The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGary Smith Memo 5-21-02RUG 19 '02 99722 FR PUBLIC WORKS 2688871297 TO 'CITY CLERK (:t~17 a SMnN. rt=_ CITY OF MERIDIAN ,'~ „~ rl WIIKK\ r)INhf'lI1K PUBLIC WORKS /BUILDING DEPARTMIrNT ('n ~ f:.ur.INH k TO: Mayor Come and City Council FROM: Gary Smith, PE and Brad Watson, PE CC: Planning & Zoning Department, City Clerk DATE: 5/21/2002 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Ptan -Urban Service planning Area Mayor Corrie and Council Members, P.92i06 Mi N It(711~.kT n ('tlkkrh CUIIN( 11 A/j 'M(tFY KErtn DIK 17 TAMMY UF: WFF.K I7 CHF.KIF M('CANl71,F.~K w11.I.IAM L M N,tKr We have reviewed the language in the proposed Comprehensive Plan regarding the Urban Service Planning Area that was adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2001. This section of the proposed Comprehensive Plan (p. 83 of the March 2002 draft) causes the Public Works Department great concern as currently drafted. It is significantly changed from the original language in the June 2000 draft. We offer the following comments regarding past development applications within the Area of Impact but non-contiguous to existing City limits: • When Powder River and Westborough Subdivisions were proposed in 2001, Public Works staff was directed to submit written comments and provide in- person testimony against both projects. We spent at least a total of 100 hours researching their proposed utility systems, meeting with the applicant, DEO, calling the Montana DEQ where these wastewater systems had been installed, preparing for testimony and providing That testimony before the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commissioners and Board of Commissioners. • While Public Works cited numerous technical and master planning reasons why the Iwo projects should be denied, we believe from listening to the Ada County Board of Commissioners that the primary reason it was denied was that it conflicted with the City's Comprehensive Plan. We asserted the Following technical reasons for denial of the proposetl Powder River and Westborough projects: • Convict with master /ans. It is very difficult to set sewer elevations given minimum grades; no ability to collect assessment or hookup Fees: may prevent upstream property owners who want to connect to City system from doing so h;1m 141comprehensive plan-uspa.council memo.doc GGI) G. Wa(enuwcr Ln.. Suitc 2flf) Mrridian, Idaho R.1G42 I'uMlr Wurl;g I?Oti) R9R-SS(H) Fax (2(18) 887-1297 1)uilding f208) 887?21 I RUG 19 '02 0922 FR PUBLIC WORKS 2088871297 TO CITY CLERK P.03~06 • Financial reliability of small-scale wastewater svstem. Private systems prowde no long-term financial plan with their development applications. If HOA is unable to operate, maintain and repair system, City of Meridian may be forced to accept sub-standard system by DEQ/CDHD al high costs. • Antfreoionalization. While area governmental entities seem to be cooperating regarding inter-agency agreements {transportation, water quality, stone water, dust abatement), proliferation of community-state wastewater systems is a step backward. • Land-a lication wired of effluent. Each community-state wastewater Ueatment system would have to have a land application site for their effluent. • Additionally, no coordination would exist between Meridian Public Works and Meridian Fire Department regarding fire hydrant placement/sUeet widths, fuming radii or emergency access. Public Works personnel do not have the resources to evaluate every single privately built water andlor wastewater system for conformance with our master plans that is proposed outside City limits. We will not be able to rnaPCt rgvip~n` inspection fees from these em~a Vic. tf the Crty intends to someday take over these systems, however, we MUST review and inspect each one. The Ciry's ratepayers andT evelopeis will subsidize these tasks. Taking these comments into account, we offer the following two revised statements to replace the 3n0 through 5'" sentences of the March 2002 paragraph pertaining to the USPA. Also included in the table is the option of leaving the paragraph as it is. Pro's and con's, in the opinion of the Public Works Department, are listed for each of the three alternatives. Thank you for your consideration, /~ h~lrnt4lcomprehensive plan•uspa.council memo.doc RUG 19 '02 0922 FR PUBLIC WORKS 2688871297 TO CITY CLERK P.04i06 Comprehensive Plan -Urban Service Planning Area Oation A Urban density development outside City limits wilt only be considered with an annexation application and iI connected to City of Meridian wafer and sanitary sewer systems where the extensions to and through those developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans. Pro Con • Conforms to current Council policy No flexibility for considering urban • Would not allow provision of water density development that cannot be and sewer services without annexed annexation. Restricts land development to • Ensures new development within areas contiguous to present city Area of Impact contribute Park boundaries. impact fees. • Brings new development into City tax base. • Altows City to receive building permit inspection fees: ~ptlOn B Urban density development outside City limits will only be considered if connected to City of Meridian wafer and sanitary sewer systems where the extensions to and through those developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans. Pro Con • Provides flexibility to consider non- Coutd lead to providing water and annexable applications as long as sewer services without connected to City water and sewer accompanying annexation unless • Ensure City's ability to impose agreement to annex provision is in conditions upon development as a deed restriction condition of providing water and . Potential lost Park impact fees sewer service. Loss of buifdin • g permit inspection Fees. Page 1 of 2 RUG 19 '02 09 23 FR PUBLIC WORKS 206887129? TO CITY CLERK P.05i06 Oation C Leave language as currently proposed. Pro Con- • Will lead to patchwork development • Provides ultlmale flexibility to wilhoul regard to water antl sewer private development master plans. • Wilt allow other private water and sewer utilities to establish service areas within City impact area. Sewer service may be in the form of a sewer district that is difficult to dissolve when City services are able to connect to it. • If development is approved without consideration of City master plans, may prevent upstream property owner's ability to develop with City water and sewer service. • leaves control of approving urban density development in our impact area to Ada County with only recommendations from City. Our Impact Area Agreement states ... "Such input from Meridian shall not be binding or controlling on the County, but shall be treated as documentary evidence." • Cily loses ability to collect building emtit ins ection fees. Page 2 of 2 RUG 19 '02 09 23 FR PUBLIC W[7RK5 2088871297 TO CITY CLERK P.06i06 Stall Proposed Modifications of "Urban Service Planning Atea" Paragraph {Man:h 2002 version, pg. 83) For Consideration at 64-02 City Council Continued Public Bearing on the Comprehensive Ptan Amendment °Urban Service Planning Area, The City of Meridian desires all development within its Area of Impact to be served with city services. Pdmarilv, such services include sanitary sewer, grater, fire, police, parks and ~' libraries. Secondarily, the a[y will consider the availability and capacity of the school system, rr transportation faalities and slormwater facilities in any review of development within the Area ~ fJNI~ of Impact I'levve~rer: K is recognized that some development may precede the ability of the City, on its own, to extend services for such development ~~~ Q,~ ~-- sewisE,-!o9en•tevierreAshahdra ~ ..+ ~• ~„~~„~. ..-- • (insert new urban services statement here as decided by the Cily Council, s.g. Option A, B or C from the 5-21-02 memo from Gary Smith and Brad Watson] • Page 2 ~* Robert Corrie From: Brad Hawkins-Clark [hawkinsb~ci.meridian.id.usj Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:54 AM To: johneaton32@hotmail.com; 'Mike Wardle'; Idurkin~ljdholdingsinc.com; mestess@adacounty- realtors.com; corrieb~ci.meridian.id.us; 'Gary Smith'; 'Shari Stiles'; Keith Borup; 'Brad Watson' Subject: Merdian Urban Services Meeting Hello all, This e-mail is to confirm the location of our 10:OQam meeting on 8-20-02 to discuss the urban services policies of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. I trust you were all contacted by phone to confirm the day and time. The meeting will be held at City Hall in the Mayor's Conference Room (turn left once in the main entrance of the building). I'm attaching a copy of the May 30~' memo from P8Z staff to City Council, which you should have received.back in June. Also. iLvou still have conies of the memarandn f"_r~~rv Rmith and Brad Watsen fo City Ceunril datwi land in the Area of Impact, it may be helpful to Thank you, Brad Hawkins-Clark hawkinsbr~ me ridiancity.org 2 8/16/02