1FI$I:iO. ' , ,
Ilnder<,IJiI SliiVI'./' iirDII¡),,(1j]j " ,
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL i
ZONfm CC
Legal Descr.iption
A pän:e! of1and situated in the Southengt Quarter of ScctiOll 21 and th~, Soulhwi:'sl
f.luattcr 01'22, Township 4 North. Range I W <::sl of the Boise Meridian, Ada CO\H1ty,
Idaho, being: more purlicu]arly \IC5CríheJ a~ follüw:
Commencing lit the S(luthca.~ll:orucr nlsaid Sedion 21. the Tnlcl'oint of Be~ÎIUlillg;
Thence along the SQuth lint' of !mid Sectior¡ '2'. !\orlh R9"24' 23" WIe'$t, 8fiSJ2 led to t1
point thcnce Icaving. said South line, t\'ürlh 00"34'29" Ellst. 37,20 leel to (\ point;lbcncc
NOrdl OJ "()O '02 " Ea~t, 346,62 feet to II point úfcufviltufc; tJ1Ctlce along a (~urve to the
rigl1!, having a rndiu!J onwo.oo tee!, an arc distum:e of 22R.9fi feet and through a central
angle 01'16<23' 54 ", with 11 chord bend ng North 11")1' 59" East, a chon:L distance ûf
228.18 lCetw a poinlofrcversc curvature; Thence aloug u curve to the left, havin!;a
radius of4(XJ.OO feet. an arc length 245,40 feel und lhrùugh U cf:lltrut¡¡.ngle of 35"(J9'OS".
with l1 chord bearing .North \)1 "49'23" East. II chord distance of24L57 feet: to ~ !,(¡int;
thence North 15"'45 '09" We~t. J 15.34 fecI to 1] p,rin\; t11<.:1](:1) Nonh 7 i "55'24" Enst,
125,94 feet to a poin! uf curvahltt'; ¡¡WHce alullg a curve to the right, having a mdius of
7S0,On feet an urc dislance of 427. 71 feet and through u centml angle 01..32"1 2'5W" with
II chnrd bcming North 88'0 J' 53" East.. a lhilrd distance of 41 (J,t7 It.-ct to a point; Theile<:
South 75°51 '3S" East, 264.25 (cet TO a point; thenec South 44" 20'O(),' E¡¡~l, 59.46 [eeT.:
th\:IJcc NiJrIh 00') 16 '30" Easl, 32.03 fect; thence South 75"51 '3M" Eust.. (i()I, 78 feet;
thence along ¡¡ curve lu the len, having it radius of 2400,00 feet, all urclc:ngth ofíß99J
leel aud Lhnlugb 1\ cenTral lingle of 20°( V()(i", wiLh II i:hOl:d beL\rlng S\luth 15"42'16'.
West. a. chord distance of 835.65 feci 10 /I point on the South linc or ~¡iI Section 22;
thence nlung said S\)ulh line, North B9"11'n9" West. ,'I(Í 1.93 feet to the J'oillt of
Beginning-
Said puree! containing 28.45 ¡¡çrcs,more OJ less.
Lnd oJ'DescTiptiot1
PmjectNo,O5132
January 13.2006
:'" l'A'Hi': ,",II',",t',y,IIC't:"SE,¡..t:,',":»>
J)! I W ø , " ""'i(" ~ "I
. ,n; '0 r ~ ",: Ii I"", III H Ii< 4 i
r HO,6UU Jj.j\ ,
Exhibit A - Page 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
!!!¡~o
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 8
ZONED R-15
Legal Desçription
A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of Section 21, T ownstlip 4
North, Range 1 Wast of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more
particularly described as follow:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 21, thence along the
South line of said Section 21, North 89"24'23" West, 868.32 feet to the True
Point of BegInning;
Thence continuing along said South line, North 89"25'31" West. 439,19 feet to
a point; thence North 00"22'50" East, 859.78 feet to a point: thence North
89°41'32" East. 105,05 feet to a point of curvature; thence alMg a curve to the
left, having a radius of 500.00 feet, an arc distance of 155.06 feet and through a
central angle of 17.46'08", with a chord bearing North 80"48'28" East, a chord
distance of 154.44 feet to a point: thence North 71"55'24" East. 226.33 feel to a
point; thence South 15"45'09" East, 115.34 feet to a point of curvature' lhence
along a curve to the right, having a radius of 400.00 feet, an arc length of
245.40 feet and through a central angle of 35'09'05", with a long chord bearing
South 01~49'23' West. a chord distance of 241.57 feet to a point of reverse
curvature; thence along a curve to the left, having a radius of 800.00 feet. an
arc length of 228,96 feet and through a central angle of 16~23'54". with a chord
bearing SQulh 11"11 '59" West, a chord distance of 228-18 feet to a poÎnt;
thence South 03"00'02" West, 346,62 feet to a point; Thence Soulh 00"34'29"
West. 37.20 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Said parcel containing 9.71 acres. more or less.
End of Description
Project No. 05132
December 14, 2005
, I..' Hn $"11 , ['f'-/II,I1":$'( "V,ICE'i";",',
HI l. I/Utel¡'W.' 1.1'. . ",it" r. k.ti4iø> :0 ijJHI
I' i l:ij,~ijA, UI~. .
Exhibit A - Page 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP AR TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
--....<~¡'¡¡:4)-'
~
'~~ 8 i~
~~ Ž ~~
01:" .- s!(}
, aiÎ!
¡¡:: z ¡zO
"'! ..:( ill ¡:
, -':';
u>,
"',;)
he'
'~. ;~
tHi
;j~
i:;
Exhibit A - Page 11
\' ë""'.,"~'",
~
\
\"'-'-""""
'p I'"",
\\ "
If \~ ""
!f 'J
"J '
" I
ì
~ ,:
----""'..., ,;:¡""'.p::"""
"f
! ~
, "(f
.. /"
,J,' I ì'
l I ~
L';~J,',<>.._j
i I \
¡ \,
i ", "'"
lll"'"'
I ' " 1
i", W,- ~ '1
" ", r; .,
"\ ;.'" /)"
t", /
l i
.. ..
¡ ~.."""'w""""""
\ ' yiP
J¡
,I "
\\1
",
",
, \
I~;
'\
""~'"
\ \
u
~,
I
""m'
, """'"",,,,,
>""--"",-,
'~'" ,;
\,",;, "
:< "<
, r""""
,.-.- ,,- """~'"
¡; i
i; í
II i
, ...J
'~."-;."
~.
\
-' ""~:"."".,,,
""""
""""'"
~,~:J
'\
\
.
y""""""".1".."""~,,,,
/ it'
/ {
" ,
'1: l
:1
\
'\
'~1.-" _....,,;~ '
\ i!
). \, I
\ "\ ,
\ ":;" ¡ '\ I
\\ ~;,,~, '),....,.",',,"",...~
:1
" ,
i~ ï",~
¿: '"~"
Z "
,~
1
I
I
I
¡,.
¡ .. """"""""",
î! "',
:/
f
,I
...---,u""',,;;1
'¡:1 ,..'Z¡ " ,
~~ i!; /' ~J U~
\ l,' " ,
"'1:1'.'-" '; \
'- ., \ ,;
{""..""",. ¡i
'i" ", """"""-"""""-':
,~
\
'1
,
, .".. """",n",,
~
I
,."
ii'
~;:¡ ,;
",j
\-'
¡:!
n
'~ .
"¡;S
;.;'[" t
-- /'..
t¡' "~~;i1."
'" ;. ,,' c'.,
.11 ,H :~j 1!
"':1' :::~:q
~,~ "i',",'"
-0:'
,
,
*
,:
'l':~
i *
"
L~
:r
.j
.
:
!
:
i
lei
"" "':",
D.
:"- -
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
B. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
I. Annexation Findings:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to
grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings:
I. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan;
Exhibit B - Page I
The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to R-2, R-8, R.15, C-N
and c-c. If the applicant provides some R-8 zoning adjacent to the west side of
WestWing Estates, staff finds that the proposed zoning map amendment will
comply with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report for more
information.
2.
The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the
proposed district, specitically the purpose statement;
No development is proposed concuuent with the zoning map amendment. Staff
finds that there are several uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed within
the requested zoning districts. If the applicant complies with the provisions
outlined in the development agreement, staff finds that the proposed commercial
and residential districts will be in compliance with the specific district
regulations. Staff finds that future development of this property should comply
with the established regulations and purpose statements of the residential and
commercial zones.
3.
The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when
deteunining this finding.
The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery
of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City including, but not limited to, school districts; and,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse
impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing
services to this site.
4.
5.
The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3E).
The proposed zoning amendment will provide zoning districts that are consistent
with what the City has envisioned for this area. Staff finds that all essential
services can be made available or will be provided by the developer to the subject
property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. In
accordance with the findings listed above, staff finds that Annexation and Zoning
of this property would be in the best interest of the City. if the applicant provides
revised le!!al descriptions for the R-8 and R-15 zones, and enters into a
Development AlZt"eement (DA) with the City. as mentioned in Section 10 of the
Staff Report.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
C. Concept Plan
Exhibit C - Page 1
r! ~ .
~j~
~"
, """A
-". "'" ,.',::';:"::'::;::",/
.,'
"',,)
¿~~<
.
",...M'~~"'_' .
,',
,~ ] I}
,j .c , , I I ; >;
,;.: ,~7 '.
r¡,~J.t/J~~.:;r¡¡¡ ¡'l,~í
h' !; ~ .. ¡ ~ d ! ~ d ~ M iH ~
!,,'l"{""f"'j ¡! !
[][][] II ~ I
t}!
hl~
~
i
,~
.. ~.I'¡~'¡
~[ I~¡
-: 'I:J,l!
] I~- <~
~I
,
~~ ~;
w'" ""
ii¡'r1
:JiL,
" ; ¡,
:i\ ."H
-, "j, ii
~."~i
,H" '
it! '" '
fit,
- ,,~,\
7,
E~
:..."'"
"3,,-
t..L..
(1)..."
QJ
'- ,~"
f-- ,,"
(1) :..,
..c: :~
f-- :"
:..;
~
II
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MARCH 2, 2006
D. Ada County Assessor's Ownership Map
Nt
I
C7.2J : ,~\i:E}\ <m~j f; '\ ,"-
A \i ¡"'\< \ o"f4}¡<;j)
í '-' ¡
i L"i (i\WC, u-t
--"'"
----, ,
i
--, "
ALDAPE
;
--Ownership according
to Ada County -
via ArcView GIS
_m_~_...m..-
p ,:_~~~CO..~N¡J
~Yl.L - '--, '- '-,\
---..,__,~~~41v4['--', ><,',""'-"""
-"'" -
- '"-..-
"'-'--
",
-- - -...-
TECO
, -,
:.MÞ.."f:Z 1..
TECQ
~/'- --;r--,,-" m-
- -- -- '/.-m'---- /
-.. m
"
<~)
,Xl,.'
\~;:»
TECD
:0
:0
~
MDC
MDC
'---
t --~O' d"1"Î\jr'jLf,)
W I t~-
Exhibit D - Page 1
œ CENTRA' CENTRAL 0 I STR I CT HEALTH 0 E PARTM E NT
~BtðL!~ Environmental Health Division
I .
I
Return to:
0 Boise
0 Eagle
0 Garden City
.aMeridian
0 Kuna
OACZ
0 Star
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
Preliminary / Final/Short Plat
¡"-l1L Ty!..e,
Az.. Orø -00 L{
¡::: 0..""" VV\
ÇVlo~'V"~"O V\
0 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
0 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
0 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
0 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
0 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal; we will require more data concerning the depth of:
0 high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics
0 or bedrock from original grade 0 other
0 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
0 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and.
water availability.
]8(8. After wri~ approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
..es¡ central sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well
0 interim sewage =8fcentral water
0 individual sewage 0 individual water
J8'(9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
Æ;rcentral sewage 0 community sewage system
0 sewage dry lines ;8]central water
.~ . . - .
0 community water
Qr10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
0 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
0 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
~ 3. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
rBrfood establishment ~swimming pools or spas
0 beverage establishment 0 grocery store
,g( child care center
0 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations
015.
Date: 2J r;. / 0 "
Reviewed By: ~ ~ .
Review Sheet
15726.001EHO904
Joint School District No.2
911 Meridian Road. Meridian, Idaho 83642 . (208) 855-4500 . Fax (208) 888-6700
SUPERINTENDENT
Dr. Linda Clark
--,.,.
February 7, 2006
,- -
.. - ,- - --,_..
City of Meridian
- --- - - - - -- --§§Qß!-W:~letlQw~(L_an_~__- -~-------------"------~----,,~--------- -------------------- -- - -
Suite 202
Meridian, ill 83642
Dear Planners:
The Meridian School District has experienced phenomenal student growth the last ten
years. The high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools throughout the district
are operating over capacity.
Approval of The Tree Fann will have a significant impact on school enrollments at
Ponderosa Elementary. Sawtooth Middle and Eagle High School.
We can predict that these homes, when completed, will house three hundred four (304)
elementary aged children, two hundred seventy-six (276) middle school aged children,
and two hundred ten (210) senior high aged students. Additional students will further
compound the current overcrowded situation. Residents cannot be assured of attending
the neighborhood school, as it may be necessary to bus students to other schools across
the district.
,-------~-,--- ---- ------,---,-- ----.,-------- -- - ---~-----~,-~--------~- ------~-,--
--- - - --.. - - - -------"" ---------
Due to the overcrowding situation we are now experiencing we would like to
immediately further discussions of an elementary school site within this project.
School capacity is addressed in Idaho Code 67-6508. The Meridian School District is
currently operating beyond capacity. Future development will continue to have an impact
on the district's capacity. If you have any questions, please contact me at 855-4500.
Sincerely,
~
Building & Construction Manager
Mar. 1. 2006 3:28PM
No, 3791
P. 1/9
~)
~~~
.
RECEIVED
MAR" 1 2006
CiTY OF MERIOIAÎ"~.,
C'qT\!~\ FR(~ C~'r:!Cc
..1./ ! 0..,.. L_- -
. . , ,
\. ',c ,~",
February 28, 2006
" -...."
'.JJ:i .
.;,','. ~:':
.." ",' "':. c" ¡ ,., ,
, .,
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Caleb Hood
660 E. Watertower, Ste. 202
Meridian, II) 83642
RE:
Tree Farm AZ.O6-004 Staff Report
Dear Caleb,
Thank: you for the staff reports. We certainly agree with your overall findings and
appreciate your work. There are a few items we want to clarify and comment on prior to
the hearing.
Page 3
Section 6 - Land Use. e. ExisÛIU? Constraints and ÛDDOrtuniÛes. No.4
CanalslDitches Irrigation: As part of the project we may have water amenities; as a
result, we might have an existing drainage ditch that will enhance / improve (leave open)
subject to drainage dis1rict and City's approval.
Pa2e 6
Last DaralZl(mh refeninlZ to West Wing Estates
We are okay with designaÛtlg a portion of the property adjoining West Wing Estates as
R~8 and will work on a design to achieve an appropriate ttansition.
Paee 7
Last DaragraDh refenine to access DOints
We are in agreement with two (2) access points
1. Across frmJl Bainbridge - Yí section
2. Black Cat - ~ section
These points have' been reviewed with ACID and mOT. We do not intend direct lot
access from the extended Black Cat road but will certaiD1y need access from Black Cat
extended to develop proPerty to east and west as shown on our site Plan. (In addition, we
ì~eD LLe, 2242 E. Rivcrwalk Drive, Suite 200. Boise. m 3371í6
Tel (208) 336-3<130 F:tt (208) 336-5296
MAR 01 '06 15:53
PAGE. 06
Mar. 1. 2006 3:28PM
No.3791
P, 2/9
Page 2 of 3
will need access at the current access points from Chinden until such time our -primary
access points are constructed,)
*There appears to be a typo in the above mentioned paragmph, the fourth dot point
"Staff is generally supportive of the proposed access pomts to Chinden Boulevard and
Ten M:i1e Road, as shown on the submitted concept pIan, with the exception of the
proposed driveway access points to the Community Commercial area from Chinden
Boulevard," This site has no access/connection to Ten Mile Road,
P..9
Section 10 - Analvsis
Th!nl D8Ia2raoh referrîn2: to PIOÐerty ownershi'D. Exhibit D
We are researching this matter and will be prepared to address at the hearing if not
sooner.
P~e 10
S"Ul'WÌIu!' Wav
We have had discussions with the Spurwing neighborhood regarding emergency vehicle
access or pedestrian connectivity and some of them have not been positive about it. We
will continue the discussions and if they are not favorable, we believe we can work with
West Wing Estates for an eIJ:1e1"gency vehicle access.
PaRe 11
DeveloDment A2reement ~catjons to Con~
Condition No.5 - Change to: "That the applicant will be respoIlSll>le for all costs
associated with the sewer and water service extension that are customary with City
policies. "
Condition No.6 - Change to: "Occupancy permits will not be granted until gravity
sewer is available to the North Black Cat Tnmk."
Condition No.9 - We may not understand your intent but it is important to mainram the
existing access points on the property until we have new access points constructed.
Change to: "Current access pomts to be allowed until such time additional access points
are built and functioning; that when this property develops, the Basco Lane access to
Chinden Bo1.Ùevard will be abandoned; ......."
MAR 01 '06 15:53
PAGE. 07
Mar. 1. 2006 3:29PM
No,3791
P. 3/9
Page 3 of 3
Condition No.1 0 - This condition is not clear and as mentioned in order to develop
property to east or west, we must have access ftom Black Cat extended. Therefore, we
would recommend a change in wording as follows:
Change to: "That at such time as pla~ and Uses are proposed) access to Black Cat
extended road shan be evaluated by the City and ü consistent with approved
cOD.cept plan, will be approved."
Condition No. 11 - We are ooy with providing reasonable stubs to adjacent property and
feel two stubs to property below the rim is reasonable and consistent with ACHD's
comments and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefor!; we would amend the condition as
follows:
Change to: "That when this property develops adjacent to one of the parcels listed below,
the applicant agrees to provide public meet access to the east (Henkel, Parcel No.
R9323930190), west (McMullen, Parcel No. S0421438700, Owyhee Mountain Ventures,
Parcel No. S042134660, and Schwenlcfelder, Parcel No. S0421428IOO), north (feeo
One Parcel Nos. S0422427960 and SO422244700) at Basco Lane, and (Orme Parcel
No. 80421417200) at Black Cat extension." .
CoI1diÛOD. No. 12 - Delete. We have provided stubs per above condition to every
property adjacent to our property and do not see a need for this condition and would
recommend it be deleted.
Condition No. 13 - In general, we are in agreement with this condition, however, feel
there may be a few issues that are consistent with USe but difficult to achieve, i.e. building
set backs with barn (this is a large Structure that is cwrently in place and may be difficult
to move). In addition, it will be cJjfñcult to change access during COnstnlction. It should
be done upon completion of main enttance. (Instead of City Engineer's signature on &al
plaf:, it could read completion. of main access or issuance of first buildmg permit)
New Condition Ree:ardine: OWnenhiD and Access
In the event applicant or MDC, LLC have any ownership interest in any lands located
between Teco One and Parcel Nos. 80422427960 and S0422244700; applicant and or
MDC, LLC shall cooperate allowing this land to be used for a future road consistent with
ACHD conespondence dated 01-3-05. llis cooperation shall be subject to applicant and
MDC, LLC obmining the cooperation of the parties to that certain Agreement to Restrict
Easement by and between MDC, LLC, Roger And~ G. Matthew Thomas.
Recorded as Ada County Instnunent No. I 02054251. \. )
Thank you ag' for your work and time with us on this proj ect.
Derick O'Neill
Treehaven, LLC
MAR 01 '06 15:53
PAGE. 08
Mar. 1.2006 3:29PM
No.3791
P. 4/9
~
Zl: ~~
~~
February 27, 2006
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Caleb Hood
Anna Cannmg
660 B. Watertower. gte. 202
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Anna and Caleb,
Consistent with your request and comments, we have met with the Ewing's and
representatives of the Aldape family to discuss their potential issues or concerns.
We feel we have done all we can do to meet the guidelines and policies of the City of
Meridian and the Highway District based on their respective comments and questions.
I have attached for your use letteIS to both families in order to verify our efforts and our
position as it relates to their concems. Please let us know if our solutions are not
1!J~ wM! yo~ ~u~ ~.
Derick O'Neill
Treehaven. LLC
DO/to
cc:
Peggy Everist
Sherri Ewing
TreeJ\aven LiC, 2242 E. Riverwalk Drivc. Suite 200. Boisc:.1D 83106
Tel 1208) 336-.3430 Fa.'\: (208) 336-5296
MAR 01 '06 15:54
PAGE. 09
Mar. 1.2006 3:29PM
No.3791
p, 5/9
February 27 2006
~
. <q;~~
John and Tuck Ewing
2934 E. Lake Hazel
Meridia.n ID 83642
John and Tuck,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us regarding our project "The Tree Fann and
the access issue to your 9.5 acres adjacent to The Tree Fann.
As you are aware we have filed an application for annexation/zoning and concept plan
for 36Ð+- acres to the south and west boundaries of your property.
COnsistent with City of Meridian and AC1ID comments, our plan allows connectivity to
. your 9.5 acres so it may be developed in the future. We will stub a collector road I right~
of.way at the current access to your property along with sewer and water service stubs.
As we are sure you axe also aware, you will be responsible for any requirements to
develop your property beyond the stubs. In addition, any possible upgrade requirements
or latecomer fees for sewer, water, power, and other prorated participation in tIaffic costs,
consistent with City of Meridian, ACED, and IDOT will be your responsibÏlity.
There séems to be a potential issue with ownership of a portion of property within or
sunounding your 9.5 acres. While Treehaven, LLC does not have an. interest in that
property, we have comm.itted to research the chain of title and actual ownership. We wil1
get with you as SOon as that research is complete.
We look forward to working with you as you progress with your plans for development
of your property.
(f;{otLø r~ .RL
Peter O'Neill Doug Carnahan
Trechaven, LLC Treehaven, LLC
to
Tredlaveo LiC, 2242 E. Rivuwalk Drive. Suite 200. Boise.1D 83706
Tel 1208) 336-3430 Fa,"'\ (208) 336.5296
MAR 01 '06 15:54
PAGE. 10
Mar. 1,2006 3:29PM
No.3791
P. 6/9
~
~~~
February 27, 2006
Sheni Ewing
Peggy Everist
2934 E. Lake Hazel
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Sheni and Peggy,
Thank you for taking the time to meet and discuss our project "The Tree Farm" as well as
discuss your plans, ideas and concerns for the Aldape fiunily property of260I acres
below the rim and north of the Phyllis Canal.
As you are aware, Treehaven LiC, the applicant for the annexation/zoning and concept
plan. for 3601: acres above the rim; is separated by the Phyllis Canal and has a significant
change Û1 elevation ftom the Aldape property. Our plan is consistent with the City and
ACHD conunents as it relates to traffic circulation and connectivity to the adjoining
Ewing property. We are planning to stub a collector road I right-of-way to the edge of
the Ewing I Teeo One property along the rim at the current access at Basco Lane. This
will allow the Ewing / Teco One property to be contiguous to the City of Meridian and
have stubs for sewer and water services. (This is all we can do and all that the City of
Meridian has asked other developments in similar situations to do.)
There has been some discussion as to other points:
I. Roger Anderson I Matthew Thomas agreement (attached). This agreement
cunently links the access to the Aldape property to existing houses below the rim. We
are not part of this agreement but are wining to try and work with you and Mr. Anderson
and Mr. Thomas towards a mutually acceptable solution in this matter.
ll. EwiDg / Teeo One property ownership lying between the two Teco One parcels.
The chain of OWIletShip and title to a portion of the access road to the Aldape property is
Tr~lVen LtC, 2242 E. RJverwalJc Drive, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83706
Tel (208) 336-3430 F:1.'( (208) 336.5296
MAR 01 '06 15:54
PAGE. 11
Mar. 1. 2006 3:30PM
No.3791
P. 7/9
Page Two
Sherri Ewing
Peggy Evenst
not cleax. We have committed to the Ewing's that we will research the chain of title and
ownership and share the research with them.
Peggy and Sham, we realize this is an important issue to you and we want to assure you
we will do everything we can to be good neighbors.
...
~ð~
Peter O'Neill
Treehave~ LLC
DO/to
Attachment
cc:
Doug and Meredith Carnahan
John and Tuck Ewing
MAR 01 '06 15:54
PAGE. 12
Ma r.
1.
2006
3:30PM
No.3791
P.
8/9
::1~
C/lfe;l;¡ lln
"'... ~~cßl\Tß\)
~ -~, ," ~~S TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON
- -) EVE '"~;\~"W.~TS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To iÛ\~~MnY~rand recommendations will be considered by
¡~8~ t"fJ ~n~ Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your
comments and recommendtions to the City of Meridian
Attn: Planning Department, by: February 23, 2006
Transmittal Date: January 31, 2006 File No.: AZ. 06~004
Hearing Date: March 2, 2006 .
Request: Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2
(66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26
acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Fann
J
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
Joseph W. Borton
Charles M. Rountree
Shaun Wardle
CITY DEPARTMENTS
City Attorney/HR
703 Main Street
898-5506 (City Attorney)
898-5503 (HR)
Fax 884-8723
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234/ fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Bower Street
888-3579/ fax 898-5501
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6844
Police
1401 E. Watertower Lane
888-6678/ fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500 / fax 895-9551
- Building
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
-Wélst~wi\t~r
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2Í91 / fax 884-0744
- Water
2235 N.W 8th Street
888-5242 / fax 884-1159
IDAHO
I
By: Treehaven, LLC
Location of Property or Project: north side of Chinden Boulevard on both
sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision
- David Zaremba (no FP)
David Moe (no FP)
- Wendy Newton-Huckabay (No FP)
== Michael Rohm (No FP)
- Keith Borup (No FP)
- Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Char1ie Rountree, CIC
Christine Donnell, C/C
==Keith Bird, CIC
- Shaun Wardle, C/C
---;;,Water Department
/' Sewer Department
== Sanitary Services(No VAR, VAC, FP)
- Building Department
Fire Department
== Police Department
City Attorney
- City Engineer
== City Planner
- ........:..:...ParksDepartment
- Melidian School Distlict (No FP)
Meridian Post Office(FPJPP only)
== Ada County Highway District
- Ada County Development Services
Central Distlict Health
== Nampa Meridian Img. District
Settlers Img. Distlict
- Idaho Power CO. (FP,PP,CUP)
- Qwest (FPJPP only)
-Intennountain Gas (FPJPP only)
- Bureau of Reclamation (FPIPP only)
== Idaho Transportation Dept. (No Fp)
- Ada County Ass. Land Records
- Meridian Development Corp.
Historical Preservation Comm.
N&r~~ .
ell: . RECEIVED
FEe -:i 2006
CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (203þfflRØØMeridian
CITY CLERK- FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAOB'IGlerk Office
Printed on recycled paper
Your Concise Remarks:
-~
~ & ~ 1~ 'Di4bUd
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
14 February 2006
phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Planning Department
City of Meridian
660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642- - ---
-----------,---------------
- _-0-- i:~~~:1-::f' Tl¡';l"':::
.-,,""-,\¡- l'\'~'¥-.~-:""
-- ~."..:.: ","-",I ~_u. ..'.L -- --
-"
RE:
AZ 06-004/The Tree Farm
---"
----:'-- ,;,
---
,--
Dear Anna:
'~')--'¡- -~¡::--:~,;:C!
- '- . --- ,,~-- ,,-
G:\'\ /,--::;.-',-
--", c: -=-! -
/---" -:.- -- '-.' -- -- - - --- -
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced application for
Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres for The Tree Faun.
ALL WORK WITHIN NAMP A & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT FACILITIES
MUST BE COMPLETED BY MARCH 15, 2006.
Sincerely,
~11Y:L~
Asst. -Wafer Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C:
Crew Foreman
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS. 40,000
S,l.1\A.\-I H. ARNETT
KEVIN E. DINIUS
JUlJEKLEIN FISCIŒR
CHRlSTOPIiERD. GABBERT
WM.F.GIGRAY,ill
T GUY fL\LLAM ..
In.t S. HOLINJCA
JOHN R. KORMIINIK .
WILLIAM A MORROW
E C E I-VED
WHITE PETERS~ ---
M 1\ r:\ " i )!)OH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW .Ihl\', ._,1\."
CITY OF MERIDIAN
WHITEPETERSON,PA í'll-'( "'I ERv "'-":f=C':f'i--
CANYONPARKATTHEIDAHOCENTÆ' , . \J L ".', '_J' , ".."
5700 E. FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 200
NAMPA, IDAHO 83687-7901
TEL (208) 466-?272
FAX (208)466-4405
WILLIAMF. NICHOLS"
CHRISTOPHER S. NYE
PHIUP A PETERSON
TODD A ROSSMAN
J,l.MESM. V,l.VREK
TERRENCE R. WHITE ...
EmaiI: wfg@wbjrepeterSOlLcom
. Also admitted in CA
.. Also admitted in OR
... Also admitted in WA
March 1, 2006
Via HAND DELIVERY
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re:
Our Clients: Arthur O. Rabehl and Sandra L. Rabehl, husband and wife
Developer: Treehaven, LLC
Development: The Tree Fann
Application: AZ-O6-004
Dear Commissioners:
Enclosed is a Position Statement tendered on behalf of our clients, Art and Sandra
Rabehl, who are affected property owners. Please include this Statement in the record.
We also note that this item is the last on the long list of matters you will consider on
March 2, 2006. Because of the length of the agenda, we ask that you extend the courtesy of
detennining, at the onset of your meeting, whether this matter will be heard that evening. If the
matter will be continued instead of being heard late into the night, we'would appreciate knowing
that early.
Very truly yours,
WHITE PETERSON, P.A.
,"------.., .. É,ì
"0.-""""'" \"'....-:.-
c.....~
)
illiam . Nichols
~
WFN/lh
Enclosures
cc: Treehaven, LLC
Art and Sandra Rabehl
W:\Work\R\R¡:¡behl, A 18893\Treehaven LLC &al Property matter\Ltr Meridian PZ re Stmt 03-01-06Ihdoc
J.':"~.
.
Wm. F. Gigray, III, ISB No. 1435
William F. Nichols, ISB No. 3496
WHITE PETERSON, P.A.
5700 E. Franklin Road, Ste. 200
Nampa, Idaho 83687-7901
Telephone: (208) 466-9272
Facsimile: (208)466-4405
wfg@whitepeterson.com
wfn@whitepeterson.com
Attorneys for Art and Sandra Rabehl
~RE C E IVED
MAR -. 1 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN
C!TV CLERK OFr-!CF
BEFORE THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
TREEHA YEN, LLC for Annexation and Zoning
of 358.57 acres from RR (Ada County) to R-2
(Low Density Residential)(66.02 acres), R-8
(Medium Density Residential)(167.02), R-15
(Medium Density Residential)(79.82 acres), C-N
(Neighborhood Business)( 17.26 acres) and C-C
(Community Business)(28.45 acres) for The Tree
Fann, by Treehaven, LLc.
FILE NO. AZ-O6-004
POSITION STATEMENT IN
OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION
And Motions for Judicial Notice
[Art Rabehl and Sandra Rabehl, affected
property owners]
COME NOW, Affected Property Owners, Art and Sandra Rabehl, by and through their
attorneys of record, Wm. F. Gigray, III of the law firm of White Peterson, and hereby submit this
Statement of their opposition to the above referenced Application.
1.
APPLICATION FOR:
1.1.
Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR (Ada County) to R-2 (Low
Density Residential)(66.02 acres), R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(167.02), R-
15
(Medium Density Residential)(79.82
(Neighborhood
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 1
acres),
C-N
D-
2.
2.1
Business)(17.26 acres) and C-C (Community Business)(28.45 acres) of real
property located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard, Ada County, Idaho,
approximately one-quarter mile west of Black Cat Road extending east to
approximately Ten Mile Road. The site has approximately 5,300 feet of frontage
on Chinden Boulevard and is composed of ten parcels owned by five different
property owners.
STANDING AS AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS:
The Real Property owned by Art and Sandra Rabehl is approximately 5 acres
more or less and is located adjacent and to the west of Black Cat Road and north
of Chinden and south of the Phyllis Canal and is surrounded by the Subject Real
property on the south, west north and across Black Cat Road to the east. The
Rabehls are not part of the application and do not consent to their real property
being annexed into the City of Meridian at this time.
3.
REQUESTED MOTION TO BE ENTERED BY PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
4.
3.1
That the Board of Commissioners move to continue File Number AZ-06-004 to a
new hearing date.
BASIS FOR REQUEST:
4.1.
The subject application concerns Annexation of 358.57 acres into multiple
residential and commercial zones with only a concept plan in an area not yet
included within the impact area of the City of Meridian and not within the City of
Meridian Areas of City Impact Urban Service Planning Areas & Referral Areas
for Ada County, Idaho. In the event there are efforts by the City to include the
subject area within its impact and urban service planning area those processes
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 2
4.2
4.3
4.4
should be completed first before any action is taken on the pending application
before the Commission.
Due to the size and the proposal and the impact upon other real property in the
region, a deliberate detennination should be made by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the potential areas of affected properties and whether or not there
are more than 200 property owners within those areas affected which would
require an additional publication for notice of hearing. No such detennination has
been made at this point by the Commission.
There is an agreement made by and between Rabehl's and Bill and Berit
Crookham which changed the boundary between Rabehl' s and what is now the
JoAnn Eggers Trust real property. The boundary by agreement is not reflected in
the legal descriptions provided. This affects the ability of the City to annex
because a portion within the JoAnn Eggers Trust real property is owned and
possessed by the Rabehls who are not consenting landowners to annexation. A
survey will need to be done in order to provide a legal description of the subject
area.
The Rabehl's real property is basically surrounded by the proposed development
[except for Black Cat Road] with proposed R-8 zoning on the west, north and east
and with proposed CC zoning on the south with proposed access changes
supported only with a concept plan. Without the detail of a specific proposal,
Rabehls cannot address what may be considerable adverse impacts on their use of
their property.
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 3
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUEST
FOR CONTINUANCE AND AS A STATEMENT OF THE RABEHL
POSITION ON THE PENDING ANNEXATION AND ZONING APPLICATION
5.
ISSUE ONE: Presently and at the time of application was filed, the subject area
was and is not within the City of Meridian Area of Impact.
5.1
Because the subject area is not within the impact area of the City of Meridian, it is
not now part of its planning jurisdiction and is not a proper subj ect to annexation.
This is evidenced and governed by the Ordinances of Ada County and the City of
Meridian which were adopted as a part of the process by which the impact area of
the City of Meridian was established within the unincorporated area of Ada
County in accordance with the negotiation procedure mandated by I.C. § 67-6526,
and which resulted in the passage of ordinances to govern the impact area by the
County.
5.2
There is now in place the following Ada County and City of Meridian Ordinances
which provide for the establishment and administration of the City of Meridian
Impact Area: r Ada County Code Sections herein cited are attached as Avvendix
5.21.
5.2.1 Ada County hnpact Area Ordinances:
5.2.1.1.
City of Meridian hnpact Area ordinances are
codified at Chapter 4 of Title 9 Ada County
Code.
Section 9-4-1 sets forth the boundaries of the
City of Meridian hnpact Area. The real
property which is the subject of the proposed
annexation and zoning is not within those
boundaries.
Section 9-4-2 Ada ComIty Code provides in
subpart A. "Annexation by the city of Meridian
shall be limited to those lands lying within the
area of impact and being contiguous to the
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 4
boundaries of the city of Meridian." The
pending application is in violation of that
ordinance.
Section 9-4-4 Ada County Code provides for a
very deliberate process to be followed in order
to amend the provisions of the City of Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances as it
relates to the impact area within the County and
there is no evidence that that process has been
followed or completed in a manner which
includes the subject real property within the area
of impact of the City of Meridian.
Section 9-4-5 Ada County Code provides for a
very deliberate process of renegotiation of the
it's ordinances governing the City of Meridian
Impact Area and there is no evidence that that
process has been followed or completed to
amend the existing Ada County Code Sections
9-4-1 and 9-4-2.
These processes must be completed before the subject real
property could be annexed into the City of Meridian. At
this time, there are no applications pending before Ada
County Development Services as confinned to Rabehl's
attorney, Wm. F. Gigray, III, by Stacey Yarrington
(Planner I of Ada County Development Services) on or
about February 24, 2006.
5.2.2 City of Meridian Impact Area Ordinances:
5.2.2.1. Section 1-11-4 A Meridian City Code provided until September
of2005:
A. Limitations: Annexation by the City shall be
limited to those lands lying within the area of
impact and being contiguous to the City limits
of the City. The amendment in September of
2005 provides: the following additional
language:
... except for those properties outside the
Meridian area of city impact and being
contiguous or adjacent to the boundary of the
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 5
City of Meridian where the owner or the
owner's agent has requested annexation in
compliance with the procedures set forth in
Idaho Code section 50-222 et seq.
The City ordinance provision complimented Ada County Code Section 9-4-2 prohibiting
annexation beyond the impact area prior to the September 2005 amendment. There is no
evidence that the City of Meridian has renegotiated to conclusion with Ada County the
provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 9 Ada County Code either prior to or subsequent to the time
the City Council passed this amendment to Section 1-11-4 A Meridian City Code as is
required by Ada County Code Section 9-4-5.
6.
ISSUE TWO: The subject real property does not meet the condition precedent to
annexation because it does not lie within the "Area of City Impact Urban Service
Planning Areas & Referral Area" as required by Meridian City Code Section 11-16-
3.
6.1
The Subject area is not within the Area of City Impact Urban Service Planning
Areas & Referral Area:
6.1.1
The Areas of City Impact Urban Service Planning Areas &
Referral Areas for Ada County, Idaho. The map shows the
subject real property as being within the undesignated
referral area of Ada County.
Meridian City Code § 11-16-3 provides:
Land Within Meridian Urban Service Planning Area:
No property shall be annexed and zoned if it is not within
the Meridian urban service planning area as set forth in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan. An application for
annexation and zoning of land not within the Meridian
urban service planning area may be submitted to the City if
it is accompanied by an application to amend the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan to change the Meridian urban service
planning area to have the land for which annexation has
been applied for included in the Meridian urban service
planning area. The application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and Meridian urban service planning
area must be processed and granted either simultaneously
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 6
or prior to the annexation application. If the application to
amend the Comprehensive Plan and the urban service
planning area is not granted, the annexation application
shall not be granted.
The Staff Report reflects at page 3, under section 5 Land Use part e 1:
Location of sewer: This parcel currently has no sewer available to
it. It is master planned to sewer to the future North Black Cat
Trunk which will not be available till late 2007 or early 2008.
Location of water: This is no City of Meridian water main
currently available to this site. United Water and the City of
Meridian are currently in negotiations that would allow United
Water to provide water service to this site.
Issues or concern: Sewer will not be available till late 2007 to
early 2008.
Currently the area subject ofthis annexation can not be extended water and sewer. Areas
of City Impact Urban Service Planning Areas & Referral Areas for Ada County, Idaho and map
will need to be renegotiated prior to any annexation. Given the staff report relative to the ability
to sewer or provide water to the subject area this issue should be resolved first before any
annexations are recommended to the City Council.
7.
ISSUE THREE: Notice
7.1
Notice: There is no showing in the Staff Report that there has been any deliberate
decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission was to whether or not there are
more or less than 200 property owners affected by this pending application which
affects the notice of Publication and under Meridian City Code § 11-15-5-5 C1c.
An application of this size imposes considerable impact upon its full development
within this region and the likelihood of such impact is significant. The Planning
and Zoning Commission should take this matter up first and provide for the extra
notice for the continued hearing which would resolve this issue.
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 7
8.
ISSUE FOUR: Legal Description and boundary of proposed annexation.
8.1
There is an issue with the proposed property description for annexation as it
relates to property owned by Eggers Trust. That property surrounds the Rabehl
property. There was a boundary by agreement established by Rabehls and the
predecessor in title of the Eggers Trust property Bill and Berit Crookham which
changed and re-established the northwestern and southern boundaries of the
Rabehl property. The Rabehl's have sent notice of their claim to Eggers Trust.
Additional time is needed in order to obtain a legal description to said property.
Rabehl is not consenting to any annexation of Rabehl property at this time which
removes portions of the annexation request from a Category A annexation.
Copy of the Notice is attached as Appendix 8.1.
9.
ISSUE FIVE: Idaho Code Section 67-6511 requires that any zoning districts
established must be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted
comprehensive plan and the subject real property is not a part or the subject of the
existing adopted comprehensive plan of the City of Meridian.
9.1
The present Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian does not address or
include the Area subject to this application for annexation and zoning and
therefore no finding of compatibility of proposed zoning to the Comprehensive
Plan can be made. Even in the event there are amendments of the same in process
and before the City Council such amendments and establishment of application
outside the city limits is not complete until the impact area and ordinance
provision related thereto are completed with the Board of Commissioners of Ada
County. This process is discussed in Issue One above.
City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted August 6, 2002 does not apply to the
subject real property. Relevant provisions of the Comprehensive plan include the
following:
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT ~ Page 8
Provisions ofthe Plan and Idaho State Law set for in Chapter lA, page I references:
Idaho Code Section 67-6508 which requires: "....The plan shall
include all land within the jurisdiction of the governing board.... "
"This plan applies to all geographic areas within Meridian's
jurisdiction, including its surrounding Area of Impact.. .."
Chapter II - What is Meridian's History, an What does the Future
Hold: at part C Future at page 7: "Land uses in Meridian will be
thoughtfully planned so that neighboring uses are compatible..."
Chapter VII - How is the Land In Meridian Developed? Neither the
Figure VII-I Existing Land Use Map nor the Future Land Use Map
adopted August 6, 2002 include or reference the subject real
property.
Motion: That the Planning and Zoning Commission take judicial notice of these cited City
of Meridian Comprehensive Plan provisions.
10.
ISSUE SIX: Development Agreement Conditions. [This issue is raised in the
alternative and is not a waiver of the primary position of the Rabehl's this matter
which is in opposition to annexation and zoning. This issue is offered only in the
event it is determined to recommend annexation and zoning.]
10.1. Given the size of the proposed annexation and zoning and current circumstances
of the Affected Property Owners property and surrounding area and given the fact
that the application concerns only a concept plan, any Annexation and Zoning
must be accompanied by a development agreement which includes conditions
which preserve the use and enjoyment ofthe Rabehl's property which will remain
County RR. A proposal to change a County RR zone to a City R-8 Zone on the
west, north and east of the Rabehl's property and a City CC Zone to the south is
quite a contrast in land use and intensity of that use which will require
considerable mitigation. It is impossible at this stage to provide or comment on
the affect upon the Rabehl's property based only on a concept plan. The hearing
and process procedures accompanying the special and conditional use process
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 9
offer an opportunity for hearing and the ability to impose special conditions upon
a specific proposed development in order to mitigate impact of that proposed
development upon neighboring properties. The access to the existing public road
Black Cat is also of importance. It is submitted that any development agreement
should include additional conditions to those proposed in the staff report which
should include the following:
10.1.1
Any development and use of the subject area which borders the Rabehl
Property proposed to be included within the R-8 and CC Zones may only
be by Special/Conditional Use pennit in accordance with the hearing
procedures and ordinances ofthe City; and
10.1.2 That the following uses will not be allowed in the R-8 Zone:
. Cemetery
. Civic, social or fraternal organizations
. Day care, group
. Dwelling, secondary
. Dwelling, two-family duplex
. Education Institution, private
. Education Institution, public
. Home, manufactured or mobile subdivision
. Home occupation
. Nursing or residential care facility
. Storage facility, outside
. Storage facility, self-service
. Wireless communication facility, amateur radio antenna
10.1.3 That the following uses will not be allowed in the CC Zone:
. Day Care, group
. Equipment rental, sales and service
. Fuel sales facility
. Fuel sales facility, truck stop
. Hospital
. Hotel and motel
. Industry, infonnation
. Laundromat
. Laundry and dry cleaning
. Mortuary
. Parking facility
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 10
. Recreational vehicle park
. Restaurant
. Storage facility, outside
. Storage facility, self-service
. Vehicle repair, minor
. Vehicle sales or rental or service
. Vehicle washing facility
. Vertically integrated residential project
. Wireless communication facility
. Wireless communication facility, amateur radio antenna
. Wireless communication facility, stealth
CONCLUSION
Sandra and Art Rabehl will address these matters together with their Counsel at the
hearing scheduled on March 2, 2006. We appreciate and request this Position Statement be
included in the record of these proceedings.
DATED this ~ day of March, 2006.
WHITE PETERSON, P.A.
----- -
:-_..//1
-------.--
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
instrument was served upon the following by the method indicated:
City of Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission
660 E. Watertower, Ste. 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
u.s. Mail
Facsimile ~
V/Hand Delivered ~ l-t'ttf
MDC, LLC
4410 W. Chinden Blvd.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
\/" U.S. Mail
Facsimile
Hand Delivered
Treehaven, LLC
c/o Douglas Carnahan
4042 W. Chinden Blvd.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
v'. U.S. Mail
Facsimile
Hand Delivered
Doug and Meredith Carnahan
4410 W. Chinden Blvd.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
~U.S. Mail
Facsimile
Hand Delivered
/' U.S. Mail
Facsimile
Hand Delivered
/. U.S. Mail
Facsimile
Hand Delivered
JoAnn Eggers Trust
7169 N. Spurwing Way
Meridian, Idaho 83642
JoAnn Eggers Trust
c/o u.S. Bank Successor Trustee
P.O. Box 64142
S1. Paul, Minnesota 55164
Connie Avery
4740 W. Chinden Blvd.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
/" u.S. Mail
Facsimile
Hand Delivered
DATED this ~ day of March, 2006.
W:IWorkIRIRabehl, A 18893\Treehaven LLC Real Property matterlPosition statement 02-28-06lh.doc
OPPOSITION POSITION STATEMENT - Page 12
APPENDIX 5.2
Ada County Code Sections
Art and Sandra Rabehl - Position Statement in Opposition to AZ 06-004
9-4-1: MERIDIAN AREA OF CITY IMPACT BOUNDARY:
Page 1 of 1
9-4-1: MERIDIAN AREA OF CITY IMPACT BOUNDARY:
(
A.Meridian Area Of City Impact Boundary Map:
1. The Meridian area of city impact is the area designated on the Meridian area of city
impact boundary map, hereby fully incorporated by reference, copies of which are available
for inspection at the Ada County development services department.
2. Amendments to the map are as follows:
a. Ordinance 229, December 20,1990.
b. Ordinance 257, December 3, 1992.
c. Ordinance 282, December 1, 1994.
d. Ordinance 285, January 26, 1995.
e. Ordinance 345, September 24, 1997.
f. Ordinance 473, November 20,2002.
g. Ordinance 508, Septe~,~er 24, 2003.
B.Division By Boundary: In the case where a property under single ownership is divided by the
boundary line of the Meridian area of city impact and any other area of city impact
boundary, and the lines divide such property so that one or both of the parts has a depth of
three hundred feet (300') or less, such part may be included in the jurisdiction within which
the larger portion of the property is located.
Exception: In the case where a property under a single ownership is divided by the
boundary line of the Meridian area of city impact only, the smaller portion of such property
may, without the three hundred foot (300') limitation listed above, be included in the
jurisdiction within which the larger portion of the property is located. (Ord. 136, 10-17-1984;
amd. Ord. 13~., 10-17-1984; amd. Ord. 161, 12-10~1986; amd. Ord. 229, 12-20~1990; amd.
Ord. 257,12':3..1992; amd. Ord. 282, 12-1-1994; amd. Ord. 285, 1-26-1995; amd. Ord. 345,
9~24-1997; amd. Ord. 473, 11-20-2002; amd. Ord. 508, 9-24-2003)
httn://66.113.195.234/ID/ Ada%20Countv/1300400000000 1 OOO.htm
2/22/2006
9-4-2: ANNEXATION, AREA OF IMPACT:
Page 1 of 1
9-4-2: ANNEXATION, AREA OF IMPACT:
A.Annexation by the city of Meridian shall be limited to those lands lying within the area of
impact and being contiguous to the boundaries of the city of Meridian.
B.Upon annexation, the provisions of this agreement shall no longer apply to the annexed
area. (Ord. 137, 10-17-1984; amd. Ord. 161, 12-10-1986; amd. Ord. 229,12-20-1990)
/"
htto://66.113.195.234/ID/ Ada%20County/13004000000002000.htm
2/22/2006
9-4-3: APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES AND ORDINANCES:
Page 1 of 1
9-4-3: APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES AND ORDINANCES:
"
i
A.The Meridian comprehensive plan, adopted by Meridian on August 6, 2002, by resolution 02-
382, shall apply to the Meridian area of city impact.
B.AII subdivision plats, situated within the area of impact, shall be submitted to the city of
Meridian for approval, in addition to Ada County approval, as provided in Idaho Code
section 50-1306.
C.AII subdivision plat applications in the urban seNice planning area for land zoned RUT
(rural-urban transition) shall require a street and utility easement plan. Said plan shall
provide for future resubdivision to urban densities and shall be included on the final plat.
This requirement may be waived if a letter of waiver is submitted to the director from the
Meridian council prior to preliminary plat approval by the board.
D.A condition of approval for all subdivision plats in the urban service planning area for land
zoned RUT (rural-urban transition) shall require that, prior to occupancy of the subdivision's
first dwelling unit, dry line sewer and water lines shall be installed to accommodate the
future resubdivision to urban densities. This requirement may be waived if a letter of waiver
is submitted to the director from the Meridian city council prior to preliminary plat approval
by the board.
E.; . t) of this code shall be used to implement this chapter. All land use applications shall
also comply with the provisions of this chapter.
F .The Meridian comprehensive plan shall apply to the property described in Ada County
ordinance 508. The land use designation of the adjacent property shall apply to the area
described in Ada County ordinance 508. (Ord. 137, 10-17-1984; amd. Ord. 161, 12-10-
1986; amd. Ord. 229, 12-20-1990; amd. Ord. 277, 6-22-1994; amd. Ord. 345, 9-24-1997;
amd. Ord. 508, 9-24-2003; amd. Ord. 535,4-14-2004)
,/
httn~//tltl_ll1.195.234IID/Ada%20Countv/13004000000003000.htm
2/22/2006
9-4-4: COORDINA nON OF PLAN AMENDMENTS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS... Page 1 of 3
9-4-4: COORDINATION OF PLAN AMENDMENTS, ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS AND ZONING APPLICATIONS:
AAmendment Of City Comprehensive Plan And Ordinances:
1. All proposed amendments to the Meridian city comprehensive plan or the Meridian
zoning and/or subdivision ordinances shall be forwarded to the Ada County development
services department director by the Meridian city clerk at least thirty (30) days prior to any
public hearing on any such proposed amendment(s), whether said amendment(s) is (are)
before the Meridian planning and zoning commission or the Meridian city council. The Ada
County department of development services shall determine whether or not such
amendment(s) is (are) in conflict with either the Ada County comprehensive plan or the Ada
County zoning ordinance. The Ada County development services department director
shall notify the Meridian planning and zoning commission, or the Meridian city council, as
the case may be, of such determination, in writing, prior to or at such public hearing. Such
input from the county shall not be binding or controlling on Meridian, but shall be treated as
documentary evidence.
2. When the Meridian city council has rendered a final decision to adopt an amendment to
the Meridian comprehensive plan or the Meridian zoning and/or subdivision ordinances, the
Meridian city clerk shall, within fifteen (15) days, forward a copy ofthe final document to the
Ada County development services department director and the board of Ada County
commissioners, along with a notice as to when the amendment will take effect in the city.
Within thirty (30) days after the plan amendment was mailed, the board of Ada County
commissioners shall either protest the amendment and request renegotiation of the area of
city impact ordinances, or if necessary, shall direct the Ada County planning and zoning
commission to schedule the amendment for public hearing as an amendment to the area of
city impact ordinance.
B.Amendment Of County Comprehensive Plan And Zoning Ordinance:
1. All proposed amendments to the Ada County comprehensive plan and/or the Ada
County zoning ordinance shall be forwarded by the Ada County development services
department director to the Meridian city clerk at least thirty (30) days prior to any public
hearing on any such proposéd amendment(s). The Meridian city council and/or the
Meridian planning and zoning commission shall determine whether or not such amendment
is in conflict with one or more of the goals, objectives, policies or provisions of the Meridian
comprehensive plan, or the Meridian zoning and/or subdivision ordinances. The Meridian
city council shall notify the Ada County development services department of such
determination in writing prior to or at such public hearing. Such input from the city shall not
be binding or controlling on the county, but shall be treated as documentary evidence.
2. The board of Ada County commissioners shall notify Meridian city, in writing, of the
county's action on such amendment(s) within fifteen (15) days following a final decision on
such matter along with notice as to when the amendment(s) will take effect in the county.
Within thirty (30) days after the amendment(s) was mailed, the Meridian city council shall
either protest the amendment(s) and request renegotiation of the area of city impact
ordinances, or if necessary, shall direct the Meridian city planning and zoning commission
to schedule the amendment for public hearing as an amendment to the area of city impact
ordinance.
httu://66.113.195.234/ID/ Ada%20County/13004000000004000.htm
2/22/2006
9-4-4: COORDINA nON OF PLAN AMENDMENTS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS... Page 2 of 3
C.Processing Of Land Use Applications In The Meridian Area Of City Impact:
1. Applications for planned developments, subdivision and rezones within the city of
Meridian urban service planning area shall occur as a result of a request for annexation to
the city of Meridian; however, Ada County may consider such applications in those
exceptions where annexation is not approved by the city of Meridian or where the parcel on
which such application is filed is not contiguous to the city of Meridian, and therefore cannot
be annexed.
2. Thirty (30) days prior to any county public hearing on such application, the Ada County
development services department director shall send to the Meridian city clerk all county
land use applications to be considered by the Ada County planning and zoning commission
or the board of Ada County commissioners concerning property located within the Meridian
city area of city impact. The Meridian planning and zoning commission or the Meridian city
council shall make recommendations to the Ada County development services department
director on such application, in writing, and shall cite the Meridian zoning and/or subdivision
ordinances or the Meridian comprehensive plan policies, goals, objectives or provisions
supporting such recommendation. Such recommendation shall be submitted in writing to
the Ada County development services department director prior to or at such public
hearing. Such input from Meridian shall not be binding or controlling on the county, but shall
be treated as documentary evidence.
3. Neither the board of Ada County commissioners nor the Ada County planning and
zoning commission shall hold,8 public hearing on such application until the
recommendation of the Meridian city councilor Meridian city planning and zoning
commission, as the case may be, has been received, or the date the county should have
been received said council's or commission's recommendations, specified above, has
passed.
4. The Ada County department of development services will notify the Meridian city clerk in
writing of the county planning and zoning commission or board of Ada County
commissioners' action on land use applications located within the Meridian city area of city
impact within fifteen (15) days following a final action by the appropriate county agency on
such matter.
D. Referral Area~;.:
1. Amendments to the Ada County comprehensive plan, the Ada County zoning ordinance,
and all area of city impact ordinances which apply within the referral areas, as identified on
the city of Meridian area of city impact map, and all land use applications within those
referral areas to be considered by the Ada County planning and zoning commission or the
board of Ada County commissioners shall be sent by the Ada County development services
department director to the Meridian city clerk at least thirty (30) days prior to any public
hearing on them. Any comment by the Meridian city council on such documents shall be
made to the Ada County development services department in writing prior to or at such
public hearing. Such input from Meridian shall not be binding or controlling on the county,
but shall be treated as documentary evidence. The Ada County development services
department director shall notify the Meridian city clerk in writing of the county's: action on
such documents within thirty (30) days following a final action by the appropriate county
agency on such matter. (Ord. 137, 10~17-1984; amd. Ord. 161, 12-10-1986; amd. Ord. 229,
C-'
'-'-,"
httD://66.113.195.234/ID/ Ada%20County/13004000000004000.htm
2/22/2006
9-4-4: COORDINATION OF PLAN AMENDMENTS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS... Page 3 of3
12-20-1990; amd. Ord. 345, 9-24-1997; amd. Ord. 535, 4-14-2004)
'. ,
httu://66.113.195.234/ID/Ada%20County/13004000000004000.htm
2/22/2006
9-4-5: RENEGOTIATION:
Page 1 of 1
9-4-5: RENEGOTIATION:
A. In accordance with Idaho Code section 67.6526(d), the Meridian city councilor the board
may request, in writing, renegotiation of any provision of this chapter at any time. Within
thirty (30) days of receipt of such written request by either party, a meeting between the two
(2) jurisdictions shall occur.
B. While renegotiation is occurring, all provisions of this chapter shall remain in effect until this
chapter is amended or a substitute ordinance is adopted by Meridian and Ada County, in
accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided in Ada County and Idaho
codes, or until a declaratory judgment from the district court is final. Provided, however, that
this chapter or stipulated portions thereof shall be of no further force and effect if both
jurisdictions so agree by mutually adopted resolution. (Ord. 137, 10-17-1984; amd. Ord.
161,12-10-1986; amd. Ord. 229,12-20-1990)
" ,
http://66.113.195.234/ID/ Ada%20County/13004000000005000.htm
2/22/2006
APPENDIX 8.1
Rabehl Notice of Claim to JoAnn Eggers Trust
February 28, 2006
Art and Sandra Rabehl ~ Position Statement in Opposition to AZ 06~OO4
.: r
WHITE PETERSON
A TIORNEYS AT LAW
SARAH H- AIuœTr
KEviN E. DINIUS
JULIE KLBIN FISCHER
CInusroPHERD. GABBI!RT
WM.F.GIGRAV,ill
T. Guy HALLAM ..
JILL S. HoLINKA
JOlIN R. KoRMANIK .
WlLUAM A. MORROW
WHITE PETERSON, P,A.
CANYON PARKA T THE IDAHO CENTER
5700 E. FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 200
NAMPA,IoAHO 83687-7901
TEL (208) 466.9272
FAX (208)466-4405
WILLIAM F. N Cf OU; ..
OnusroPHERs. NYB
PinLII> A. PErERooN
TODD A. ROSSMAN
JAMESM. VAVREK
TEIuœNÇER. WHITE'"
Email: wlg@whilepeter.mn.corn
. Also adnritted in CA
.. Also admitted in OR
... Also adÍ:nitted in WA
February 28, 2006
VUl CERTIFIED MAIL
JoAnn Eggers Trust
7169 N. Spurwing Way
Meridian, ID 82642
loAnn Eggers Trust
c/o U.S. Bank Successor Trustee
P.p. Box 64142
S1. Paul, MN 55164
Re:
Real Property on Black Cat Road, north of ChiDden Boulevard
Ada County, Idaho
Notice of Boundary by Al!reement
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to advise that our clients, Art and Sandra Rabehl, do hereby claim boundary by
agreement established with your predecessor in title, Bill Crookham, which established the
boundary on southern portion of my clients' property at the Harrel lateral and on the northwest at
the fence line. This amounted to property loss by my clients in the northwest comer and
property gain on the south to the Harrel Lateral. This agreement has facilitated and does
facilitate the farming of your property and the farming and use of our clients' property. My
clients propose that the parties agree upon a surveyor and that the property be surveyed so proper
legal descriptions may be made, followed by appropriate deeds of conveyance to establish the
boundary in the records of Ada County and title of the parties. This notice and process has
become necessary by reason of the fact of your impending sale to The Treefarm, LLC and
proposed annexation.
J
JoAnn Eggers Trust
February 28, 2006
Page 2
We request your response.
WFGIlh
cc: The Treefann, LLC
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Art and Sandra RabeW
Bill and Berit Crookham
Very truly yours,
;¡ llSON, P ~
Wm. F. Gigra'1;7
W:\Work\RlRabehl, A 18893\Treehaven LLC Real Property matterILtr Eggers Trust re boundary agmt 02-28"()61h.doc
RECEIVED
MAP. fl 2 2006
c,ity of Meridian
CIty Clerk Office
Condition of Approval
The city of Meridian shall withhold signing of the Final Plat until one of the two
following conditions are met with regard to providing public access from Basco Lane to
the Aldape property, North of the Phyllis Canal.
1. MDC, LLC provides easement cross the parcel it owns (Exhibit A) that will allow
a public road connection to the North ofthe Phyllis canal.
2. An alternative plan for public road access, across the Phyllis canal, near Basco
Lane, is agreed to by the Meridian City Planning Staff.
RECEIVED
MAR 0 2 2003
city of Meridian
City Clerk Office
SA TELITE Parcel
Legal Description
A parcel of land situated in the south one~half of the Northeast Quarter and in the South
Half of Section 22, Township 4 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, being more particularly described as follow:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 22, said point being marked by an
aluminum cap, thence along the South line of said Section 22, North 89°17'39" West,
2317.29 feet; thence leaving said South line along a line being parallel with and 330.00
feet distant from the Westerly line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 22, North
00°25'06" East, 2502.27 feet; thence leaving said parallel line, North 42°14'38" West,
179.85 feet to the True Point Of Beginning; thence North 89°18'59" West, 60.57 feet;
thence North 38°19'49" West, 109.16 feet; thence North 52°49'04" west, 181.45 feet;
thence South 66°53'06" East, 168.36 feet; thence South 52°49'04" West, 175.50 feet to
the point of beginning.
Containing 9,519 square feet or 0.22 acres, more or less.
-~
Memo
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: C. Caleb Hood, CUlTent Planning Manager
CC: Derick O'Neill, Anna Canning, Bill Nary, Clerk's Office, Project File
Date: March 2, 2006
Re: The Tree Farm Annexation (AZ-06-004)
Application for 3-2-06 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
RECEIVED
MAR 0 2 2006
~ityofMerfdian
City Clerk O1Dce
Based upon the letter submitted on February 28, 2006, by Derick O'Neill, staff is
recommending that the Commission make the following modifications to the
Development Agreement provisions on Pages 11 and 12 of the Staff Report:
#5 - Staff concurs with the applicant's proposal. Please amend Provision #5 to read:
"That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and
water service extension that are customary with City policies."
#6 - Staff is proposing amended language to Provision #6: "Development of this property can
not begin till gravity means become available '.'ia the North Black Cat Trunk. Sewer service
to this property shall be via eravity means to the North Black Cat Trunk. The City of
Meridian does not 2Uarantee sewer service in the timelines outlined in the UDc. No
interim or temporary lift stations shall be allowed."
#9 - For clarification staff is proposing to amend the fist part of Provision #9 as follows: "That
when a preliminary plat is submitted to the City, no direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard
\vill be allmved on this site the current access points to Chinden Boulevard may be
allowed until such time as the public street connections are made and accepted by
ACHD; that when this property develops, the Basco Lane access to Chinden Boulevard will
be abandoned; that access to this site ftom Chinden Boulevard will be restricted to the section
line roads and half mile between sections OlÙY; that the two future access point to this site
ftom Chinden Boulevard be constructed as public streets that align with the existing or
approved public streets on the south side of Chinden Boulevard; and that said public streets be
constructed in accordance with the adopted North Meridian Auto Circulation Map of the
Comprehensive Plan.
#10 - Staff is proposing amended language to Provision #10: "That as such time as
plats and uses are proposed, access to Black Cat Road extended shall be subject to
approval by the City and the Transportation Authority."
~
#12 - For clarification, staff reconunends that that an additional three sentences be
added to Provision #12: "That additional stub streets to adjacent properties may be
required as part of preliminary plat approval. If the current Basco Lane can not be
used as a public street crossin!! of the Pvllis Canal. the Citv may require one
stub from this property to the Aldape property (Parcel No. 80422212513). at the
west boundary of the western TECO ONE parcel. The subject owner/developer
mav construct their equitable portion of this potential road, leavin!! the
remainder portion to be completed by the adjacent property owner(s). The
exact location and equitable portion of the subject potential public street shall
be determined by the Transportation Authoritv."
# 13 - For clarification, staff reconunends that that an additional sentence be added to
last part of Provision #13: "That the existing tree farm (nursery) and existing single-
family homes on tlùs site be allowed to continue their current uses; that prior to the
City Engineer's signature on the first final plat on the subject property, the nursery
should be required to obtAin a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) pennit and
bring the site into compliance with all UDC standards; and that these standards
include, but are not limited to: parking and drive aisle improvements; landscaping
improvements, taking access ITom Chinden Boulevard at the ~ mile location, and
compliance with sign regulations. NOTE: If any existine structures encroach into
any required landscape buffer, thev mav be allowed to remain with Alternative
Compliance approval."
Staff believes that the rest of the conditions should remain as reconunended, with no
changes.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
March 2, 2006
ITEM #
22
PROJECT NUMBER
AZ 06-004
PROJECT NAME
The Tree Farm
NAME (PLEASE PRINT)
&1/3
FOR
AGAINST NEUTRAL
~
x
v
@
C?Z~~
February 21,2006
'." "l"-\j"'"'(;\-¡C'\
-,--,' ,r--.~ "~'I\ ' -, ¡, ',',
~..,~..,..\,~ ~"" '~' ',II
,yo ", ¡; i, \ , '.J.....-"",
, :\' v '^J: .. ". ' , "",
."- --
~ jI...--' --
".. "/72ù(\ó
-,"",' ,~::tJ\ER\O\A~!,
(;~(U\"" ,,-"--'f--
,~~:_¡~/ (,I, ~p/ ~,-,~'~'
~j \ \ ~, ---
Meridian City Planning and Zoning
Kristy Vigil,-AssistantCity Planner
660 E. Watertower, Ste. 202
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Ms. Vigil,
The purpose of this letter is to comply with the Public Hearing Process; ll-5A-5, proof of
posting as outlined in the City Code.
Two signs were placed on February 15,2006 on the north east comers of Chin den
Boulevard and Black Cat Road.
As required, attached are two photographs of the posted Public Hearing Notice signs for
:::~7dJimi~'
Derick O'Neill
Treehaven LLC
Attachments
to
8tate of Idaho)
8.8.
County of Ada)
.~~\i;2¡~:1~t"C
,.'I~,,-~.:'),,)""'~~"
..:-".ç-"r~-",-L""/1;':"o">,,
l':~~:,:~"}O"""':"""o,>~,;:,:,:;_.~>:,~.\'.
t: ,," T A .c,. "',
~ J.. \\0, ,k)~ '>' '.',
= 0 ~ ~
:: ~ ".. " 4<10 g :::
~ 0 ø U
~, ~ ¡,h ,,'\.(," .';'
-;;. '. UB", ,;'; ;/
':. -.Po Nt> "'> r ,~.
\~ i~:~~:~:i~:~l
On this 21st day of February, in the year of 2006,
before me Trever Oakey a notary public, personally
appeared Derick O'Neill, personally known to me to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument,
and acknowledged to me ~œoted ;!: same,
Nmary Pub'¥'3
My Commission Expires on 0; I /0 I~OI ,
I
Treehaven LLC, 2242 E. Riverwalk Drive, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83706
Tel (208) 336-3430 Fax (208) 336-5296
~..
?Z cEff ~
"
"i""", "
February 28, 2006
""'-
" - ,'~" ::..,:
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Caleb Hood
660 E. Watertower, Ste. 202
Meridian, ID 83642
RE:
Tree Fann AZ-06-004 Staff Report
Dear Caleb,
Thank you for the staff reports. We certainly agree with your overall findings and
appreciate your work. There are a few items we want to clarify and comment on prior to
the hearing.
Page 3 ,
Section 6 - Land Use. e. Existing Constraints and Op{>ortwùties. No.4
Canals/Ditches lITigation: As part of the project we may have water amenities; as a
result, we might have an existing drainage ditch that will enhance / improve (leave open)
subject to drainage district and City's approval.
Page 6
Last paragra{>h referring to West Wing Estates
We are okay with designating a portion of the property adjoining West Wing Estates as
R -8 and will work on a design to achieve an appropriate transition.
Page 7
Last paragraph referring to access points
We are in agreement with two (2) access points
1. Across ftom Bainbridge - Y2 section
2. Black Cat - Y2 section
These points have' been reviewed with ACIID and IDOT. We do not intend direct lot
access from the extended Black Cat road but will certainly need access ftom Black Cat
extended to develop property to east and west as shown on our site plan. (In addition, we
lreêhaven LLC, 2242 E. Riverwalk Drive, Suite 200, Boise, ill 837<T6
Tel (208) 336.3430 Fax (208) 336.5296
Page 2 of3
will need access at the current access points from Chinden until such time our primary
access points are constructed.)
*There appears to be a typo in the above mentioned paragraph, the fourth dot point.
"Staff is generally supportive of the proposed access points to Chinden Boulevard and
Ten Mile Road, as shown on the submitted concept plan, with the exception of the
proposed driveway access points to the Community Commercial area :ITom Chinden
Boulevard." This site has no access/connection to Ten Mile Road.
Page 9
Section 10 - Analysis
Third paragraph referring to property ownership. Exhibit D
We are researching this matter and will be prepared to address at the hearing if not
sooner.
Page 10
Spurwing Way
We have had discussions with the Spurwing neighborhood regarding emergency vehicle
access or pedestrian connectivity and some of them have not been positive about it. We
will continue the discussions and if they are not favomble, we believe we can work with
West Wing Estates for an emergency vehicle access.
Page 11
DeveloDment A2reement Modifications to Conditions
Condition No.5 - Change to: "That the applicant will be responsible for all costs
associated with the sewer and water service extension that are customary with City
policies."
Condition No.6 - Change to: "Occupancy permits will not be granted until gravity
sewer is available to the North Black Cat Trunk:.."
Condition No.9 - We may not understand your intent but it is important to maintain the
existing access points on the property until we have new access points constructed.
Change to: "Current access points to be allowed until such time additional access points
are built and functioning; that when this property develops, the Basco Lane access to
Chinden Boulevard will be abandoned; ......."
Page 3 of 3
Condition No. 10 - This condition is not clear and as mentioned in order to develop
property to east or west, we must have access from Black Cat extended. Therefore, we
would recommend a change in wording as follows:
Change to: "That at such time as plats and uses are proposed, access to Black Cat
extended road shall be evaluated by the City and if consistent with approved
concept plan, will be approved."
Condition No. 11 - We are okay with providing reasonable stubs to adjacent property and
feel two stubs to property below the rim is reasonable and consistent with ACHD's
comments and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we would amend the condition as
follows:
Change to: "That when tlùs property develops adjacent to one of the parcels listed below,
the applicant agrees to provide public street access to the east (Henkel, Parcel No.
R9323930190), west (McMullen, Parcel No. 80421438700, Owyhee Mountain Ventures,
Parcel No. 8042134660, and 8chwenkfelder, Parcel No. 80421428100), north (Teco
One Parcel Nos. 80422427960 and 80422244700) at Basco Lane, and (Orme Parcel
No. 80421417200) at Black Cat extension." .
Condition No. 12 - Delete. We have provided stubs per above condition to every
property adjacent to our property and do not see a need for tlùs condition and would
recommend it be deleted.
Condition No. 13 - In general, we are in agreement with this condition, however, feel
there may be a few issues that are consistent with use but difficult to achieve, Le. building
set backs with barn (tlùs is a large structure that is currently in place and may be difficult
to move). In addition, it will be difficult to change access during construction. It should
be done upon completion of main entrance. (Instead of City Engineer's signature on final
plat, it could read completion of main access or issuance of first building permit.)
New Condition Ree:ardine: Ownership and Access
In the event applicant or MDC, LLC have any ownerslùp interest in any lands located
between Teco One and Parcel Nos. 80422427960 and 80422244700; applicant and or
MDC, LLC shall cooperate allowing this land to be used for a future road consistent with
ACHD correspondence dated 01-3~05. This cooperation shall be subject to applicant and
MDC, LLC obtaining the cooperation of the parties to that certain Agreement to Restrict
Easement by and between MDC, LLC, Roger Anders~d G. Matthew Thomas.
Recorded as Ada County Instrument No. 102054251. \.. )
Thank you ag. for your work and time with us on this project.
8ince
Derick O'Neill
Treehaven, LLC
~
?Z~~
February 27, 2006
City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Caleb Hood
Anna Canning
660 E. Watertower, Ste. 202
Meridi~ ill 83642
Dear Anna and Caleb,
Consistent with your request and comments, we have met with the Ewing's and
representatives of the Aldape fanùly to discuss their potential issues or concerns.
We feel we have done all we can do to meet the guidelines and policies of the City of
Meridian and the Highway District based on their respective comments and questions.
I have attached for your use letters to both families in order to verify our efforts and our
position as it relates to their concerns. Please let us know if our solutions are not
:üJdJ~ yom iliOU~Œ w=.
Derick O'Neill
Treehaven, LLC
DO/to
cc:
Peggy Everist
Sheni Ewing
Treehaven LLC, 2242 E. Riverwalk Drive, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83706
Tel (208) 336-3430 Fax (208) 336-5296
~
.~c:::W~
February 27, 2006
John and Tuck Ewing
2934 E. Lake Hazel
Meridian, ID 83642
John and Tuck,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us regarding our project "The Tree Fann" and
the access issue to your 9.5 acres adjacent to The Tree Fann.
As you are aware, we have filed an application for annexation/zoning and concept plan
for 360:t acres to the south and west boundaries of your property.
Consistent with City of Meridian and ACHD comments, our plan allows connectivity to
your 9.5 acres so it may be developed in the future. We will stub a collector road / right-
of-way at the current access to your property along with sewer and water service stubs.
As we are sure you are also aware, you will be responsible for any requirements to
develop your property beyond the stubs. In addition, any possible upgrade requirements
or latecomer fees for sewer, water, power, and other prorated participation in traffic costs,
consistent with City of Meridian, ACHD, and IDOT will be your responsibility.
There seems to be a potential issue with ownership of a portion of property witWn or
surrounding your 9.5 acres. While Treehaven, LLC does not have an interest in that
property, we have committed to research the chain of title and actual ownership. We will
get with you as soon as that research is complete.
We look forward to working with you as you progress with your plans for development
of your property.
Sincerely,..... Q, n
~of2Jt/ r'~ . ~
Peter O'Neill
Treehaven, LLC
Doug Carnahan
Treehaven, LLC
to
Treehaven LLC, 2242 E. Riverwalk Drive, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83706
Tel (208) 336-3430 Fax (208) 336-5296
February 27,2006
Shem Ewing
Peggy Everist
2934 E. Lake Hazel
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Shem and Peggy,
. Thank you for taking the time to meet and discuss our project "The Tree Farm" as well as
discuss your plans, ideas and concerns for the Aldape family property of 260:t acres
below the rim and north of the Phyllis Canal.
As you are aware, Treehaven LLC, the applicant for the annexation/zoning and concept
plan for 360:t acres above the rim; is separated by the Phyllis Canal and has a significant
change in elevation from the Aldape property. Our plan is consistent with the City and
ACHD conunents as it relates to traffic circulation and connectivity to the adjoining
Ewing property. We are planning to stub a collector road / right-of-way to the edge of
the Ewing / Teco One property along the rim at the current access at Basco Lane, This
will allow the Ewing / Teco One property to be contiguous to the City of Meridian and
have stubs for sewer and water services. (llis is all we can do and all that the City of
Meridian has asked other developments in similar situations to do.)
There has been some discussion as to other points:
I. Roger Anderson / Matthew Thomas agreement (attached). This agreement
currently links the access to the Aldape property to existing houses below the rim. We
are not part of this agreement but are willing to try and work with you and Mr. Anderson
and Mr. Thomas towards a mutually acceptable solution in this matter.
II. Ewing / Teco One property ownership lying between the two TecD One parcels.
The chain of ownership and title to a portion of the access road to the Aldape property is
Treehavell LLC, 2242 E. Riverwalk Drive, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83706
Tel (208) 336-3430 Fax (208) 336-5296
Page Two
Sherri Ewing
Peggy Evenst
not clear. We have committed to the Ewing's that we will research the chain oftitle and
ownership and share the research with them.
Peggy and Sherri, we realize this is an important issue to you and we want to assure you
we will do everything we can to be good neighbors.
:~~
Treehaven. LLC
....
~ð~
Peter O'Neill
Treehaven, LLC
DO/to
Attaclunent
cc:
Doug and Meredith Carnahan
John and Tuck Ewing
"