The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995 08-15 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 15,1995 -7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 1, 1995: (APPROVED) 1. TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. SEWS: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 11,1995) 2. TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR, MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L. SEWS: (TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 11, 1995) 3. TABLED AUGUST 1,1995: RESOLUTION #161 - PICNIC SHELTER RESERVATION FEES: (APPROVED) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO.5 BY RAMON YORGASON: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 5. FINAL PLAT: WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO.5, 52 LOTS BY RAMON YORGASON: TABLED AUGUST 1,1995: (TABLED UNTil SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 40 ACRES TO R-4 AND R-15 FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTil SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 ) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 22.24 ACRES TO R-4 FOR LOS ALAMITOS NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF fACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 23.27 ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTil SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 42.02 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED UNTil SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORA PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED UNTil SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON FOR FRANKLIN GROVE COMMERCIAL CENTER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 180 ACRES TO R-4 AND L-O FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 15. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 2 - BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 16. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 5 - BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) 17. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE BY HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL: (APPROVED fiNDINGS; APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) 18. JACK MILLER: REQEUST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 19. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.5: (APPROVED) 20. NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FINCH CREEK SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTil SEPTEMBER. 5, 1995) 21. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR SALMON RAPIDS: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5, 1995) 22. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR LOS ALAMITOS: (TABLED UNTil SEPTEMBER 5,1995) 23. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. RECREATION PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS: 24. EXECUTIVE SESSION: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 15. 1995 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P. Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, John Shipley, Wayne Forrey, Kristina Donner, Marshall Smith, Archie Roberson, Joe Simunich, Gene Babbitt, Freda Babbitt, Garret Lanston, Tom Bauens, Contance Johnson, Jonathan Seel, Steve Youngerman, Norm Brown, Nancy Hansen, Marvin Hansen, Marty Goldsmith, Charlie Gongre, Mary Creech, Gene Schultz, Bonnie Glick, Rex Young, T. Hanson, Lydia Aquerre, Eric Strolberg, Gene Smith, Steve Bradbury, Karen Gallagher, Jim Lee, Charles Eddy, Mike Preston, Ann Witherell, Jim Witherell, Alan Rennison, Rod Cullip, Jim Allen, Greg Johnson, Jack Miller: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 1,1995: Kingsford: Are there any corrections to those minutes? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move they be approved as written. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM # 1: TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E. L. BEWS: ITEM #2: TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L. BEWS: Kingsford: So far as I know we have not received a letter asking for them to be tabled to a date certain. Mr. Forrey could you enlighten us there with regard to the Bews? Forrey: Thank you Mr. Mayor, my name is Wayne Forrey, I work with Ed Bews, representing and working with him on the annexation and requesting a conditional use. Mr. Bews submitted a letter to the City asking that it be tabled until a date that the access issue could be resolved between different properties out there near Eagle Road, the Interstate and Franklin Road. The Highway District is taking that issue up in late September. I would think that maybe a date in November on the City Council agenda Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 2 would be appropriate then to come back. I think it might be resolved by late September. Or excuse me a date in October for City Council meeting. Kingsford: The 17th? Forrey: That would be fine. Yerrington: I make the motion to table both items until that date. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table items 1 & 2 the Bews annexation until October 17th meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: RESOLUTION #161 - PICNIC SHELTER RESERVATION FEES: Kingsford: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PROVIDING FOR A FEE FOR RESERVATION OF AND USE OF MERIDIAN PARK PICNIC SHELTERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Council deemed that it would be a good idea to set a fee for reserving a covered picnic area. That set that up as $10. Does the Council have any discussion on that? You have your copy is it your desire to approve Resolution #161? Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve Resolution #161, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: At this time I would like to deviate from the agenda just slightly and to make an appointment and swear in a new police officer. I Grant Kingsford, Mayor of the City of Meridian do hereby appoint Eric Strolberg as a police officer and require that he take an oath subscribed to the Idaho Code 31-2007. So Eric if you would come forward, we will get you sworn in and on the street. (Inaudible) ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR WATERBURY PARK Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 3 SUBDIVISION NO.5 BY RAMON YORGASON: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite Mr. Yorgason or his designee to speak first. Gene Smith, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, in March of this year I cam before you with a revised preliminary plat for Waterbury Park NO.5 subdivision. At that time that preliminary plat was approved, however, there was one question that was raised concerning that plat by one of the neighbors that was the piping of the Creason Lateral. The Creason Lateral is this ditch that runs across the north end of the project. We (inaudible) kind of outlined what happens around the surrounding Waterbury Park NO.5 and how this Creason Lateral receives its water. The Creason Lateral begins at our northeast property corner and it runs to the west. It is fed by Finch Creek from the east it is also fed by Creason feeder coming up from the south. We had previously estimated what size of pipe that would be in order to pipe this portion of the Creason lateral and had estimated it to be in excess of 48 inch therefore we had not intended on piping it. We advised at that time of the preliminary plat approval that we would still have to come before you to make a formal request for a variance to receive a waiver from piping that, therefore that is why I am here this evening. As I mentioned, previously, we had piped the Creason feeder with a 48 inch diameter pipe. In addition to that the Finch Lateral (inaudible) has a potential of flowing 40 CFS. We were also required to design the Creason feeder also 40 CFS. There is a little drain coming down here from Ustick which we have calculated to have approximately 4 CFS it is a minor flow. So at this point right here we have potential of from those three sources of receiving 84 CFS across that Creason that portion of the Creason Lateral. That 84 CFS would require a 66 inch diameter pipe and in addition to that we have also had Paul Coons, Coons Engineering evaluate what happens during the different storm events in this area. He calculated or he ran models anyway for the 10 year, the 50 year and the 100 year event for Five Mile Drain. What happens on this Creason feeder that pipe is essentially flat so they have the opportunity, they Nampa Meridian, has the opportunity to either feed water from the south out of Five Mile into the Creason Lateral or up the Finch Lateral south through this feeder pipe back into the Five Mile. So, at specific points in time there could be a possibility of 40 CFS coming from the east. We get a 10 year storm which could happen once a year, it could happen once every 10 years. It is a 10% chance of happening in anyone year. With that event this pipe here could receive an additional 20 CFS so now we not only have 84 but we have 104 CFS that the ditch could possibly see in a 10 year event storm. Based on that 104 CFS that pipe would now be required to be a 72 inch diameter pipe. We took a look this past week as what would, the fact that there is actually water running in all of these ditches. I would like to pass these photos out to you. I'll just review those with you briefly, here coming under Meridian Road, east of us, Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 4 photo #1, there is a 60 inch concrete culvert underneath Meridian Road. This first photo was taken 2 days ago, it shows what the amount of water was at that point in time. You can also see high water marks on that pipe therefore it is pretty obvious that pipe has carried and has the potential of carrying in excess of the 48 inch capacity. Photo #2 was taken here on the Finch looking towards the West, towards our confluence of the Creason feeder. Kingsford: With that in mind Mr. Smith, how many CFS would that open ditch handle before it flooded? Smith: We have not calculated that, I can't answer that. Photo #3 is the south end of the Creason feeder at this location. You can see two days ago that water was within I believe it was six inches of the top of that 48 inch diameter pipe. The water was flowing to the north. In addition to the water coming from the east. The fourth photo here is looking just past the confluence of the Creason Lateral or the Finch Lateral and the Creason feeder. I believe the engineering department has reviewed our calculations which back up these numbers and I will be glad to address any questions you have. Kingsford: Questions of the Council? Morrow: I have one question, has Nampa Meridian, I noticed in their letter that is in our packet as of the 26th of July, they have not received any figures or any calculations to determine what size pipe it was going to take. Has Nampa Meridian since been provided that information? And have they drawn the same conclusion? Smith: Nampa Meridian provided us with the flow quantities and to answer your question directly the requirement for piping this Creason Lateral is a requirement of the City of Meridian not of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Therefore at this time we were not requesting their review of any calculations. I don't know whether or not engineering requested their review of those calculations. I know engineering reviewed our calculations. Morrow: Alright, to quote Mr. Hanson who is the Assistant Water Superintendent, his last comment is, "Nampa Meridian Irrigation District needs to review the calculations to determine whether a 48 inch pipe will be adequate. The request for a variance to piping the Creason Lateral may be premature." Those are his comments or a portion of his comments as of the 26th of July. Smith: We received those comments I believe on Friday if not Monday of this week. I have not directly spoken with him. We have calculated those, we staked our professional opinion on those. I don't believe Mr. Hanson has a license in house, I believe they have to go out to another engineering firm in order to get that same professional opinion. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 5 Morrow: I understand that. Kingsford: He states earlier too that the maximum flows that they show in there are 2,000 minor inches or 40 CFS in Creason. Smith: That is correct and that is the number that they gave us here for the Finch Lateral. Kingsford: He is saying though in the Creason. Smith: Again if this is totally shut off supposedly that is all the water that can get in. As evidenced by those photos that pipe is not shut off. Kingsford: Any other questions? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Joe Simunich, 955 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Simunich: Like I said live on Ustick Road and this Creason Lateral goes through our property for about 700 feet. This property that they are talking about piping is east of us, also about 600 to 700 feet long. If you notice this Creason Lateral, South Slough or Fisher Drain I think he called it and the Creason Feeder and the flat drain all put water into this. All the way from Meridian Road to Linder Road this is more of a creek rather than an irrigation ditch. They gather the water in this in the South Slough and the Creason Lateral and elevate it up near Linder road and then it continues to it becomes an irrigation ditch down towards Ten Mile and Black Cat Road. Also, had the sewer line put through our place and during the event of the sewer the, after the sewer was installed the water began backing up because it had no place to drain, it was blocked by the sewer line installation. If this pipe is also put in along this Creason feeder from say Venable Lane to eventually Under Road we are going to be down and stopping natural flows of ground water that comes into this Creason Lateral as they call it. To me it is a creek bottom that is used to convey water by Nampa Meridian to an area near Linder Road where it becomes an irrigation ditch. So I think before any decisions are made there should be some eengineering done as to whether this should be a perforated pipe so it can drain these lands as you all know we have a high water table here in Meridian. I can dig a post hole on one day and irrigate 3 days later and that water comes within 18 inches. So this water has to have a place to go and if we start blocking off all of these drains, creeks with pipes eventually we are going to elevate the water table on the north side of Meridian or anyplace these pipes are installed. So I think that somebody should take a good look at this. Thank you Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Simunich? Anyone else from the public? Seeing none Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 6 I will close that public hearing. Council members, are you prepared to take action? Tolsma: I want to ask Gary a question, Gary that, what Bruce Freckleton wrote in there, was that based on his calculations or from Nampa Meridian Irrigation or a combination of all? Eng. Smith: It is based on a review of the information that was provided to us by the appl icant. Tolsma: And he recommends then or calculates the 72 inch pipe as what is needed. Eng. Smith: We agree with the information that has been presented to us. As far as the calculations there they support the size of the pipe, the information that the applicant has provided to us. We did not go out and research the project on our own, gather information ourselves. Tolsma: That is all. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I have one comment, I took, I went out and measured it. The water is 32 inches deep out near this property and it is roughly 8 feet wide. Now, if there is anyway in Christ's world you can get that in a 48 inch pipe, so I am sure it is quite a bit larger than 48 inches. Kingsford: You weren't able to jump across it then is that what you are telling us? You had a comment Walt? Morrow: My only comment was that I was going to move to instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attorney prepare findings and conclusions on the variance request for Waterbury Park Subdivision No.5, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINAL PLAT: WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO.5, 52 LOTS BY RAMON YORGASON: TABLED AUGUST 1, 1995: Kingsford: Does Council have questions of the applicant or the engineer or staff? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 7 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, could we have the representative make a brief presentation to review this project with us, it has been tabled several times as I recall. Smith: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, this is the same parcel we just discussed based on the, this is the final plat for that subdivision. I apologize for tabling it, we felt it was prudent to table it and hear both the variance request and the final plat at the same meeting. The subdivision final plat for this subdivision is in general conformance with the approved preliminary plat. Again, which you reviewed and approved on March 21 st of this year. Kingsford: Other questions Mr. Morrow? Morrow: I have no other questions for Mr. Smith. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, there was one question I guess with Joe Simunich, the street alignment. Kingsford: Street alignment, that issue in the initial hearing Joe. Let me read from notes from the Planning Director Shari Stiles, Item 5, Waterbury Park NO.5 preliminary plat, this should be tabled to wait for findings of fact and conclusions of law on the variance to ensure roadway alignment issues are worked out with Joe Simunich. The stub street to the west has been moved from the north to the south. My recollection from you was that did meet with your approval but I guess that is the question being asked. Simunich: (Inaudible) and Waterbury Park dead ends against our property line and we can' connect to it because the County has a certain restriction on a curve there and they won't let the road turn to the left about en feet because it doesn't meet with some of their engineering requirements. Therefore that road to the south is of no benefit to me. Kingsford: Is that something that there could be a realignment to where it would make a curve without engineering changes? Smith: I haven't seen exactly what Mr. Simunich is speaking of. If we are talking about starting a curve back in here in order to match up with the continued curve through his property is what I think he is referring to. Kingsford: He wants to put a street over the existing sewer line. And saying that would necessitate a significant turn from that street. Smith: My immediate concern would be with the irrigation structure that we provided for Mr. Simunich we piped his ditch coming down here. I don't know what effect that would have on it. We would be willing to work with him and that alignment in order to coordinate Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 8 that if we can make this still work. I don't have a concern with that. Again, this was presented as a preliminary plat and this is the first that I have been made aware of that. So I guess I would have to see what his calculations are here but we will certainly try to accommodate him wherever we can. Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move to table this until the first meeting in September pending a resolution of the variance, findings of fact and conclusions. It also seems like there are some real gray areas here with respect to road alignment, I would like to see that issue resolved also at that time. So I move to table for those reasons. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table the final plat for Waterbury Park subdivision No. 5 until the September, the first meeting in September, September 5th, pending the findings of fact on the variance and also the questions with the alignment of the street, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 40 ACRES TO R-4 AND R-15 FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the developer or his designee to speak first. Steve Bradbury, 300 North 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bradbury: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, this is an application for annexation and rezone. There is also a preliminary plat that is on its way to you. The Planning & Zoning Commission having just last week forwarded it with a do pass recommendation. The proposal was originally submitted in part annexation and rezone to R-4 and in part to R-15 designation. Since that time the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended that some of the R-15 be changed to an R-8 designation and the applicant has agreed to that. I don't know if you folks still have one of these or something like it in front of you. I can show what part I am talking about. This was R-15, the blue, the green was R-15 and the pink was R-15, the black was R-4. The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended that this pink be changed from an R-15 designation to an R-8 designation. That is what they have recommended to you folks to approve. The Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 9 applicant has agreed to abide by that suggestion. This is the center section. So the lot sizes would be enlarged from 6,000 minimum to 6,500 minimum. The R-8 requirements would be complied with. Because you have heard this project at a public hearing back in May I didn't anticipate going through the entire proposal again. You have a lot of people here that are interested in something hopefully not this one. So what I thought I would do is bring you up to speed a little bit about where we have been. You will remember that back in April the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval in part of the R-4 portion and denied in part the R-15 portion basically because they wanted more information about what was proposed to be constructed in the R-15 portion of the proposal. The matter came before you folks in May and we presented you with that additional information that the Planning & Zoning Commission seemed to want that is more detail about what is proposed to be constructed in that R-15 portion. In essence in short part of it was the easterly portion was intended to be constructed as a senior residential complex in two separate phases. You folks decided that you thought that the Planning & Zoning Commission ought to have a whack at that and take a look at that additional information before you folks made your decision so you remanded it back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. It went back to the Planning & Zoning Commission, had an additional public hearing and in July the Commission adopted findings and conclusions recommending approval of the annexation and the rezone. As I said a few moments ago subsequently they forwarded a do pass recommendation on the proposed preliminary plat. That I guess gets to you at your next meeting. The most significant part of the Planning & Zoning or the most significant change the Planning & Zoning Commission suggested was that portion of the R-15 that center portion that I pointed out be changed to an R-8 with a minimum lot size of 6500 square feet. We have agreed that would be acceptable. I guess there is only one issue that we think we ought to raise to you specifically and then I will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. That is that one of the conclusions or the proposed conclusions that the Planning & Zoning Commission suggested it was actually conclusion Q was that these lots down here that form the southern boundary of the property be required to meet all of the R-4 requirements of the zone. That is the property would be zoned R-15 in total or this corner or it but that these lots be required to meet the R-4 requirements of the zone including the minimum lot size 8000 square feet. During the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing we had a lot of conversation about what was proposed to be built down in this section. One of these lots shows a tri-plex, that seemed to generate quite a little bit of interest. The Planning & Zoning Commission thinking that perhaps there ought not be a tri-plex located immediately adjacent to other properties which are already zoned R-4. We talked quite a little bit about it. What we thought we were agreeing to do was to eliminate that multi-family dwelling, agree that all of the dwellings along that boundary be single story and be single family and meet all of the R-4 set back requirements which I think, I looked at the Ordinance this afternoon before I came over here and it turns out they are the same as the R-15 setbacks I believe. But in any event the idea was to since these are designed for senior citizens that we Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 10 wanted to have lots that weren't so large it would create a burden for maintenance of them, but still be able to meet the needs of a senior who might want to live in a single family and yet not be too great of a potential impact on R-4 zoned property nearby. So I guess to cut to the chase what we would like to be able to do and what we would like the Council to consider is revising that conclusion Q to provide not that the minimum lot size go to 8,000 square feet, but permitted to remain at the R-15 minimum lot size. That the applicant be required to meet the R-4 setbacks, that all the lots along that boundary be single story and all of them be single family that is there would be no multi family. We are simply trying to avoid having to create these larger lots for people we aren't sure are going to be particularly interested in maintaining those. It doesn't fit well with the overall plan. Other than we are perfectly satisfied with what the Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you have. Kingsford: Questions from the Council? Tolsma: This is going to be a senior citizen complex on the eastern side? Bradbury: That is correct. Tolsma: So it will meet the Federal guidelines with (inaudible) 55 years of age, (inaudible). Bradbury: That is the proposal, that is what we are going to attempt to do. Tolsma: But the lot size that is abutting Cherry Lane Village down there (inaudible) under 8,000 square feet. Bradbury: That is right. Tolsma: What we are looking for is a transition area (inaudible) Bradbury: I understand the concern with having a reasonable transition and what we are hoping that you will recognize is the setbacks are the same I believe in an R-4 and an R- 15 the rear yard setback and the side yard setbacks that we can accomplish essentially the same type of separation between the dwellings without having to go to those larger lot sizes. We can minimize the impact by having single story structures won't rise quite as high and won't create quite as an imposing barrier and that there of course be no multi- family dwellings that abut up to those single family dwellings immediately adjacent. We keep the size of the structure commensurate with the size of the lot. That is what our goal is. Tolsma: I was thinking more along the (inaudible) with the size of the lot that is across the Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 11 street per say. Bradbury: I understand, we are simply hopeful that you will recognize what we perceive anyway to be what would meet the needs of the senior citizens for this project. Certainly it is well within you discretion to impose whatever requirements you believe are appropriate. Tolsma: We are also trying to protect the homeowner that is already acquired property and is living across the road. (Inaudible) property value change. Bradbury: Absolutely not, maybe one of the things that would be helpful for me to talk about for just a minute is that each of these lots as a matter of fact the entire complex this entire senior citizen complex is going to be fully landscaped by the developer. It will have all, it will be maintained in common by the homeowners association. So that when the idea there would be to have a nice high quality landscaping scheme that might also serve as a buffer. Perhaps that could be a way we can help to minimize your concerns is to create a landscape requirement, a buffer requirement that you folks are happy with that will help to minimize the potential of some of the neighboring property owners might feel that they have a potential for devaluation. The point is that we are, the concept is to create a higher end, a nice project and avoid the potential for devaluation of any properties nearby. Actually we are hoping that it will help those property values theoretically. Kingsford: You confused me a little bit Steve, you are talking about the landscaping would all be put in and owned by, put in by the developer and owned by the homeowners association. That is not true of these individual lots Bradbury: I am not saying owned by just maintained by. Kingsford: So there is going to be a homeowners association that will maintain the grounds on each of the individual lots? Bradbury: That is correct. Kingsford: That kind of destroys your thought there that people wouldn't want to keep that lot up doesn't it? Bradbury: It sure does. Kingsford: Other comments of the Council? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, what size lot were you thinking about rather than 8,OOO? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 12 Bradbury: My recollection is that we are talking about 6,000 square foot lots along there, is that right? Mr. Campbell corrects me and says about (inaudible) Corrie: That is interesting what the Mayor brought up (inaudible). Bradbury: I have to confess that the contradiction didn't wasn't apparent to me until the Mayor brought it to my attention. And you are right, the idea with the common maintenance doesn't square with the idea of not making them have to maintain it. I suppose what we are really hoping that we can accomplish is to create a nice compact but higher end neighborhood there. Corrie: You want to get more homes in there in other words. Bradbury: That would certainly be one of the results. Now, one of the things that maybe I guess I should point out is that by removing the proposed multi tri-plex on that one corner lot I think the net effect is that we end up with fewer than were originally proposed. Morrow: One more question, if you are looking for R-15 lot size and R-4 setbacks, R-4 also indicates 1400 square foot minimum house, and you are agreeing to that on a 5200 square foot lot. Bradbury: Yes, Kingsford: Is it possible to do that on that size lot and meet the setbacks though? Bradbury: If the question is to me I would have to say, I can only assume that some designer will figure that out. Mr. Campbell seems to think that will work. Kingsford: Mr. Simunich left, but he can attest to the fact that you don't want basements. Bradbury: Unless you want to swim in them is that it? Kingsford: Counselor? Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council, Mr. Bradbury and myself have discussed this and he was questioning why the Planning & Zoning Commission put this restriction on there. What happened at the Planning & Zoning hearing was that the multi-family units came up that were on the corners of this section and they were quite concerned about that. In my discussions with the Commission members they didn't feel that was appropriate. They wanted to keep it as much in line with Cherry Lane Village and I did not specifically speak with them about including this requirement in the findings but in our ordinances it states Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 13 that in 11-2-411 B all new residential housing developments in the City of Meridian shall be designed to ensure compatibility with adjacent existing and or proposed developments. My thinking there was right next to this is an R-4 subdivision and I didn't think that the smaller lots would then be compatible with the R-4 design. That is why I put in this requirement for this area. To just explain why it is in there. Bradbury: I guess that I can understand that compatibility is certainly a worthy goal and I suppose there are several ways you can look at what is and what is not compatible. You can look at in terms of the use and of course the use here is residential immediately adjacent to residential. You might also look at compatibility in terms of the relative quality of the proposed project and construction and certainly it could be a reasonable, it would not be an unreasonable exercise of discretion I think in terms of compatibility with respect to lot sizes. I don't think though that you necessarily must conclude that an R-4 and 8,000 square foot lot has to be, every 8,000 square foot lot has to have an 8,000 square foot lot next to it otherwise all you would have is 8,000 square foot lots everywhere. So my point is there are many ways to view compatibility short of imposing a lot size requirement. There are other ways to skin that cat. Kingsford: One comment, I believe it was Mr. Tolsma that brought up the land south of that. It has been developed, I don't believe that any of those lots have sold at least no houses have been built on them. The property that would abut this. Any other questions of the Council? Anyone else from the audience that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Don't let an attorney get away with that (End of Tape) Morrow: As a point of discussion, my preference in these things in the past has been to have annexation and zoning measures accompanied by the Preliminary plat so that I see exactly what it is that we are buying. It would be my preference in this particular issue to defer acting upon this until that preliminary plat comes along with it. I think the two directly support each other. There does seem to be in my mind some confusion as to item Q and what is being asked by Mr. Bradbury tonight and what the findings of fact state. I think it is something that I personally need to think through. So I think from my perspective I am not comfortable at this point in time move forward with an annexation and zoning. Kingsford: Other comments of the Council? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, you said you want, perhaps the next time when comes with the preliminary (inaudible). I am a little concerned about Q as well. I think that it can be worked out but I would like to see the preliminary at the same time too. (Discussion Inaudible) Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 14 Kingsford: The chair would pray for a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table this until I believe the hearing on the preliminary plat is scheduled for 9-19 is that correct, I would move that we table this until the September 19th meeting so we can deal with this issue Item Q and the prellminary plat at the same time. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Bob to table the annexation and zoning request until the September 19th, 1995 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Tolsma: I have a question on this Mr. Mayor, have you any recommendations for the preliminary plat that you would like to see on the preliminary plat when this comes before us again other than what we have heard here tonight? What is your feeling on that? Morrow: Ron as I stated earlier I am not, I need to think that through, I am not comfortable with the idea of compatibility, I don't know that maybe R-15 might be too small and maybe R-8 would be more appropriate. I do think that senior citizen housing if that is the target group that probably R-4 size lots are a bit overkill. A 1400 square foot home for senior citizens is a pretty good size home on a 5200 square foot lot that consumes a whole bunch of lot, there is not much left. Tolsma: What I was after was so they have some idea what they are looking for a preliminary plat when they come back in, so the changes will be (inaudible). Morrow: I can't answer that question at this time. I would like to be able to give them some guidance but I need to think that through. ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 22.24 ACRES TO R-4 FOR LOS ALAMITOS NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: Kingsford: I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Marty Goldsmith, 4550 W. State Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Goldsmith: We have addressed ACHD's comments and Meridian City's comments and have plat revisions accordingly. I would answer any questions that you may have at this Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 15 time. Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Goldsmith? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question to clear in my mind. Your testimony before the P & Z stated that you are putting in a minimum square footage of 1500 square foot homes is that correct? Goldsmith: In phase 3 I think that would be perfectly fine with us. I would like to see the Highlands Ranch also be compatible with what we are doing. We have had a mixture of 1400 and 1500 square foot, the majority leaning towards 1500 square foot if these phases #3 go in at 1500. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Goldsmith? Morrow: There is a question again in the P & Z hearing with respect to the pressurized irrigation and water rights, can you address that? Goldsmith: Yes, just like in phase 1 r I have amendments prepared in the CC&R's that will be giving the pressurized irrigation over to the homeowners or the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District as per your comments Walt. And then the CC&R's that are going to be filed for phases 2 of both subdivisions those same language adheres. And also #3 that is perfectly Morrow: And now is phase 3 also done off of well water or is it done with irrigation water? Goldsmith: Phases 1 and 2 approximately of both subdivisions are going to be served off of the well as per our well rights. The third phases of both subdivisions will be done off of surface water, there will be another pump station set up and they will work together. We have oversized some of our lines in phases 1 and 2 so we can take in like Raven Hill's and some other people in there as per Bill Freeman's comments. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Goldsmith? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Karen Gallagher, ACHD, 318 37th, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gallagher: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I have some concerns, or I would like to speak to you about the plat. Usually you take most of the comments together, would you like them now or should I wait until that item? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 16 Kingsford: That is fine go ahead. Gallagher: The Highway District's major concern in this subdivision would be the street connection, the stub street to the east that would continue over through the school property possibly to a bridge to highlands. In our discussions with the school district and staff and in discussion with our commissioners the determination that they have made and the preliminary plat was that street would be culdesaced and that no bridge connection or no bridge would be made over the lateral at that location. That instead a bridge connection to the Highlands Ranch would be supported to the east in the L-O property and possibly a connection or the connection would go to the Griffen's property in what we understand is possibly a commercial development. So that was the information I wanted you to be aware of and our commissioners did approve it as a culdesac without a connection continuing on for a bridge connection. Does the Council have any questions? Kingsford: Any questions for Karen? Thank you, anyone else from the public? Lydia Aguerre, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Aguerre: I just have a question on wells and well rights, as far as my water rights I have a well and there are some private well owners in that area. If there is pressurized irrigation and that is what phase 1, 2 and 3 are working on, what about the wells that we have that are more, that are not as deep? What if there is a problem with our well water? Kingsford: We have a problem up here with guys with no knowledge of hydraulics. I guess the remedy is one in the courts obviously and I don't know what that is. As I understand it Mr. Goldsmith has a right to pump a certain number of inches of water and likewise and I don't know what the answer to that is. Mr. Smith do you have any comments on that from the engineering side? Smith: Mr. Mayor, you are right, Marty Goldsmith has a water right to that well in Salmon Rapids, he has also received a right to transfer some of that water to the east side of Locust Grove Road from Water Resources Department. The impact, as long as he maintains pumping capacities within his water right and he is not in violation of that and if there is an impact to the adjacent wells of property owners that may be shallower then I don't know the answer to that question, it becomes a civil matter between the property owners as I understand it. Kingsford: Being a peaceful individual I would discourage you not to go shoot anyone. Thank you, anyone else from the public? Ted Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 17 Hanson: What I am wondering is when you are talking about this well and that it is going to adjoin Nampa Meridian surface water are you going to put check valves, he is talking about transferring that water back through your pressurized line from your wells, this is State water situation you are talking, whether you are going to contaminate. Did you make provisions for putting in 2 check valves or 3 check valves to keep from contaminating the ground water of the wells. Kingsford: That is an excellent point, we are always concerned when it involves our system and this of course doesn't but that is a good point. You need to address that in the engineering. Hanson: And in the question by the lady before me, there was a meeting back in December I believe it was for the State Water Quality Control came out and described all of this water has been working over the past 40 years in this area. That is a concern as myself owning a private well, I am only allowed specifically to pump a certain amount of water to irrigate a certain amount for that property I can't put in a 5 horse pump and draw that extra water out. So that is the point that he is dealing with also. Thank you. John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shipley: It was in a meeting, December 1993 that this subject came up on this well. Mr. Goldsmith was told to use surface water in that meeting. Low and behold this well that did exist was for 23 acres. Last winter when I seen work begin on it I called Water Resources and asked them some questions about it. The well is directly across from my property, I can view the work that happened on that project. It is located less than 100 feet from surface water. I didn't realize they were going to take the water off of the 23 acres that it was specified for. I got some papers from Water Resources said that the well was not to pump anymore than .48 cubic foot per second. In a previous meeting Marty said that he had a flow meter on the welL But I don't see a restricter or a governor on his well. They are taking this water from that 23 acres and they are transfering it to 2 different subdivisions approximately it will end up more like a 100 acres of subdivision, you know 50 on one side of the road and 50 in section 19 and 50 in section 20. At the time I requested some information from Water Resources the well house was already in, the remodeling had already taken place he hadn't even filed on the well at that point. If you will view the subdivision tract that well house sits in the middle of a culdesac the way that, you guys have looked at the picture of the whole thing. The old pump casings are all sitting out in the ground along with the new motor and everything. My well is 40 feet deep across the road. Two years ago I had problems when McDermitt owned the land and was irrigating his land. We didn't have very much water at that time. I sputtered and spit for a little while until he quit running his well. Then I got water again. But I have a little concern that all the other subdivisions going on they are not putting water back in the Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 18 ground from surface water. Eventually this water that don't back in the ground will bring the water level down in this area because all of the houses and all the footprints of all the houses take up a place for water to soak into the ground and replenish the surface water. Right now we have a pretty high water table, this year we do again. In 1993 in December that took place and there are people here in the meeting that heard it. There are some of the people sitting around here that heard that conversation. He got a little angry when they told him he had to do that, why are you making me do that he said, you didn't make anybody else do that. (Inaudible) without the knowledge of Water Resources then went ahead and done it anyway. That is evident in the time frame that I called Mr. Crookston about the situation. I call Mr. Smith about the situation and of course Water Resources by that time had contacted Mr. Goldsmith and he filed a well. But at that time he hadn't filed a well. Those things need to be pointed out so that we can cover ourselves. If we run out of water then somebody is responsible for it. Litigation costs people money and I think the City should hold up to what they said in the first place. That is about alii have to say, thank you. Kingsford: Any questions from the Council? Anyone else from the public? Aguerre: A question I forgot to ask, on the storm water management area, whenever it rains it goes into the storm drains, where does is run off to? Kingsford: We haven't necessarily seen those, but they have to retained on site, they have to do the screening for grease traps and so forth before it can ever be discharged into a stream. I don't know that we have seen any engineering drawings for that at this point. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I think they have those in house under review right now. The Highway District will review the storm drainage management process and typically they are retaining the storm drainage on site and putting it back into the ground after it has gone through a sand and grease trap. Aguerre: If there is a private well that is real close to that area though that can ultimately affect it so that is why I am curious. Smith: They would have to abide by the Department of Environmental Quality State of Idaho regulations as far as separation between storm water and your drinking water well. Aguerre: Thank you Kingsford: Last shot, anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council members? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 19 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like, there were several issues that were raised in terms of the testimony that I would like to ask Mr. Goldsmith to clarify for me please. Crookston: Do you want to re-open the public hearing for these comments? Kingsford: Okay, I will re-open the public hearing, Mr. Goldsmith, you are already sworn go ahead. Morrow: My first question is how deep is the well that you are using? Goldsmith: It is under 100 foot, somewhere around 80 foot. Morrow: And, how much are you licensed by the Department of Water Resources to pump? Goldsmith: Just over 23 acres and they are happy with the numbers of lots, the square footage of the irrigatable ground cover that we are going to be watering. There was computations that we did for them where we backed out the streets, sidewalks, garages, house square footage and stuff like that and they are happy with what we have come up with. We are also trying to make sure that the City is happy. I contacted Water Resources and got the stuff headed in the right direction or in the direction it is presently going in and trying to be neighborly to Mr. Shipley. It is not our intention to railroad anyone or anything but to work hand in hand with him. Morrow: How is this flow going to be regulated, how is it going to be controlled, you have so many inches of water that this well could pump? How in the future Goldsmith: What they are saying is it is 23 acres so once we have so many lots hooked up to it than that would be, there is also a flow meter on there. Gary has written a letter requesting that Water Resources comes out and checks the amount that is pumped. We will make sure Meridian City and Water Resources is happy on it. It is my understanding that Water Resources is happy with it, they have written a letter to Meridian City as well as to myself stating that we have the water rights. Morrow: I understand those things that you are telling me, what J am after here is I want to know how the regulation of the amount of water that comes out of that pump is going to be done not only now but in the future so that the amount of water taken from that well is not in violation of the amount of water that the Department of Water Resources says that well can pump? Goldsmith: The flow meter that is on there right now will work for that, if there is something that you guys come up with that would work better or aid that we will certainly work with Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 20 you on that. So right now there is a flow meter that says gallons pumped total, it also reads gallons per minute. By reading that and seeing how many gallons per minute we can pump for how many houses we have hooked up to it I can tell you that is not being exceeded now with us checking on that. Morrow: The point of my question is that in the future once you are done the development is done, let's assume we approve this as a well, who is responsible for regulating and checking this flow to make sure that it does not exceed what it is licensed to pump. Goldsmith: It is my understanding that it is the Water Resources and that Mr. Smith has requested that they check that. Morrow: Okay, then I will ask the rest of the question to Mr. Smith, purpose, I think it is a valid point that Mr. Hanson raises with respect to check valves. How do you propose to avoid contamination of surface water with this well water. Because obviously Mr. Shipley's well is only 40 feet deep, your 80 foot well based on my little knowledge might be is probably in the same water strata. Goldsmith: It is my intention to water approximately 1 and 2 phases of Salmon Rapids and Los Alamitos with the well. At that time the intention right now is to combine the surface water with the well water. Those plans will be coming through for construction plans and the City will have comments at that time similar to what the point of contact is with the City water. A lot of the pressurized irrigation being constructed now have a back up alternative with the City water with the check valves and such in there. It will be easy enough for us to get that design worked out so they are happy with it. Morrow: Thank you. Kingsford: You have questions for Gary? Morrow: Yes, Gary with respect to this well situation, the same question, in the future who regulates or who is responsible for overseeing this well does not pump more than it is I icensed to pump? Smith: Department of Water Resources is responsible for that. I have requested in written form that the monitor the amount of water that is pumped from this well becuase of the concerns of the surrounding residents. I have not received a response from the water resource department to my letter. Typically on a well Department of Water Resources will provide what is called beneficial use inspection. They will come to the well site, they will monitor either through an approved measuring device on the piping of the well or they will install a measuring device of their own, how much water is being pumped by the pump in Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 21 that well. They compare that to what the water right is. If they are pumping more water than their water right then they will require the applicant to get an amendment to his water right. If he is pumping the amount of the water right or less then they go away. Typically they do not revisit the well sites, whether it is a City well, most irrigation wells don't have measuring devices on them and that has been a point of much discussion in the past becuase some irrigation wells are over pumped and do impact adjacent domestic wells. This was a very hotly contested item in the north part of town, north of Meridian on some big irrigation wells during our drought period of time that was the pumping of these wells was seriously impacting adjacent property owners wells. And Water Resources had numerous hearings, some of which were held in our City Hall concerning this matter. But typically they only check the well, City wells for example for beneficial use with our flow meters to see that we are pumping what our water right says we can pump. I requested this of this irrigation well, I have not received a response from Water Resources. I think he has a water right of somewhere around 200 gallons per minute, I believe the .46 CFS is correct. There is 448 gallons per minute in 40 CFS so, I don't have my calculator with me tonight, but, it is somewhere slightly in excess of 200 gallons per minute. I have also done some calculations based on that water quantity that is available to see how many lots can be irrigated by it. The applicant and I disagree in that number from what he says can be irrigated and what he says water resources has approved. I don't think we have come in agreement on that. I don't know whether I have to argue with water resources on this issue or not but if I do, I do. Morrow: My final question would be, the check valves and those kinds of things in terms of the two systems coming together, you are comfortable with writing the specs for that? Or ensuring Smith: It is not the City's system Councilman, it belongs to the homeowners. We can certainly review the system that is being proposed and make comments and if you like we can make requirements on the check valve to protect the ground water from the surface water. Typically we do the same thing as Mr. Goldsmith mentioned when we have an alternate connection for City water to a pressurized irrigation system that has a separate point of supply. We do require a reduced backflow pressure device that is the upperend of positive check valve to ensure we don't get a cross connection. It can be done very easily, it is not a difficult situation, you just make sure that it is done. We are falling into a bit of a gray area here in enforcing the details of the pressurized irrigation systems. We don't have any standards adopted by the City of Meridian. We have been using Nampa Meridian Standards as a guideline. Morrow: Do they have guidelines covering this specific issue? Smith: I do not know on the back flow device, but as I mentioned that is not a difficult Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 22 situation, it is a reduced back flow pressure device. Kingsford: Gary, would DEQ have some jurisdiction and concerns about cross connection? Smith: Yes they do. Kingsford: And don't they have to approve those plans as well? Smith: Yes, they make comments on the pressurized irrigation portion correct. Kingsford: I am certainly sympathetic to Mr. Hanson's comment there. If it bothers us it should definitely bother us that it affects them as well. We need to make sure that if no one else enforces that we do when we review those plans. Hanson: Mr. Smith, you said that you didn't have any jurisdiction over this at the present time, but quite possibly you will annex this in the future, presumably. Kingsford: That is what this hearing is about. Hanson: So it would be in your jurisdiction. Kingsford: Well, the jurisdiction issue is with regard to the water. We don't have jurisdiction over the well that Mr. Goldsmith has is what he is saying. Goldsmith: Mr. Morrow, if I may, the number of lots that Water Resources said that we could use and irrigate off of the 23 acres of water rights and the number that Gary has come up with I am sure will easily be resolved. It is roughly within 25% right now. We will make sure that the City is happy with that. As far as the design goes, we have in the past got comments back from the City. For example the sleeving of the pressurized irrigation line when inside of a C-900 pipe even after it was constructed to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's specifications when there was no one governing on the specifications of the installation we did use the highest specifications that were applicable. Kingsford: I did reopen the public hearing you are welcome to come up. Jim Lee, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I guess I am a little confused here Mr. Goldsmith's has been talking about this well for 23 acres and then he says he is going to take Salmon Rapids 1, 2 and 3 and Los Alamitos off of that which totals over 80 acres. I think he just said that in his last time up here. The other thing I would like to know is can we request Water Resources to come Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 23 out and check that well periodically? Kingsford: I think Mr. Smith has asked that they do that and I don't know whether they will do it periodically, but he is saying that their history has been that they check it once and go away. Our request is that they do check it periodically. Lee: How do we follow up to see that is being done? Kingsford: I would suspect that if you call Water Resources if there is some concern that it is being violated they will probably take a look at it. The issue about the acres I think falls back into the houses, garages being taken out and that is what they are arguing about is the number of lots then that would fit into that 23 acres, am I right Gary? Smith: Yes, it is 23 irrigable acres and you take out all of the streets, you take out the houses and you have a net irrigable acreage then which is not 23 acres of houses, it is 23 acres of irrigable area, correct. Kingsford: That is what they are in disagreement on now but will be in agreement. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council members. Crookston: Mr. Mayor I think that we have had substantial differing testimony tonight then was presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would recommend that we have amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the developer or his designee to speak first. Marty Goldsmith, 4550 W. State, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 24 Goldsmith: I am available for any comments you guys may have for me to answer at this time. Kingsford: Questions of Mr. Goldsmith on the Preliminary plat? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have a question with reference to this culdesac, stub street. The Fire Department recommendation (inaudible) where are you now with that? Goldsmith: Are we talking about the culdesac that is going east out of phase No.3 of Los Alamitos near the Ridenbaugh Canal? The original lot layout that we came in with showed an extension going into Greg Johnson's parcel of property. Since then we have put in a culdesac per ACHD requirements. We will do whatever you guys decide to do there. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Anyone else from the public on the preliminary plat of this subdivision? Lydia Aguerre, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Aguerre: I just have a question on the fencing, on phase #3 and I understand phase #1 , phase #3 backs my property the back part of it, so I just have a question on the fencing of that, Marty could probably answer that I think. Kingsford: We have a requirement that he has to fence the perimeter during construction but as far as the rest of the fencing do you want a comment Mr. Goldsmith? (Inaudible) Goldsmith: There are 2 types of fencing being used out there, one is a wrought iron fence 51/2 foot high and (inaudible) fencing will be used as a non-combustible fence (inaudible) Nine Mile Drain. The perimeter fencing will be installed as per Meridian City's ordinance a 6 foot high 1 inch by 4 inch picket fence. Aguerre: We had talked at one time about having a cedar fence on my side of the lane (inaudible) Goldsmith: There is going to be a cedar fence down our lot lines (inaudible) Aguerre: That fronts my lane, is that what you are talking about? Goldsmith: Wherever our lot (inaudible) Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 25 Aguerre: (Inaudible) Goldsmith: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Jim Lee, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I would like to ask Mr. Goldsmith a question, I believe, is the fence going to be cedar that runs down the lane? Goldsmith: (Inaudible) Lee: So going down our lane (inaudible). My question is we have settled on a cedar fence, now, is there anything that can protect us for a little better quality fence because out on South Locust Grove where Salmon Rapids runs the wind has come along and probably 75% of that fence is down. The neighbor went over and nailed it back up and I looked at it the other day and there are nails about like so that put this whole thing together. We have to look at that every day. Let alone if it is down our lane there is going to be houses, their backyard is going to face our lane. If that thing falls over who is responsible for it #1 and this has been down for 2 months out there so there hasn't been a whole lot of action on it. The other thing that I would like to do is thank Shari Stiles for helping with the trash problem out there and Mr. Goldsmith got that pretty much resolved. When Los Alamitos starts is there anything in the works for dumpsters for those contractors or anything out there to help us out? Morrow: Mr. Lee, your questions, what size is your property? Lee: Well, there are going to be 8 lots, is that what you are asking? Morrow: Well, what kind of trash are you having problems with? Lee: The contractor trash, roofing materials, paint buckets, crap. Morrow: Do you have livestock and those kinds of things on your place? Lee: Yes Morrow: I think that we have had and certainly will review that with Mr. Goldsmith but we have had a fairly inflexible policy with respect to developments being responsible for making those things clean or keeping them clean. If you have been having a problem with Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 26 that in the past then certainly Lee: I did say I talked to Shari Stiles and she, things happened and we appreciate that, they put a fence across where they said they would do that. Now they are moving across the road right directly by us and on a daily basis it is going to be real ugly. Morrow: I think from my perspective is that each contractor is responsible for keeping his lot and his project clean. The developer is responsible for overseeing that the subdivision is kept to those standards. Having said that there are some that are not, the definition of clean is different with others. J think that if there is a problem that develops we will make Mr. Goldsmith aware that we expect it to be kept clean if it develops and it will be up to our P & Z people to advise him that it needs to be cleaned up. If not then take some sort of corrective action. Lee: Thank you very much. Kingsford: Anyone else? Seeing none I will close that public hearing. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the attorney. Wayne, just looking at this project, are we in excess of 1000 feet on a one way in and one way out of this subdivision? We have one street that is off of Locust Grove that this whole entire subdivision has to go in and out of, there is no other way in and out of this place. There are stub streets going out but (inaudible). Crookston: The block length that you are talking about is based on the block length on the plat, it is not based upon how much distance there is from the start to the end. Especially when there are streets that will eventually be connected. So if there are stub streets going off of that 1000 feet as far as ordinance is concerned they do not violate the 1000 block length restriction that we do have in the ordinance. Tolsma: Where are we at with emergency access? (End of Tape) Crookston: What our ordinance applies to is the plat, I'm afraid our subdivision ordinance doesn't apply to access for emergency vehicles. Kingsford: I think ACHD has a requirement of number of houses served on the same entrance too. I think Ron if you remember the last down turn we went through the subdivision out here on Cherry Lane that had a single access that was better than a half mile (inaudible) through there. Certainly your concerns are (inaudible) Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 27 Smith: As Wayne said the block lengths have to do, in the ordinance, do not address emergency access. They are just distances between intersecting streets on layers of lots or tiers of lots. We try on the exterior boundary of these subdivisions to get stub streets provided to break up those block lengths against the boundaries of the subdivision as well as the interior blocks to not exceed 1000 feet in length. I guess one of the things we have always understood as a requirement from the highway district that they can only access 100 single family building lots off of a single point of access. I don't know if that is still a standard or not. Kingsford: 200 Karen is saying. Smith: 200 lots? (Inaudible) Smith: I guess I don't understand that. (Inaudible) Smith: 20 homes (Inaudible) Smith: How about a single access to a subdivision? I was thinking it was a 100 lots. (Inaudible) Smith: I only remember that, I think I remember it as a guideline from the Highway District as 100 lots with a single access which is 1000 vehicle trips per dayan, I'm not sure that is not a collector type street but on a standard residential type street. Kingsford: Alii can remember is I know they have a standard. Smith: I think this plat has 53 lots on it, I don't know how many lots were in the first 2 phases but it has to be awful close to 100 lots if that is still the standard. Morrow: I have some questions for staff, for Gary in your June 7th comments, under site specific, sanitary sewer service will be via existing mains installed in prior phases of this development. However, the southwesterly corner of the proposed site is not serviceable to these existing mains. Has that issue been resolved? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 28 Smith: Are you on Salmon Rapids Councilman or Los Alamitos? Morrow: I am sorry I am on Salmon Rapids. Smith: That has not been resolved. Morrow: My other questions were for Shari, I have questions for you Shari with respect to your comments on Los Alamitos No. 3 preliminary plat. It says here you just received a new plat today, that is August 15th, you received a new plat? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, apparently 3 copies were turned into the engineering department on Friday, when I received a call today asking me if they had any problems or needed anything else that I didn't have a copy of it I didn't know what they were talking about. Three copies wouldn't be sufficient for the Council to review. What you have in your packets is what was approved by Planning & Zoning Commission that shows the stub street to the east. That was my confusion, getting a new plat and just being able to look at it today. Morrow: So this is a different plat than what P & Z approved? Stiles: Yes Morrow: How different is it? Stiles: I believe the major thing is the stub street to the east that has been removed and made into a culdesac and that was requested by Ada County Highway District. I don't know that that is the ideal connection site to go over the Ridenbaugh Canal but I feel very strongly that there has got to be a connection to be able to be travelled by vehicles across the Ridenbaugh to the school site and to connect those neighborhoods. Morrow: So as it stands now according to your analysis that vehicle travel to the elementary school site has to be by major arterials to get there if there is not a crossing over the Ridenbaugh? Stiles: The Ada County Highway District and we had a meeting with Highlands Ranch and I repeatedly asked, requested that we have this connection for the two neighborhoods. ACHD and Highlands had their own discussion and own decision to relocate it approximately where Highlands shows their L-O, their new L-Q portion. While that may also be a desirable site it is a 1/4 mile away from where this would be. We don't know what the development plans are for the Highlands really let alone the 160 acres to the north there. If it were my child that were living in either one of the subdivisions, Highlands Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 29 or Los Alamitos I would much rather that they be able to either go on the road connecting the two rather than go through an unknown development that could be commercial or could be some office or could be who knows what. And also the Fire Department has requested this connection be made because of the circuitous route it would take for the fire equipment to go around either on Victory or Eagle and Overland. Also, with the unknown of Sundance subdivision we don't know if the developer of that subdivision is going to keep his plat the way it is now. I would rather have a connection that is known, that is going to be there then something that could be years off in the future. Morrow: Thank you Kingsford: I closed the public hearing, any other comments of the Council? This is a real concern I have Mr. Goldsmith, as I compare what you just submitted with what the Council has been looking at and basing their questions, there is significant difference in those plats. This is something we have run up against 3 or 4 times now on other developments and we need to be singing from the same sheet of music. Goldsmith: The sheet you guys have in front of you I believe shows this stub street going out east, just stubbing on out. We have changed it per requirements. Kingsford: Right you have moved the street on the southern parts and you have changed a culdesac on the northern part. Goldsmith: Culdesac here and these were all requirements made by ACHD several weeks ago and we got them back to you in good shape, submitted the plans to you. So I am not seeing a major lot reversal, the number of lots hasn't changed. The street layout has not changed in my mind significantly and it looks like it will still change again potentially if the Meridian City gets what they want which is this to go through. We will do that no problem. Kingsford: That is what I am suggesting is that you are saying you had that several weeks ago and you got it back to us. But what I am saying is no one on the Council saw it, it is not what I have seen. I would kind of like to see those so we know what we are looking at. Goldsmith: I didn't try to keep it from you, I tried to get it here. I think Karen, Shari and I and we are all working off the same page. Kingsford: This is the body that approves and I would like for them to work off the same page if you are getting my drift. Goldsmith: I will come and tuck them in your mailboxes. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 30 Kingsford: We would like to have them, anyone else on the Council wants to make comment. Morrow: My only comment is that there is too much gray area here it seems to me that it would be appropriate for Karen and Shari and Gary and the developer get everybody on the same page so to speak and let us have the page so we can see what page we are working off of. I think from my perception I would like to see it tabled until those things are resolved. Kingsford: As a Council you have to look at the findings on the annexation and so forth too. Morrow: That is correct. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I suppose we could just deny and send it back to Planning and Zoning couldn't we? Kingsford: You can do a lot of things. Did you wish to make that a motion Mr. Morrow or Mr. Corrie? Morrow: I would move that we table this pending resolution of the outstanding issues that we talked about here in the discussions and also about waiting for the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the annexation. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this to the next meeting, pending the outcome of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, comment Counselor? Crookston: There was mention of denying it, if it is denied then it is done, it would have to refiled and start totally over. I just want to reference that to the Council, that is your decision, that is alii wanted to comment on. Kingsford: You have heard the motion and second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 23.27 ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 31 to speak first. Marty Goldsmith, 4550 W. State, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Goldsmith: I would be delighted to answer any questions you guys may have for the preliminary plat and annexation of phase 3 of Salmon Rapids. Kingsford: Counselor, is it kosher for me to integrate these two public hearings? We didn't on the last one but I see no reason not to. Crookston: You can do that, if anybody wants to speak in addition on this particular issue we have to allow that, but you can do that. Kingsford: with that in mind public will speak to both the annexation of Salmon Rapids Subdivision NO.3 and the preliminary plat of Salmon Rapids Subdivision NO.3. in one sitting. Questions for Mr. Goldsmith? Morrow: I guess my questions would with respect to the well issue and all the facts and testimony with respect to the well that we discussed before also apply to this phase of this subdivision, is that correct? Goldsmith: The well issue, yes it does, and I hope for that to be a clear issue for you Walt. Kingsford: Any other questions from the Council? Corrie: I guess Mr. Mayor we have the same problem with a new plat coming into the staff, did they just get it today? Goldsmith: The plat received the plat earlier, it apparently didn't get distributed by your department. Corrie: What do you mean by earlier? Goldsmith: I am not sure, I would ask Shari when she got it, it was last week. (Discussion Inaudible) Kingsford: So the map that we have is probably an older one on this one as well? Goldsmith: Maybe we should take a look at it because I don't, .!here wasn't like culdesacs changing and comments like that on Salmon Rapids likettflere was on Los Alamitos. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 32 (Inaudible) change to Salmon Rapids. Morrow: Mine is dated March 20th Kingsford: Any questions from the Council? Morrow: I have some but I need to ask Gary and Shari questions. Kingsford: Thank you Mr. Goldsmith, anyone from the public? Gene Schultz, 2955 South Mesa Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schultz: I have a question for the developer, my piece of ground, I live in the Kachina Estates and I am immediately south of the proposed subdivision. I am interested in the type of fencing you have planned for the boundary of the property on the south side. Goldsmith: The boundary fencing was a concern by several other people by Kachina Estates earlier and it is my understanding that Walt Morrow has approved a non- combustible fence there and that also the other person was up for that. It is a chain link with pickets in them that don't burn. Morrow: The design there and it was from a previous subdivision I believe, Council's position was that it would not allow for anything to flow into agricultural (inaudible). Kingsford: One comment Mr. Goldsmith that we have had in house, in this and other developments that being if in the undeveloped portion of this you have to see that the weeds are kept down. Particularly next to Kachina Estates and so forth, the agricultural area we don't want weed seed and so forth blowing around out there. Goldsmith: That is understood, we have been cutting that grass out there, I have noticed Mr. Shipley and some residents have had some concerns. We have been right there doing what construction work needs to be done to address those. We can knock down some weeds too. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shipley: On your guys map there, does it show where that well house is? It is suppose to be on that 23 acres. The map I have was around May some time don't show it. It ends up somewhere in the middle of a culdesac. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 33 Kingsford: I don't see it Mr. Shipley. Shipley: Is it not possible that you might be trying to buy something that is not exactly there? Another question about the Canadian thistle, they are higher than my shoulders right now. Kingsford: Do you know where that well is Marty on this plat? Goldsmith: It is located on this Lot 14, and the street does go around it and (inaudible), Kingsford: Lot 14, what block? Goldsmith: (Inaudible) Smith: What is the number of that block Mayor? Kingsford: It is Lot 14 of Block 5. Smith: Thank you Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? On either the annexation or the plat, seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council members do you have questions of staff, Walt? Morrow: I have a question of Gary, now the question on item 2 of site specific requirements where I was confused before. The southwesterly corner of the proposed site is not serviceable to these existing mains. What does that comment mean? Smith: The sewer doesn't have enough depth in Locust Grove or through this subdivision in order to sewer those lots. The land falls away to the southwest where Ten Mile Drain. Those lots will have to be sewered by an extension of the sewer main in Ten Mile Creek or adjacent to Ten Mile Creek that comes through Meridian Greens Subdivision. Therefore those lots are not sewerable until the sewer line is extended through Meridian Greens, through Kachina Estates along Ten Mile Creek. Morrow: So are you saying that they are not buildable then? Smith: They are not buildable correct, not until the sewer is available. Morrow: Is there any notation anywhere with respect to the plat that indicates that they are not buildable lots? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 34 Smith: No, not that I know of. Kingsford: Mr. Goldsmith, comment? Goldsmith: Mr. Morrow, if I may, just like the other lots that are not in the southwest corner that are in phase #3 of Salmon Rapids they are not buildable until I extend the sewer to them as well. So, I have been working hand in hand with which lots will go where and it seems pretty clear in my mind that the southwest comer will go to the Ten Mile Sewer and that the other lots will go in the sewer main that is a little bit closer. We are just trying to move ahead with the lot layout here and our intentions for serving those. The water is not a problem and neither is the sewer. Morrow: Well, I understand it is not a problem once it is constructed but I think in the short term you can have dry line sewer within the subdivision. If it doesn't work there needs to be some notification to our city people and building department that those are non- buildable lots and that there are to be no permits issued there. Am lout to lunch there? Smith: We won't approve the development plans until the sewer is extended, they just can't go ahead with the plat, if he gets preliminary plat approval, he has one year to file a final plat in order for this to stay valid. When he files a final plat he has to submit development plans that will show how the plat will be sewered and how water will be provided. All of the things that are required for development of the subdivision. If he doesn't have the sewer there that final plat can't be approved. If it doesn't happen within a year any kind of action this Council takes on the preliminary plat goes away and he starts over. So, there is a bit of road a hoe on the sewer line. Kingsford: That hoeing area includes thistles. Any other questions or comments from the Council? Morrow: I had some for Shari, she had some comments on item #10 with respect to Salmon Rapids NO.3 preliminary plat. You have a comment that you just received a new plat today. Stiles: Councilman Morrow and Council, yes I did receive a new one today, it is not, there are no significant changes from what I could see. I was not able to look at to the point that I could make specific comments on this plat. I didn't see any major changes in is. Morrow: Then you also had comments, I think we have addressed the issue of construction debris, there is also a comment about a 20 foot landscape strip along Locust Grove Road. Which he has been instructed to move to an appropriate place, as of 11 :30 this morning nothing has been done. The developer assured the City that this would be completed by Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 35 today. The existing fence is falling down, property buyers within the subdivision claimed the developer has sold them the 11 feet plus or minus to add to their lot. Can you give me some, what are these issues that you are addressing? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, when we have been making these planting strip requirements, the idea is that there would be the road right of way, 20 feet beyond that right of way which would be maintained as a planning strip and then the fencing. When the fencing was installed in this subdivision it was put up to match Sportsman Pointe which was only 10 feet from the right of way. I don't know if it was a lack of clarity on what we required as far as that fencing, what we meant by the planting strip or what. I thought that the fence was falling down. Today the developer that he is in the process of moving the fence where it should be. My main concern with having that fence within the 20 foot planting strip was that they would have part of that would be homeowners owned property, then they would also have a 20 foot utility easement so in essence they would have about 21 feet in the back of their property if the fence remained where it was that was all easement. They couldn't build anything there and they would have to stay back that far from the fence line. But the developer has told me he is in the process of moving that fence to the edge of the 20 foot landscape easement, landscape lot excuse me. Morrow: Thank you Kingsford: Shari, is that the fence then that Mr. Lee has talked about that is falling down? Stiles: Yes Kingsford: And that is being moved? Stiles: Yes it is. Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Morrow: I have one more question for Shari, under item 9, your comment is that the findings of fact and conclusions should be carefully reviewed prior to approving them and authorizing an annexation ordinance. Your review of the findings of fact and conclusions, do you have some areas there that you have problems with? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, I would just like to make sure that the Council and all of the staff, Gary and myself included go through and make sure that all of the items that come up in these hearings is included in these findings so there is no question that we pinpoint every specific item that has been addressed and that they are taking care of and there can be no gray area here. That is my main concern. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 36 Kingsford: Counselor, have you heard additional testimony on this issue? Crookston: There has been different testimony yes. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have new findings of fact and conclusions of law be written. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to have new findings of fact and conclusions of law written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: What is your pleasure on the preliminary plat? Corrie: I move that we table the preliminary plat until the findings of fact and conclusions of law are presented and that would be the first meeting in September. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to table the preliminary plat until the first meeting in September, September 5th, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 42.02 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing on that issue and invite the owner or designee to speak first. Charles Eddy, 4345 South Timber Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eddy: This property is approximately 42 acres located south of Franklin Road west of Linder Road and north of Waltman Street. Currently the zoning directly to the east is R-4, directly to the west is RT and then adjacent to it is R1. This property falls within in the comprehensive plan being single family residential and services are directly available for water and sewer to provide the property the services that are needed for a development in an R-4 zone. That is the specifics of the property, do you have any questions? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 37 Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Eddy? Thank you Charles, anyone else from the public? I will close that public hearing. Morrow: I have questions for the staff, Shari on your comments with respect to this project. You have indicated that there has been no response either verbally or in writing with respect to your staff comments, is that still accurate? Stiles: Yes Councilman Morrow, I believe it is. I did have a short conversation with the owner and I believe with Charles regarding one stub street that Ada County Highway District had requested. Other than that I haven't seen any change or any of the other comments be addressed. If I am mistaken, if there is some kind of response I stand corrected by I don't recall having any of these comments addressed. Morrow: It seems to me that I read in the staff report that there was a problem with notification of the property owner to the west. Stiles: There was and if legal counsel could direct me on what needs to be done on that. I did receive a phone call from Mr. Shakoori and I do believe it was him. However I do not have a signed waiver for notification of the public hearing. I don't know if that has any impact on this at all or not. Crookston: If we do not have a signed waiver and the Shakoori's were to be notified and they were not then we would have to start this process over. Stiles: Mr. Shakoori did when he called me indicate that one was forthcoming but never did receive it. I don't believe that is a problem but the fact that we don't have that in our fi Ie I hate to go just by a telephone call. Crookston: That is correct, if we don't have it in our file then it is as if he was not notified then we have problems with due process. Kingsford: Charles, have you been in contact with that party? Eddy: This is catching me a little bit by surprise, we were under the impression this issue was taken care of 2 months ago. There has been no notification to us that this is still a problem. I called Mr. Shakoori before the meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission and requested that he call Shari to state that he didn't have a problem with the notification. That he had no problems with our development and that the issue was taken care of. This is the first that I have heard of it being a problem. Kingsford: I think what we need to have is a written waiver that you need to obtain Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 38 otherwise we go back to square one and have to notify him and have to go back through Planning & Zoning. I think it is in your best interest to get a waiver from him. That wasn't forwarded to him? Stiles: No, and I apologize to Charles because I didn't let him know that. It was just in reviewing what was on the agenda today, going back on past issues that I realized I still did not have that. Even though it had been promised, I just thought it was on the way and it just never showed up. Kingsford: We need to have that or we are in violation of our own ordinance. Morrow: I have questions of Mr. Eddy, in our packet there are with respect to the City Engineer there are some 18 comments according to our information you have not addressed any of those 18 comments. (Inaudible) the Planning and Zoning Administrator has some 15 comments. Eddy: The points you are referring to are they on the May 5th? Morrow: Correct, May 5th and June 8th respectively. Eddy: The revised preliminary plat which the Commission did see when we brought it before them addressed a majority of those comments and that time. If you want to go through item by item we can show how they have been addressed on the preliminary plat. Morrow: I think there needs to be a commitment on your part that those have been addressed to the satisfaction of the staff. They have in terms of the engineering, and Shari? Stiles: Councilman Morrow and Council, the only real concern is the stub street to the west and addressing what is going to be done along the Ten Mile pathway. Those are my major concerns. We had received something from the Bureau of Reclamation that said they thought they were encroaching on their easement and they also did not want a crossing that apparently is already theirs, is that right Charles? Eddy: Yes, there is an old wooden bridge across that has been in existence for quite a while. Stiles: I would have hoped that they would have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation so we can retain that if at all possible along that pathway. Eddy: In the preliminary plat we provide a (inaudible) directly in line with that brigdeway. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 39 Morrow: Have you resolved that issue with the Bureau of Reclamation? Eddy: As far as them not wanting a crossing? No we haven't. To address Shari's comment on encroachment, the boundary of this subdivision is directly adjacent or in common with the Van Hees subdivision that was recorded back in the early 1940's and that dedicated 120 feet of right of way for the drain. Subsequent to the west Nampa Meridian Irrigation (inaudible) so I believe that we have both of those issues resolved as far as encroachment. Morrow: Question for Gary on item 12 in the engineer's things, it talks about a temporary sewage lift station, can you explain what the significance of that is Gary? Smith: The subdivision is sewerable by a lift station, it doesn't gravity sewer into an existing sewer system. It needs a lift station on the northwest corner. Someway when the sewer line is extended up Ten Mile Creek from Black Cat Road or Ten Mile Road then it will become part of a gravity system. So it is not a forever situation, it is termed temporary until such time as a gravity sewer line is built up there. Morrow: I guess in fairness to the Packard Subdivision people who maintains this? Smith: I guess that is up to the action of the Council. Based on what Packard was told that they were going to do as far as a maintenance agreement with the developer. Morrow: For your, we just did a subdivision that had one of these same issues and the developer there maintains the temporary lift station and that was a condition of their approval. I have no further questions. Kingsford: Any other questions of Mr. Eddy? Thank you Charles, any other questions of staff? Corrie: I guess Mr. Mayor we need to table this to get that waiver to us, that would be the best approach wouldn't it? Crookston: Yes it is. Corrie: I move we table this until the next meeting, the first meeting in September on the annexation to get the waiver presented to us. Kingsford: Is there anyone from the public that would like to offer testimony, I apologize on the next page then item 12 is the preliminary plat on this same subdivision? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 40 Ted Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: Council members, I was just wondering when you talk about this temporary or however it is going to last, a pumping station for the sewage. I have seen one of these in operation, the (inaudible) what happens is if your pump stops an alarm goes off. Who takes care of the alarm? That is your maintenance problem that is the (inaudible). Kingsford: As we talked about the budget last night, we talked about rebuilding a temporary lift station that was put in Gregory Subdivision, how many years ago Gary? Smith: Twenty five, the trigger for that is a dialer system that automatically dials the waste water plant that is an alarm and they respond. Kingsford: What it results to us is a pretty good sized phone bill. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on the preliminary plat on this issue? Seeing none I will close that public hearing. Council members you have the same problem with regard to the waiver on the plat issue as you do on the annexation and zoning. Morrow: So I would move to table to the meeting in September, September Sth. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the preliminary plat until September 5th, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON FOR FRANKLIN GROVE COMMERCIAL CENTER: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, could I request a break? Kingsford: We will take a five minute break. FIVE MINUTE BREAK Mike Preston, 420 Bitteroot, Boise, was sworn by the Mayor. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 41 Preston: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I have been before you with this particular piece of property before you probably at least before. The Planning & Zoning Commission several times and the Council I believe once. We attempted to turn this into a residential piece of property initially I felt that was a proper use for it. I talked to a lot of people including my neighbors and I got very clearly different direction from that type of use. I have most of my property fronts on Franklin Road and just a short amount on Locust Grove on the southwest corner of Locust Grove and Franklin. My neighbors to this particular piece of property that are concerned about it, there are about 5 of them that live on 2 to 3 acre parcels. So they have very large lots and have expressed the desire to definitely be concerned about the type of use and for sure how I buffer the development that I propose on this development from them so they can continue to enjoy their lifestyle. That has been one of the things that has been foremost on this particular piece of property. I attempted to get an R-15 zone at one time, I to put it mildly I failed miserably. The Council requested that we redesign and come back. I did that and I had a different R-8 type designation for this but right before I was going to submit it I met with all of the neighbors out in the pasture here and I could see very clearly that even though it was a lower density that they were not in favor of that as well. I met with several other people and rather than try to attempt something that was totally contrary to what everyone seems to what for this particular piece of property I changed mid-strain and decided to listen to what everybody was saying and tried to propose something that people were telling me they wanted for this property. So, we submitted (End of Tape) zoning quite some time ago and had our hearings before Planning and Zoning Commission and there were a lot of questions and concerns by Planning and Zoning and they at that time tabled it subject to wanting additional information. Which I subsequently supplied them and they unanimously recommended approval to this body. Now, this morning when I picked up my staff report the old findings of fact and conclusions of law were in the staff report rather than the current or amended one. So I just want to be on record of stating ignore the old the amended one is what we are really going by tonight. Because the old one recommended that it be tabled subject to additional information. The current one recommends that it be approved. The City of Meridian can recommend that it is in their interest to recommend this for C-G approval. First of alii would like to say in relation to the Comprehensive Plan C-G zone for this area fits very nicely. Your comprehensive plan for Meridian speaks specifically to this general area. They don't say that it should be C-G zoning only but that is one of the designations that they recommend. There are also some residential recommendations, let's forget those because that is not what we are here to discuss. In coming up with my additional information I clearly told the Planning & Zoning Commission that I didn't have specific tenants for the site. First we get it zoned and then we, I had a master plan a conceptual plan that would work with this property in a C-G zone. Now, I hope everyone realizes that I show on my detail plan that I have intense retail on Franklin and Locust Grove, retail use here. That isn't going to happen quickly. That is a use that will happen on this property but it is not going to happen tomorrow. But that is what I am Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 42 proposing for this property. The thing that will have to happen before the retail uses that are out on Franklin and Locust Grove can be implemented are that Franklin Road wilt have to be improved to a five lane road. There will have to be a traffic light at Locust Grove and Franklin and Locust Grove in my opinion should be extended straight north and also Locust Grove should be extended to the Freeway. When all of that happens and please don't ask me when it is going to happen because it is not going to happen tomorrow. But when that happens then the uses for retail would be valid. How can we present a C-G zone then if it can be developed today? That is the basis by which we have presented it, made up this plan. We do have uses that can be done today and they are the back uses, the ones further away from Franklin Road. In coming up with these uses we were very concerned about how we took care of our neighbors concern buffering. There are 3 neighbors that are very close to our property line and I want you to notice that we have proposed a professional office complex in these areas. We have given it a 20 foot buffer zone which your comprehensive plan requires. We have placed between them a six foot masonry wall and we have put a use here that in relation to residential being next door is just about as quiet and non-offensive as you can get. Professional office buildings they are normally closed on weekends and they don't work late hours. So at the time the people are outside, our neighbors are outside enjoying their backyards and so forth these offices normally, not necessarily always, but normally will not be in use. When they are in use notice please that I kept the traffic way away from the houses that I put the buildings between the parking lots and the residents. So we went to extreme detail to protect the interest of our neighbors. There is another neighbor here, Mr. Brown who is clear down on the south end. I was visiting with him tonight, he is separated from this property with a little 2 acre pasture. So I was just proposing a 6 foot cedar fence between he and I instead of the 6 foot masonry. He indicated tonight that he also would like to see that masonry fence and I should have given him the same benefit I did the other neighbors so I want to go on record that I will be very happy to separate us from him with the same fence if that is his desire. One of the things in relation to whether or not this is good for the City of Meridian. I believe that the intersection, there is a tremendous amount of construction going on over on the Treasure Valley Business Center, is that the correct term, over where the McDonald's and etc. are. There is construction going all over that, that land is being rapidly used. The intersection at Meridian and the freeway, that interchange is becoming quite busy. The Eagle interchange is also quite busy but this development, I proposed a connector street and a 60 foot wide collector street curvilinear all the way through which would tie in and give a back entrance to the Treasure Valley Center. In other words people could possibly if traffic gets too congested at Meridian they could come off Eagle and come in that way. Now, I am talking about when Franklin Road becomes a viable road. Right now I don't think anyone would go that way. When Franklin is improved which they have plans for in the future then that would be a benefit to the City. In addition to the fact that the existing commercial as I understand in this area is being quickly used. This would be a reserve. We also have other office and warehouse and Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 43 product supply uses all these uses could be implemented even today in my opinion. I don't think it will go real fast, our first phase if definitely the professional office and we propose it to be a very nice residential type complex high in landscaping. This plan was mainly produced to show the City that your Comprehensive Plan it is greatly in excess of 10% what I show here. We wanted to show that it is going to be a very nice development. We have sidewalks everywhere and we are very concerned about continuing your pedestrian bicycle access through this development. One thing that I really want to speak to because there has been a lot of talk about it is the Five Mile Creek that just barely touches the property that is right up in the northwest corner right along the south side of Franklin that creek as it exists is completely within the right of way of Franklin Road as we have to widen it. So that creek is entirely in the Franklin Road right of way because we have to go from centerline to 45 feet. That 45 foot is just the south bank more or less of Five Mile Creek. What that means is that the Highway Department when they widen Franklin they will be the ones to handle that wetlands issue and flood plain and all those types of issues. So that will probably be resolved at that time. We are acknowledging that there are wetlands and there are floodplains there but since we are asking for annexation and rezone the time to address those issues are not really now. But in the future when we come back with a master plan. The findings of fact and conclusions of law clearly state that this is in the interest of Meridian to annexation and rezone if the developer agrees to do a planned commercial development and that each use that is to be put in here be put under, be subject to conditional use through this body. In other words all the construction details and sewer, water, floodplain, all of those types of issues will come back at future public hearings and be resolved. I don't have all the answers tonight, but tonight is not the night to address those. There will be sufficient room for everybody to give their comments later and we will have to do engineering studies and the whole bit when we come back with our platting master planning process. The plan before you, the new plan it is still conceptual, this is not something you are approving. I did it so that the neighbors could see, now look Mr. Preston promised us residential professional offices right next to us. If I come back with a slaughterhouse there somebody is going to say no because that isn't even close to what was proposed back at the annexation and rezone. So, we did this as a concept, those office buildings will probably be office buildings, they might change shape or whatever. We might have one big one or whatever it might be different a little bit but we will be back before the Planning & Zoning and this body and give the neighbors sufficient time to comment. So we are only requesting the annexation and rezone for tonight. Irrigation for the neighbors, they have an existing open ditch and we will hide that ditch which supplies them water and it will, any part of it that is on our property will be piped. That is a requirement of the City of Meridian anyway. So we will pipe it, we will not infringe in any way upon their abilities to irrigate their properties. We will supply this complete development with irrigation by surface means, we will have a pressurized irrigation system our surface water rights. With that Mr. Chairman, I can go on and on but I think it would behoove me to allow you to ask any questions and I would like a chance for rebuttle. I am Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 44 sure my neighbors are here and might have some concerns that I haven't addressed. Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Preston? Anyone else from the public? Ann Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: Mr. Preston mentioned speaking to the neighbors, he described that meeting. On March 7th we met in the field to be developed, the 4 most directed parties were there. Mr. Preston stated that no developer would ever build any housing of any quality and we had better get used to it. His intent had been to seek a high density and he presented us a plat of 141 duplexes, the park area was the strip immediately abutting our properties. He also said that he had talked with members of the Commission and Council. That these members had informed him that Commission and Council desired this parcel to be developed as commercial. That he would seek commercial zoning instead that given the city's predisposition it would do no good to go to Council and protest. That therefore he would change his plan to commercial development and ask that the affected parties join him in making a joint application for commercial zoning and annexation and for this he would not charge us any fee. The Planning and Zoning public hearing was held on this plat which as you can see says nothing except is it platted over our land and is too general. On those grounds it was tabled. On May 22nd there was a special meeting of Planning and Zoning at which time Mr. Preston presented this plat, I believe that is the same plat he showed you. This plat, I had to go in and get it, it was not a public hearing it was untabling. You will note that it is dated it was received on the 23rd of May, the day after the special Planning & Zoning Meeting, it was sent onto Council without a public hearing on this plat. On, reading from the envelope, by certified letter we were notified of this meeting this plat was included. This plat is color coded to include our land, it is the same plat as before and I believe it is meant to confuse us and to skew public comment. This is not the correct plat. This is what the affected parties were given. Thank you. Mr. Preston stated that his plat is conceptual that it will change. Gentlemen on the July 31 st, 1995 Idaho Business Review, it is a publication in the Treasure Valley, on page 12 the plat appears not conceptually it appears as an advertisement to attract investors. This is not a conceptual plat this is what he intends to do. We believe that due process may have been violated by sending us the wrong plat. Thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: That is going to be a tough act to follow. For these meetings we generally prepare a letter (inaudible) from all of the affected parties. In this case you have that in your packet. It is signed by all of the affected properties, what we are calling (inaudible) Mr. Brown is now interested in this but it is too late to include him on this. He will testify Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 45 separately if he wishes. It was suggested that even though we have this letter that read some of the highlights of our letter to get them onto transcript. I tried to highlight this and I don't know if it is going to work trying to read around it or not. We requested annexation be denied, that is the eight parties that signed this, because it is a frivolous application. We believe the intent is simply to gain annexation in order to re-sell it. We went to a lot of logic in that one it started out as a trailer park, then it became a manufactured home development, three it was then going to be duplexes which are called town houses and in lieu of the town houses (inaudible) it became a commercial development. Now, (inaudible) nuclear waste dump, that is about the only concept left. Given that we don't have a concept given that we don't have any tenants, given that we don't have any plan, given that we don't have a master plan and it is for sale we suspect that this is not really legitimate application process. We understand the policy of the City not to annex property only to enhance it re-sellability. If nothing else conceptual we should have seen what the spine road is going to look like. Number two, the developer has not proceeded in good faith, my wife just presented that. We think there is violation of code or violation of ordinances excuse me. We think this effort was deliberate, this could not have all been accident, especially the color coding that came back on that blank plat we had because it is not to (inaudible) only to the fact that we are included that was the ploy before. It worked in Planning & Zoning we haven't commented since. Number 3, you have previously disapproved conceptually the same thing. On his previous application he had the corner of Locust Grove and Franklin conceptually as a gas station, retail store, car wash. This time it is right back again. By precedent gentlemen you have turned it down once before there should be a good reason if you proceed with this why you are not turning it down this time. It is exactly the same thing and it is still the single family residence, the quote was finding of fact #4 specifically the property requested to be rezoned C-N should not abut the single family residents, it is a fairly clear decision. And because this application is non-severable that is the bigger chunk (inaudible) that the whole thing be denied. You did warn this developer last year in findings of fact that if we are going to play with that corner he had better make two applications for it because there are different rules that apply at the top and the bottom of the hill. Which brings me to point #4, the application is in contempt of the City. This is the same thing we talked about last year at this time, you came up with findings of fact they are nowhere in here. You told him no to the gas station concept, you told him to the wetlands issues because until they were further resolved (inaudible) Corp of Engineers we haven't seen it yet. You told him no until the irrigation issues were resolved but on that plat you gentlemen our irrigation ditch has disappeared for the 4th time. You have also put several of the things about berming and landscaping in the current Planning and Zoning's findings of fact and your previous findings of fact regarding how high it has to be, and he has said he is going to give us a concrete masonry fence which is going to look like the Berlin Wall. He has his landscaping but his landscaping according to this plat on his side of the fence. We get the concrete fence which by the way is standing in the middle of the ditch. You have required Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 46 him under your planning guidelines to have a bike path in there and by gosh it is a nice little bike path and the way it is routed now it is going to be 3 feet high, so conceptually this is going to serve conceptually little people. And then the big issue, it has come up before and it will come up again. This, 1989, everybody except Mr. McClure (inaudible) have applied for a water right, domestic use water right because of the Snake River adjudication. We were all granted that water right last year. We have some special consideration now because water right does not mean absolute protection but it means protection from knowing damage. You can't go dam a river to somebody else's benefit or to your own benefit. The issue of water rights is very tricky, it is a serious issue to us because we are almost a full mile from the water. This water table is defined by Water Resources Board and it could go on much more than we know. They just gave me a list of people that are on it and it is basically down Franklin Road and up Locust Road except for the house on the corner. (Inaudible) our water table is recharged from this irrigation. Our wells (inaudible) with irrigation. With the succession of irrigation, flood irrigation it will forseeably be completed, this is a legal concern. Second, at the present time this is a very shallow water table, very shallow water table, the early remark about digging a fence post hole is correct. This could easily be contaminated it is that shallow at this time. Four, the development will require storm drainage, he is going to have to keep the water on his property or he is going to have to screen it somehow to get it down to Five Mile Creek which is protected by the Clean Water Act. Of course the process upon his property is to put into our domestic water table. Consequently gentlemen is the intent of the comprehensive plan is to avoid contest before preparing legal action. We cannot simply go ahead without water right or without the water table. Now, we also put in two reasons to send it back to Planning and Zoning I don't think there is any reason to go over those, it wouldn't do any good. So, if the Council should elect to proceed, we are requesting as part of this annexation because this developer in the past has had a very short (inaudible) conditions of annexation would we think ordinarily come later in the planning process. But we want them nailed down now. One, that the 3.1 acres or so on the corner of South Locust Grove be withdrawn and forever held from other than our (inaudible) gateway to the City, it is a very pretty gateway and everything out there, the houses are at the back of the lots, the lots are an acre long. You are going to put this in, no amount of landscaping, berming anything is going to make it look like anything other than commercial development stuck in the middle of one square mile of R1 housing. Second, the (inaudible) and regard existing easements (inaudible) masonry fence in part and in that plat. In the findings of fact (inaudible) concrete wall all around the property which will make it look like fort fizzle. We are suggesting a compromise, a berm all the way around the property, 6 feet with a 3 foot masonry fence, I think that would actually look quite nice. (Inaudible) on our side that is going to put his berm (inaudible) Meridian Irrigation District because of that ditch. (Inaudible) evergreen stock there is a lot of concrete out there that can be busted up as a result of creeping roots. The 9 inch barrier (inaudible) at the properties of 815 and 215 South Locust Grove. We have such a water problem out there Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 47 at the present time that we have french drains along the back of both of these properties. Which if you put any kind of tree stock out there especially this landscape plans it is going to get into these french drains and it is going to follow the drains and we are going to have water coming under the house. This is going to be simply rectified by simply sinking down this concrete barrier so they can't penetrate it and (inaudible). That all commercial development be planned, single story office complex, this may surprise you that this is our finding but gentlemen this was came out of this concession, came out in the meetings of Planning and Zoning which were not public hearings. Unless we had gone in and asked for the meeting notices every time we would not have known what was even discussed. We are asking nothing like this high density retail, and we don't want things like restaurants back there, you can smell a restaurant and you can see the lights they have to protect their equipment, they have their needs as well. That is not to say we are talking about a single story business group. The potable water, since the City line is coming, he says he is going to bring the City line onto this property and pass within a very few feet of us. And since we have, really don't want a (inaudible) we are prepared to do so. Potable water (inaudible). He has to put a spine road in anyway he might as well put the water in too and to be (inaudible) onto our properties and connected at the developers expense this is a (inaudible) where he is in the position to cause a great deal of damage and he takes us as he finds us. This is a high risk property and we are half way afraid that if he doesn't get that water in there and we are also asking for sewer because you put chlorinated water in a septic system, it is going to kill the microbes. So we are also asking for sewer to be hooked up and it is fairly reasonable because that too is close now with the extension out there it is within a few hundred feet. Our biggest concern gentlemen is we don't think this developer has got that much money and if we sue him we don't want to hit empty pockets. So this is why we are asking and you can easily do this and make these conditions of annexation and that they be the first step. Thank you, do you have any questions? Kingsford: Any questions, anyone else from the public? Elwood Rennison, 990 South Mustang, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rennison: Good evening gentlemen, it has been a long evening for you I am sure. I am here tonight regarding the proposed development that is in session right now. The plot plan that is dated 5-22 which is dated 2 months ago approximately. It proposes that a car wash, a gas station and a mini mart be placed at the southwest corner of South Locust Grove and Franklin. This is an area of Five Mile Creek. Problems with having a particular public facility there, I guess we would call it that even though it is a commercial operation is that people using a facility like this have a tendency to through trash all over. The plot plan that has been prepared and submitted by the developer shows a ditch where Five Mile Creek is kind of squeezed back along the side of the road. This in a way creates just Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 48 a trap for trash and all kinds of other debris and rubble. One of the problems that we have is you can't control people coming out of the mini mart or those shopping areas right there. You go to any place around Meridian or Boise or any place else and you will find that we have debris, trash, papers and stuff laying allover. The wind blows it all over too. There is really not a way to control that because the general public just doesn't care a lot of time. So that becomes a real problem. Egress and exit of the area is right on the corner of South Locust Grove and Franklin which creates quite a problem that has to be addressed and has to be resolved if he is going to put a development in. Whether it is signals or he has one way for coming in and one way for going out that has to be decided. I have noticed driving around the last month I took in an interest in commercial development in the City. We have a lot of commercial development, we have a lot of it, we have a lot of it that doesn't have much on it either. We are talking a lot of acreage, right across the street from this particular proposed development is some property over there and it may be 40 acres or 30 acres, I am not sure the exact quantity. It has taken years for it to be developed and it only has probably 6 or 8 businesses on it at this time. I would say 75% of the property is still grass roots. Putting a piece of property across the street and joining commercial really doesn't make a lot of sense on the west side of the cemetery over there that is commercial development. Along the thoroughfare coming into town from the interchange there it attracts a lot of people so you have a lot of development there that is really pretty nice. Like a Taco Bell now without having to go to Boise, that is kind of handy. That has a specific type of development which people really kind of come to. When it comes to businesses it is a different story. A lot of people start out businesses and they fold up and you are constantly leasing property or doing commercial development. I don't think this area at this time is really appropriate for zoning commercial There is just an awful lot in Meridian that could be developed. At this time it would enhance the City by letting these areas be developed that are already zoned that way. We have irrigation easement through that particular plot of property, those have been addressed already so I won't bore you with the facts or anything. Five Mile Creek runs through the corner as I have mentioned and some of the facts that I would like to state is in July 18 of last year I wrote a letter to the City of Meridian and to the Corps of Engineers, 2 separate letters. Some of the paragraphs in them were close to the same. I asked the Corps of Engineers if they would be the ones that would develop the environmental impact statement and they said they have not decided on whether there will be one required. Now, the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over your rivers now and your streams and creeks. Five Mile is a creek as stated on maps and etc. It is a year round creek, one of the few that flows through the valley. The water in it is relatively very clean. Kids can go down and swim in it, you don't have problems with it at this time. It does head into the City just down here by the block plant off Meridian or Fairview Road. Prior to crossing into that particular area where the block plant is at is very much an open stream. The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the entire water shed that flows into that creek. Therefore the environmental impact statement that would be developed for this particular area Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 49 encompasses all of the properties, property we are proposing for development commercially right now and the property that is private land. There are instances you can take a wetland and create another one in a general location again identical to what it is. It is very extensive we have had to do it in a lot of hazardous waste cleanup that we have done to put it back to its natural habitat. Then you have the maintenance on it. These are riders that you end up with if you get into a problem and they are very expensive and the liabilities are great. With this particular stream I have drafted a, it is not a letter, I have signed and dated it and I have prepared it for the Counci I here and the other members of the board. I have copies and I would like you to take a copy home with you tonight and in here I have included the letter that I sent to the City of Meridian last year, the letter that went to the Corps of Engineers. I did not include, but it is on file in the office, the letter that was the reply it is a very good Jetter. And I am also including and with the development in Meridian coming along so fast and that I am including the Corps of Engineers recognizing wetlands. There is no particular rule on what a wetland is. It has 3 criteria it normally has to fall within. But there are exceptions that they state in here. One criteria may be overwhelming and that may make the decision on being a wetland. So I think this would be informative because you have so many things pass in front of you. I also have, and I will read this paragraph (inaudible) The US Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the Five Mile Creek water shed and will make any requests that are required (inaudible) of the water shed for wetlands in environmental impact of lands adjacent to the creek. Although an environmental impact study may not be required the public can demand that one be made for the area upstream and downstream of the Intersection of Five Mile Creek and the Franklin/South Locust Grove Roads. This request must be filed with the Walla Walla Corps of Engineers office of their Lucky Peak office. The Five Mile Creek is one of the few natural year round flowing creeks or streams located in the Treasure Valley and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers for management. For your information I have included the names and addresses of the people with the Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. The Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (inaudible) a lot of these items (inaudible). I will give this to (inaudible). I would like to say that if you approve of this commercial development that you have the developer place a bond whether it is a half million dollar bond or a million dollar bond to guarantee that the City will not have any liability problems because of the development on the corner of South Locust Grove and Franklin. Right now, it appears that how many years will it take to complete the development. That is an unknown factor, I think that should be highly considered in your decision. Also, when you look around at other areas. I ask that, as a conclusions, I ask that you do not allow the zoning for C-G that you keep it into a zoning classification that you think is appropriate to allow for the proper development for the area on that corner that it should have to protect the stream and enhance the area or whatever. I recommend the City reject the rezoning and annexation request. Thank you very much for your time gentlemen. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 50 Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Norm Brown, 385 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brown: Mayor, I did talk to Mr. Witherell tonight and Mr. Preston and when you come to a development and if you guys haven't been around and had it happen to you to me it seems prudent that if it is going to go make it best on both parties. So, I asked Mike tonight if he would continue that concrete wall or cement wall around. Those cedar fences are worthless, one truck backs into them and you heard tonight one has been blown over for 2 months. If you will give me that concrete fence to protect my land then that is fine. However if they are going to bring up the city water and city sewer why can't they connect it to us so we don't have to worry. I tell you I had to put in a new pump and my well is only 67 feet and if we lose that irrigation we could lose our wells. So, that is another consideration. When you go to minimize the negative externalities that are created for the people that are going to reside there that should be definitely a consideration. I am trying to be really balanced in how I look at it and thanks for your consideration. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Marshall Smith, 398 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: It pains me somewhat to have to constantly come over here to rebut or challenge the persistence of a developer who is not going to live in that area but you have to admit that he doesn't know how to take the answer no. I am opposed to commercial on the south side of Locust Grove, it is on the north side that is where it belongs. I live on Locust Grove, we have residents that we value highly, we enjoy the way of life that we have. I don't like to see it changed. The wetlands have been there since before any of us were a twinkle in our daddy's eye. We should respect what was put there by nature and anytime that the fine hand of man goes in and starts putting concrete walls and this and that and dumping it has some impact that are awesome. So in your deliberations and your responsibility I hope (inaudible) no thank you this is not what the people that moved there, we are concerned with it, we don't live in Boise, I live right there. That is where I am impacted and say no again. Thank you gentlemen. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Mr. Preston? Preston: Mr. Mayor, I am not going to rebut, but I just wanted to clarify one issue in relation to the maps that were sent out. I just wanted to clarify with Council that I didn't send those maps out that was the (inaudible) looking at. This is a conceptual map, this is what I want to do. This is what I will do if there are buyers for this. This is the map in relation to what we are talking about tonight. This is the map that the Planning & Zoning commission Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 51 included in their findings of fact and conclusions of law as being the guide, future guide in concept only. The statement was made that I was trying to mislead someone and I apologize, I can understand why it would be misleading but this is the map this is the only map that I have been working with. The old one was prior to the additional information that the Planning & Zoning Commission requested. So that is all I wanted to add to the record. (End of Tape) Morrow: (Inaudible) what is the significance of this map of the drawn lines with the arrows? These are the only 2 maps that I have in my packet. Preston: The map with all the detail is the one we are talking about. I have never seen the arrows, I am not sure what that is, can I look closer. (Inaudible) that is the map that goes with this. Corrie: I have a question, Mr. Preston, did you ever talk to ACHD about the time factor of Franklin Road and Linder Road, I'm sorry Locust Grove? When they are planning on doing this widening? Preston: In the future, the next five years. I am not sure. Corrie: So we are looking at, based upon what you said earlier that you wouldn't be able to do anything until that is done. We are looking at five years plus. Preston: No, that is not what I said. Corrie: I am sorry, what did you say? Preston: I said the residential or the retail on Franklin and Locust Grove couldn't be done until then. All the other uses could right now. Corrie: So in other words what is fronting Franklin Road would not be done. Preston: That would be a future phase and I have listed all the phases 1 through 5 on this plan to be up front with the Council as to what my plans were. Phase one is the residential office, it is phase one and two. Ted Hanson, 1892 Bentley Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: You were asking Mr. Preston about development of the roads in that area. Do Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 52 you remember when you had the hearing regarding the steam generation plant, the gas fired. I remember the Ada County Highway District stated that they wanted to bring Locust Grove over to Franklin Road and make that continuous and then they wanted to go across the freeway and that is 8 to 12 years in the future. On that particular point is what they stated at that time. Kingsford: And of course they don't do planning that far in terms of financing so it could be further than that. Hanson: Based on what your needs are. Kingsford: It is not in their funding cycle is the long and short of it. Rod Cullip, 1821 E. Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cullip: Mr. Mayor, Grant Kingsford you might remember and Council, the thing I would like to bring up that everybody has kind of went around about is the issue on Franklin Road. We live right at where North Locust Grove intersects Franklin, just on the opposite side. We are continuously fighting people as far as traffic, swerving clear off the road down in our driveway and around it. This is something before any other traffic has been allowed to be on that road for any other commercial development or whatever that is going to increase the traffic. It is a big problem, somebody is going to get killed there. We have had three wrecks there that is in the last three weeks right there on North Locust Grove. So, before anything else is done the road definitely needs to be upgraded. I would just like to bring that to your attention. Thanks. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor? Crookston: We have had different testimony, I would recommend that we have new findings of fact. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law on the annexation and zoning request to C-G for Michael Preston, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 53 ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 180 ACRES TO R-4 AND L-O FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: At this time I wlll open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mayor and Council, my name is Wayne Forrey and I am here tonight representing Gem Park Partnership which is also Westpark Company. My comments will be brief I see we are barely halfway through the agenda. We will be concise. Westpark Company has developed Sportsman Point Subdivision in Meridian. Greg Johnson is here tonight he is the owner of Westpark and a partner in the Gem Park Partnership. His company does a very good job in developing, and I think you can be very proud of the projects that he does and will do a good job in the Highlands Ranch. I am going to follow this outline that I gave you, it will be very brief. Previous to tonight's public hearing we had worked with the City in developing an annexation request for R-8 and R-15. Planning and Zoning Commission and citizens did not like that concept and in their findings of fact and conclusions of law they were very specific on why they wanted this property to be developed as a planned development under R-4 with Limited Office to increase the tax base to the City. So we withdrew that application and it never did come before the City Council. We dropped back and started over, this is that second, new request for a R-4 zoning, Planned Unit Development with Limited Office. Right now the Planning and Zoning Commission at their hearing have developed a very good set of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In that they give all of the ground rules that they have asked that Highlands Ranch be developed under. There are 4 components as I read the findings of fact and they are listed A, B, C and D. First the findings of fact and conclusions of law should serve as the overall development requirements it is the ground rules if you will for this project. And B, the P *& Z asked that the City Council take action to annex based on the developer's acceptance of those findings of fact and conclusions of law. They have actually separated the preliminary plat and the conditional use. We submitted that simultaneously but they held the preliminary plat back at P & Z level to see if Westpark Company and the City Council all agreed on what is in those findings of fact. Then if it is annexed we go to item C there we go back to Planning and Zoning and revise the plat and work on the conditional use permit in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Item D would be to continue to work with City staff, city officials and citizens to help shape that plat and conditional use permit with the Planning Commission and then onto City Council. Our current situation, item 1 there, involves neighborhood coordination. We were directed by the Planning & Zoning Commission to meet with neighbors to look at specific issues and we have done that. It has been positive, it has been action oriented and it is ongoing. I Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 54 would like to show you some slides briefly of some of the issues that we will be addressing in the preliminary plat and the conditional use. The bottom line is that Westpark Company can develop this project within the ground rules that you have specified in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. All of those issues we can work with neighbors on and we can have a good project given those ground rules. I will show you a few (inaudible) This is a vicinity map, it is about a 180 acre site and it is rather large. It borders on the west Locust Grove Road, it borders on the south of Victory Road, on the east clear over the Eagle Road and to about the half section line on the north. Los Alamitos Subdivision, Sundance Subdivision abut right up next to Highlands Ranch, Salmon Rapids is across the street. Different projects around the area there. I guess this is about the best place to describe Highlands Ranch. I am standing right at Locust Grove Road where the canal comes under the road. I am I think in Salmon Rapids probably phase 3 or 4, it is just some earth moving there. But I am looking directly east taking that picture. In front of you there is all of the Highlands Ranch. You see some of the out buildings to the west there of the John Shipley residence. But everything between here and Eagle Road is pretty much involved in Highlands Ranch except for some other properties that it goes around. This would be the Victory Road entrance about where those cars are on Victory, you see all the trees in the background. The findings of fact is very clear about retaining natural vegetation and we will be doing that. There are a lot of trees on the Sally Martin property. This is part of the Sally Martin property her home is tucked in there. There are so many trees it is hard to see. This is the Glick residence, one particular item in the findings of fact asked that we address with the Glick's how to buffer and make transitions. We used the comprehensive plan, Shari Stiles was very helpful in defining how that transition should be accomplished and as we get this preliminary plat refined with Planning & Zoning Commission we have got a chance here for some R2 lots which are the largest lot in the City of Meridian up next to the Glick property. We met with them and we think we can resolve the concerns with large lots and a 24 foot landscape strip and a nice fence that meets with their approval. This is another nice home on Victory Road, this is the Marvin Hanson property. The Ridenbaugh Canal is in the elevated portion behind his property where that tree line is. He has asked that we address some of his concerns. As we work on the plat instead of the ten lots, the ten 8,000 square foot lots that were originally anticipated he has asked that we have five large R-2 type lots plus on those 5 lots that we have a one story house restriction at the street level, a one story home. Also retain those trees and plant more trees so we don't have people looking down at his backyard. That is perfectly acceptable. All of these things are addressed in the findings of fact. Another property owner asked that we move the Eagle Road entrance south to line up with Girdner Lane and we still have room for the fire station site and a well site as required by the City. This is a triangular piece of property at Locust Grove right next to the canal. We had asked for Limited Office designation on the small triangular piece. The Woodington family owns property directly across the street, would be the west side of Locust Grove. They tell me they do not object to the Limited Office. They would rather have a nice office building there than several Meridian City Council August 15,1995 Page 55 homes which could conceivably happen. Greg wants to build an office that would be owned by Westpark Company right there. It would brick and stucco, so he has an ownership in the project but also a business relationship ongoing. One of the concerns of Mr. Shipley was taking the access on Locust Grove and adjusting it. About where you see that bicyclist is the west entrance to Highlands Ranch but you see the canal there and there is a dip in the road. The canal of course is high and so we have been talking to neighbors about moving the entrance south where you see the red arrow, but that is a no- no. The Woodington family says that would not be good for their home and we agree. If we leave it in its current position that may work from an engineering standpoint, it may have to be moved northward. If that is the case we would have to purchase some of the John Shipley property. Met with John, we have a good relationship, there is a possibility that we will purchase some or all of his property to make that happen. All of these things are worked out in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. There are a lot of conditions and safeguards and all of the ground rules for development. Last slide, this is a fence out in that area, it is a cedar fence. maybe this is the one that has been down or up and repaired. But the citizens out there said please done put in a cedar fence that is just not a good thing. Westpark is seriously considering and this is something that isn't specifically addressed in the findings of fact, it is one of these quality issues. Greg wants to put in a vinyl fence. The Woodingtons have a vinyl fence, and there are a couple of other projects in town that have a nice vinyl fence that are low maintenance they look good, wash them off with a hose. I guess they are more durable and they look nicer. The folks out there have asked for it. So we are committing to a vinyl fence wherever I guess it is appropriate to have a vinyl fence. Certainly next to the property owners that want it, I don't know if it would be the entire perimeter. But we don't want to have a fence that is not desirable to the neighbors out there. Then item 2 on the list here, we want it in writing, we do accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written but we would request 2 modifications, 2 clarifications really. The first one there is item S on page 26 of the findings, it is in the conclusion section. The city has a valid concern about providing police and fire services to new growth. So you placed a limitation on how much development could occur on the property before a new police and fire services were provided. I would ask that you add this sentence to that section that the City of Meridian will conduct and annual review meetings with Highlands Ranch officials and citizens to document the City's progress in expanding fire and police services. That puts it in a partnership situation where both are helping each other solve that problem. Then the next item would be item N on page 24, the findings state that there would not be Limited Office on that small triangular piece between the canal and Locust Grove, I have met with the Woodington family, I don't know if they are here tonight, I didn't see them, but they tell me they would rather have Limited Office. I personally think it is a better use, Greg wants to develop his own office building there. We would hope that you would allow a nice quality Limited Office subject to conditional use. Other than that we hope that you would approve the findings of fact let us continue to make this project good. Go back to P & Z document all of these changes, make a new plat, Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 56 work with P & Z, work with the citizens, come back to Council, we then have a set of ground rules we can live by. That is it Mayor. Kingsford: Thank you so much for being brief Wayne, any questions for Mr. Forrey? Anyone else from the public? Rex Young, 2950 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Young: I have lived at my residence for over 25 years. I have followed the proceedings on this project pretty closely. I met with Wayne Forrey this last week. Some of the concerns that I had with the project, the way it had been explained to me earlier was that over 1/3 of the homes would be 1000 square feet or smaller. When I met with him last week he said that it had been stipulated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that there would be no homes go into the development that would be less than 1400 square feet. I did not hear him say that tonight. I wanted to make sure that got on record. One of the other concerns that I have had has been concerning my domestic well, my well went dry in late 1992. I had to replace it The previous well had served for me for over 20 years and it was about 64 feet. My current well is 170 feet and I understand with a development this size you have to have a water source there. I understand that you have to have a city well. I want it on the public record that I want, I monitor my well, the water level in my well periodically and I keep a record of that. Once a new well is drilled and put into service I will continue to monitor that. If my water table drops significantly or fairly insignificantly then I will certainly be beating the drum trying to seek recourse someplace. Because that is one thing that we have got to protect. I believe what he told me, I appreciated the opportunity when I say I believe what Mr. Forrey told me. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with him. Other than the well thing jf what he told me is true and it ends up I have no problems with the project. There is one other thing I would like to add and they have worked very closely with people on transitional lots. At an earlier hearing there was some discussion on transitional lots and so forth where you have existing residences and you are putting in a subdivision next to it and I would certainly urge the Council to consider those transitional lots seriously. They have considered them seriously here. But even though Highlands Ranch does not abut directly on my property I would certainly hope that their efforts to provide transitional lots will serve as a precedence so when the time comes when a development goes in which abuts my property I will be able to lean on that and hopefully get the consideration that the Glick's and Hanson's have received. Thank you. Kingsford: Thank you Rex, with regard to your well. And I don't blame you for monitoring it, my greater understanding of hydraulics, if I were to start over again in life I think that would by my occupation because it is fascinating. It is my understanding that we are on several different water stratas through here and that all of the City wells we go down significantly deeper that that, We are told are in a different water table that what you are Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 57 talking about. (Inaudible) Kingsford: They have to be sealed through those areas as I understand it talking to our well drillers. But I don't blame you for monitoring it. Mr. Forrey, let's get those house sizes on the record please. Forrey: Mr. Young is correct, at the Planning & Zoning Commission we had requested smaller than 1400 square feet. But in the findings of fact and conclusions of law the City Attorney researched that and made the determination that we could not make that request. So by accepting the findings of fact and conclusions of law we acknowledge that the smallest home constructed in Highlands Ranch would be 1400 square feet in size. Jim Allen, 3040 East Victory, was sworn by the City Attorney. Allen: I am really not affected too much because I am more than 300 feet away. But I affected because I have to give my neighbors water every year or have had. Our well is now at 200 feet I am not concerned about their well, they will be down to 700 to 800 feet, I am not concerned about my well being affected by theirs. Both my neighbors wells did go dry in the last 2 years. Since then they have gone down to 200 feet too. Hopefully we have enough water. My main concern is what about traffic on South Eagle and Victory? Is Ada County planning on a stop light other than our, we do have kind of a stop light there but I was wondering about a regular stop light and not just a 4 way stop. Are they going to enlarge Victory or are they going to enlarge Eagle as far as widening. Kingsford: Those are questions that we can't answer but will be addressed as the plat proceeds, the Highway District has to sign off on it so those questions will be brought up. I would suggest that you maybe consider going to the Highway District hearing on that subject then. Allen: Thank you Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Lydia Aguerre, 2620 South Loucst Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Aguerre: I guess I am a little confused on the ingress/egress at one point in time it was going to be on Victory and now they are talking about doing it on South Locust Grove, has that been established? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 58 Forrey: The three ingress/egress points are still the same. One at South Locust Grove, somewhere near the canal crossing or on the John Shipley property, one on Victory Road and one at Eagle Road, probably in an alignment with Girdner Lane. Aguerre: How many households on South Victory Road, how many households will be using that as ingress/egress? Is it just going to be open wherever they want to go? Is that how that works? (Inaudible) Aguerre: My concern being with Sportsman Point, Salmon Rapids, Los Alamitos and all the phases are going to be happening, South Locust Grove right now is just two lanes, traffic being a concern. Thank you. Kingsford: Anyone else? Bonnie Glick, 2860 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Glick: Our property is 2.2 acres directly abutting this development. I think my husband and I and the Hanson's are probably the ones most affected because it is going to be right up next to where are houses are. He shows you both of our properties in the pictures. I don't know where to start. Tonight we are looking at annexation and zoning, zoning for R-4 and L-O. I have really appreciated Mr. Forrey meeting with my husband and I. For awhile that was interesting because they were talking about meeting with the neighbors and I had never heard from anybody_ He came out the other night and we had a long meeting and I feel like too we have worked a lot of the issues out. But tonight since Mr. Forrey and my husband and I agree to place, and I think he showed you on the map up there R-2 half acre lots next to my property going back 7 lots, 7 half acre lots going back from Victory Road up to Leslie Street which is the stub. Can we put R-2 also to be approved, that was the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. I quote them, "if larger lots are placed next to the existing land with homes on the land and then having some R-2 or R-3 with R-4 development adjacent to the R-2 or R-3 it would be more in the city's best interest." So, I don't know how you do that tonight, but I just want to say don't just approve R-4 and L-O. We are looking at these R-2 that we have agreed upon and I want that on the public record. Since we have agreed on the half acre lots next to our property Mr. Forrey has indicated that the City in their zoning schedule shows that R-2 is the minimum size lot of 18tOOO square feet and he showed by the zoning schedule. If this is the largest size lot that the City Council would approve and I have told Mr. Forrey that I accept the half acre reluctantly because my point has always been that a transitional lot size, a comparable lot size which is stated in the comprehensive plan in 6.8U to me I have 2.2 acres a comparable lot size is an acreage of some kind. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 59 More than a 1/2 acre, I would like to see acres there, but he tells me that is not possible. Anyway, he says the minimum square footage would be 1000 square feet. I just want to make sure I guess that is what they are. That there isn't this planned development thing where 25% then is shaved off of that and pretty soon I have 1/3 acre to 1/4 acre lots there. Does that make sense, I don't know how you work all of that. That is one of my concerns Wayne, I just thought I would get it on the testimony. The other night when we met with Wayne, we covered a number of facts and I want to get them on the public testimony on the record. Wayne Forrey and my husband and I agreed to a number of different points, can I list these Wayne? Kingsford: You don't have to ask him. Glick: The first one was, that they would place lots of at 1/2 acres of a 1/2 acre next to our property from Victory Road back to Leslie Street. We understand that these lots will be at least 18,000 square feet excepting maybe the last one he said it might be right by Leslie Street around 16,800. Secondly the homes to be built on these 1/2 acre lots will be one story dwellings so that we are not just like, we are kind of up so if they put these big monolithic 2 story things we are going to be like doing this. Thirdly, that there will be a 20 foot landscape strip planted with pine trees to provide screening similar to what we now have with Sally Martin's pine forest. Which will extend along our property line and back on to Leslie Street. In other words, along the 7 1/2 acres lots. This is because the pine forest he showed you is what we look at. So he and the developer I guess have agreed they will preserve that view for us which I think is very kind. Also, that the developer will not use Sally Martin's domestic well to irrigate landscape or to pressurize irrigation since we have wells going dry in this area and that all existing wells and sewer systems in this development area will be capped. Loads of people on Victory Road have re-drilled their wells. I am like Rex Young, I am very concerned about my well water. We have a well that is only about 100 feet. So, they have agreed to that. Even so I am concerned about the water still, when they drill a big well. Who has done the studying who knows that when the City drills these wells can the ground water and aquifer and everything else handle this. I want to know if there a study someplace that you guys are assured that when you keep digging all of these wells for all of this development in Meridian that in 20 years any of us are going to have any water. Even the developments are they going to end up with their community wells dry. I guess that is a question I have about water. The other point we agreed on was that the wet well that is built for irrigation that comes off of the Canal which is right behind our place will be placed away from our property so that the noise isn't right there. He said that we will be consulted when that is built, is that right Wayne? (Inaudible) Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 60 Glick: Okay, six, that an adequate storm water management area wi II be provided so that it will filter the run off from the streets and it won't contaminate our ground water. Seven that hoods will be placed on lighting close to our property to divert the light away from our property. Eight, that an attractive open fence will be placed on our property line sturdy enough to contain animals. I have a concern about the vinyl fence, John and I went out and looked at the vinyl fence one evening and I am not sure it will hold large animals. I don't know, (inaudible). My only problem is we have smaller animals too so there would have to be some kind of something to contain sheep or smaller animals if that is what we had in our field. We have like an acre field right there. But I feel confident that we can come to an agreement on the fence since that seems to be the precedent set in our relationship. We also, he also agreed that we can view the covenants, because I don't wan to end up with a bunch of junk cars like at the back of those properties next to my property. I have appreciated Mr. Forrey's responding to our concerns that we came before the Planning and Zoning with. I have continued to have a concern about the schools however. I wonder who makes sure that those things are in place to handle these kids and that it doesn't become this burden for present residents and compromise the schooling for our current students with these large developments coming in. I know the land is donated but who pays for the supplies and the teachers salaries? Another concern I have is just that, and I told Wayne about this, the hill that goes down in front of my place where the entrance is going to be at Sally Martin's house it is a blind hill and if school buses come down there and stop to pick up kids it is an incredibly dangerous hill. So I would like Ada County Highway to look at that. I think that covers my concerns, thank you. Jim Lee, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I have a question for Mr. Forrey concerning the John Shipley property, this is the first I had heard about that. I understand that you are going to bring the road down is that what you are going to do, below the canal? We are 2 fields over from John and so my concern is you are going to bring the road down to bring down South Locust Grove and then what are you going to do with the remainder of the property? Will it go into this development or are you going to build a storage shed? Kingsford: Can we make sure we get this on tape please? Forrey: (Inaudible)the blue arrow is the driveway of the John Shipley property. We have three alternatives here, we can locate the entrance which would be the west side entrance to Highlands Ranch where the red arrow is and place a bridge over the canal, but that would hurt the Woodington property. That is not in the best interest of the neighbor across the street. So our second choice is to leave it as shown and work out the geometric with ACHD and the engineer J.J. Howard feels that it can meet ACHD specifications and stay right there. But Mr. Shipley raised the point that he felt it should go north. So, it is a Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 61 possibility that it would go up to the blue arrow and that would mean purchasing some of his property and it is probably going to move about less than 100 feet north. Just to get around that canal crossing. Lee: (Inaudible) Forrey: It probably would in that area. Lee: Would you purchase the whole piece of property? Forrey: If he was willing to sell, I believe it is 6 acres, he might be willing to sell a piece but he might want us to buy (inaudible) Lee: What would happen to the remainder of the property if you buy? Forrey: It would be incorporated into Highlands Ranch as part of the R-4 planned development I would hope if the Council would approve it. Kingsford: Anybody else interested in a sidebar with Mr. Forrey? Nancy Hanson, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I just had a few things to add. Most of my issues have been brought up and covered by other people tonight. One of the things that I wanted to ask about is on the 1/2 acre lots is we only saw the little pieces of property that adjoined ours, that is the only plat that we saw that has been revised. I would still like to see the preliminary plat or something that shows everything, all the revisions after these findings of fact when they change it. I just want to be able to review that when it is done. The other thing is my husband was kind of concerned about the greenbelt along the canal. The way it is now there is a walkway path and trees and houses, he would like the trees and greenway, the pathway not to be so close to our property if that is possible. Kingsford: One of the things there and I am not sure how that lays out the irrigation district won't let you put those things close to the ditch. They have to have access and so on that has to be a factor. Hanson: Then the traffic is a major concern to us also. Right now there, the turnouts aren't close to our house, where your subdivision will start but the traffic (inaudible) and there is more and more traffic all the time. It is a major concern. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 62 Marvin Hanson, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: One question I hadn't thought about when I met with Mr. Forrey is the fencing. I am not familiar with this vinyl fence. I don't know if it is a screen type fence or if it is just like a barbed wire fence to keep animals in our out. I don't know anything about that. I would like to have another meeting with Mr. Forrey to discuss this and the hooded lights that Bonnie talked about, I hadn't thought of that. That is something else that I would like to talk to Mr. Forrey about some time. I would like to arrange a meeting with him to discuss this type of stuff. Thank you. Kingsford: For your information there is examples of vinyl fence being used in the City now and of course there is a variety of different kinds. For example you can take a look at Ustick and Ten Mile and see a kind of vinyl fence there, but there are lots of different kinds and I am sure probably you can see samples or pictures that they would have as well. Anyone else from the public? Glick: I just wanted to ask, is there anyway we can see this revised preliminary plat come along with the zoning. He is talking about you do the zoning then they revise the plat. I guess I am not saying I don't trust Mr. Forrey, but I kind of would like to see that stuff at the same time. Kingsford: You are going to be noticed for a preliminary plat. And so you would see it and have another run at the whole process this whole thing again. You can be until midnight or after some other evening reviewing that. Glick: The R-2 will be in there, I just want to make sure. Kingsford: Well if it is not I have a strong feeling we will hear from you, it would be my sense anyway. Anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor? Morrow: I have a question, within our packet with the summary of the development features of Highlands Ranch, in this packet it indicated there was 40, we are talking about item 4, luxury lots, 80 by 100, 40 units at 1600 square feet, executive lots 80 by 100, 41 units at 1400 square feet. You didn't do greenway lots, 254 units lots 60 by 90, 1/3 at 1000 square feet, 1/3 at 1100, 1/3 at 1200 square feet. Keyhole lots 50 by 75,69 units, 1/2 at 900 square feet, 1/2 at 1000 square feet. Lifestyle homes 50 by 50 building pad, 46 units of 1/3 at 1200 square feet, 1/3 at 1300 square feet and a 1/3 at 1400 square feet. Your testimony indicates that all of those are gone, what is happening now is that every residential lot within that subdivisions is a 1400 square foot minimum is that correct? Forrey: That is absolutely correct. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 63 Morrow: And lot sizes are all R-4 size the 80 by 100 is at issue. Forrey: The findings of fact and conclusions of law conclude that because it is a planned development we do qualify if we make all of these changes. We would qualify for a no greater than 25% reduction in lot size. So the minimum lot size would be 6,000 square feet minimum home size cannot be varied so it would be 1400 square foot home minimum. But the minimum lot size would be no less than 6,000 square feet. Morrow: And that is throughout the entire subdivision or 25% of them would be? Forrey: No, that is through the entire subdivision with the exceptions of these transition areas and the findings of fact talk about the R-2 then R-3, the 18,000 square foot lots, 12,000 square foot lots and transitioning down to the 6,000 square foot lot within the planned development. The home size has to be 1400 square feet throughout. Morrow: So what you are telling me is with the exception of these special lots that have been discussed this evening all other residential lots will be 6,000 square feet? Forrey: No, could be at the minimum, not all would be 6,000 I know that. But there will be some that will be as small as 6,000 because the City planned development ordinance allows that and that is the conclusion reached in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. That as a planned development that is one of the features that is a tradeoff for the open space and all of these other development features. Yerrington: What percentage of these lots would be that small? Rough guess? Forrey: I could tell you probably if this is annexed and we go back to Planning & Zoning and we re-design this plat then I could give you exact number probably in a couple of weeks. (End of Tape) I don't know what the percentage would be Councilman of small lots. Morrow: I have a couple questions of our City Attorney with respect to the existing findings of fact. On page 23, under item I, a portion of the last sentence says,"the development concept does not meet the residential goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan." What does that refer to? Crookston: That refers to this area being a single family dwelling area. Morrow: This area of ground. Crookston: In the Comprehensive Plan it shows a portion of it as being totally single family Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 64 dwellings. That was done when they referenced a lot of, there were some cluster homes. Morrow: So with the concept that we are being presented then tonight this item L partially does not apply. Crookston: That is correct. Kingsford: What was your other question Walt? Morrow: The other question we just answered, it had to do with on page 25 the larger lots were placed next to the existing lands with homes on the land and then having (inaudible) adjacent to the R-2 and R-3. Even under a planned development with a 25% reduction of lot size (inaudible) would be in the City's best interest. I just had a note as to what does this mean? I think that was answered prior to that. Those are all my questions. Kingsford: Greg (Inaudible) Kingsford: I closed the public hearing, I think that was a question asked after the fact, its it your desire to have us re-open the public hearing? Crookston: I would rather have it as part of the public hearing. Kingsford: I will re-open the public hearing then. Greg Johnson, 2433 Can-Ada Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Johnson: We plan on staying with about the same percentages we had on that original plan we had. We had some luxury lots and that, we have the larger lots being used as buffering. They will be part of those luxury lots, we will continue with those. We still plan to have a portion of those lots be for retired type individuals and will address those homes. I can't remember exactly what the percentage of the smaller lots were in the original but the amount that would be at the 6,000 square feet will not exceed what we were requesting before for the smaller lots. We will still have some larger lots in there. Basically the same percentages as we were proposing originally. Morrow: I don't know (inaudible) Kingsford: I think you did have that at one point, in fact I am not sure that isn't what you were reading from. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 65 Johnson: The number that you were reading there, the luxury lots of 40 units we'll try and stay very close to that, the executive lots of 41 units, the lifestyle homes is 46 units. Those will all remain the same, what we are referring to as greenway lots and keyhole lots would be the portion that we would be re-designing into the smaller 6,000 square foot lots. Morrow: (Inaudible) Johnson: There are 254 greenway lots that were originally 60 by 90 and 69 keyhole lots that were 50 by 75 that will probably be reduced down, we are going to be less units than that but that portion of ground that we were using there that is what we would be using. Kingsford: Any other questions? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have one, I guess (inaudible) Kingsford: Let me make sure no one triggered anymore thought here, if there are none I will close the public hearing again. Go ahead and ask you question. Corrie: I guess Shari on your comment L request a change in the comprehensive plan, is that still valid with what they are doing here? Stiles: Councilman Corrie, that was a reference to what the findings were. I think it is kind of an interpretation thing. I think if you were, I think it could be allowed within that zone, I mean within that area as part of this planned development if it is going to be a planned development. That was just strictly in reference to the findings. Kingsford: Any other questions? Counselor? Crookston: We do need new findings. Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQUARE Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 66 FOOT MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 2 - BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite anyone that wants to speak to that after the owner or their designee. Excuse me that isn't a public hearing. Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin, Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, we strongly disagree with the decision of the P & Z Commission as it relates to pad 2 in the shopping center. This is a shopping center where we are building a Fred Meyer, Key Bank and a McDonalds. I have about 8 points I would like to make and I will try to be brief at this late hour. I would like to take the time to go through the findings of fact and clarify certain matters as well as state our objections to others. If you can look at page 2, paragraph 3, it states in that paragraph that we have 2 drive thrus, we are actually going to have one drive thru on the northwest corner of the building, but we may ask your permission in accordance with your ordinances for another drive thru on the east side of the building at a later date. Our original application showed one at each end and (inaudible) one drive thru. Page 2, paragraph 4, the drive thru as I said is not on the west side of the building it is on the north side of the building. The drive thru faces a public street, the property on the north side of that public street is owned by Avest zoned commercial and I think you may recall we intent to building a mini-storage on the property. There will not be outside speakers at the drive thru at this time. There may be at the future and if so we will request them in accordance with the ordinance in place for outside speakers and the volume and what have you. But at this time we are making no request for out side speakers. It is a drive thru window where we drive up and the person opens the window and says what can I get for you and you order your product and leave. Page 5 paragraph 14, in response to Mary Cahoon's remarks the drive thru will not add to traffic congestion, exhaust fumes nor will it impact safety in the area. The lighting is well within the City and ACHD design criteria. Her desire to meet with me has been fulfilled several times and frankly I have done all that I can do to satisfy her concerns yet she continues to be unhappy with the entire project. I don't know what else I can do, I have met with her in person a number of times at separate meetings as well as at meetings like this tonight. The drive through will not have, specifically it will not have an effect on her property in and of itself as well as the overall project will have an effect on her property. I will just step over here and I will try to point fairly accurately where her home is. I don't think she is here tonight so I don't think that she can confirm that but that is on the public record from earlier testimony. Page 6, paragraph 14, talking about Elizabeth Gwin's testimony, Elizabeth Gwin has testified at every single opportunity expressing her concerns for families and the homes in the area. Elizabeth lives I would guess about a block and a half away herself. She continues to exaggerate her concerns, there are no all night food services intended for the project, we are not asking for that There are no loud speakers and there will be no noise from this building that will stand out from the overall project. The closest resident is 130 feet, the Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 67 property line is 130 feet from the drive thru window. Any noise or lighting from that drive thru window will have to cross 2 berms that we are installing in accordance with your desires and ACHD's desires one on each side of Locust Grove. I honestly truly cannot see how this drive thru is going to have any negative impact on these residents. Page 6 paragraph 15, I really don't know if it is appropriate to add the comments and concerns from a hearing held two years ago when we have no way of knowing if the people still live in the area or still live in the subdivision. Or even if they live in the Meridian area. But our presentation at that time that the development along Locust Grove would be quote "10 impact" still stands. There is no evidence that this building will be high impact. I can't imagine another commercial use with a better neighborhood mix of tenants than what we are building here today. We are talking about a TCBY yogurt shop, and a Maxi Java coffee shop. A home bake pizza shop and possibly a hair styling shop. This isn't a high impact use. We have encouraged the tenants that we have for this building to locate in this area because they will serve the neighbors in this area rather than in a regional area. Imagine yourself getting in a car and driving across the Treasure Valley to go have a yogurt that is just not going to happen. This is going to be the people that live in this neighborhood are going to bicycle, walk or possibly drive down to the store to have a yogurt. The same with the coffee shop, that is a neighborhood meeting place, it isn't a regional draw, people aren't going to drive from Nampa to have a cup of coffee at this coffee shop. So, I just don't see how we can feel that it is going to have a regional affect it is a neighborhood use, it is considered in the development business to be a low impact service use for the immediate area. Page 7, paragraph 4, again I strongly disagree with the report that the use is high impact. I am not aware of any such designation in your ordinances for commercial use for high or low impact. However this is a very typical neighborhood type of use. I am concerned with the discussion in the staff report limiting the hours of operation, I am not aware of the City of Meridian doing that on any other properties within the City. While we are stating the tenants names we have stated for the record the present hours of operation. It is part of a 200,000 square foot shopping center that will begin construction next month. The hours of operation may change from time to time for the different tenants. Page 8, paragraph C, it talks about the design be compatible, we don't feel there is a way to design a building to look like a home, but the intention here is that it be compatible with the surrounding area. The surrounding area will have this building, 6,000 square foot area, it will have a Key Bank, a McDonalds, it will have another multi-tenant building down on Fairview and it will have a 172,000 square foot Fred Meyers store. Immediately north there will be several hundred mini-storage units. Across the street there are some homes. We feel the design of the building is compatible with the surrounding areas. We feel very strongly about that, I really feel that we have met every single concern on the design that we can possibly meet. We are proud of it. On page 8, paragraph D and G, we just completely disagree. I have done this for many years, developments like this and worked with staff reports and I cannot imagine what possible hazard this building can have. There is no heavy equipment being run here, it is not a Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 68 tavern, there is no alcohol use. To state in a staff report that it is a possible hazard or a possible disturbance to the area is just a real reach in my opinion and we very strongly disagree with that report. I would like to just review again what we are planning on building in the area in this approximately 22 acre retail development. What we are talking about here is a small drive thru window, it is a drive up window versus the kind where you order down on one end of the building and drive around the corner. It is a small component of a 200,000 square foot project. The concerns expressed in this staff report are blown far out of proportion by limiting this use limiting the drive thru it will obviously force us to put a different tenant in there. We feel very strongly that TCBY is the right neighborhood tenant and their requirement is to have a drive thru drive up window. If they can't do it here they will do it across the street or they will do it someplace else. We feel that this is the best location for them and for the residents. We have worked with you, we have worked with all of the committees, we have worked with the staff, we have worked with neighbors, we have worked with ACHD, we have done everything we said we were going to do. We have bonded for all of these improvements, all of the berms, all the landscaping. We have come up with a lighting plan to meet all of your concerns, we have revised our access in and out of the project to meet the neighbors concerns and ACHD. We have done everything we possibly can for the City of Meridian, for the surrounding residents and for ACHD at every turn. We feel that what we are asking for is responsible and will have a long term benefit for the residents. I would like to for the record, I guess this isn't public testimony but for the record I would just like to list the tenants the user in the shopping center that are going to be here that do not include the people in this building. As I said before we have a Fred Meyer, we have a Key Bank we have a McDonalds those are the 3 separate standing buildings. In the building we are proposing on Fairview Avenue, we have a subway sandwich shop and a one hour martinizing. The intended tenants for this building are TCBY on the west end and a Moxi Java on the east. With the zoning we feel that these tenants are appropriate. With their zoning we feel that the plans that we are presenting are completely appropriate. What we are asking you to do tonight is to go against the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and to give us the go ahead to proceed on this building with the modifications I discussed. One drive thru and no speakers at this time. Kingsford: Questions of the Council? I just make one comment, you obviously haven't met my wife when you say people won't drive across the area for yogurt. Generally I would agree with you but living with that woman I know that is not so. Durkin: I am really a yogurt fan myself and I have been to many stores in all my travels. Really we have talked to TCBY and they have done studies, they have units, this is the same operator here, is all over the units in the County. Kingsford: The reality is to that statement that probably the closest one to me is at Fairview Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 69 and Milwaukee and so my wife will drive that many fewer miles to yogurt it. Any other questions of the Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings and conclusions, now discussion Counselor, can you do that without a public hearing? Crookston: Let me just reference what the Planning & Zoning Commission indicated to me as to why I prepared the findings in the fashion that I did. They felt that they wanted to have very little impact on the residences on the west side of Locust Grove. They felt that the testimony at P & Z there was going to be 2 drive thru windows, there was no indication that they were going to be, that there would be no speakers. They felt that there were other uses such as a dry cleaning establishment which I think he mentioned the one hour martinizing would be better placed next to Locust Grove then it would be along Fairview. They felt that, I don't know that they felt so much that the uses for these particular uses and as I think I remember there weren't the particular uses designated for each building that you referenced tonight could have been but I don't recall it. And they felt that they should have businesses that were not basically 16, 18 hour open, that was their thinking. In that regard they felt that these were higher impact uses because really of the hours that they would be open. Kingsford: We have a motion and a second any discussion that takes place needs to come from the Council. Any further discussion from the Council? Morrow: I think from my perspective I have read through all of the findings of fact I have real questions as to what some of the issues that Mr. Durkin has raised and myself. One of my notes is what is the definition if these aren't low impact what is a low impact business? What is hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses given these uses. I can see the argument from both sides, if you put a drive in over here that is fine but then you put, if I understood the location correctly, if you put a TCBY up on Fairview then you have young people, small people that have access to a major thoroughfare so maybe there are some trade offs there in terms of having the TCBY located further within the shopping center area so that they can go there while their parents are doing other things, that is a stretch but maybe it has some validity. I guess on item G the use would or could involve the use activity process, material or equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to a person, property or the general Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 70 welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic and or noise. I guess that could apply to the entire site. So, I have some real problems with the issues. Obviously part of in these documents it indicated that there were two drive thrus that there (inaudible) were exiting going west as opposed to going north. So, at that point in time the issue with respect to lights and so on and so forth was a valid issue. Crookston: There was some concern stated to me by the Commission that they felt that there was a traffic conflict between the drive thru going west as I remember and something with the loop road and back where it is side by side. I can't recall specifically. (Inaudible) Crookston: Initially that is what they had Tolsma: (Inaudible) Durkin: (Inaudible) Corrie: I would venture to say that is not going to be a problem with the Fred Meyer going in there that is going to be more traffic than those. It is not even going to be an issue. What I have seen in other subdivisions like that it is not even going to be an issue. Kingsford: Any further discussion? You have heard the motion and second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Durkin: Can I ask a question just for clarification, what was the response whether there will have to be another public hearing or not? Kingsford: There is apparently not. Crookston: We don't need that at this juncture. If they send it back to P & z. ITEM #16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 5 - BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: In that one I see that we have positive findings and conclusions from P & Z for a 6,000 multi-tenant for Lot 5, Block 1 do you wish to hear any comments from Mr. Durkin on that? Meridian City Council August 15,1995 Page 71 Morrow: Do you have any comment with respect to those? Durkin: To be frank with you I was looking at the recommendation first and the recommendation was for approvaL I would ask you to go along with that, I would be happy to answer any questions on the building. Point out, (inaudible) Subway sandwiches going on the west edge (inaudible) east edge. (Inaudible) Morrow: You read the staff recommendations both from the City Engineer's office and the P&Z? Durkin: I have, I would not be able to pass a test on them but they are generally agreeable, we are in agreement. Kingsford: Is the Council prepared to take action on that issue? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for us by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by P & Z, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that the City Council of the City of Meridian approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the appl ication. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE BY Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 72 HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL: Kingsford: Would you state your name and address for the record please? Youngerman: Steve Youngerman, 5451 South Caper Place, Boise. The Planning & Zoning Commission I guess agreed with what I want to do and I would ask you to agree with that. Kingsford: Questions of the Council? Morrow: My only concern is night time hours of operation, I am not sure that is an appropriate location for that primarily because I think that we all understand that night time hours the location it means that guys sit out there and drink cocktails. Youngerman: My intent of this is really not to boost cocktail it is food sales. My grill is only open until 9 and one of the facts there, one of the conditions they came back with is that I would only be able to operate until 10 P.M. anyway. So if you look at the way my business goes I do dinner business up until 7:30 to 8:00 and then I have about 2 hours of pretty slow time before the night time crowd kind of gets up and gets moving. They do it in every other city in the country just about. Another point that I would like to make is the downtown area of Meridian is going away on us. I know this (inaudible) it is something that makes the downtown area more friendly, more accessible. I know we are talking about putting a park where the Ugly Duckling Car Rental place is. Essentially that is alii am asking to do. If you look at it, I am talking about 5 tables and 10 chairs. Kingsford: I guess we will have to increase your sewer and water hook up. Youngerman: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? What is your pleasure? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I would move we grant the conditional use permit for a sidewalk cafe by Harry's Bar and Grill. Kingsford: Approve the findings first. Tolsma: I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the P & Z. Yerrington: Second Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 73 Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the conditional use permit for Harry's Bar and Grill, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation to City Council that they grant the conditional use permit requested by the applicant to extend the business to include an outside cafe described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the decision, all those in favor? Morrow: Discussion, did you wish to limit the hours? Kingsford: That is in your findings as I recall, to 10:00, did you want to change that? Morrow: That was my point of discussion. It is indicated that he doesn't do much there past 9:00 and the bar crowd doesn't come until 1 0:00. If we are concerned as a City in terms of bar crowd then maybe it would be to our benefit to limit it to 9:00 instead of 10:00. Tolsma: (Inaudible) and 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, that is on page 3, item 7. Morrow: That is what the applicant wanted, the applicant stated that the business is looking to increasing lunch during week or until 9 p.m. and serving food until 2 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, I'm sorry 2 a.m. Kingsford: You should look at page seven is the appropriate one. It is talking about 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. It is talking about when the tables and chairs have to be stored inside in item 6, 11 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Inaudible) Kingsford: I guess the question that comes to my mind and I should have brought it up Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 74 earlier than this, are we granting something that we have the authority to grant? I don't know who owns that propertYt we are talking about Old Town. If we are talking about that being right of way that the sidewalks are owned by the Highway District then we are out of bounds. I know a lot of places in the downtown area that the property owns the sidewalk, has that been researched Counselor? Crookston: I had a discussion with Jim Shearer about it and he is quite familiar and of course he is one the P & Z Commission. He is quite familiar with that area, he said that the right of way goes out about 7 feet from the building, excuse me the ownership goes seven feet from the building and the right of way starts seven feet beyond the building is what he indicated to me. He has quite a bit of knowledge about that. Shari must have a comment. Stiles: Council, the Ada County Highway District their response indicated the applicant shall obtain a license agreement from the district for use of the public right of way for commercial activities prior to issuance of conditional use approval. So I think they have pretty well covered what they consider to be the requirements for use of their right of way there. Crookston: But it is my understanding that tables and chairs would not be within the right of way. (Inaudible) Kingsford: Well, certainly at issue then if he is using the Highway District stuff he has to have a license agreement. (Inaudible) Kingsford: So that is okay. Any further discussion? Chief? Gordon: (Inaudible) major problem in the downtown area with the 3 bars and the patrons traveling to and from in the alleys and sidewalks and we enacted an open container ordinance at that time to keep them within the buildings. I have a problem with serving alcohol in the streets and sidewalks. I think we are going to be going backwards. I would not be opposed to meals during meal hours but I think after 10:00 on any night of the week we constitute nothing more than just a street fight. Kingsford: And of course we are limiting it to that Chief (inaudible) Gordon: I heard the 2:00 come in. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 75 Kingsford: That was requested and denied, we are talking 10:00 to 10:00. Gordon: I would still be opposed to after dark (inaudible) The business people in the downtown area are constantly calling me, the banks, broken windows. That alley down there smells like an open latrine at the present time and has since I have been here. I would just discourage (inaudible) Steve is probably running a tighter ship there than any ofthe owners I have seen previous to him. But I also can tell you from experience when you bring people out on the sidewalk you are just asking for trouble. I would be opposed to (inaudible). I think what he is talking about is food sales, cafes and restaurants, not bars. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, if we see we are having troubles can we stop it? Crookston: Only if you place it as a condition of granting the conditional use. You do have the right to review it annually. Kingsford: Well, if we have that right I think we are only talking about a logical use here of 3 months. Tolsma: Well, the conditional use shall be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. Kingsford: Well, that covers it. (Inaudible) Youngerman: (Inaudible) I hate to have, I want to do this. I have to have a lot of rules that my customers don't understand. As far as you can eat out here but you can't have a beer you can have a Pepsi and a cup of coffee. Kingsford: (Inaudible) Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Am I hearing a unanimous vote for the 10:00 to 10:00 or for the findings of fact and conclusions of law for, we already did that excuse me, about the decision? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Recognize then that under the findings it will be reviewed pursuant to the Council's interest. ITEM #18: JACK MILLER: REQUEST FOR AN AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Meridian City Council August 15,1995 Page 76 Miller: My name is Jack Miller (inaudible) What I am asking for is that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to show that (inaudible) Overland and Eagle (inaudible) east 1/4, that 1/4 section. (Inaudible) Morrow: So you are the second property from the corner? Miller: Yes sir, right now there is just a sliver (inaudible) that is mixed use, we would like the whole thing to be amended to show that it is all mixed use. Kingsford: What does it show now Jack? Miller: It shows residential and then mixed use on west (inaudible) Kingsford: Any questions? Counselor? Crookston: Any person can file a petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan, I think that there may be some other amendments that the City desires or there may not be, I have not discussed that with the Council. If you want to have the amendment you can request him to compare the (End of Tape) join in as a co-applicant to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the fashion in which the City wants to and do the two at the same time. Kingsford: Have we had any (inaudible) looking to amend the Comp Plan? Crookston: Not that I am aware, there may be Kingsford: Did you say there was Shari? Stiles: Portions of the text in the comprehensive plan and (inaudible) there are some errors in it that I would like to have changed. Kingsford: It would be my suggestion to Mr. Miller that you get with Shari and make application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. If it appears that we need to make some corrections ourself and we will look at doing it at the same time since it can only be amended every 6 months. Miller: Thank you ITEM #19: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.5: Kingsford: Shari, has that been reviewed, are you comfortable with that? Danbury Fair? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 77 Stiles: Yes (inaudible) Kingsford: Is there a motion to allow the City Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest the development agreement? Yerrington: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest the development agreement for Danbury Fair Subdivision No.5, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #20: NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FINCH CREEK SUBDIVISION: Kingsford: Who is dealing with that Shari or Gary? Who put that on the agenda? Will Berg? I think before we table it I would like to know what it is. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, there is a Creekside Development who is the developer of Finch Creek Subdivision has submitted a non-development agreement for a portion of Finch Creek. The language is similar to the Non-Development Agreement that we had for Bedford Place and Chamberlain Estates which you have acted upon earlier. In fact I believe they took the same language from the Chamberlain Estates Non-Development Agreement and just inserted the different lot designations and different ownership and so forth. So it is language that has been reviewed by Wayne in the past. We are using a meets and bounds description for the lots because it is not a recorded subdivision yet as Wayne and I had discussed earlier on the Chamberlain Estates subdivision. Kingsford: Questions of the Council? Stiles: In yellow would be the lots that would be developed, the remainder of this is what the non-development agreement encompasses. Kingsford: Somehow in the back of my mind I can remember what the discussion was as to why they were not developing that, I can't put my finger on it do you recall Gary or Shari? It seems like it entailed access to some other subdivision or something, but I can't remember what that was. Stiles: Bedford Place is here (inaudible) I don't think there is anything here yet, nothing Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 78 has been proposed yet. Kingsford: Was it a sewer and water issue or sewer? Stiles: Maybe it is going to the bike path here (inaudible) Kingsford: Let's table that to the next meeting and get some more definitive answers to what we are talking about. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table the non-development agreement for Finch Creek Subdivision until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #21: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR SALMON RAPIDS: ITEM #22: COVEANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR LOS ALAMITOS: Kingsford: Counselor have you reviewed those? Crookston: I have and I think there are some significant changes that need to be made. They had submitted some amendments along with that to change the minimum square size houses from 1500 to 1400. I was trying to recall what the house sizes were in there and I discussed this very briefly with Shari before the meeting started. We did not come to any consensus with where we are at on it. I think there are enough particular, some language indicates that if you construe it in the way that it very easily can be construed you can have 950 square foot homes. I think that there is enough reason to at least either table it or approve subject to mine and Shari's comments. Morrow: My preference would be to see it tabled. Corrie: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to table the covenants for both Salmon Rapids and Los Alamitos to the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 79 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (Inaudible) Kingsford: Well, it is not a public hearing on those, those are things that the Council approves of. If you want to see those and have input with Mr. Crookston you would be welcome to give him a call and discuss those concerns. CC&R's is not something that is part of the public hearing process. (Inaudible) Kingsford: But you are not in Los Alamitos Subdivision. (Inaudible) Kingsford: CC&R's are only enforceable by the residents of the subdivision. If you have a problem with the fencing and so on and so forth then you come to us and we seek remedy through what has been outlined in the development agreement and so on. But the CC&R's would not be a remedy for you. Certianly you may interested in them becuase it will have some dictation as to what is there next to you but if something different goes in you wouldn't have the ability to enforce them because you are not a resident of that subdivision. (Inaudible) Kingsford: And that is the thing I am suggesting that you visit with Mr. Crookston and discuss that. (Inaudible) Crookston: Sure, I would have to make copies for you, I don't have copies right now. Kingsford: Do you have a copy of those CC&R's Shari, do you have a copy here at City Half. Why don't you stop by City Hall and Shari will give you a copy of the CC&R's then any questions you have or concerns about it contact Mr. Crookston. ITEM #23: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I recently received a phone call from the Attorney General's office and apparently there has been some kind of a suit filed against Reebok and they have settled the suit, some kind of an anti-trust suit. The result of this settlement Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 80 is that money is being made available to States for improvement of recreation facilities. The Attorney General AI Lance asked that the City of Meridian receive a $4,000 grant as a share of this Reebok settlement and one of this deputy Attorney Generals forwarded this information onto me. He called me on the phone and then sent me a letter requesting that we come up with a project to submit to the Attorney General's office to spend $4000. This would be for a non-budgeted item. It has to be, it has to consider itself as an athletic project such as soccer field, lights, softball field, etc. Yerrington: How about a golf course? Smith: He didn't mention it and I didn't ask. Kingsford: Reebok makes golf shoes, that should work. Smith: Quarterly reports until the project is done and I can find out, I can ask that question if that is what you want to do. Kingsford: I guess the pathway project is a budgeted item so that doesn't fly. We would be looking at creating something that we don't have, what can you do for $4000 that you don't have (inaudible). What about this issue of the tennis courts, could we use that to prune trees if we get into that with Mr. Dempsey? Smith: I think what they are looking for is something that is an athletic facility that is going to provide activity in other words. Kingsford: Well tennis courts makes it more usable. Smith: That is kind of a maintenance thing. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: Right, volleyball field. Kingsford: We don't have a budgeted item for specifics in Tulley Park maybe we ought to come up with an item in there that is an activity. Why don't you get Mr. Freckleton to scramble on that. Smith: If any of you have any thoughts on it let me know. I have to send this back into him by the end of August. Kingsford: Shari? Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 81 Stiles: Nothing Kingsford: Chief? Gordon: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Wayne do you have anything? Crookston: I don't have anything. Kingsford: Council, you have seen the tentative budget in front of you, it needs to be published twice so that there needs to be a publication deadline for the September 5th meeting. Likewise we have to set a date and notice for a hearing for the amended budget, the only reason for the amended budget is because of the increased amount of Impact Fees we got from the Highway District. We need to approve of setting the amended budget hearing for September 5th at 6:30 and likewise the budget hearing for that same time. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to set the hearing for the amended budget and the fiscal budget for 6:30 P.M. September 5, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Now, you have the tentative budget there, we need a motion to approve that if that is your desire. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve of the tentative budget, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: I would entertain a motion then to go into Executive Session to discuss personnel or a lawsuit. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 82 EXECUTIVE SESSION Kingsford: Call the meeting back to order, the Council was in Executive Session to discuss Personnel. A decision was made not to hear a grievance from the applicant, is there anymore business before the Council? Walter? Morrow: The only thing I want to raise is that we need to make the local press aware that the work is still on schedule as far as I know for August 21 st for the rebuild of the railroad crossing on East 1st. So let's confirm that with Gary and (inaudible) Kingsford: Would you take care, are you going to be in some time to check with Gary? Why don't you do that and Will will apprise the press. Anything Max? Yerrington: No Kingsford: Bob? Corrie: No Kingsford: Ron? Tolsma: No Kingsford: Will Berg? Berg: Have a good time guys, the only other thing is do you want to have another workshop to discuss the line items? Kingsford: Do you guys want to discuss it anymore or are you comfortable where we are at last evening? Berg: Do you understand what the tentative budget was? (Inaudible) Kingsford: Is there a motion to adjourn? Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Page 83 Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:50 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: ~&~~~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI Y C ERK APPROVED: ~ p~~tJ G NT P. KINGS 0 , AYOR reCftv-etL 8--/5-95"" ~v ~ (!/t mip-.- August 15, 1995 The following names and addresses are submitted on behalf of the citizens who oppose the proposed commercial development of the SW corner of the Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road intersection. These agencies and individuals deal with or have dealt with environmental problems and/or permits. 1. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Walla Walla District Lucky Peak Dam Lucky Peak Lane Boise, Idaho Mr. Robert Flowers (208-343-0671) Mr. Greg Martinez 2. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Central Snake Projects Office 214 Broadway Avenue Boise, Idaho 83702 Mr. John Claywood )208-334-1463 3. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District 1503 1st Street South Nampa, Idaho 83651 (208-343-1884) Mr. Bill Hansen (208-345-2431) (shop) 4. Meridian City Dept of Public Works Mr. Gary Smith - City Engineer (208-887-2211) Ms. Sherri Styles - City Planner (208-888-4433 The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has jurisdiction over the 5-Mile Creek Watershed and will make any requested or required reviews of the watershed for wetlands and environmental impact of lands adjacent to the creek. Although an environmental impact study may not be required, the public can demand that one be made for the area upstream and downstream of the intersection of 5-Mile Creek and the Franklin/South Locust Grove roads. This request must be filed with the Walla Walla Corp of Engineers office or their Lucky Peak office. The Five Mile Creek is one of the few natural year round flowing creeks or streams located in the Treasure Valley and therefore follows under the jurisdiction of the Corp of Engineers for Management. aU'l1lJze 2!! ~U4{)~ Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang st. Meridian, Idaho 83642 ret1{'/Yed g-IS--95" df ,,,-,bLft (! I C 11/l~. Meridian City Council August 15, 1995 Summary of Highlands Ranch Planned Community History: Previous R-81 R-15 approach changed to R-4 pun with L-O to address City and neighbor concems. Project has evolved into an acceptable development. Planning and Zoning Commission Action: Public Hearings and various coordination meetings have resulted in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopting Fr/CL recommending approval of Highlands Ranch based on a set of development ground rules and condihons: A. FF/eL to serve as overall development requirements. B. City Council to annex based on developer acceptance of FF leL C. If annexed by City Council, then retlml to P/Z to present revised plat and CUP in accordance with adopted FF/eL. C. City officials and citizens help shape Plat and CUP with P/Z Comnlission. Current Situation I. Neighborhood Coordination - positive, result oriented, ongoing... (slides) 2. Westpark Co. accepts and w.iI1 develop according to the FF/CL. Westpark will make the changes requested by P/Z in FF/CL. Westpark requests two modifications to the FF/CL: o Item S, page 26 ItCity of Meridian will conduct annual review meetings with Highlands Ranch officials and concerned citizens to document the City's prObTfess in expanding community Fire and Police services" ~ Item N, page 24 "L-O be allowed at the Locust Grove Site. All uses subject to CUP process. I' 3. Highlands Ranch requests City Council approval of the Annexation portion of the project subject to the ground rules, conditions and safeguards contained in the FF/CL and Staff Comments with a 1110tion to accept the two modifications as requested by Westpark Co. US Army Corps of Engineers Young least terns . . ecognlzlng Wetlands 2 Wetland complex What is a wetland? The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the US Environmental Protection Agency jointly define wetlands as follows: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by slllface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to slIpport. and that under normal circumstances do support. a prevalence of \'egefarioll typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands gener- ally include swamps. marshes. bogs. and similar areas. Wetlands are areas that are covered by water or have waterlogged soils for long periods during the growing sea- son. Plants growing in wetlands are capable of living in saturated soil conditions for at least part of the growing season. Wetlands such as swamps and marshes are often obvious. but some wetlands are not easily recognized. orten because they are dry during part of the year or "they just don't look very wet" from the roadside. Some of these wetland types include. but arc not limited to. many bottom- land forests. pocosins, pine savannahs, bogs. wet meadows. potholes. and wet tundra. The information presented here usually will enable you to determine whether you might have a wetland. If you intend to place dredged or fill material in a wetland or in an area that might be a wetland, contact the local Corps District Office for assistance in determining if a permit is required. Why is it necessary to consider whether an area is a wetland? Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone interested in depositing dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States, ineluding wetlands," must receive authoriza- tion for such activities. The Corps has been assigned responsibility for administering the Section 404 permitting process. Activities in wetlands for which permits may be required include, but are not limited to: . Placement of fill materia!. . Ditching activities when the excavated material is sidecast. · Levee and dike construction. .:. " ._~.... :'~~.i-,' .,"4'. .. . Wetlands fill activities o Mechanized land clearing. o Land leveling. o Most road construction. o Dam construction. o Area has soils that are called peats or mucks. o Area is periodically flooded by tides, even if only by strong, wind-driven, or spring tides. The final detennination of whether an area is a wetland and whether the activity requires a penn it must be made by the appropriate Corps District Office. Many wetlands can be readily identified by the general situation stated above. For the boundmy of these areas and numerous other wetlands, however. it is unclear whether these situations occur. How can wetlands be recognized? In such cases. it is necessary to carefully examine the area for wetland indicators of the three major characteristics of wetlands - vegetation. soil, and hydrology. Wetland indica- tors of these characteristics. which may indicate that the area is a wetland, are described on the following pages. The Corps uses three characteristics of wetlands when making wetland detenninations - vegetation. soil. and hy- drology. Unless an area has been altered or is a rare natural situation, wetland indicators of all three characteristics must be present during some portion of the growing season for an area to be a wetland. Each characteristic is discussed below. However, there are some general situations in which an area has a strong probability of being a wetland. If any of the following situations occur, you should ask the local Corps office to detennine whether the area is a wetland: o Area occurs in a floodplain or otherwise has low spots in which water stands at or above the soil surface during the growing season. CauriOIl: Mos! wetlands lack harh standing water and waterlogged soils during at leasr part of the growing season. o Area has plant com- munities that common ly occur in areas having stand- ing water for part of the growmg sea- son (e.g.. cy- press-gum swamps. cordgrass marshes. cat- tail marshes. bulrush and lule marshes, and sphag- num bogs). Mangrove wetland Freshwater wetland 3 I I I I. ,I! !~ 'ff ."" ~~ I 4 Vegetation indicators Il""\ Nearly 5,000 plant types in the United Stales may occur in wetlands. These plants, known as hydrophytic regeWtioll, are listed in regional publications of the US Fish and Wildlife Service [available from the National Technical Infonnmion Ser- vice (NTIS}; see last page for addressl. However. you c,m usually detennine if wetl,Uld vegewtion is present by knowing a relatively few plant types that commonly occur in your area. For example. cattails. bulrushes, cordgrass, sphagnum moss. bald cypress, willows. mangroves. sedges, rushes, wTOwheads, and water phUltains usually occur in wetlands. Other indica- tors of plants growing in wetlands include trees having shallow root systems. swollen trunks (e.g., bald cypress. tupelo gum), or roots found growing ITom the pl,mt stem Button bush or trunk above the soil surface. Several Corps offices have published pictorial guides of representative wetland phmt types. If you cannot determine whether the plant types in your area are those that commonly occur in wetlands. ask the local Corps District Office or a lo['al botanist for assistance. Vegetation sampling method ~ .. ~j .~ < .:~ ~~ :~ ~ " , ~' :~~~ ~''''''''~.-A'o-...:.t........Ai.:_ ~ . Soil indicators There are approximately 2,000 named soils in the United States that may occur in wetlands. Such soils, called hydric soils, have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods during the growing season. If the soil in your area is listed as hydric by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) [information available from local county SCSj. the area mighlbe a wetland. ", If the name of the soil in your area is not known, an examination of the soil can determine the presence of any hydric soil indicators. including: Soil sampling . Soil consists predominantly of decomposed plant mate- rial (peats or mucks). . Soil has a thick layer of decomposing plant material on the surface. . Soil has a bluish gray or gray color below the surface. or the major color of the soil at this depth is dark (brownish black or black) and dull. . Soil has the odor of rotten eggs. . Soil is sandy and has a layer of decomposing plant material at the soil surface. . Soil is sandy and has dark stains or dark streaks of organic material in the upper layer below the soil sur- face. These streaks are decomposed plant material at- tached to the soil panicles. When soil from these streaks is rubbed between the fingers, a dark stain is left on the fingers. Sampling core Gray mottles indicate hydric soil conditions in thick, dark prairie soils (mollisols) 6 Hydrology indicators Wetland hydrology refers to the presence of water at or above the soil surface for a sufficient period of the year to significantly influence the plant types and soils that occur in the area. Although the most reliable evidence of wetland hydrology may be provided by gaging station or groundwater well data. such information is jimited for most areas and, when available. requires analysis by trained individuals. Thus, most hydrologic indicators are those that can be ob- served during tield inspection. Most do not reveal either the frequency. timing, or duration of flooding or the soil satura- tion. However, the following indicators provide some evi- dence of the periodic presence of flooding or soil saturation; · Standing or flowing water is observed on the area during the growing season. o Soil is waterlogged during the growing season. o Water marks are present on trees or other erect objects. Such marks indicate that ware I' periodically covers the area to the depth shown on the objects. · Drift lines, which are small piles of debris oriented in the direction of water movement through an area, are present. These often occur along contours and repre- sent the approximate extent of flooding in an area. Debris lodged against trees Water marks on cypress · Debris is lodged in trees or piled against other objects by water. · Thin layers of sediments are deposited on leaves or other objects. Sometimes these become consolidated with small plant parts to form discernible crusts on the soil surface. Wetland determination t r t ~ One or more indicators of wetland vegcta- tion. hydric soil. and weIland hydrology mltst be present for an area 10 be a wetland. [1' YOll observe definitc indicators of any of thc threc charactcristics. you should seck assistance from either the local Corps District Ofnce or somconc who is an expert at making wctland detenninations. 7 Fluctuating wetland hydrology This brochure is not intended to be used to make a final wetland determination or delineation: it is intended. however, to provide some general information concerning wetlands identification. What to do if your area has wetlands that you propose to alter? Contact the Corps District Office that has responsibility for the Section 404 pennilting process in your area. This office will assist you in defining the boundary of any wetlands on your property, and wi II provide instructions for applying for a Section 404 permit. if necessary. Section 404 permit needed i Seasonally flooded wetland forest This hrochllre descrihes. ill llol1fcchllical terms, ways all illdi\'l'dllal call detcrmine whether an area may he a wetland for purposes of the COIpS of Engincers reglll({[ory program, It also tells who to contact ifyoll think all area to he altered is a wetland. US Department of Commerce National Technical Infonnation Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield. VA 22 I 61 Key NTIS Telephone Numbers To place an order (03) 487-4650 For help in identifying a title for sale (703) 487-4780 From Co\'er Photo: Salt marsh OFFICIALS WilLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clark JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer BRUCE D. STUART, Waler Works Sup!. JOHN T. SHAWCROFT. Wasle Water Supt. DENNIS J. SUMMERS. Parks Supt. SHARI S. STILES, P & Z Adm. PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chief WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attomey MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HUB OF TREASURE VAllEY A Good Place to Live COUNCIL MEMBERS RONALD R. TOLSMA MAX YERRINGTON ROBERT D. CORRIE WAlTW. MORROW CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 . FAX (208) 887.4813 Public WorksfBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 Motor VehiclelDrivers License (208) 888-4443 P & Z COMMISSION JIM JOHNSON. Chairman MOE ALlDJANI JIM SHEARER CHARLIE ROUNTREE TIM HEPPER GRANT P. KINGSFORD Mayor Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council Sharf &Planning & Zoning Administrator August 15, 1995 Council Meeting of August 15, 1995 The following are my recommendations for the items on the agenda tonight: Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Bews Annexation and Zoning - This item should be tabled as ACHD has still not received or acted on a traffic study for the new configuration submitted (L-O park). In addition, the School District has expressed an interest in the L-O park site as a new high school site, but I have heard nothing from the Applicant on further development of that concept. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Bews Conditional Use Permit - Same as Item 1, plus the fact that the information submitted for a conditional use permit is incomplete and does not meet the requirement'; of Section 11-9-607 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance. No comment. Waterbury Park No.5 Variance - The public hearing for a variance on tiling the Creason Lateral needs to be held and Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law ordered if sufficient information is available at this time. From a visit to the site today, it seems that a 48" pipe would not accommodate the flow through this lateraL Waterbury Park No.5 Preliminary Plat - This item should be tabled to wait for FF/CL on the variance and to ensure roadway alignment issues are worked out with Joe Simunich. The stub street to the west has been moved from the north to the south. Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5 & 6 - If no new FF/CL are required as a result of public testimony given tonight, I would recommend that the request for annexation and zoning to R-4, R-8 and R-15 be approved and that an ordinance be prepared. Council will hold public hearing on plats Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council August 15, 1995 Page 2 on 9/19/95. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 7 Los Alamitos No.3 Annexation & Zoning - I would recommend that the FF/CL be amended to specify connection to eastern boundary of property and to incorporate any new public testimony. These FF/CL should be carefully reviewed prior to approving them and authorizing an annexation ordinance. The development agreement has not been revised at this time. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 8 Los Alamitos No.3 Preliminary Plat - Having just received a new plat today, one which has changed significantly from the plat approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission, I would recommend that the plat be denied as presented and/or sent back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In particular, the stub street that formerly would have connected via a bridge to the Highlands Ranch project has been turned into a cul-de-sac. This is not acceptable. There must be a connection via roadway across the Ridenbaugh Canal, not only for neighborhood connection, but for emergency vehicles and to allow vehicle travel to the elementary school without utilizing major arterials. ACHD has recommended the cul-de-sac in lieu of the connection to Highlands Ranch; I believe it neither prudent nor in the public safety to remove this connection. Fire Department staff has also been quite specific in this requirement. In addition, staff has not had time to review this revised plat. Item 9 Salmon Rapids No.3 Annexation & Zoning - If no new FF/CL are required as a result of public testimony given tonight, I would recommend that the request for annexation and zoning to R -4 approved and that an ordinance be prepared. These FF/CL should be carefully reviewed prior to approving them and authorizing an annexation ordinance. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 10 Salmon Rapids No.3 Preliminary Plat - Having just received a new plat today, I would recommend that the plat be tabled until staff has had adequate time to review the new submittal and make additional comments if required. In addition, we continue to have problems with construction debris and I have had promises from the developer to take care of this. Developer has also installed fencing within the 20-foot landscape strip along Locust Grove Road, which he has been instructed to move to the appropriate place. As of 11 :30 this morning, nothing has been done. Developer assured the City this would be complete by today. The existing Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council August 15, 1995 Page 3 fence is falling down. Property buyers within the subdivision claim the Developer has "sold" them the 11' i: to add to their lot. Item 11 Whitestone Estates Subdivision Annexation and Zoning - Comments have not been addressed in any form, either verbally or in writing. Although I did receive a telephone call from Mirazin Shakoori, the owner of 120 acres to the west, I have not received a signed waiver from him. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 12 Whitestone Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat - Comments have not been addressed in any form, either verbally or in writing. Details of pathway along Ten Mile Creek have not been received. Variances would be required to accept the preliminary plat in its present configuration. Item 13 Franklin Grove Commercial Center - Initial findings asked for a tabling of the annexation request until further information was provided. This information was provided to the Commissioners on an individual basis. If approved, I would recommend that very specific requirements be included in the annexation ordinance. A development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. Item 14 Highlands Ranch Subdivision Annexation & Zoning - FF/CL prepared by the P&Z Commission would require extensive changes in both the "preliminary plat" and "conditional use permit" applications submitted. P&Z is not prepared to act on the plat or CUP until Council has acted on the annexation. Information submitted does not meet the requirements for a preliminary plat or a conditional use permit, and is very conceptual in nature. L-O request would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Item 15 Avest Plaza Conditional Use Permit - Lot 2, Block 1 - During the public hearing process, Applicant's representative stated that uses along Locust Grove Road would be "low impact"; two drive-thrus that will operate until midnight every night are not at all low impact. Applicant should have considered switching uses for Lots 2 and 5. I concur with P&Z' s recommendation that the conditional use permit be denied. Item 16 Avest Plaza Conditional Use Permit - Lot 5, Block 1 - Comments have been addressed and a revised site plan has not been submitted. Item 17 Harry's Bar & Grill - YES!! I want to go to lunch there tomorrow and sit outside. Council may want to consider limiting seating to daylight hours only instead of a 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. limit. Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council August 15, 1995 Page 4 Item 18 Jack Miller Request to Amend Comprehensive Plan - Jack Miller has an interest in the 80 acres east of Dave Lewis's 80 acres at the southeast corner of Overland/Eagle Road. A strip of his property is shown as Mixed/Planned Use Development; the remainder as Single-family Residential. When first approached about this last year, I felt confident that no Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required. After conversations with several different planners, with several different opinions, I am unsure of the need for a Compo Plan change and would appreciate any thoughts you have on the subject, along with Counsel's opinion. Item 19 Danbury Fair Subdivision No.5 Development Agreement - Recommend approval - Wayne Crookston and I have both reviewed and approved this document. Item 20 Finch Creek Non-development Agreement - General Comment - Bike path improvements along developed portion and at least temporary fencing should be installed prior to obtaining building permits. Item 21 CC&R's for Salmon Rapids - I have not had time to fully review these changes and would defer to Counsel's opinion. Item 22 CC&R's for Los Alamitos - I have not had time to fully review these changes and would defer to Counsel's opinion. Item 23 A.I - Recreation Program Grant Funds - I would be happy to assist with grant application if needed, as long as I do not have to do the administration. If I am not needed, go for it. r.eCt?/V<I!cL fl-/5-'f;; ~. ~ C(L/ /h~ STATE OF IDAHO ALAN G. LANCE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOISE 83720-0010 TELEPHONE 12081 334-2424 18001 432-3545 Toll Free In Idaho CONSUMER PROTECTION UNIT July 31, 1995 TDD Accessible FACSIMILE (208) 334-2830 Gary Smith City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mr. Smith: Re: Reebok Settlement; Our File No. 1082 Thank you for your telephone call. In order to ensure that the Judge approves our request for part ofthe Reebok settlement proceeds, I have taken the liberty to draft a revised proposal for your city. Please review it. I drafted it to meet the Court's stated requirements. You will note, for example that I have included statements that the there is no funding for the project and that you will provide quarterly reports concerning the status of the project. The latter is now being required by the Court. If you have questions, please contact me. If the revised proposal meets with your approval, please type it on your city's letter head and return it to me in the enclosed self- addressed and stamped envelope. I will attach it to the affidavit I have to submit to the Court. I have enclosed a copy of the draft affidavit for your review. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Because we have to submit our package by the end of August, your help in returning your city's revised proposal will be greatly appreciated. If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ~~L~ BRETT T. DELANGE Deputy Attorney General Consumer Protection Unit RECEIVED AVG 0 2 1995 Enclosure(s) MERIDIAN CITY ENGINEER PROPOSAL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN The City of Meridian proposes to spend its $4,000.00 share of the Reebok settlement for the State ofIdaho by ("project'} Funding of this project does not supplant or reallocate funding for the project in question. There is no funding for the project. The City of Meridian's money will be deposited in the City of Meridian's account earmarked for funding of the project. Every three months after the City of Meridian's money is received, the City of Meridian will provide the Idaho Office of Attorney General with a written report on the status of the project and the expenditure ofthe settlement proceeds. The report will be addressed to Office of Attorney General, Consumer Protection Unit, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, II) 83720-0010. RESOLUTION NO. 161 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PROVIDING FOR A FEE FOR RESERVATION OF AND USE OF MERIDIAN PARK PICNIC SHELTERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Idaho Code, 50-302, the City of Meridian is required to make, and may make, all such ordinances, by-laws, rules, regulations and resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of the state of Idaho as may be expedient, in addition to the special powers in Title 50, Idaho Code, granted, to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the Ci ty and its trade, commerce and industry. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Meridian to establish reasonable fees for the reservation of the picnic shelters in the parks of the City of Meridian to preserve the peace and tranquility of the parks, prevent overcrowding of the picnic shelters, and to provide funds for the maintenance of the parks which reflect some of the costs that the City incurs as a result of processing the applications for reservation of the picnic shelters and some of the maintenance of the parks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: 1. That the fee set forth herein and adopted is reasonable and reflects, as closely as reasonably possible, some of the costs of the City to process the various applications and a portion of the maintenance costs of the picnic shelters and the parks of the City of Meridian. FEE RESOLUTION Page - 1 2. That there is hereby adopted a fee of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) for the reservation of a picnic shelter in the City parks for not longer than ONE day; applicants reserving a picnic shelter shall state the duration of their, or its, use of the shelter and if used longer than the time set forth shall be subject to removal as set forth hereinafter; the ci ty may allow more than one reservation per day if time is allowed. 3. That persons, associations, corporations, and other entities, desiring to use the Meridian park picnic shelters shall apply at the Meridian City Hall for the use of a picnic shelter, reserve a time of use of a picnic shelter, if their requested time is available, and pay the appropriate fee; the City Clerk's office shall keep a record of the scheduled times and fees paid for reservations. 4. If persons, associations, corporations, and other entities, using a picnic shelter have not reserved the time and paid the appropriate fee, and are using the picnic shelter at a time that has been reserved for another person, association, corporation, and other entity, they shall be removed from the shelter, either by City of Meridian park employees or by the Meridian City Police Department and they may be cited under 8- 1618, FRAUDULENTLY AVOIDING PAYMENT OF ADMISSION FEES, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, for failure to pay the reservation fee which is hereby declared to be the admission fee for the use of a picnic shelter. 5. A list of reservations for a particular picnic shelter FEE RESOLUTION Page - 2 shall be maintained at that particular shelter to inform the public who has reserved the picnic shelter and the time, or times, for which the shelter has been reserved; if the reservations have been removed from the picnic shelter the list maintained by the City Clerk's office shall still be controlling. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, this /5+,A day of /1-u.qu.s.f , 1995. (/ APPROVED: ~ -f~<0 T P. KINGSFO D, R ATTEST: ~~4b'L \\\\\IIIl/111111 \\11 C tt,g,.... )111 "~II <{ Or !. rr::.Pp,') III ,-" ~ . ____-....., ''-''1,<; ,.~ ~... () ..... o~?OR,-!, ~ '-'V ~ ~ ~v "<..~ ~ 2 ~~ ~ - - ~ = ggAL (? 2 --;. ~O ,,0 ~ -::. -YOp. 0;.<"'1"" ~"1' .0 ,~ ~ v..a '. 1 Ct' .;;.,t:'.:;:: ~ . 1 [,)~ ~ ,.......... 00U?,...,t '\ \'~ 1/1 J 1'1 I'" \" I))f \\\ fllllllll\\\\\ WILLIAM G. BERG, FEE RESOLUTION Page - 3 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1995 ~ 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 1,1995: ?;or-c:vlj(/ 1. TABLED AUGUST 1,1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.l. BEWS: -fr&..!:>&. ~ 6J ch'b-e~ /7-4 h/::) 2. TABLED AUGUST 1,1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR, MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.l. SEWS: ft.{j Ie t-~ !Jlc..f-rM.'-' 170 1}1.J;J . 3. TABLED AUGUST 1,1995: RESOLUTION #161 - PICNIC SHELTER RESERVATION FEES: a??:ov~. __ J'bU'/zt/1I-1h3 j'>v Fr/<:: ;-:f1roI6.o-j //o/rce of-ltUA.-i 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORA VARIANCE FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO.5 BY RAMON YORGASON: dib; Cij~/J to pY<?j/a-..e... / Ir t elt 5. FINAL PLAT: WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO.5, 52 LOTS BY RAMON YORGASON: TABLED AUGUST 1,1995: ---h--M ~e Jefd-, t5fi- /Jv~ 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 40 ACRES TO R-4 AND R-15 FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. S & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: fzu/;;ee (A.rJ~ JC,pi / tJ-t! /1t~. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 22.24 ACRES TO R-4 FOR LOS ALAMITOS NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: {! th; a-~1 f.o jhe.ptJA2.. A.v..v r IF;/ c / G 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: -hv~ tv~t Sk-pt, !}11. jwi1J. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AN[f ZONING REQUEST FOR 23.27 ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: {I;)9 affn.-r>-ej 10 j:YIR-ft//l-L- Mw-Ilf r/ elL 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: ~bfi ~t dtjJf- 5/f:; j7pvly-,. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND tONING REQUEST FOR 42.02 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP: A~ t/'~ 2 .Jepl-, 58 ~~ 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP: ./tub&. ~ Jq/-- (;(3 ~ PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON FOR FRANKLIN GROVE COMMERCIAL CENTER: {! (kt a fftrvr-e uW jJrce j?vU?. ru!tJ -/'1/ felL PUBLIC HEARING: A~NEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 180 ACRES TO R-4 AND L-O FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (!I#; a/f~'f ~ p-v-jkvVL~~v-' ;/;:! {lIe CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 2 - BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: {)if-t;l ~~:t to ~f??VV!. ~ rifF { e It- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 5 - BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: o/fl/7Jv.e +/~ I elt arlJ)'p//.(?/ CO'hd/h~ ~ ~/"t_/~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE BY HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL: aj?j?Yov,€.I /1 f e It. approv€ CcrndIl-/h-Ld tud ~ JACK MILLER: REQEUST TO A~END COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ~-t wJt1-> .J}{i~ .:z be ~ ~p4ccvf-; h-r>..J DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.5: tz;pprov.0 /1/LtZtfo"?.- zfo M~ NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FINCH CREEK SUBDIVISION: ftt.-M.fZ- ~ cRlff/5f!:- COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR SALMON RAPIDS: /-cvp-u. wdl! cIeJ'/; 5"4 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR LOS ALAMITOS: ~ I~ J&pf,.9t!: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. RECREATION PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS: EXECUTIVE SESSION: err" of 1\i"ElUDIA~( \JB1J.C 1\'lf,E1'~G SlG"f'I-\l1' sllEE1' l' ,.(). _ ..(\ r:L ^ I P <..i>+ IS: jqqS- ~'~ ~ -pflO"NE ~ M"B~R &;:g-<C '1 ;, "?' ~q1r; r./ '3 ~s~~ "l g ;239J 2?~9-5tfg3 /~~r'~ // ~ B~ 2.23. 0 ?5J- s76 EiZ5 7_106L '- // ,- ---- c.~ NAME ~ 1;\ )1 " .// -'~. ....0 . crn' 01" MERIDIAN '. ' PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ~ _ 0{; +15 J'l'/5 PHONE 1'1 MBER tf C{-z-3 ( " (jOt S 61? ~- 2- 7) 0- r:&.. (7fo rLff0' ~ . 7i5 :3 <J ~ ~~Y- .- 2. -? 9' ) ~cs}.-S'+S ) '}tjJ-, .2 1 if' (/ f! Rr~ I- I j? p 323~1 I 660- '7 W;g> f'\. I(. '-, July 18, 1994 Meridian City Planning commission 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: wildlife Refuge and Overdevelopment Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Gentlemen: At the present time a developer is planning on putting in a housing development and some commercial property development on the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road. This intersection happens to be located where the Five Mile Creek crosses under Franklin Road. As you mayor may not be aware, this creek or stream flows year round and supports wildlife and their habitats. The wildlife consists of duck, blue heron, geese, trout and other types of wildlife. The stream is one of three (3) or four (4) that run year round in the Treasure Valley. The developer is planning on constructing a car wash, quick stop store and possibly gas pumps at this location. The housing subdivision would consist of 6 houses per acre over approximately 40 +/- acres. The storm water runoff from this subdivision would discharge into Five Mile Creek along with the trash, debris and water from the commercial property. This runoff can potentially contaminate Five Mile Creek and harm the wetlands and the wildlife that it supports as well as the surrounding environment. The sewer discharge system from this development would have to cross Five Mile Creek per the developers plans. I am asking that your commission review this area to see if it is recognized as following under the Federal Wetlands Act. It is also requested that any development in this area be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for your review and public comment. The area of Five Mile Creek is currently zoned as commercial development. It may be necessary for the City of Meridian to reconsider and change their zoning based on their review and findings. A report of these findings should be made available to the public for their comment. In addition to the above, this proposed development with its high density would create serious problems for the area it is to be located within. The Meridian schools cannot handle the addition of all of the families with children that would be imposed upon it. The increased automobile traffic flow that this would create on Franklin Road, along \vith increased pedestrian traffic and no sidewalks could create a bad situation. This kind of high density would only benefit the developer and not the community. The City of Meridian has become known as being the fastest growing town in the state of Idaho. Lets forget about quantity and set our goals on quality. We need to improve the quality of our community, our schools, our people and our lives. It's time that the developers began conforming to the needs of the people and the community of the City of Meridian and not their personal gain and greed. You must not forget that you and only you are responsible for the final decision and it needs to reflect that of the people of Meridian. Yours truly, &u<11J-ct' Jf. d.,~CJ-... Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang street Meridian, Idaho 83642 July 18, 1994 Mr. Robert Flowers U.S. Army corp of Engineers Walla Walla District Lucky Peak Dam Lucky Peak Lane Boise, Idaho Subject: wildlife Refuge Five Mile Creek Meridian, Idaho Dear Sir: At the present time a developer is planning on putting in a housing development and some commercial property development on the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road. This intersection happens to be located where the Five Mile Creek crosses under Franklin Road. As you mayor may not be aware, this creek or stream flows year round and supports wildlife and their habitats. The wildlife consists of duck, blue heron, geese, trout and other types of wildlife. The stream is one of three (3) or four (4) that run year round in the Treasure Valley. The developer is planning on constructing a car wash, quick stop store and possibly gas pumps at this location. The housing subdivision would consist of 6 houses per acre over approximately 40 +/- acres. The storm water runoff from this subdivision would discharge into Five Mile Creek along with the trash, debris and water from the commercial property. This runoff can potentially contaminate Five Mile Creek and harm the wetlands and the wildlife that it supports as well as the surrounding environment.The sewer discharge system from this development would have to cross Five Mile Creek per the developers plans. I am asking that your agency review this area to see if it is recognized as following under the Federal Wetlands Act. It is also requested that any development in this area be required to prepare an Environmental Impact statement for your review and public comment. The area of Five Mile Creek is currently zoned as commercial development. It may be necessary for the city of Meridian to reconsider and change their zoning based on your findings and report. I would appreciate your early response to my letter. Thank you. Yours truly /"J &~~-OO? C. ~MUd-t,~. Elwood E. Rennison 990 Mustang Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 cc: Meridian Planning Commision