HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PRE-COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 5:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle --.Cd{ Bill Nary d/v/.;/\.I'e..d @ $: !iDphv
K Charlie Rountree h Keith Bird
- ~MayorTammyCleWeerd
2. Adoption of the Agenda: o/rrCJ r<--
3. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67 -2345(1)(a):
(*90 minutes) jUJ deciJ/\:n.--
4. Discussion and Presentation by COMPASS on Transportation
Improvement Plan and Corridor Studies:
(* 30 minutes) ~I-&wfevL-
*' Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on
discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only.
Meridian City Pre-Council Agenda - June 1, 2004 Page 1 of 1
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
July 2, 2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
July 6, 2004
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Approve Minutes of June 1, 2004 Pre-Council Meeting
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
~,r/
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PRE~COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 5:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve
3. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67~2345(1)(a): No Decision
("'90 minutes)
4. Discussion and Presentation by COMPASS on Transportation
Improvement Plan and Corridor Studies: Presented
('" 30 minutes)
"'Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on
discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only.
Meridian City Pre-Council Agenda - June 1, 2004 Page 1 of 1
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
June 1,2004
The Meridian City Pre-Council meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M. on
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Bill Nary, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle
and Charlie Rountree.
Staff Present: Will Berg, Gary Smith, Steve Siddoway.
Item 1.
Roll-call Attendance:
X Bill Nary X Keith Bird
X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Item 2.
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rountree: Mr. Vice-President.
Bird: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we adopt the agenda as published for Tuesday, June 1,
2004 Pre-Council.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: Okay. We have a motion to adopt the agenda with a second. All in favor
say aye. Opposed?
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Item 3.
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(a):
Bird: Item 3 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(a). We
need a motion on that.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Could we also add - oh, gosh -
Bird: Is it "c" or lib"?
De Weerd: Yeah, probably "c", if you could add "c" to that.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
June 1, 2004
Page 2 of 6
Bird: Okay, we could take care of that in the motion.
Wardle: Mr. Vice-President I move that we move into an Executive Session per
Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(a) and (1 )(c).
Bird: Do we have a second?
Rountree: Second.
Bird: We have got a second. Roll call vote, please.
Roll call vote: Wardle, aye; Rountree, aye; Bird, aye; Nary is absent.
Bird: Council, we will come out of Executive Session. I would entertain a motion
to come out of Executive Session, no judgments made.
Rountree: Mr. Vice-Chair - Vice-President, excuse me.
Bird: Yes, sir.
Rountree: [move that we come out of Executive Session.
Wardle: Second.
Bird: All in favor?
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Bird: Okay, I will turn it over to the President now that he has been sitting here.
Item 4.
Discussion and Presentation by COMPASS on Transportation
Improvement Plan and Corridor Studies:
Otten: I want to thank the Council for providing us time to go through the - well,
actually two reasons I am here today is to go through the transportation
improvement program guide book that COMPASS just developed and also to talk
about the upcoming 2026 corridor study just to give you a heads up on that. I
wish I could say this is a compelling document to read, but basically it's a
summary of all of the - maybe to some people it is. Maybe Charlie.
Rountree: No.
Otten: Well, we did put together and compiled all of the COMPASS policies and
procedures relative to the transportation improvement program. We didn't really
want to wait until August, September, and October when we typically come out to
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
June 1, 2004
Page 3 of 6
the cities and work with the task forces and kind of, you know and kind of bring
this on at that time. I want to give everybody a heads up that we do have now a
very simple form to help COMPASS get better information on the projects that
the cities and others are contemplating. Typically, we've kind of - there was no
structure to the projects solicitation. We would get narratives in from the cities
and we spend a lot of time trying to figure out really what the project is that they
are trying to accomplish; get cost estimates prepared by ACHD; and so we are
trying to get a lot of that information earlier in the process and to help promote
some coordination between the cities and ACHD on the projects that they want
because ultimately these also - in Ada County a large portion of projects are
ACHD projects and they needed to be coordinated with their five-year work
program process. I don't know if there is much more to go this - we do - we'd be
happy to go when the transportation task force has it's own meeting and really
want to go into detail on these, but I will - the tendencies in the most part might
be the most interesting part to read. That's where we have the forms. We tried
to put in all the information that folks will need to develop their projects, things
that tend to get buried and you know in COMPASS Board minutes and things like
that. We did put in the federal regulations for the (inaudible). We put in the
definition of regionally significant, just to keep that in mind as the projects are
being considered that if they need to do an air quality conformity analysis, we
kind of have that on the radar screen. We have the project request form. We
also included the rankings for enhancement applications. Those are typically
notices that come out of November for the next round and that would be the next
fiscal year would be 2008 for enhancement projects. We try to give people
information on the COMPASS criteria that the COMPASS Board adopted, so
they could keep that in mind as they are preparing those applications. We
included all of the criteria that the COMPASS Board has adopted in prioritizing
projects that use the surface transportation urban monies, you know, you name
it. Hopefully everything is here. We also have an amendment form because we
found with some amendments we want to make sure we have some checks and
balances that if it is on a regionally significant process the amendment might
trigger an air quality conformity review. That's really all I wanted to say about it.
It's, you know, a highly technical document, but it hopefully it will help speed and
streamline the process. So, with that if there are any questions, I will be happy to
answer them.
Nary: Council, any questions?
Rountree: I don't have any specific questions. I don't know if staff has had an
opportunity to see it and they might have some questions.
Nary: No, you haven't seen it, or no you don't have any questions? Or both?
Siddoway: This is Steve in the planning staff. We haven't - I haven't seen it
myself. I don't know if Anna has, but -
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
June 1, 2004
Page 4 of 6
Often: It went through our TAC the Technical Advisory Committee and the
COMPASS Board.
Siddoway: Yeah.
Otten: I am sure she read it too. She did. With that I will talk briefly about the
2026 corridor study and actually the COMPASS and partnership with ITD will be
very shortly issuing an RFQ for two major corridor studies and both the cross
over into Canyon County. One is on Highway 44, which is kind of outside of
Meridian's jurisdiction, but you might be interested in knowing that. There is also
a corridor study from 2026 and both studies will start about Eagle Road and head
west onto 1-84. Boy there is just so much that I could talk about. We are initially
here to see what Meridian's interest is in participating even in the consultant
selection process. The 2026 right now overlooking about a million dollars in
consultant fees that would be available through lTD. That's a significant project.
Both projects are going to take about two years to completion. We are really
trying to encourage local government. These are going to be very detailed;
intensive looks at those corridors to the parcel level. The two priorities that ITD
has, which also COMPASS shares are quarter preservation and that means
getting a good understanding of the future right of way that will need a long 2026.
You kind of had your hands full with that, just in the Meridian area and the north
Meridian trying to kind of put the finger in the dike. The other priority is access
management and I do - Brad gave me a copy of the letter that you all had sent
ITD on and it's a great step. A good example for the other local governments on
taking a good position on supporting access management. My perspective -- at
COMPASS we want the products to be very usable for local governments and
that means high use of GIS. There is a lot of data out there and even on the Ada
County side that we need to use; and have the consultants use that deal with
land use, zoning. We have the good aerials to really look at a parcel level, detail
of what's happening in that area. Don't want to get into land use issues in
particular. I think that the level for a quarter study is are we having an urban road
or a rural cross section. I think 2026, everyone's probably going to agree that it's
going to get to an urban. We will look at the alternatives analysis, but we will
suspect that there will be an urban cross section and how that's going to be and
the points of access are all really going to have to be spelled out in that corridor
plan. We also have in the initial scope, we want a heavy involvement of fronting
property owners as well. Since you get into access management that can be a
real make or break, a real drag on moving the study forward if people find out
about specific access recommendations applied to their property. We want to
pull together that stakeholder group, particularly just to deal with access
management issues. We have been to all the local governments last month and
this month pretty much along the corridor to involve - just to gage a level of
interest that folks have in participating. I will probably follow up with a letter, you
know specifically asking for Meridian's interest in consultant selection or at least
a steering committee as the project goes forward. It's a big commitment, we
know of the time of elected officials and of staff, but we feel that local knowledge
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
Jun~ 1, 2004
Page 5 of 6
is really valuable to the success of the study. With that I will just stand for any
questions you may have on those.
Nary: Council, is there any questions on the corridor study?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Yeah, what did she say? Sorry.
Otten: I guess the other thing that I wanted to add to that too - part of what we
would want the consultant to look at is the arterial sections. We may not know -
let me think - in 2026 exactly where we might have large arterial crossings. We
know, at least on the existing functional class we have our arterials, intersecting
arterials and we do want some attention paid to those intersections on what the
future design of those might need to be - similar to the Highway 16 corridor
study. Looking at the intersection with Highway 44 in recognizing the need for a
great separated interchange there. We would want that similar attention now that
we are using the new model at COMPASS, what are those volumes telling us at
some of those intersections. That's it. Any questions? Thank you. Don
Kostelec is here too from ACHD if you had any questions about the TIP or any
particular projects that he could answer. He has the status report.
Kostelec: That's the only thing that I will hand out. Last year, through Gary we
worked through the transportation task force and put the request together. What
we try to do is give the periodic update and it's about time to get that task force
back together and to be thinking about that. So, we have prepared what the
latest is on those so you guys can be thinking about those over the next couple
of months to make those recommendations.
Nary: Thank you.
Kostelec: That's two-sided.
De Weerd: Mr. President.
Nary: Madame Mayor.
De Weerd: I not only have Gary and one of our committee members here. Do
you have any comments?
Rountree: Mr. President.
Nary: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have a question. What's a timeline you want a response from us on
participation and the corridor study is in terms of --?
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
June 1,2004
Page 6 of 6
Otten: Probably about two to three weeks. If we can get an RFQ out, we usually
- it would be at least a month after that before we are ready to look at .the initial
proposals.
Rountree: So, are you going to follow up with a letter?
Otten: Yeah, I will follow up with a letter to the Mayor requesting that.
Bird: So, before July 1st?
Otten: Yeah.
Bird: Okay.
Nary: Thank you very much. If there are no other questions, I guess we have
reached the end of our agenda and I would take a motion to adjourn.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
Nary: Moved and seconded to adjourn the Pre-Council meeting of June 1 st, All
those in favor, say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:57 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
1- I Lo I 04
ATIESTED:
}
(
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
~~ / CJTYOF ~'.'-"
L/VlerldlCrH -
IDAHO
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272 . FAX 466-4405
- PARKS & RECREATION
(208) 888-3579 . Fax 898-5501
PUBLIC WORKS
(208) 898-5500 . Fax 887- [297
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-221] . Fax 887-1297
PLANNING & ZONING
(208) 884.5533 . Fax 888-6854
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L. M. Nary
Charles M. Rountree
Keith Bird
NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian
will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 5:00 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be
discussing agenda items which are on the regular scheduled City Council
meeting as well as the following issues:
- Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1) (a)
- Discussion and Presentation by COMPASS on Transporlation Improvement
Plan and Corridor Studies
The public is welcome to attend the meeting.
DATED this 28th of May, 2004.
. 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE · MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 . (208) 888-4433
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-48l3
May 27, 2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
June 1, 2004
3
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Executive Session
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLlCE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SElTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
May 27, 2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
June 1, 2004
ITEM NO.
4
REQUEST Discussion and Presentation by COMPASS on Transportation Improvement Plan
and Corridor Studies
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at publtc: meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
2005-2009 T1P/FYWP/STIP:
City of Meridian Project Requests Status
!lECErv J:i~J)
JtJrJ
- 1 ')!"'.(Jj
L j1J,t
>.
.....
';:
o
'L:
a.
......
U In
41 41
...... :;::I
o C'
.. IV
0.0::
41
f!>,
In u
C c
o 41
c.0l
Xl<t
0::
- VI
>.CU_"E
u ~ VI ll.>
;o.!E
O]l:I.OE
<cIDzo
" <..:J
CITY OF iV1ERI'" L"L'i
Locust Grove Road Overpass
ACHOIITD ACHD: Project scheduled for construction 2006 in 05-09 FYWP
(Priority #3 of 119). ACHO, along with COMPASS and ITO, have
programmed construction funding 2007 in STP-Urban program for
Boise TMA. This matches year of funding for [TO's Interstate
Maintenance ortion of construction costs.
ITO: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has
construction funding programmed for 2007.
6f1/2004
1of2
2005-2009 TIP/FYWP/STIP:
City of Meridian Project Requests Status
:E
o
.;::
0.
.....
..... 11l
al III
._ ::;:I
o C'"
.... <ll
0.0::
<ll
B>.
(/] (J
i:: i::
o <ll
a.tll
:G<C
0::
ACHD
- l/J
>.(1]-..'1:
o ~ (/] (l)
~ 0 ~ E
C)C.OE
<((/]zo
&! (.)
13 Construct a curvilinear connection of E. 3rd to
E.2 1/2 St at Carlton.
15 Support Transit and Rail Corridor
1. FYWP= ACHD's Five Year Work Program; STIP= ITO's Statewide Transportation Improvement Program; TIP=The COMPASS
Transportation Improvement Program.
2. ACHD, ITO and COMPASS have provided the best information available at the time of distribution. If there are changes to these
descriptions, the responsible agency will update the Task Force at the annual meeting.
3. ACHO priority rankings refer only to roadway projects unless otherwise noted.
6/1/2004
2 of 2
Community
Planning
Association
HE. "1. CEI\7l11ll""
. Jl ,~ ~
.L ' -JJ.J
u .~ 1
ClrjT OF
Report No. 10-2003
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT
", . -' --'-'-"-"""-_"""___"'''-'c
....:.-::.:.....:',:.'.-.. ":,_'-r_" " .
COMPASSPOLlt:iES AND?PRtJCE1J.U
",'-- -;'.":,,-:-..::: '. " - - '.-<~...' '".. ....,';" ',. ',.;'.-S.1{;,,-~ ""-.."c_. ", >:i' 0,.
~ '0 ~. . '..-.~-, ".:'~ . )2n:g~& "':'~"'-'::/-=::'-'--.-._:.-:,.':' ~".
-('::'::"::',<: i:;~;~~~fiFr;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy..... ............ ..... ............................................................................................ 1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ......................... ................ .......... '" ..................................... ............ 2
WHAT IS THE TIP? ............................................................................................................................. 2
Responsibilities and Authority of the MPO .............. ...................... ............... ................................... 2
GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE TIP .............. .......... ........ ................. ............ ..... ...................... ................. 3
TIME PERIOD OF THE TIP................................................................................................................... 4
REGIONAL TRANSPORTA TlON PLAN CONSISTENCY. ............ ..... ..... ..... ............ ...... ............................. 4
TIP DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE.......................................................................................................... 4
WHAT FUNDING SOURCES ARE PROGRAMMED IN THE TIP? ..............................................................4
TIP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS............... .............................. ..... ..... ..... ........... .................... ........ .......... 5
SECTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE TIP .................................................. .......................... ..... ......... 6
OVERVIEW..................................................................................... .................................................... 6
TIP MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................ 6
DEVELOP AND APPROVE THE ANNUAL SCHEDULE...... ............................... .............................:.......... 6
PROJECT CATEGORIES AND SPONSORS ........ ........... ........... ...... ..... ........ ...... ........ ...J. ............ ;............... 7
FUNDING ASSESSMENT...................................................................................................................... 7
PROJECT SOLICIT A TI ON .................................................................................. .................................... 7
PROJECT SELECTION AND PRELIMINARY TIP PREPARATION ...................................... ...... ................ 10
AIR QUALITY CONFORMITy............... ....... .......... ........... ................... ....... ...................... .................. 11
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE TIP .... ......... ............................. .................... ............... .............. ........ 12
FINAL TIP PREPARATION AND ADOPTION ...... ............. ............. ......... ....... ................................... ....... 12
AMENDMENTS............................................................................................................................ ...... 14
SECTION 3: PROJECT TRACKING... ............. ........................................................................... 15
ApPENDICES................................................................. _...................................................................... 1
A. Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions......................................................................... 1
B. Federal Funding Sources... ............................................. ........... ................... ..... ............ 1
C. Federal Regulations for TIP Development ................................................................... 1
D. Definition of Regionally Significant........ .......... ..................................... ...................... 1
E. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Request Form............................ 1
F. Criteria for Establishing Regional Priority of Projects Under the Transportation
Enhancement Program .................. ........... ..... ............. ..... ......... .... ........................ ..... ...... ...... 1
G. Northern Ada County Urbanized Area - Surface Transportation Program-Urban
(STP-U) Criteria for Evaluation of Roadway and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
Projects.................................................................................... ......... ...n................................ 1
H. Nampa Urbanized Area - Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) Criteria
For Evaluation of Roadway and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Projects ............. 1
L Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment Request Form........................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is a review of the applicable regulations, policies and protocols that shape
development and approval of the Community Planning Association's annual Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIP). Figure 2 depicts the TIP process for one year.
Federal regulations require Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) such as COMPASS to
develop a TIP that covers at least than three years and is updated every two years at a minimum.
Projects in the TIP must be consistent with the goals of the region's long-range transportation
plans, Destination 2025 (Ada County) and Moving People 2025 (Canyon County). The TIP
must recognize financial limitations and must comply with requirements outlined in the Clean
Air Act Amendment for areas deemed non-attainment or maintenance by the Environmental
Protection Agency, as is the case for Northern Ada County.
COMPASS develops separate TIPs for the Northern Ada County Urbanized Area and the Nampa
l[rbanized Area (see Figure 2). Both documents cover a period of five years. Although.the TIP
is required to list federally funded projects, the Northern Ada County TIP includes locally: j:
funded projects that meet the definition of "regionally significant."
1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This document provides a review of all regulations, policies and protocols that are observed
during the development and approval process of the annual Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The TIP is a comprehensive listing of all transportation projects that receive
federal funds or are subject to a federally required action, such as a review for impacts on air
quality.
WHA T IS THE TIP?
The Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) prepares and adopts the
TIP every year in cooperation with Idaho Transportation Department (lTD), local highway
districts, local governments, and other project sponsors. The TIP covers a five-year period and
contains a list of projects that implement the regional transportation plans for the Northern Ada
County Urbanized Area and the Nampa Urbanized Area. The TIP is required by the U.S.
Department of Transportation to delineate the allocation of federal transportation dollars to the
metropolitan transportation projects, and to be financially constrained to only those funds
expected to be available. Additionally, in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas (e.g.
the Northern Ada County Urbanized Area), the TIP must demonstrate conformity to applicable
air quality improvement documents. The TIP includes all federally funded projects as well as
locally funded projects meeting ~he definition of "Regionally Significant" (Appendi.x D) for air
quality' conformity purposes. An opportUnity for public review and comment on the TIP.is
required prior to its adoption. ..
The TIP generally includes the following types of projects:
· Roadway projects on federal, state, or local roads;
· Transit, rideshare, park and ride and other projects promoting the use of alternative
transportation;
· Safety and hazard elimination projects;
· Bridge projects;
· CMAQ projects;
· Transportation Enhancement Program projects; and,
· Transportation-related studies.
The ITD develops simultaneously a similar document called the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP includes all transportation projects proposed for state or
federal funding. It covers five years of transportation programming and is updated annually. The
list of TIP projects must be endorsed by the COMPASS Board of Directors prior to being
included in the STIP. All Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Idaho follow the State's
schedule for the development of TIP documents.
Responsibilities and Authority of the MPO
A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a coalition oflocal governments authorized
under federal regulations to make transportation related decisions for the Metropolitan Planning
2
Al;ea. Urbanized Areas with a census population of 50,000 people or more are entitled to form
an MPO. The principal functions of the MPO are: (1) development of a long-range
transportation plan; (2) development of a TIP; and (3) development of a Unified Planning Work
Program (UPWP). Federal regulations regarding the TIP development process are located in
Appendix B.
As the designated MPO for Northern Ada County and Nampa Urbanized Areas, COMPASS
prepares and approves separate TIPs for each urbanized area. While MPOs are required by
federal law to develop a TIP at least every two years, COMPASS has chosen to prepare the TIP
on an annual basis.
Urbanized Areas with a census population of 200,000 or more are designated as Transportation
Management Areas (TMAs). Northern Ada County crossed that threshold with the 2000 Census.
TMAs have two additional responsibilities; development of a Congestion Management System
(CMS) and meeting the requirements of Triennial Review, a form of federal audit. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHW A) allocates annually a certain amount of federal transportation
funds to the MPOs that are designated TMAs.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE TIP
Figure 1 depicts the adopted boundaries of the Northern Ada County and Nampa Urbanized
. Areas. The Urbanized Area (UA) designation is provided by the U.S. Census to provide a better
i .~e1!>anition of urban and rural territory, population, and housing in the vicinity.. of large places.A.
UA comprises one or more places Ccentral place II) and the adjacent densely settled surrounding:~'
territory ("urban fringell) that together have a minimum of 50,000 persons. The urban fringe
generally consists of contiguous territory having a density of at least 1,000 persons per square
mile plus additional criteria to include enclaves or areas connected by existing roadways.
Figure 1
--- -......... -- -... -- ------ -- --- -.... .............,. -- - ---. ---..- ------....... ------..................
", +
,
,
,
,
....... ~1-b'1pI.~
......,... 0 ~O\
o .....-
3
TIME PERIOD OF THE TIP
The TIP spans a five-year period. The first three years include committed projects that are
considered budgeted, while the remaining years are more informational in nature. The projects
in the last two years are listed to provide a framework for transportation needs that move from
the planning stage to the implementation stage. These projects should be considered more
tentative in nature and subject to change as priorities and availability of revenue change.
An additional category, Preliminary Development (PD), is included for projects that currently
have no committed funding year, but are identified as a recognized need. These projects will be
considered for placement in a programmed year in the next update of the program, or sooner if
the opportunity arises.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONSISTENCY
Federal Regulations require that the TIP be consistent with the Regional Long-Range
Transportation Plan. For the Northern Ada County Urbanized Area, the applicable plan is
Destination 2025, adopted by the COMPASS Board of Directors in July 2002 and subsequently
: amended in'September 2002. For the NampaUrbanized Area, Moving People: 2025; adopted in
~ebruary 2003, is the applicable plan:~
TIP DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Figure 2 outlines the annual process to develop the TIP. A detailed calendar is prepared each
year to establish deadlines for project solicitation, project evaluation, development of the
preliminary and final TIP, adoption of the final TIP and coordination of necessary actions by
local highway districts, COMPASS, and lTD.
WHA T FUNDING SOURCES ARE PROGRAMMED IN THE TIP?
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21) provides federal transportation
money to states and local governments through a variety of transportation programs. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and the Federal Transit Administration (FT A)
administer these programs. Each state receives a portion of available funding, which is
determined according to a formula. The Idaho Transportation Board determines distribution and
allocation of federal transportation funds to each program. Appendix B lists the most commonly
used funding sources for transportation projects.
4
~ ~ . <
"AS" ~~:;"-. .:: /0 ,,~ -0
" "AUGUST
<? r.
~~? ? ?" ,
',," . ~,,-
NOVEMBER ""
~ .. . ~
Figure 2
TIP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
;
~
~;l "
~
~
):
~~
;~ ~
"
j
SECTION 2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE TIP
OVERVIEW
The major stages of developing the TIP are shown on Figure 2. Each year the program begins
with project solicitation from local governments and transportation agencies. This typically
extensive list is wilU10wed down after a thorough review of several factors, including the project
sponsor's ability to complete the project, the identification oflocal matching dollars, expected
federal dollars available to the region, and conformity analyses to ensure air quality standards are
met.
TIP MANAGEMENT
COMPASS is initiating the use of the Transportation, Economic and Land Use System (TELUS)
Program to manage the volume of information on each desired project. The transition to the use
of TEL US will require the submission of project request forms (Appendix E). Since TELUS is
produced in Microsoft Access, it can easily accept data from other agencies that produce their
programs using Access, such as the ACHD Five-Year Wark Program. TELUS will produce the
TIP docmnent in different formats, each tailored to a special use and audience.
")'
The use of TEL US provides the following benefits: ,
. ACHD projects can be directly doWhlo'aoed into TELUS, saving staff time and reducing'
error. COMPASS staffhopestoeventllally download ITD and ValleyRidepIojects as
well.
e Distinct project phases can be shown in the TIP. The current format shows only the final
phase of a project, which is the construction year.
. Individual project maps can be provided, enabling a view ofthe distribution of projects
throughout Ada and Canyon Counties by integrating Geographical Information System
(GIS) files.
o The project list can be sorted by project type, cost, year or any other field of interest.
,.
I~;
DEVELOP AND ApPROVE THE ANNUAL SCHEDULE
Every September, the ITD prepares and approves the STIP schedule in cooperation with the
MPOs in the state. The schedule delineates steps in the development and approval process of the
STIP. Once this schedule is accepted, COMPASS prepares a schedule of dates critical for the
development and approval of the respective Northern Ada County and Nampa Urbanized Area
TIPs to ensure coordination with the ITD schedule.
Critical dates for COMPASS actions include:
. Deadline for submitting requested projects by member agencies
. Deadline for submitting Transportation Enhancement Applications
. Schedule for COMPASS Board of Directors establishing the priority order of
Transportation Enhancement projects
. Schedule for COMPASS Board of Directors establishing the funding priority of projects
under STP-UITMA.
6
. Schedule for COMPASS Board of Directors approval of a preliminary list of projects for
inclusion in the TIP.
. Schedule for a public commenting period and a date for an open-house meeting on the
proposed final TIPs.
. Final approval by the Northern Ada County and Nampa Urbanized Areas TIPs by the
COMPASS Board of Directors in August/September.
The schedule is approved by the Regional Technical Advisory Committee and the COMPASS
Board of Directors by the end of the calendar year.
PROJECT CATEGORIES AND SPONSORS
The ITD and the Ada County Highway District CACHD) sponsor roadway projects in Ada
County. In Canyon County, project sponsors are more varied due to the larger number of
agencies that have transportation responsibilities. This includes the cities ofNampa and
Caldwell, Canyon Highway District, Golden Gate Highway District, Nampa Highway District
and Notus-Parrna Highway District. As the regional public transportation agency, ValleyRide is
the sponsor of transit and rideshare projects.
FUNDING ASSESSMENT
Since the Northern Ada County Urbanized Area is designated as a Transportatioil' Management
. Area, the FHW A allocates a portibn of the ~TI:\-Ur1?~:funds received by the ITD to the :
Northern Ada County Urbaniz.ed Area, each year-.: This obligation authority (STP-TMA) is
approximately $4.7 million each year. In the Nampa Urbaniz~d Area, the Idaho Transportation'
Board allocates a portion of STP-Urban funds to urban areas in Idaho. This amount is
approximately $900,000 per year.
A coalition of representatives of Idaho MPOs and the Local Highway Technical Assistance
Council participate in a STP-Local Urban Committee, referred to as the "Balancing Committee",
that works in coordination with the ITD to allocate funds to the transportation priority projects
established by the COMPASS Board of Directors.
PROJECT SOLICIT A TION
To allocate federal dollars to the area's transportation priorities, the COMPASS Board of
Directors must be provided with a comprehensive list of multimodal transportation projects
needed in the area, including roadway projects, transportation enhancement projects, Congestion
Management and Air Quality Projects, public transportation projects, state and interstate
highway projects, and transportation studies.
COMPASS solicits projects beginning in August with a letter to member agencies that requests
a meeting to establish community transportation needs/projects. The meetings with local
agencies and groups provide information to the responsible entity on the status of projects they
requested in previous years, assists the entity with the development of an updated list of desired
transportation projects for inclusion in the TIP, and collect desired projects for possible
inclusion in the ACHD Five-Year Work Program, Canyon County Highway Districts' Capital
7
Irpprovement Programs and the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council's-CLHTAC) list of
projects.
Participants in the meeting may represent a variety of constituents, including planning and
zoning commissions, citizens' groups, city councils, public works departments or highway
district commissions. In aU cases, the entity selected to participate is designated by the mayor
and city council or by the board of commissioners.
During the fall of each year, the
ITD solicits projects for the
Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) Program and the ,r,;
Transportation Enhancement (TE)
Program (see Figures 3 and 4).
These are competitive programs'
that provide federal funds to fund:
surface transportation related
projects that strengthen the
cultural, aesthetic, or
environmental value of Idaho's
transportation system and air
quality projects, planning and
programs, respectively.
ValleyRide, the regional public
transit authority, submits transit
projects for both Ada and Canyon
Counties, and considers those
COMPASS recommends for
inclusion.
COMPASS compiles requested
projects into a master list for
review by RTAC and the
COMPASS Board of Directors.
The projects consist of a variety
of modes and types, and as such,
fall under the jurisdiction of all
transportation agencies in the
Treasure Valley. The project
designation process identifies
both an appropriate transportation
agency for each project and a
funding source.
,,:~"__j,{,,~'i.:;';
;~;'j~:-C;-.--:;
illllf~~i~1tft,tii
:.,?:,c:""..,_'</>J',:~:.", ^ """'," , . v
~ '. ~
(
The appropriate transportation agency is the one with legal jurisdiction over the requested
project. For example, projects that improve state highways are designated to the ITD and those
on local roadways to the agencies with jurisdiction over the roadway. The designation of a
project to a transportation agency is done in consultation with that agency. In Ada County,
ACHD designates the appropriate funding source for projects. In Canyon County, the
designation of appropriate funding sources is at the discretion of the cities and the four highway
districts.
9
PROJECT SELECTION AND PRELIMINARY TIP PREPARATION
In January of each year, all requested roadway, transit and study projects are evaluated based on
adopted criteria for each urbanized area (Appendices G and H). Transportation Enhancement
applications are first submitted to COMPASS for review and ranking in accord with adopted
criteria (Appendix F). Each year a subcommittee of the Regional Transportation Advisory
Committee (RTAC) is formed for this purpose. The CMAQ Program is based on local
sponsorship of projects whose air quality analyses are first reviewed and approved by the IDEQ
Regional Office. These applications are then reviewed for completeness by COMPASS and <
processed through the ITD District 3 office for evaluation by the CMAQ Technical Review
Committee.
The RTAC reviews the subcommittees' rankings and forwards a recommend list to the
COMPASS Board of Directors for approval in Marchi April. The purpose of this effort is to
provide the lTD with approved lists of projects for inclusion in the draft STIP. The preliminary
list highlights changes to the TIP since last approved by the COMPASS Board of Directors.
The preliminary document includes:
. Projects listed in the previous year TIP, except those that have been implemented or
"committed" .
. Proposed projects for funding 1;!llder the STP-U or TMA, STP-E, CMAQ programs.
. Proposed transit and ridesh4fe projects...
. Proposed transportationstridie,s. . _ -; .' _' -
. Propose~ projects for .fi!ndip.glUlder STP-Rura~, when the project is within the H;. : .. '.
Metropolitan Planning Area but outside ofan urbanized area.
. In Ada County, all locally funded projects identified as Regionally Significant for air
quality conformity purposes.
;~ , <'.'
<,- .. I ~
The preliminary list does not include new state sponsored projects, as a list of those projects is
not available during the development ofthe preliminary document. State sponsored projects
include National Highway System (NHS) projects and projects funded in the bridge, interstate
maintenance, and Federal Lands Highways programs.
10
(
AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY
Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) require that transportation improvement
programs and projects in a federally designated non-attainment or maintenance area do not create
new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), increase the frequency
or severity of existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
Ada County is designated a "Maintenance Area" for two pollutants, carbon monoxide (CO) and
Particulate Matter (PMlO). As such, the approval of the annual TIP in Ada County is contingent
upon meeting all applicable air quality conformity requirements.
The demonstration of air quality conformity is based on the projection of traffic volumes and the
average speed for each class of roadways. This data is used as the input into the emission models
to estimate projected emissions of the proposed transportation network. The assumptions used in
these computer-modeling practices are reviewed and approved by a state recognized group of
11
stakeholders, named the Interagency Consultation Committee. State of Idaho regulations require
that the public be given a 3D-day opportunity to review and comment on the air quality
conformity document. As a general practice, this 30-day commenting period is scheduled
simultaneously with the 3D-day commenting period on the proposed TIP.
In addition to federally funded projects, the annual Northern Ada County Urbanized Area TIP
must include locally funded projects that ary deemed to be "Regionally Significant." The
determination of a Regionally Significant project is made in accord with the definition adopted
by the Interagency Consultation Committee, per the federal guidelines. This definition is
provided in Appendix D.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE TIP
COMPASS solicits public comments on the annual TIP and the companion Northern Ada
County Air Quality Conformity Demonstration. Public outreach for the TIP may be held in
conjunction with the ITn public outreach for the STIP. These efforts include, but are not limited
to:
. A 30-day public comment period on the proposed TIPs and the Northern Ada County Air
Quality Conformity Demonstration. This is generally held during the month of July.
. A public meeting (open house format) to inform the public on proposed projects and to
solicit comments.
. Anews1release to media in the Treasure Valley to announce opportunities for proyiding,"
,input i~\o the docU11J,ents. , : . ,
. Websit~ access to documents for public review. " .. -,' ,
t . , '
. Paid print advertisements tegarding comment period and the public meeting; in the Idaho '.\
Statesman and the ldaho Press-Tribune.
. Purchase legal notices for the major newspapers.
. Mail postcards to interested citizens in the Treasure Valley and email notices to
stakeholder lists.
. Summarize comments and provide responses to those who offered written response.
. Post comments and responses on the website.
. Deliver comments related to transportation issues within the purview of the !TD or
ValleyRide.
FfNAL TrP PREPARATION AND ADOPTrON
The final TIP document documents compliance with all federal and state requirements. The
primary steps to prepare the final TIP include preparation of the final list of projects, completion
ofthe air quality conformity analysis in the Northern Ada County Urbanized Area, and
reconciliation of any differences between the local TIPs and the draft STIP. The final document
is then subject to public review and comment prior to approval by the COMPASS Board of
Directors.
The following steps are necessary to prepare the final list of projects:
. New state-sponsored projects are added to the preliminary list.
. Projects not recommended for funding under the STP-Enhancements, STP-Urban, STP-
Rural, STP- TMA, and CMAQ are removed from the list.
12
. Modification to the scope, costs or implementation year of projects on the preliminary list
is shown in the final list.
· May include a project that was not in the approved preliminary list.
A comparison of the final list to the preliminary list is provided to the COMPASS Board of
Directors.
A typical final TIP document includes the following sections:
Introduction: Describes briefly what the TIP is, the major regulations shaping the
development of the document, the content, the agencies involved, and the
authority of COMPASS in developing the document.
Public Outreach Efforts: Describes the public outreach efforts made throughout the
development of the document and the means of public outreach employed.
Air Quality Conformity: Provides a synopsis of the Air Quality Conformity
Demonstration that was conducted for the document.
Status of Local Planning Activities: Provides information on the status of local
transportation and land use plans that influence the development of the annual
TIP.
Federal Aid Program: Provides a synopsis of federal transportation programs and
funding sources. Projects in the TIP using each of these funds are identified under
the description of the program. ' , .. c
.Financial Capacity Analysis: Demonstrates that projects in the TIP have.areasonable. ..'.
funding source 'and that the sponsors of the projects are financially capable of
providing the required local match dollars.
Project List: Information shown for each project includes the title, project description,
costs, construction year, funding source, ITD key number, project sponsor and
their key number, if applicable.
Status of First-Year Projects in the Last-Year TIP Document. This is a federally
required table. The purpose of this table is to show the status of projects
programmed for implementation in the previous year.
List of Transit Projects: This is requested by the ITD, Public Transportation Division. It
provides easy reference to all transit projects listed in the TIP.
Funding Summary Table: The COMPASS Board of Directors requires a table
showing the amount of federal dollars programmed under each federal funding
source, in each urbanized area, and in each year. The main purpose of this table is
to track the allocation of federal dollars in each urbanized area.
Federal Funds Allocated to Alternative Modes: The COMPASS Board of
Directorsrequires a table showing the total funds allocated to roadway and
alternative modes projects in each year. Projects that cannot be classified as
either roadway or alternative mode of transportation, or lack any specific funding
source, are not included in this calculation. Percentages of roadway projects that
include sidewalk and bike facilities are assigned a share of alternative mode
funding. This percentage in Ada County is 25%; the share in Canyon County
varies between 5% and 15%.
13
. ".,
. I....
Final approval of the TIPs is accomplished after the following steps are completed:
. Representatives of Ada County on the COMPASS Board of Directors approve the
Northern Ada County Urbanized Area TIP through the adoption of a resolution.
. Representatives of Canyon County on the COMPASS Board of Directors approve the
Nampa Urbanized Area TIP through the adoption of a resolution.
. Approved documents are submitted to the ITD and the FHW A's Boise office.
. The Idaho Transportation Board approves a STIP that includes the Boise and Nampa
Urbanized Areas TIPs in September.
. Approval of the STIP by the FHW A and the FT A.
As noted above, federal regulations require consistency between the Transportation
Improvement Programs and the STIP for those projects that are within the MPO's Metropolitan
Transportation Planning Area. A great deal of coordination is done with the ITD prior to the
approval by the COMPASS Board of Directors to avoid any discrepancies between the two
documents. In case the document approved by the COMPASS Board of Directors is different
from the one approved by the Idaho Transportation Board, the differences must be reconciled.
The reconciliation normally involves the amendment of one or both documents.
AMENDMENTS
During the year, project sponsors may want to amend the adopted TIP. To. consider an.
amendmept, the project must show substantial changes in the scope or termini.ofprojects, must,
h~v(;.cost)ncreases or reductions equal to.or greate~ than 20%, should be a new.or:.removed :
project, should advance projects from the fourth or fifth years into the first three years, or should
delay projects from the first three years into the fourth or fifth years.
, '.
. ,
The COMPASS Board of Directors must approve changes to the TIP. To do so, project sponsors
must submit a request to COMPASS on the form included in Appendix I. The request should
specify the current status of the project, the change requested and the reason for the change.
Once changes have been made and approved, the revised TIP is posted on the website.
When possible, project sponsors are encouraged to submit their requested change as a new item
for the next TIP, rather than request an amendment of the existing one. No amendment will be
processed after July 15, the date the ITD begins closing out the books for that fiscal year
Not all changes to the TIP document require an amendment. The following do not require an
amendment:
· Monetary changes in the cost of projects when the change is less than 20% of total cost.
· Advancing or delaying projects within the first three years of TIP.
· Minor changes to the description of projects.
According to federal regulations, some amendments require a new public involvement effort
and/or Air Quality Conformity Demonstration, while others do not. Generally, adding or deleting
a capacity expansion project triggers new public involvement and Air Quality Conformity
14
Demonstration. Any project previously included in the Regional Emission Analysis or one that is
ex"empt from the analysis does not require a new Air Quality Conformity Demonstration.
SECTION 3: PROJECT TRACKING
COMP ASS must continually track the progress of projects programmed in the TIP even though
the project sponsor is responsible for project development from the application and conceptual
report through to project construction. Numerous situations may impact the programmed
projects and necessitate a modification during the annual TIP development process or requiring a
TIP amendment.
Possible causes ofproject modifications include:
III The project has satisfied all design, right-of-way and environmental criteria and is ready
for construction a year or more in advance of the programmed construction year.
III The project sponsor encounters design, right-of-way and environmental or other issues
that prohibit the project's construction obligation during the programmed year.
III The actual cost of the project is determined to be substantially higher or lower than the
cost estimate originally identified in the TIP.
III Project priorities are reassessed and shifted. This might occur as a result of higher
estimated costs, project needs being 'lessened by social or economic conditions, the need
to coordinate with other transpQrtati,on pr:ojects, PI;' a change in state and local funding and
..programming policies. ~ , ...
.' ,>.
...1
. -
, .
;:.. Th~se.situations may create potential project advances, delays and replacements. The following
procedures should be taken when the above situations arise:
Project Advances
1. The project sponsor of a locally sponsored project should identify and notify COMPASS as
early as possible regarding the readiness of all programmed projects to be constructed or
completed and the desire to advance such a project given matching funds, etc.
2. If it is identified that a project under the STP-Urban Program will be constructed for much
less than the funds programmed for the project, COMPASS staff should be notified immediately.
COMPASS staffwill evaluate if the cost savings and/or the project advancement provides for an
opportunity to potentially advance or program other projects and discuss those opportunities and
determine the desires to do so with the "project sponsors".
3. COMPASS staff presents to the RTAC and COMPASS Board of Directors the desire of the
"project sponsor" to advance the project if an opportunity presents itself.
4. COMPASS staff will develop a list of all potential project advancements approved by the
COMPASS Board of Directors. This list will be forwarded to ITD District 3. If the project is in
the STP Local Urban program, COMPASS staffwill monitor opportunities and negotiate to re-
program the project in advance of its current programming. ITD District 3 staff, in cooperation
with COMPASS staff, will do the same for all projects in other programs.
15
5. - If successful, COMPASS staff will make appropriate modifications to the TIP, either through
the annual update process or an amendment to the current year TIP, and present the changes to
RTAC and COMPASS Board of Directors for approval. The changes will then beforwarded to
the ITD for approval.
Project Delays
1. The project sponsor of a locally sponsored project should identify as early as possible an
expected delay and inform the COMPASS staffwho will then inform RTAC and the COMPASS
Board of Directors of the expected delays.
2. The project sponsor and COMPASS staff should evaluate and explore what actions can be
taken to avoid the delay of a project. Primary actions that might be explored include:
a. The project sponsor evaluates if the project can be developed in phases to avoid delaying
the entire project.
b. find and negotiate with other agencies for additional resources. This includes the
"project sponsor" covering anticipated cost increases that threaten to delay the project. It
is the policy of the STP Enhancement Program that the project sponsor. covers the cost
increases to avoid delay of the proiect.. If a delay is unavoidable. the profect is dropped
from the program and must be resubmitted for consideration in the statewide competitive
selection process.
c. If the delay is due to cost increases or funding shortfalls, COMPASS and ITD staff will
attempt to identify other projects within the same federal transportation funding program
that have or willlike1y delay and allow for the project to remain as programmed. It may
be possible, but not practical, that the project be moved to another federal transportation
funding program to avoid a delay.
3. If delaying the project cannot be avoided or a phase of the project will be delayed,
COMPASS staff for the STP Urban Program and ITD staff in cooperation with COMPASS
staff for all other federal transportation-funding programs will work with the appropriate
agencies to delay the project. NOTE: Under the STP Urban Program, if another proiect
cannot be advanced to fill the void created by the proiect being delayed, those funds
earmarked for the project may be lost and will not be made available for later years.
Therefore, the proiect may need to be delayed until funds are once again sufficient to cover
the costs.
4. Whereas the action of how to address a project in the STP Urban Program may impact the
available funding shared by urbanized area entities and other programmed projects.
COMPASS staff should immediately notify RTAC and COMPASS Board of the
ramifications of such a decision. They should also be made aware of all explored
opportunities and why such a decision was made. With Board approval, COMPASS staff
will pursue the approved course of action. Even though, under the other federal
16
transportation funding programs, funds are not shared by the entities, R T AC and the Policy
Board should be kept abreast of what actions are being taken to maintain or delay a project.
5. Adjustments or amendments to the TIP as a result of project delays are presemed for review
and approval of the RTAC and COMPASS Board and forwarded to the ITD for approvaL
Proiect Replacements
I. COMPASS staff should be notified immediately if the "project sponsor" desires to replace an
"existing" project with a "new" project due to the delay or re-prioritization of projects.
2. COMPASS staff will verify that the "new" project is identified and, if applicable, prioritized
in the Long Range Transportation Plan. If required, COMPASS staff will take appropriate
steps to ensure the project is consistent with the Plan.
3. The re-prioritization of projects will be presented to the RTAC and COMPASS Board. This
is important because re-prioritized projects may impact the eventual funding of other
projects.
4. The "existing" project will be dropped from, the program or delayed. If the project is
delayed; then COMPASS staff for the ~TP Urban, Program and ITD staff in cooperation with
COM'pASS staff for all other'fed,eral ,transp~:n):ati9~.funding programs will, work . with, the
appropriate agencies t() delay:the,pwject. ";' ".
5. COMPASS staff for the STP Urban Program and ITD staff in cooperation with COMPASS
staff for all other federal transportation funding programs will work with the appropriate
agencies to program the "new" project in the slot vacated by the "existing" project. If the
cost of a "new" project is similar to that of an "existing" project, the process to program the
"new" project should be less onerous.
6. Adjustments or amendments to the TIP, as a result of project replacements and any delays,
are presented for review and approval of the RT AC and COMPASS Board and forwarded to
the ITD for approval.
Proiect Meetings
For locally sponsored projects, COMPASS staff should be made aware of and attend all
meetings where project reviews and determinations are made that potentially impact the
programming status of a project.
Cost Modifications under Construction
After a project has gone through the TIP process and is under construction, any cost
modification, either an increase or decrease, will have an impact on the TIP. Under the STP
Urban Program all cost modifications will add to or reduce the balance of funds available for
other programmed projects in the area and the ability to program new projects. COMPASS staff
should be notified immediately of any cost modifications to a project whereas COMPASS staff
17
m\lst be aware of the balance funds available to the area in theSTPUrban Program in order to
appropriately balance the Program. COMPASS staff will notify the RTAC and Policy Board of
substantial cost modifications and the potential ramifications.
ITD-1414 Proiect Pro~ram Entry and Revision Form
Upon determination that adjustments to a locally sponsored project are required, an ITD-1414
Project Program Entry and Revision Form should be completed. The project sponsor should
document the adjustments and forward the information to the ITD District 3 Local Roads
Coordinator for STP-Urban projects, who will process the information. A copy ofthe
infOlmation supplied by the project sponsor to District 3 should be forwarded to COMPASS.
. ..
T:\600transup\685tip\TIP Guide\TIP Development ProcessRev2nocover.doc
18
APPENDICES
Appendix A
A. Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions
ACHD .......... ......................... ....................... ........ .................................... ............. Ada County Highway District
ADA ............................................................. .................................. ........... ......... Americans with Disabilities Act
CMAQ..................................................................................... Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program
CMS ............. .......................................................... ................. ....... .................. Congestion Management System
COMPASS .................................................................... Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
EAC........... ...... .......... .............................................................. ..................... Enhancement Advisory Committee
EP A.................. ................... ...................................... ...................................... Environmental Protection Agency
FHW A....... ..... ....................................... ........................................................... Federal Highway Administration
FT A............ .......... .................................... ... ........ ..... ........... .............. ................... Federal Transit Administration
HZD .ELM .......... .... ......................................... .............. ..... ............................................ .... .... Hazard Elimination
IDEQ.................................................................... ....................... .ldaho Department of Environmental Quality
ITD .......... ................... ............................................... .................. ................. ..Idaho Transportation Department
ITS .......................................................................................... ........................ .lnte Uigent Transportation System
MPO ................. ................................................................................. ......... Metropolitan Planning Organization
NHS......................................... ................................................... .................................. National Highway System
PMIO............................................................... Particulate Matrer equal or smaller than 10 microns in diameter
SIP.................................................................................... ........ .................................. State Implementation Plan
STP ....... ...... ...................................... ..... .......................... .................................. Surface Transportation Program
STP-E .......... ................................................... ............................ Surface Transportation Progra m-Enhancement
STP-R........ ..................... ................................. ............. ................ ............ Surface Transportation Program-Rural
STP-U .................................................................................................... Surface Transportation Program-Urban
TCMs .... ....... .................. .h...................................... ...................................... .. Transportation Control Measures
STP-TMA.................................................. Surface Transportation Program-Transportation Management Area
TEA-21 ...................................................................................... Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TIP.. ......... .................................... ...... ......................... ....... ........... ........... Transportation Improvement Program
TMA ..... ................. ............ ................... .... .......... ........................................ .. Transportation Management Area
Term'
Definitiort '
Ada County Highway District's program that coordinates car- and vanpools
and related assistance to employers.
A road that carries the major portion of trips entering, passing through, or
leaving urban areas. They are.often further defined as principal. minor, and
rural.
An arrangement where two or more people share the use and cost of privately
owned automobiles in traveling to and from pre-arranged destinations
together.
Any street that primarily moves traffic from local roads to arterials.
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
A broad geographical band that follows a general directional flow connecting
major sources of trips that may contain a number of streets, highways and
transit route alignments.
One of six ITO-designated districts in Idaho, this district is composed of the 10
southwest Idaho counties, including Canyon and Ada Counties.
ACHD Commuteride
Arterial
Carpool
Collector
COMPASS
Corridor
District 3
Functional Classification
High-Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV)
Intermodal
!TO
Level of Service
Local Road
Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)
Public Transportation
Regional Public
Transportation Authority
(RPTA)
Right~of-Way (ROW)
Single Occupant Vehicle
(SOV)
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
Urbanized Area
Valleyride
The process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or
systems, according to the type of service they are intended to provide.
Vehicle with more than one rider, sometimes given preferential treatment in
the planning of transportation facilities, such as carpool lanes on highways.
Those issues or activ~ies which involve or affect more than one mode of
transportation, incluclfng-t}ansportation connections, choices, cooperation and
coordination of various modes. Also known as "multimodal."
Idaho Transportation Department.
For highway systems, a qualitative rating of the effectiveness of a highway or
highway facility in serving traffic, in terms of operating conditions.
A road used for access to abutting properties.
Formed in cooperation with the state, develops transportation plans and
programs for the metropolitan area. For each urbanized area, a Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) must be designated by agreement between the
Governor and local units of government representing 75 percent of the
affected population (in the metropolitan area), inCluding the central cities or
cities as defined by the Bureau of the Census, or in accordance with
procedures established by applicable state or local law.
Transportation by bus, or rail, or other conveyance, either publicly or privately
owned, providing to the public general or special service (but not including
school buses or charter or sightseerng service) on a regular and continuing
basis. Also known as "mass transit", "mass transportation", and "transit",
. . .
A state-designated agency responSible for administering statefundll,
preparing the required Regional Transportation Plan and Regional
Transportation Improvement Program, and other tasks.
A parcel of land dedicated or reserved for use as a public way, which in urban
areas may include streets, sidewalks, utillties, or other service functions.
A vehicle that carries the driver only.
A concept that seeks to reduce the number of vehicles using the road system
while providing mobility options to those who wish to travel.
Area designated by the Bureau of the Census that has a population of 50,000
or more.
The regional transportation agency for Ada and Canyon Counties.
A-2
Appendix B
B. Federal Funding Sources
Federal Highway Administration's Programs
National Highway System (NHS): The National Highway System (NHS) consists of
approximately 160,000 miles of roadway important to the nation's economy, defense, and
mobility and includes the following subsystems of roadways:
Interstate: The entire national highway system. The Eisenhower Interstate System of
highways retains its separate identity within the NHS.
Other Principal Arterials: These are highways in rural and urban areas that provide access
between an arterial and a major port, airport, public transportation facility, or other
intennodal transportation facility.
Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET): This is a network of highways which are
important to the United States' strategic defense policy and which provide defense access,
continuity and emergency capabilities for defense purposes.
Major Strategic Highway Ne~work Connectors: Tl}ese are highways that provide'access,...
between major military installations and highways that are part of the Strategic Highway
Network. A local example of this category is Gowen Road.'
Intermodal Connectors: These highways provide access between major intermodal
facilities and the other four subsystems making up the NHS. A local example of this
category is Vista Avenue, between the Boise Air Terminals and the Boise Depot.
Interstate Maintenance (1M). As part of the NHS Program, the Interstate System has a separate
identity and receives separate funding under the 1M Program. The Interstate Maintenance
Program provides for completion of interstate construction, interstate substitute highway
projects, and the maintenance ofthe Interstate System. The 1M Program involves projects to
rehabilitate, restore, and resurface the Interstate System. Reconstruction is also eligible if it does
not add capacity. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes, however, can be added
under this category.
Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP is a block grant program that may be used
for any roads (including the NHS) that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as Federal-Aid System (F AS) roads. Public
bridge projects are exempt from this requirement. Transit capital projects are also eligible under
this program through a process known as IIflexibility," which allows local and State governments
to determine the most effective means of meeting transportation needs in their communities. The
ITD subdivides STP funds into State and Local. The Local share is subdivided into Urban and
Rural. The Urban portion is further subdivided into urban areas with less than 5,000 population
and urban areas with 50,000 populations or more (MPO Areas).
Surface Transportation Program-State (STP-S). STP-$ funds primarily provide
funding for reconstruction or rehabilitation of roadways on the State Highway System.
These funds may also be used for planning, enhancement, transit, bridge, or safety
activities. B- I
Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U). The STP-U, a portion of the STP, is
allocated to urban areas (5,000 or more population). The funds are primarily used for
reconstruction or rehabilitation of roadways functionally classified as urban collectors or
higher. These funds may also be used for planning, enhancement, transit, bridge, or safety
activities.
The urban areas with a population of 50,000 or more are entitled to form an MPO, such
as COMPASS, to prioritize the allocation of STP-Urban dollars. There are currently six
MPOs in the State ofIdaho: Boise, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Coeur d' Alene, Lewis-Clark
Valley, and Nampa. The Local Highway Technical Assistance Council and the six MPOs
assist the nD with the administration of this fund. The Nampa Urbanized Area receives
approximately $900,000 of this fund annually.
The Boise Urbanized Area is the only MPO in Idaho with a population of over 200,000.
As such, it is designated as a TMA and annually receives an obligation authority of
approximately $4.7 million under the STP-Urban:Program. In Idaho, the pqr.tion of the
:STP-Urban dollars allocatedtotbe TMA is 'called STP-TMA. '. ~
. ~ . . .
. ~ 1 ~~ ,~ i
Surface Transportation Program-Rural (STP-R). Local Rural funds are for,projects
in rural areas, and in cities with population below 5,000. They are primarily used for
reconstruction or rehabilitation of roadways functionally classified as rural major
collectors or higher. The funds may also be used for pI arming, enhancement, transit,
bridge, or safety activities. In Idaho, the Local Highway Teclmical Assistance Council
(LHTAC) assists the ITD with the administration of this federal program.
Surface Transportation Program-Enhancement (STP-E). Ten percent of the STP
funds must be allocated for Transportation Enhancement activities. Transportation
Enhancement activities provide funding for:
.
Facilities for pedestrians and bicycles;
Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites;
Scenic or historic highway programs;
Landscaping and other scenic beautification;
Historic preservation;
Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or
facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals);
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and
use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails)~
Control and removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and
research; and
Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Projects under the Transportation Enhancement Program are funded on a statewide
competitive basis. Per a policy ofth13!qaho Transportation Board, the Statewide
Evaluation Committee gives additionatmerit points to the projects ranked by the
COMPASS Board of Directors as the area's highest priority projects.
Safety. Ten percent of STP funds are allocated to the Safety Program. Eligible activities include
projects for the improvement of identified high-hazard locations that constitute a danger to
vehicles or pedestrians. Examples of the types ofprojects include intersection improvements,
modification of roadway cross-sections, pavement skid treatments, and alignment changes. Any
reconstruction of appreciable lengths of roadway is not intended for funding under this program.
The major focus of this program is to target spot improvements of high accident areas. Similar to
the Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, safety projects can be on any public road.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). The CMAQ Program directs funds toward
transportation projects that improve air quality by reducing emissions or traffic congestion.
Currently no area in the State of Idaho receives an entitlement under this program, as there is no
formally designated carbon monoxide non-attainment area in Idaho. The Idaho Transportation'
Board, however, has set a policy of directing a portion of the CMAQ funds to air quality projects
in the areas that have a history of air quality problems or are susceptible to such a problem.
I - '. ~
Bridge Replacement and RehabilitatiouProgram.Highway bridges over water.ways,
railroads, other highways, or other topographical barriers may be replaced or rehabilitated when
,the states and the Secretary of Transportation find that they are unsafe due to structural
deficiencies, physical deterioration, or functional obsolescence. Preliminary engineering,
construction, and construction engineering of these bridges are eligible activities under the
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Additional eligible projects include bridge
painting, seismic retrofitting, and calcium magnesium acetate applications.
'. ,
Bridge Program Funds may not be used for costs of right-of-way, utility relocation or
adjustments, long approach fills or similar item~. Approach costs are limited to 10% of total
costs. (Note: Other Federal-aid highway funds may share in the cost of these items.) The
structure to be replaced may be on or off the Federal-Aid Highway System. The structure must
be inspected, rated and determined to be deficient, submitted as a replacement candidate, and
considered as haVing a high priority for replacement.
Federal Lands Program. Funding authorizations under the Federal Lands Program are now
provided through three categories: Indian Reservation Roads, Parkways and Park Roads, and
Public Land Highways. Funds are allocated on the basis of relative needs. States containing at
least 3% of the Nation's total public lands are given priority for these discretionary funds. Idaho
is one of these priority states.
Scenic Byways Program. This program began in 1991 and provides federal funding for
maintenance and improvement of scenic roadways on a competitive basis throughout the
Country. The ITD provides up to 80% of the cost of projects under the Scenic Byways Program.
B-3
I
The project must be on a highway or local road designated as a scenic, historic, or backcountry
byway. Eligible projects include:
Developing and implementing a corridor management plan;
Safety improvements required as a result of scenic byway designation; .
Pedestrianfbicyclist facilities, rest areas, turnouts, highway shoulder improvements,
passing lanes, overlooks, and interpretive facilities;
II Enhancing access to an area for recreation purposes;
II Protecting scenic, historic, recreation, cultural, natural, and archaeological resources;
II Developing and providing tourist information; including interpretive exhibitslkiosks,
brochures, audio/video tapes; and
· Developing and implementing a scenic byway-marketing program.
II
.
II
Federal Transit Administration's Programs. The FTA provides federal assistance funds under
its various programs to transit entities. VaIleyRide, as a regional public transportation entity in
the Treasure Valley, is the designated recipient ofFTA's Section 5307 funds.
Section 5303. Provides funds for transit planning activities in the metropolitan planning
areas. The funds are allocated to the state and distributed to the MPOs. In Idaho, these
funds are combined with FHW A funds under the Consolidated Planning Grants to allow
muItimodal planning activities.
Section 5307. These funds'are allocated,to the urbanized areas by statutory formula. This, "
transit program provides federal funds for capital and operation improvement programs
of transit systems. The funds could be used for planning public transportation and the
development of transit services. Currently, in the TMAs, Section 5307 funds cannot be
used for operation costs of transit services.
Section 5309. Provides discretionary funds allocated directly by US Congress to state
and local transit providers for capital improvement purposes. The funds are not
transferable to roadway or transit operation improvement programs.
Section 5310. Provides funds for services and rolling stocks that directly benefit
transportation of elderly and people with disabilities. The funds are distributed to states
based on the population of elderly and people with disabilities in the state.
Section 5311. Provides funds to states for distribution to transit entities in the areas with
less than 50,000 population. The funds can be used for planning, administration, capital
and operation improvements, and other costs associated with the provision of transit
services.
Section 5311(f). Funds are allocated to the state to be distributed to entities that
providefixed route public transportation services between cities. Funds may be used for
administration, operations, planning, and capital; costs of intercity bus services.
B-4
APPENDIX C
C. Federal Regulations for TIP Development
23 CFR ~450.324
The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include development of a TIP for the metropolitan
planning area by the MPO in cooperation with the State and public transit operators.
The TIP must be updated at least every two years and approved by the MPO and the Governor. The
frequency and cycle for updating the TIP must be compatible with the STIP development and approval
process.
Although metropolitan TIPs, unlike statewide TIPs, do not need to be approved by the FHW A or the
FT A, copies of any new or amended TIPs must be provided to each agency.
In non-attainment and maintenance areas for transportation related pollutants, the FHWA and the FTA, as
well as the MPO, must make a conformity determination on any new or amended TIPs (unless the
amendment consists entirely of exempt projects) in accordance with the Clean Air Act requirements and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conformity regulations.
There must be reasonable opportunity for public comment and, in non-attainment TMAs, an opportunity
for at least one formal public meeting during the TIP development process. The proposed TIP shall be
published or otherwise made readily available for rev:ie~ and comment. Similarly; the approved TIP shall
be published or otherwise made rea~ilyav~i1abl,e' for Jinfo~ation purpose~. . ~. ., .."
The TIP shall cover a period of not less than 3 years, but'may cover a longer period ifit identifies
priorities and financial information for the additional years. The TIP must include a priority list of
projects to be carried out in the first three years. As a minimum, the priority list shall group the projects
that are to be undertaken in each of the years, i.e., year 1, year 2, year 3.
In non-attainment and maintenance areas, the TIP shall give priority to eligible [Transportation Control
Measures] (TCMs) identified in the approved [State Implementation Plan] (STIP) in accordance with the
D.S. EPA conformity regulation and shall provide for their timely implementation.
The TIP shall be financially constrained by year and include a financial plan that demonstrates which
projects can be implemented using current revenue sources and which projects are to be implemented
using proposed revenue sources. The financial plan shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with
the State and the transit operator.
The TIP must include:
All transportation projects, or identified phases of a project, within the metropolitan planning area
proposed for funding under title 23, V.S.C., and the Federal Transit Act, and planning and research
activities;
Only projects that are consistent with the transportation plan;
All regionally significant transportation projects for which an FHW A or the FT A approval is required
whether or not the projects are to be funded with title 23, D.S.C., or Federal Transit Act funds, e.g.,
C-l
addition of an interchange to the Interstate System with State, local, and/or private funds, demonstration
projects not funded under title 23, V.S.C., or the Federal Transit Act, etc.;
For informational purposes and air quality analysis in non-attainment and maintenance ar~as, all
regionally significant transportation projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds, including
intermodal facilities, not covered in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(3) of this section; and
For informational purposes and air quality analysis in non-attainment and maintenance areas, all
regionally significant projects to be funded with non~Federal funds.
Sufficient descriptive material (i.e., type of work, termini, length, etc.) to identify the project or phase;
Estimated total cost;
The amount of Federal funds proposed to be obligated during each program year;
Proposed source of Federal and non-Federal funds;
Identification ofthe recipient/subrecipient and State and local agencies responsible for carrying out the
project;
In non-attainment and maintenance ar~as, identification of those projects which are identified as TCMs in
the al'plicable SIP; and .
..~" .. "., . c, ,~, I; :.,': :; ~I:
In areas with Americans with Disabil'i~i~~ Act requircidParatransit and key station plans, identification .of
those projects which will implement th~ plan~., ".'.
\ " ."
In non-attainment and maintenance areas, sufficient detail for projects (design concept and scope) to
permit air quality analysis.
The TIP shall:
Identify the criteria and process for prioritizing implementation of transportation plan elements (including
intermodal trade-offs) for inclusion in the TIP and any changes in priorities from previous TIPs;
List major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented and identify any significant delays in
the planned implementation of major projects;
In non-attainment and maintenance areas, describe the progress in implementing any required TCMs,
including the reasons for any significant delays in the planned implementation and strategies for ensuring
their advancement at the earliest possible time; and
In non-attainment and maintenance areas, include a list of all projects found to conform in a previous TIP
and are now part of the base case for the purpose of air quality conformity analyses. Projects shall be
included in this list until construction or acquisition has been fully authorized, except when a three-year
period has elapsed subsequent to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval without any
major action-taking place to advance the project.
In order to maintain or establish operations, in the absence of an approved metropolitan TIP, the FT A
and/or the FHW A Administrators, as appropriate, may approve operating assistance.
Amendment. The TIP may be modified at any time consistent with the procedures established in this
C-2
w
part for its development and approval. In non-attainment or maintenance areas for transportation related
pollutants if the TIP is amended by adding or deleting projects which contribute to and/or reduce
transportation related emissions or replaced with a new TIP, new conformity determinations by the MPO
and the FHW A and the FT A will be necessary. Public involvement procedures shall be utilized in
amending the TIP.
Relationship to Statewide TIP. After approval by the MPO and the Governorl, the TIP shall be included
without modification, directly or by reference, in the STIP program, except that in non-attainment and
maintenance areas, a conformity finding by the FHWA and the FTA must be made before it is included in
the STIP. After approval by the MPO and the Governor, a copy shall be provided to the FHW A and the
FTA.
Action Required by FHW A and FT A. The FHW A and the FT A must jointly find that each
metropolitan TIP is based on a continuing, comprehensive transportation process carried on cooperatively
by the States, MPOs and transit operators. This finding shall be based on the self-certification statement
submitted by the State and MPO and upon other reviews as deemed necessary by the FHW A and the
FTA.
Project selection. In areas not designated as TMAs projects to be implemented using title 23 funds other
than Federal lands projects or Federal Transit Act funds shall be selected by the State and/or the transit
operator, in cooperation with the MPO from the approved metropolitan TIP. Federal Lands Highways
program projects shall be selected in accordance with 23 V.S.C. 204.
In areas designated as TMAs all title 23 and Federal Transit Act funded projects,'except projects 'on the
NHS and projects funded under the bridge,iriterstate maintenance, and Federal Lands Highways ~ . !
programs, shall be selected by the MPO in consultation with the State and transit operator from the'
approved metropolitan TIP and in accordance with the priorities in the approved metropolitan TIP.
Projects on the NHS, and projects funded under the bridge and Interstate maintenance programs shall be
selected by the State in cooperation with the MPO, from the approved metropolitan TIP.
Projects not included in the Federally approved STIP will not be eligible for funding with title 23, D.S.C.,
or Federal Transit Act funds.
1 The Idaho Transportation Board approves the STIP on behalf of the Governor.
C-3
Appendix D
D. Definition of Regionally Significant
The Idaho Administrative Code includes the following definition of a regionally significant
project within the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01)"
566.14 Regionally Significant Project. A transportation project, other than an exempt
project, that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to
and from the area outside the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned
developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation
terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the
modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including, at a minimum:
a. All principal arterial highways,'
b. All fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway
travel; and
c.
Any other facilities determined to be regionally significant through Section 570,
interagency consultation.
i,
,"' . .
. . .
,011"January 30, 2002, the Ada County Interagency. Consultation Committee on Air Quality .
Conformity developed the following definition for the term "Regionally Significant":
::.. ~
"A transportation project in Ada County, Idaho is designated 'Regionally Significant' if:
(a) the project is for the improvement of either:
(t) a principal arterial or higher functional classification; or
(it) a minor arterial which will have a twenty (20) year projected traffic
volume of at least 45,000 vehicles a day after completion of the project;
and
(b) the project will add at least one new continuous vehicular lane which either:
(i) extends from one intersecting principal or minor arterial to another
intersecting principal or minor arterial; or
(it) in the case of an interstate, extends from the on ramp of one interstate
interchange to a point beyond the off ramp of the next adjacent interstate
interchange. "
D-1
Appendix E
E. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Request Form
Instructions: Use one form per project.
TIP Year (check one): Year 1 0 Year 20 Year 3 0 Year 40 Year 50 PD 0
Requesting Entity:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Project Priority:
Project Title:
Project Termini:
Project Description:
#
Finish:
Start:
5.
Implementing Agency: (check all that apply)
o City of (please specify)
o County of (please specify)
OLTD
Is project included in Implementing Agency work program? 0 YES -D NO
Is the project identified in the Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan? ::J YES 01';J.O".
If yes, 'cite references:'
~ ~.
o
o ACHD
Highway District
6.
, ~". -
If no, project is not eligible for the TIP at this time.
7. Describe any other plans that identify the project (local comprehensive plans, corridor studies,
etc.) (use additional sheets ifnecessary):
8. Describe potential for coordination with other existing or proposed projects in the region:
Please attach any additional information on the project on separate pages.
Note: All TIP Project Request Forms must be accompanied by a copy of the
official action recommending the projects. The action may be in the form of a
resolution or letter that indicates a majority of the governing board approved the
project request(s).
E-1
Appendix F
F. Criteria for Establishing Regional Priority of Projects Under the
Transportation Enhancement Program
Approved by the COMPASS Board of Directors in November 2000.
The ranking of Transportation Enhancement Program applications will be based on (1) the Idaho
Transportation Board's Criteria; and (2) Equity in Geographic Distribution of the fund. The Idaho
Transportation Board gives additional merit points to the projects identified as regional priority projects.
This additional merit point applies to each of the three categories of the Transportation Enhancement
Program, 1) pedestrian and bike facilities; 2) scenic and environmental; and 3) historical preservation.
Therefore, a community with projects within all three categories ofthe Program may choose three
projects as their first priorities and another three projects as their second priorities.
For the purpose of scoring the COMPASS criterion to promote geographic equity, Ada and Canyon
Counties are divided into the following geographic areas:
..
, .
i \
; ,
Ada County
1. Ada County, rural portion
2. Boise, north of the river
3. Boise, West Bench Planning Area
4. Boise, Southeast Planning Area
5. Boise Central Bench )?lanningArea
6. Eagle Planni.ll,g Are'il
7. Garden City Planning Area
8. Kuna Planning Area
9. Meridian Planning Area
10. Star Planning Area
Canyon County
1. City ofNampa
2. City of Caldwell
3. City of Middleton
4. Balance of the County
\ "~.;.J
"~ ~
TABLE 1
ENHANCEMENT APPLICATION SCORING CRITERIA
D I Maxim~m II
Criteria Points
Quality of Experience 15
< Value and Cost 15
....
~I:l:: Support 20
E-<r"'l
-~ Importance 15
U Plans and Goals 15
Project-Specific Criteria 20
Geographic Equity 20
tnZ No approved project over the past 5 years. 20
~9 No approved project in the same category over 15
~I:l:: the past 5 years.
~r"'l One approved project in the same category over 10
Ot::
Ul:l:: the past 5 years.
U More than one approved project in any category 5
over the past 5 years.
Total Maximum Points 120
F-1
Appendix G
G. Northern Ada County Urbanized Area - Surface Transportation
Program-Urban (STP-U) Criteria for Evaluation of Roadway and
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Projects
1. Community/Agency Task Force's Priority (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Highest priority
7 Pts. = Intennediate priority
5 Pts. = Low priority
2. Provides for Current and Future Roadway Needs (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Improves forecasted future deficiencies (LOS Elf)
7 Pts. = Improves crossing of physical barriers
4 Pts. = hnproves gateways or primary community entrances
listed in the Long Range Transportation Plan
3. Significance of Project (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Addresses a Regional Area (e.g., a principal arterial project)
7 Pts. = Addresses a Sub-Regional Area (e.g., a minor arterial project)
4 Pts. == Addresses a Neighborhood issue (e.g., a collector project)
4. Provides for Existing Infrastructure (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts.= Increases efficiency of existing facilities
7 Pts.= Preserves existing facilities
5. Safety Improvement (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Improves current high accident location
7 Pts. = Improves current design deficiencies
4 Pts. = Increases bicycle and pedestrian safety
....[.
.,' L
6. Consistency with Regional, Local and Agencies' Plans (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Specifically named in the Long Range Transportation Plan
7 Pts. = Specifically named in local or agencies' Plans
7. Air Quality Improvement (Maximum of 10 Points)
5 Pts. == Reduces carbon monoxide emissions
5 Pts. = Reduces particulate matter emissions (PMIO)
8. Implements System Efficiency on Facilities/Areas Identified by the Congestion
Management System as (Maximum of5 Points)
5 Pts. = High
3 Pts. = Medium
I Pt. = Low or Unclassified (i.e. Minor Arterials)
Notes: Maximum possible points under this category are 75 points.
Applications and interpretations of the Criteria are at the discretion of the Subcommittee on STP-
U Criteria.
G-l
Northern Ada County Urbanized Area
Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U)
Criteria for Evaluation of Alternative Modes of Transportation Projects
1. Community/Agency Task Force's Priority (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Highest priority
7 Pts. = Intermediate priority
4 Pts. = Low priority
2. Provides for Current and Future Alternative Modes of Transportation
(Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Improves or maintains existing services/facilities
7 Pts. = Expands existing services/facilities
4 Pts. "" Improves travel options during peak hours
3. Significance of Project (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. "" Addresses a Regional Area (e.g., bus or van purchases)
7 Pts. "" Addresses a Sub~Regional Area (e.g., Park & Ride lots or new bus or van
routes)
4 Pts. = Addresses a Neighborhood issue (e.g., bike and pedestrian facilities)
4. System Efficiency (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Improves travel along congested routes
7 Pts. = Improves fu,tu~~ld~,ficit;.p:'cj~s,..., .' : :'"
4 Pts. "" Reduces peak. hour trav.el , "
-',
5. Reduces the Amount of Single Occupant Vehicles on Facilities/Areas Identified
by the Congestion Management System as (Maximum of 5 Points)
5 Pts. = High
3 Pts. = Medium
1 Pt. = Low or Unclassified (i.e. Minor Arterials)
6. Provides Accessibility to Non-Auto Users (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Serves major trip destinations
7 Pts. = Serves areas witb higbest concentration of people depending on
alternative modes
4 Pts. :::: Serves schools
7. Consistency with Regional, Local and Agencies' Plans (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Specifically named in the Long Range Transportation Plan
5 Pts. = Specifically named in local or agencies' Plans
8. Air Quality Improvement (Maximum of 10 Points)
5 Pts. = Reduces carbon monoxide emissions
5 Pts. = Reduces particulate matter emissions (PMlO)
Notes: Maximum possible points under this category are 75 points.
Applications and interpretations ofthe Criteria are at the discretion ofthe Subcommittee on STP-
U Criteria.
0-2
Northern Ada County Urbanized Area
Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U)
Criteria for Evaluation of Transportation-Related Studies
1. Community/Agency Task Force's Priority (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. =:: Highest priority
7 Pts. =:: Intermediate priority
4 Pts. =:: Low priority
2. Significance of Project (Maximum of 20 Points)
20 Pts. =:: Addresses a Regional Area (i.e., a principal arterial or a regional transit
project)
15 Pts. =:: Addresses a Sub-Regional Area (i.e., a minor arterial or a bus route project)
10 Pts. =:: Addresses a Neighborhood issue (i.e., a collector or a bike & pedestrian
facility)
3. System Efficiency (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. =:: Addresses improvement of congested travel routes
7 Pts. =:: Addresses peak hour travel needs
5 Pts. == Addresses future deficiencies
4. Evaluates System Efficiency on Facilities/Areas Identified by the Congestion
Management System as (Maximum of 5 Points)
5 Pts. "'" High . '
3 Pts. "'" Medium
1 Pt. == Low and unclassified (i.e. MinorA.rtedaJs),;'
5. Consistency with Regional, Local and Agencies' Plans (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. =:: Specifically named in the Long Range Transportation Plan
5 Pts. =:: Specifically named in local or agencies' Plans
6. Promotion of Alternative Modes (Maximum of 10 Points)
5 Pts. = Aims at promoting, marketing and educating public on use of alternative
modes
5 Pts. = Provides incentives for use of alternative modes or disincentives for use of
single occupancy vehicle
5 Pts. = Provides reliable alternatives to use of single occupancy vehicle
7. Federal Compliance (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. =:: Deemed critical to maintaining inflow of federal funds
5 Pts. = Facilitates compliance with federal and state regulations
5 Pts. = Increases chance of receiving additional federal funds
Notes: Maximum possible points under this category are 75 points.
Applications and interpretations of the Criteria are at the discretion of the Subcommittee on STP-
U Criteria.
G-3
Appendix H
H. Nampa Urbanized Area w Surface Transportation ProgramwUrban
(STP-U) Criteria For Evaluation of Roadway and Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) Projects
1. Sponsoring Agency's Priority (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. '= Highest priority
7 Pts. '= Intermediate priority
4 Pts. "" Low priority
2. Provides for Current and Future Roadway Needs (Maximum of 10 Points)
1 0 Pts. "" Improves forecasted future deficiencies (LOS ElF)
7 Pts. '= Improves crossing of physical barriers
4 Pts. ::::: Improves gateways or primary community entrances listed in the Long Range
Transportation Plan
3. Significance of Project (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. '= Addresses a Regional Area (e.g., a principal arterial project)
7 Pts. == Addresses a Sub-Regional Area (e.g., a minor arterial project)
4 Pts. == Addresses a Neighborhood issue (e.g., a collector project)
4.
Provides for Existing Infrastructure (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts.== Increases efficiency of existing facilities
7 Pts.== Preserves existing fa,cilttie,S: ','..'
r'.'
~ ::. '
."\.
5. Safety Improvement (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. == Improves current high accident location
7 Pts. == Improves current design deficiencies
4 Pts. = Increases bicycle and pedestrian safety
6. Consistency with Regional, Local and Agencies' Plans (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. == Specifically named in the Long Range Transportation Plan
7 Pts. = Specifically named in local or agencies' Plans
7. Air Quality Improvement (Maximum of 10 Points)
5 Pts. = Reduces carbon monoxide emissions
5 Pts. = Reduces particulate matter emissions (PMIO)
8. Implements System Efficiency on Facilities/Areas Identified by the Congestion
Management System as (Maximum of5 Points)
5 Pts. = High
3 Pts. = Medium
1 Pt. = Low or Unclassified (i.e. Minor Arterials)
Notes: Maximum possible points under this category are 75 points.
Applications and interpretations of the Criteria are at the discretion of the Subcommittee on STP-
U Criteria.
H-l
Nampa Urbanized Area
Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U)
Criteria for Evaluation of Alternative Modes of Transportation Projects
1. Sponsoring Agency's Priority (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Highest priority
7 Pts. = Intermediate priority
4 Pts. = Low priority
2. Provides for Current and Future Alternative Modes of Transportation (Maximum of 10
Points)
10 Pts. = Improves or maintains existing services/facilities
7 Pts. = Expands existing services/facilities
4 Pts. = Improves travel options during peak hours
3. Significance of Project (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts.::::: Addresses a Regional Area (e.g., bus or van purchases)
7 Pts.::::: Addresses a Sub-Regional Area (e.g., Park & Ride lots or new bus or van routes)
4 Pts.::::: Addresses a Neighborhood issue (e.g., bike and pedestrian facilities)
4. System Efficiency (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Improves travel along congested routes
7 Pts. ::::: Improves future, qefiyi~!1.c~e~ 0
4 Pts. = ~educes peak pour Otra~~lo ;. o.
5. Reduces the Amount of Single Occupant Vehicles on Facilities! Areas Identified' by the
Congestion Management System as (Maximum of5 Points)
5 Pts. = High
3 Pts. = Medium
I Pt. = Low or Unclassified (Le. Minor Arterials)
6. Provides Accessibility to Non-Auto Users (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Serves major trip destinations
7 Pts. = Serves areas with highest concentration of people depending on alternative modes
4 Pts. = Serves schools
0.",
7. Consistency with Regional, Local and Agencies' Plans (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Specifically named in the Long Range Transportation Plan
5 Pts. = Specifically named in local or agencies' Plans
8. Air Quality Improvement (Maximum of 10 Points)
5 Pts. = Reduces carbon monoxide emissions
5 Pts. = Reduces particulate matter emissions (PMro)
Notes: Maximum possible points under this category are 75 points.
Applications and interpretations of the Criteria are at the discretion of the Subcommittee on STP-
U Criteria.
H-2
Nampa Urbanized Area
Surtace Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U)
Criteria for Evaluation of Transportation-Related Studies
1. Sponsoring Agency's Priority (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. == Highest priority
7 Pts. == Intennediate priority
4 Pts. == Low priority
2. Significance of Project (Maximum of 15 Points)
15 Pts. = Addresses a Regional Area (i.e., a principal arterial or a regional transit project)
10 Pts. = Addresses a Sub-Regional Area (i.e., a minor arterial or a bus route project)
5 Pts. = Addresses a Neighborhood issue (i.e., a collector or a bike & pedestrian facility)
3.
System Efficiency (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. == Addresses improvement of congested travel routes
7 Pts. = Addresses peak hour travel needs
5 Pts. = Addresses future deficiencies
Evaluates System Efficiency on Facilities/Areas Identified by the Congestion
Management System as (Maximum of 5 Points)
5 Pts. == High
3 Pts. = Medium
1. Pt. == Low or U nclassiued( i.e.IVVl?-or ,Arterials)
Consistency with Regional, Local and Agencies' Plans (Maximum of 10 Points) ,
10 Pts. == Specifically named in the Long Range Transportation Plan
5 Pts. == Specifically-niuued,in.'locaJ or' agencies' .Plans
i"} .'.'
\.'
.. '.-
.- ; ~ .
4.
5.
6. Promotion of Alternative Modes (Maximum of 10 Points)
5 Pts. == Aims at promoting, marketing and educating public on use of alternative modes
5 Pts. = Provides incentives for use of alternative modes or disincentives for use of single
occupancy vehicle
5 Pts. = Provides reliable alternatives to use of single occupancy vehicle
7. Federal Compliance (Maximum of 10 Points)
10 Pts. = Deemed critical to maintaining inflow of federal funds
5 Pts. = Facilitates compliance with federal and state regulations
5 Pts. = Increases chance of receiving additional federal funds
8. Safety Improvement (Maximum of 5 Points)
5 Pts. = Improves current high accident location
3 Pts. = Improves current design deficiencies
1 Pt. = Increases bicycle and pedestrian safety
Notes: Maximum possible points under this category are 75 points.
Applications and interpretations ofthe Criteria are at the discretion ofthe Subcommittee on STP-
U Criteria.
H-3
Appendix I
I. Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment Request Form
Date Submitted: TIP to be Amended:
Sponsoring Agency:
Project Key No.:
Year:
Funding Source:
Project Name:
Type of Amendment (check all that apply):
o Funding Year
o Funding Amount
o Project Description
o Project Description (changes to projects
resulting in increase road capacity may require
an air quality conformity analysis)
Amendment Justification:
Additional Information (please use 'separate paper):
. c- ~ .
, . :.: I ~ I . . _ ( .' . I : ~ '
~. . ,),. ...;:: -10 t"')., ;.:: +
1. Does this project require a new:air q~ality c~nfoi'mity determination? ",' :- '!
(From CFR Section 51, 400C2: A TIP amendment requires a new conformity determination for the entire TIP before the
amendment is approved by the MPO, unless it merely adds or deletes exempt projects listed in Section 51.460)
2. Is this project regionally significant?
(From CFR Section450.324j3: The TIP shall include... all regionally significant transportation projects far which an FHWA
ar the FTA approval is required whether ar nat the projects are to be funded with title 23. U.S.c., or Federal Transit Act
funds. e,g.. addition of an interchange to the Interstate System with State. local. and/or private fimds, demonstration projects
notfunded under title 23, Us.c., or the Federal Transit Act, etc.)
3. Has this project had the opportunity for public comment?
(From CFR Section450.326: "...Public involvement procedures consistent with Section 450.316(b)(1) sholl be utilized in
amending the TIP, except that these procedures are not requiredfor TIP amendments that only involve projects of the type
covered in Section 450.324(1).)
4. Has this project been found to be financially constrained?
(From CFR Section 450324(e): "The TIP shall befinancially constrained by year and include afinancial plan that
demonstrates which projects can be implemented using current revenue sources {while the existing transportation system is
being adequately operated and maintained. Thefinancial plan shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with the State
and transit operator. "
Signature of Authorized Official
Title:
Date:
f -1
j.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L. M, Nary
Charles M. Rountree
Keith Bird
. .~ -'"
~A ~I
pc ~~
A IDAHO l
1-01' C'~ /
~"'F/ "~~
.jll", l'REhSURE V ~
smc.E
I 1903
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272 . FAX 466-4405
. PARKS & RECREATION
(208) 888-3579 . Fax 898-550 I
PUBLIC WORKS
(208) 898-5500 . Fax 887- I 297
BUILDING DEPAR1MENT
(208) 887-22Il . Fax 887-]297
PLANNING & ZONING
(208) 884.5533 . Fax 888-6854
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
c::Jvre;; dltrH
NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian
will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 5:00 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be
discussing agenda items which are on the regular scheduled City Council
meeting as well as the following issues:
- Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1) (a)
- Discussion and Presentation by COMPASS on Transportation Improvement
Plan and Corridor Studies
The public is welcome to attend the meeting.
DATED this 28th of May, 2004.
33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE. MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642' (208) 888-4433
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 . Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 1,2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
K Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
Y Charlie Rountree x: Keith Bird
K Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: 6, 1ha.':J~r 7t:d-~I'YI-J de W~C&
3. Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LOS Church: presen-ted...
4. Adoption of the Agenda: arprt9~
5. Consent Agenda: ~19V'JL.
A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 Pre-Council Meeting: (?~v.J--
B. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: a;rpV'<--
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 04-
002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setback of the
existing house on Lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feet to 13.55 feet for
Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North
Locust Grove Road: ~V1-L
D. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission:
PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-
family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision
No.3 by Packard Estates Development, lLC - south of East Ustick
Road and east of North locust Grove Road: ~~V<-
E. Development Agreement: AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier
Sprinas Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of
East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: a7.p.f)7v-V'
Meridian City Council Agenda-June 1,2004 Page 10f3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property oftbe City ofMeridiall.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Temporary Easement Contract for the 2004 Waterline
Improvement Proiect. Eagle Road Waterline Extension: dF~vt-<->
G. Approve Bills: ~~I.f'e-
6. Department Reports
A. Police Department - Chief Musser:
1. Discussion of Purchase of Trained and Certified Police
K-9 Dog from Existing Capital Monies approved in
Police Budget: apfrPv-.e rJ~[;oCJ. ~/UA-Ci14SV
2. Shared update with Parks Director Strong on proposed
Improvements and Plan for five acres west of police
building on Watertower lane: jJr/!J-ev-t 10 1'4(2- CC'hLj4'l.;>rf/~
B. City Council Member - Shaun Wardle:
1. Update on Golf Course: <-
~fll.ih... t-f..-/,d#.e ,'W 2tv~.!-r
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
8. FP 04-031 Request for Final Plat approval for 66 single family residential I
office I commercial building lots and 7 common lots on 27.17 acres in a
R-4 zone for Bridaetower Crossina Subdivision No.7 by Primeland
Development, LLP - southeast comer of West McMillan Road and North
Ten Mile Road: cvp J'ln9v~..e.
9. Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: AZ 04-006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for proposed
Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner
of South Eagle Road and East Gir~ner La~e: ,. /'"
tvfrrrJ'lR.-'::} f<7 fJYeptVl.-L IIr: f cl...f 7"""'1- ~v~
10 Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PP 04-008 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a
proposed L-Q zone for proposed Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. - northeast comer of South Eagle Road and East Girdner
Lane: athn-,...e'J /Y7 1(Jy.er~ ,r/~ 'of c l.-f ~ ~(ljJYVv4.A..-
11. Public Hearing: Trunk line Water & Sewer Assessment. Connection
and Miscellaneous Fee Proposal: c t.:rrv -h Yt (.(,{. fJ / It.. fo ? - b - t9 4-
12. Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R~
4 to L-O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood
Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road:
t:Zfhrrl1-ej z7; fJ7eJ, jJ~ /'f + ,v elf hr ap/~' .>accut. ~/ CJ..
Meridian city Council Agenda -June 1,2004 Page 20f3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Public Hearing: PP 04~007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15
building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres
in proposed R-15 and L~a zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road:
tflt-/PrN;} to /JreptvLe ('11'1 ele fOy ~/a..v
Public Hearing: CUP 04w008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-15 and
L-Q zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC
- 2090 South Meridian Road:
a,--t-f-r;yN-!j It? pref~ ./11' "cl~ .j;,-,- ~/tt.J!
Public Hearing: RZ 04..()()2 Request for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-
a to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure
Valley Development - east of North Under Road and south of West Pine
Avenue: tWtl-tTrN'J tv rlNVU 1'(/ i elf w Q-jJPY7>vt:VC
Public Hearing: PP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52
residential building lots and 1 common lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-
15 zone for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development - east of North Under Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
~ ()rA.e, f--c ~?cV'-{ -1"1 f -( c(,,( fln- ~v<<..
Public Hearing: CUP 04-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of a mix of residential and commercial
uses with reductions to building setback requirements for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North
Under Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
alhl-n.e:; to jJrep~ Il~ 1"c(J! f'vy ~v~
Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: eLfJ1lY'O vt<...
Continued from May 25,2004: Ordinance No. -fbt.wl~aO
Parks and Recreation Commission Ordinance: -hviKe. fw 6-9-04-
Ordinance No. tJ4-/080: AZ 03~024 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier Springs
Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road
and east of South Meridian Road: dJf'pr-t? (1'<-
Meridian City Council Agenda - June 1, 2004 Page 3 of3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridil1D.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
June 11,2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
June 15,2004
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Approve minutes of June 1, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
/
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
MaterIals presented at public meetIngs shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~-~, -, ' r
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: by Mayor Tammy de Weerd
3. Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LDS Church:
Presented
4. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve
5. Consent Agenda: Approve
A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 Pre-Council Meeting: Approve
B. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting:
Approve
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 04-
002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setback of the
existing house on Lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feet to 13.55 feet for
Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North
Locust Grove Road: Approve
D. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission:
PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-
family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision
No.3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick
Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Approve
E. Development Agreement: AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier
Meridian City Council Agenda - June 1,2004 Page lof4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents andJor hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting,
Sprinqs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of
East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: Approve
F. Temporary Easement Contract for the 2004 Waterline
Improvement Proiect, Eagle Road Waterline Extension:
Approve
G. Approve Bills: Approve
6. Department Reports
A. Police Department - Chief Musser:
1. Discussion of Purchase of Trained and Certified Police
K~9 Dog from Existing Capital Monies approved in
Police Budget: Approve $2,500.00 purchase
2. Shared update with Parks Director Strong on proposed
Improvements and Plan for five acres west of police
building on Watertower Lane: Present to P&R
Commission
B. City Council Member - Shaun Wardle:
1. Update on Golf Course: Further update in two weeks
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
8. FP 04-031 Request for Final Plat approval for 66 single family residential /
office / commercial building lots and 7 common lots on 27.17 acres in a
R-4 zone for Bridqetower Crossinq Subdivision No.7 by Primeland
Development, LLP - southeast corner of West McMillan Road and North
Ten Mile Road: Approve
9. Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: AZ 04~006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for proposed
Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner
of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Attorney to Prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
10 Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PP 04~008 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for proposed Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner
Lane: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
for Approval
Meridian City Council Agenda - June 1.2004 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at Icasl48 hours prior to the public meeting,
11. Public Hearing: Trunk Line Water & Sewer Assessment, Connection
and Miscellaneous Fee Proposal: Continue Public Hearing to July 6,
2004 Meeting
12. Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-
4 to L-O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood
Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Attorney to Prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial
13. Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15
building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres
in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Attorney to
Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial
14. Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-15 and
L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC
- 2090 South Meridian Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Denial
15. Public Hearing: RZ 04-002 Request for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-
o to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure
Valley Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine
Avenue: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Approval
16. Public Hearing: PP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52
residential building lots and 1 common lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-
15 zone for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval
17. Public Hearing: CUP 04-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of a mix of residential and commercial
uses with reductions to building setback requirements for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Attorney to Prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
18. Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies: Approve
Meridian City Council Agenda - June 1,2004 Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian,
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
- 19. Continued from May 25, 2004: Ordinance No.
Parks and Recreation Commission Ordinance: Table to June 6, 2004
Meeting
20. Ordinance No. 04~1080 AZ 03~024 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier SprinQs
Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road
and east of South Meridian Road: Approve
Meridian City Council Agenda -June 1,2004 Page 4 of4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Meetinq
June 1. 2004.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M.,
Tuesday, June 1, 2004, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. .
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd,William Nary, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree
and Shaun Wardle.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Steve Siddoway, Brad Watson, Bill Musser,
Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Bill Nary
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: I will go ahead and open up the regular City Council meeting. It is June 1st.
It's ten after 7:00 and I'd like to welcome you all here tonight and we will start with roll
call attendance.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Thank you. Usually we ask a Boy Scout group to join us in the pledge and,
Dave, I won't ask you tonight. But if you will, please, stand with us and join us in the
pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LOS Church:
De Weerd: Thank you. And I didn't have a chance to see if Courtland Walker is with us
today. Thank you for joining us. I assume it's a bishop? Bishop Walker will be joining
us and leading us in the community invocation. Please come forward.
Walker: Our Father in Heaven, we are grateful this evening to be met in this City
Council meeting. We are grateful for the country that we live in and the freedoms that
we enjoy. We are grateful this last weekend we had the opportunity to remember those
that have served our country and helped keep it free and safe and strong and pray that
each of us each day will serve and do what we can to make this a -- keep this a great
nation, to make this a better community, and be good neighbors and friends. We are
grateful for the Council. We pray that thy Spirit and blessings will be with them as they
serve and that they may know that we support them and that they will serve the people
in our righteous and a willing manner. And we, again, express our love to thee and
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 2 of 76
thank thee for all we enjoy and ask thy Spirit to be in this meeting, in the name of Jesus
Christ, Amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you so much and I do have a city water tower pin to -- thank you for
joining us. Okay. Item NO.4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We got one request on the regular part of the agenda on Item No. 11. Our city
engineer has requested that we continue that Public Hearing, which we will do when we
come to it, to July 6th, 2004. And other than that, I believe everything else is as
published. So, I would move that we approve the agenda -- revised agenda.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded do approve the agenda as revised.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of May 4,2004 Pre-Council Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 04-
002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setback of the
existing house on Lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feet to 13.55 feet for
Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North
Locust Grove Road:
D. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission:
PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-family
residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No.
~by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick
Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:
E. Development Agreement: AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 3 of 76
Sprinqs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - North of
East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road:
F. Temporary Easement Contract for the 2004 Waterline
Improvement Proiect, Eagle Road Waterline Extension:
G. Approve Bills:
De Weerd: Item 5 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there
any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports
A. Police Department - Chief Musser:
1. Discussion of Purchase of Trained and Certified Police
K-9 Dog from Existing Capital Monies approved in
Police Budget:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6, Department Reports. We will start with Chief
Musser with the police department.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my first item on here was a discussion
for direction from you and the Council in regards to a purchase of a certified and trained
K-9 that we have been currently using in the department. It belonged to Officer Jake
Nichols. Jake Nichols has resigned with the department and starting here in June with
the Boise police department where he will not be authorized to utilize his K-9. The K-9
is familiar to us. It's a well-trained dog, has recommendations both of our certified
instructors to the department for retention, if possible, and I do have monies in the
budget. However, this would be a capital expenditure of 2,500 dollars for this K-9 and I
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 4 of 76
was just looking for direction from the Council at this point tonight as to proceed with
this purchase from this former employee.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Does the department liaison have any further comment?
Bird: No, other than the fact that you do have an officer that's willing to take this dog on?
Musser: At this point we have about three that are showing an interest in becoming a
handler and we will do a selection process on it, Councilman Bird.
Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor, if there is no other discussion, I would be glad to make a
motion that we purchase this dog. A very cheap investment.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
Rountree: I have a question for the chief.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Chief, what's the service life of the K-9?
Musser: Of this K-9 here?
Rountree: Yeah.
Musser: He is approximately four years old at this time. We are projecting we will have
at least another useful five years of life out of him.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Chief, on the continuing cost for maintenance of the animal, approximately
annually what is that for each of those animals?
Musser: Councilman Nary, I don't have that number right in front me at this time.
However, we do have a base budget that's set up that has been rather generous for us
in the past two years where we usually have had money left over. I would say just
offhand without having the numbers in front of me, would look at an average cost of just
under 3,000 dollars per year for maintenance and feeding of the animals and, then, we
have separate combined line for any type of emergency vet costs that we may see.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 5 of 76
And, luckily, this year we haven't had any vet costs, other than updates on shots. That's
been it.
Nary: So, we have adequate money in the budget to purchase this animal, as well as
the maintenance for the remainder of this budget year? You think we are probably
covered on both?
Musser: Councilman Nary, that is correct.
Nary: Great. Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: This dog was already budgeted for. The handler just left the department and
so it would be a matter of assigning a new handler and purchasing the dog, because it
was that officer's dog; is that correct?
Musser: That is correct, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Great. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I'd move that we purchase Mr. Nichols' police dog for the sum of
2,500 dollars.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the purchase of the K-9
dog. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. Shared update with Parks Director Strong on proposed
Improvements and Plan for five acres west of police
building on Watertower Lane:
De Weerd: Okay. Item two. Chief, are you going to take that or is Mr. Strong?
Musser: 1'1[ go ahead and turn it over to Director Strong at this point.
De Weerd: Okay.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on display there is a site for a remote
control car track on the -- almost five acres next to the police station that was discussed
in a previous Council meeting and we were asked to bring back more of a concept
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 6 of 76
drawing to how that area would layout. So, this is what we have come up to show you
conceptually what that five-acre area would look like, at least in the early stages of the
development. And just as a frame of reference, you're all familiar with the police station,
this is the grassy field that right now our department maintains, essentially, for weed
control, other than I think there is a landscaping buffer right there that's in place right
now and irrigated. So, this would be initial improvement to the area and the reason for
this is that we have interest from a remote car enthusiast group that you have seen
presentations on to develop a racetrack. So, dropping that, the dimensions for the race
track into that site, it would cover this area and that's, essentially, the boundaries of the
race track area with the track falling inside that with some -- some opportunity for a
location to stand and operate the remote control and have some spectator area. This
area from this yellow line down and up to here would be the future development for the
K-9 training area next to the police station. This yellow square right there would be a
future building for use by the K-9 unit and training of the site. And this location the
outline shows what was originally shown as a future expansion of the parking lot, which
would mirror this parking lot that's already in place at the police station and just extend
on. The dark yellow area is a proposed area for additional parking that would
accommodate this racetrack area in the park and, then, this would be a green buffer
zone in the area. This is the irrigation canal running through the area and ifs covered I
think to about there, so that this portion of the canal is open that would be used for
training. So, that's, roughly, the layout of the area. The proposal would be, at least
initially, and in our budget proposal for 2005, some money to develop a parking area
here, either gravel or possibly paved, depending on the cost of an area there. The area
of the track would be developed and maintained entirely by the car enthusiasts and,
then, we would put in enough irrigation to be able to plant grass and maintain a grassy
area in between the parking area. So, with that I guess it would be best handled with
questions at this point.
De Weerd: I guess my only comment -- and sometimes it's a disadvantage to have a
little institutional knowledge, but it seems to me like that piece of property -- and I know
we have had this conversation, though -- had been talked to with the BMX bike riders as
a potential to doing something for them, since they cannot use the skate park, and I
don't know if there is any portion that could be jointly -- I would imagine that remote
control park would need to be flat and is not really a good shared use with the BMXers,
but do you have plans for anything for our bicyclists? Because they have had several
groups come in front of both the parks commission and the Council.
Strong: Madam Mayor, a possible site that Chief Musser and I have discussed would be
this area up in here. Now, this -- this proposed yellow parking area wouldn't necessarily
be that large, it could be the border there and it would leave this area here for potential
development for. I think what the BMX bikers were looking for originally was a hard
surface area to ride on, rather than just more dirt mounds, which you see around in
different locations around the community. They wanted a hard surface area to practice
some of the skills, apparently, that they use for some of the competitions that they are
in. That certainly is still a potential for that. We have -- following a presentation by the
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 7 of 76
group last year that had some interest in BMX bikes, there hasn't been an organized
group come forward yet to pursue the matter any further. What we have right now is a
group that in the remote control car racing group that will finance the development of
that area on their own and maintain it on their own, so it gives us some incentive to
move forward with -- with that part of it. It would require further development or further
pursuit of a partnership to get something going with the BMX group. It would require
some hard surface area and, then, some hard areas and I think one of the proposals
that Councilman Wardle suggested was just a half pipe to start with and some hard
surface areas like that that would be relatively inexpensive. But at this point we have no
specific plan for that, but it looks like there would be some space left for some at least
minimal area for them to ride their BMX bikes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Doug, did I hear you say this portion -- this is an open ditch right through here and
that was partly for training? Is there water running through there? Because if this is
going to be a dog park for folks, I don't -- I guess I'm a little curious about the safety of
that.
Musser: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, that section does include the open
portion of the lateral, which does come through the property at this time. It's not tiled
over, other than up in the upper portion of the photo there. Part of the reason why we
are leaving it open is there are a number of K-9 groups in town that do Shiatsu
qualifications and other types of trials where they want open water to be able to run their
dogs through or have them cross over the open water areas and we also want it for
police K-9 training as well and that's the whole premise behind this portion of the park is
to have that mixed use between the police function and for the various K-9 groups to be
able to do off lead type of work inside of an enclosed area, but, yet, it's still open. So,
yes, we would have that open and, then, they are aware of it.
De Weerd: And I guess anyone who would bring their dogs down there, they don't just
leave them there to be baby-sat by someone else.
Musser: Well, Madam Mayor, we hope that it would be posted and clearly noticeable to
all folks that they have to be with their dogs while the dogs are in there. It's not up us to
take care of them.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. Just a comment for Director Strong as far as the mixed use
and pursuing that. I think when we talk numbers and we talked at the budget hearing
and we talk about the park, I think we have all committed and, you know, depending on
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 8 of 76
the cost and principle that partnerships are beneficial for the city in the fact that we have
the car enthusiasts, you know, kind of being impetuous here for the city, but, in addition,
I think it would be great to bring that -- those groups or at least if you could get some of
the names from the mayor of the people that had an interest in those hard surfaces and
try to have at least estimates for maybe a time line and for dollar value for a hard
surface, such as a half pipe, for that to be included. It was a -- I understand that the
area that we are looking at is for the car enthusiasts is probably a little larger that we
were expecting, but to have something in there I think would be helpful for us.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. You still have a copy of that petition they submitted
to -- those are the names I continue to hear from. So, they would be your best start.
Strong: Excuse me, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just for clarification, this
isn't something we have pursued very aggressively at this point with the number of
construction projects that we have currently going in the parks system with current
resources, it's -- it's not something that's risen to the top yet, but, certainly, something
that's potential in the future and we do have those names and can start to work with
them to see where their interests are and whether there is any resources that they want
to bring to the table. If not, it would mean a budget proposal that would look at a
minimum hard surface area for BMX bike users and probably skateboarders or in-line
skaters or anybody else that would show up, potentially. I think if we did that we would
want to bring it back, now that we have some proposed development for this site, bring
it back to the Parks and Recreation Commission and, then, back to Council with
something further developed at that point and how it would fit into this site.
De Weerd: Yeah. Doug -- and I don't think it would be bad to start working with them
now, talking to them about the budget constraints and, you know, depending on the
resources they can bring, it certainly is something they can start working on to design
and, then, you can work it into a budget year when you have a better idea of what kind
of monies you would be requesting. So, it -- and I know your time is limited, but you
may also address the commission and see if they want to put together a little
subcommittee that can focus on that.
Strong: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Just a quick follow up. While we are in the design stages of this particular park,
I think to at least get a feel for what -- if we are looking at another group, for what their
activities may be to make sure that those activities are congruent with the police station,
with the police force, with the other uses out there. I think that's important in the
planning stage and monetarily wise we can look at some of those things down the road,
but to make sure that everything works together and that the police department is
comfortable with those kind of uses, as well as the rest of the public uses as well.
Meridian CIty Council
June 1, 2004
Page 9 of 76
De Weerd: Thank you. We have had a lot of great ideas. Itls all yours now.
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe when this last tame to you,
you wanted us to bring back a concept, so that you could act upon moving forward, as I
recall. Is that correct? So, I don It know what kind of action that requires this evening,
but we would need further direction at this point how to proceed.
Rountree: We could move it forward with the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Bird: Thafs right. That's what we have got them for.
De Weerd: So, Doug, the comment was to have it addressed through the Parks and
Recreation Commission, then, you can bring it back.
Strong: Okay.
B. City Council Member - Shaun Wardle:
1. Update on Golf Course:
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay. Item D. Councilman Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, earlier this spring we met to discuss the Cherry Lane Golf
Course here and I volunteered to spear head the -- sort of volunteered to spear head
the efforts here for the City of Meridian. We did set a deadline of June 1 st to bring back
some comments and so while I have had small updates in the past several weeks, this
was more a commitment to the public to at least continue the process. We have had
discussions with Cherry Lane Recreation and are continuing discussions and so I would
request another two weeks to have something a little more definite or at least at slightly
lengthier presentation for this body.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just a question for this evening, Shawn, is it -- the citizen's committee report
has been issued, has been out for public comment and consideration. Have there been
any comments received to date?
Wardle: I have not received comments. The citizens report was placed on the website
the day after our pre-Council hearing -- pre-Council hearing and so to this date I have
not received any direct comments, nor have any been forwarded to me through the city
clerk's office, so --
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 10 of 76
Item 7:
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay. We had no items moved from the Consent
Agenda.
Item 8:
FP 04-031 Request for Final Plat approval for 66 single family residential /
office / commercial building lots and 7 common lots on 27.17 acres in a R-
4 zone for Bridqetower Crossing Subdivision No.7 by Primeland
Development, LLP - southeast corner of West McMillan Road and North
Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 8 is FP 04-031. Start with staff comments.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a proposed final
plat for Bridgetower Crossing No.7. It is located in the area circled in red up in the
northwest corner of the Bridgetower Subdivision near the intersection of McMillan Road
and Ten Mile Road. The plat includes 59 single family attached townhouse building
lots, three commercial lots, four office lots, and seven common lots on 27 -- just over 27
acres. What we see here is the original preliminary plat and this is a blow up of that
area as originally proposed. There have been modifications to it. In the final plat as
proposed tonight, the main change being the addition of a new public street that
connects between McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. That change has been reviewed
and approved by ACHD. Planning staff has reviewed the change and deemed it to be
in substantial compliance with the original preliminary plat. However, in reviewing it
today -- what we drew in red is the approximate boundary of the C-G zone under
current zoning and the remainder is zoned R-4. There is a proposed residential lot
down in this corner. It is Lot No. 56 of Block 10 that encroaches into the existing C-G
zone and we would prefer not to have a split zone on the lots. It also does split through
the common lot through here and across one of the commercial lots. What we would
propose in a new -- a new condition of approval and I have handed a copy of this to
Councilman Nary, where we would just require that the applicant submit to the city, prior
to the city engineer's signature on the final plat, the revised metes and bounds legal
description to remove the split zoning on Lots 55,56, and 68 of Block 10. Basically, just
be a clean up to avoid the split zoning. I did speak briefly with legal counsel just prior to
the meeting and believe we can proceed in that direction and would look to Mr. Nichols
for any further direction. But that would be one additional proposed condition of
approval that does not currently show up in the staff report. The applicant has
submitted a letter agreeing to comply with of the conditions of approval in the staff
report and I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 11 of 76
Bird: Steve, does the applicant have knowledge of this new request or --
Siddoway: Yes.
Bird: -- new deal? And they are in agreement with that? Their letter states that?
Siddoway: Yes. We can turn to the applicant if you wish.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Stiles: Sheri Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens Street, Suite B, Eagle,
Idaho. 83616.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stiles: We did hear about this this afternoon and I guess pending any -- ['m not sure if
Mr. Nichols has come to a conclusion if that is an appropriate way to go. I would like to
be able to either revise those legal descriptions, so you can amend the annexation and
zoning ordinances or we will change the plat to meet those lines. Either way.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that we could do a corrected
legal description to the zoning portion of the annexation and zoning ordinance. It's a
very small change, it would just simply align the boundary of the zone with the way the
plat's laid out, so I don't see it as a major change, just do a correction that way, instead
of going through a whole rezoning process.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Any further comments?
Stiles: There is one condition that is shown in the conditions of approval and it's a
standard condition and that's the one to provide perimeter fencing. We would like to not
have to fence the commercial areas of this development. We will be fencing the
residential portions, but because of visibility issues and wanting, you know, people to
see you down the road, we don't intend to have any along those frontages of the
commercial and office buildings.
De Weerd: Okay. Steve, do you have any comment to that? I'm sure that's agreeable
to staff.
Siddoway: I believe that that would be just fine. The condition seven on page three
talks about temporary construction fencing to contain all debris shall be installed along
the boundaries of the phase, unless permanent fencing already exists at the subdivision
boundaries. You know, if they are moving forward with their residential phase and it's
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 12 of 76
completely enclosed with either permanent or temporary that meets the intent of
containing the debris.
De Weerd: Okay.
Stiles: Any other questions?
De Weerd: No. Any further questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Sheri.
Stiles: Thank you.
De Weerd: Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve FP 04-031, final plat for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No.
7, eliminate the perimeter fencing on commercial lots and also take care of the legal
descriptions as noted by the attorney.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve FP 04-031. Is there any further
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. We are entering the public hearing process of our meeting
tonight. We do have a process that we follow. We do ask that anyone who would like
to provide testimony all be sworn in at the same time. So, if any of you are going to
testify on any of these public hearings items nine to 17, if you will, please, raise your
right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
(Affirmative answers.)
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: AZ 04~006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-Q zone for proposed
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 13 of76
Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - Northeast corner
of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane:
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PP 04-008 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a
proposed L-O zone for proposed Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. - Northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner
Lane:
De Weerd: Thank you. We open -- we generally open with staff comments, then, we
ask the applicant to come forward and present the application. He is given -- he or she,
I'm sorry, is given 15 minutes to present the application. The public comment process is
three minutes, unless you're a spokesperson for a group of people, then, you will have
ten, and at the end of that public testimony the applicant is asked to come up and
respond to those comments and is given ten minutes. So, I will open the public
hearings on nine and ten, the continued public hearing, with staff comments.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This one has been
before you previously and was a continued item, so I'll just refresh your memory as to
where we are and turn it back to you. But Southstone Subdivision is located on Eagle
Road, just south of Silverstone and surrounded by the proposed Sutherland Farm
Subdivision project, just east -- or just north of Victory Road. The main issue that I
believe is outstanding on this one is concerning the zoning of the property. The request
has been to rezone the property to L-O or limited office. The Comprehensive Plan does
designate it as medium density residential. The area just north of it was approved as an
office development as a use exception as part of the Sutherland Farm project and we
have the aerial photo. This is the Sutherland Farm project that surrounds it. These are
the office lots and Southwood sits here. This is the proposed layout for Southstone and
the staff report did recommend approval of it based on the land use consistency matrix
that we had anticipated being adopted at the time and was continued for the applicant to
determine whether to be continued pending a text change to the Comprehensive Plan,
to be denied, or to engage the Council's interest in moving it forward as proposed and
with that I will stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Since you were sworn in, if you will just state
your name and address.
McKinnon: Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 14 of 76
McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, anytime I have got the opportunity
to lead you in the pledge of allegiance, I would be happy to, being a former scout and a
proud American. I honestly have no problem with that.
De Weerd: Well, thank you, Dave. I appreciate that.
Nary: We are here every Tuesday at 7:00.
McKinnon: Funny thing is is I usually am, too. Just a couple things. Steve gave a pretty
good outline of it. Steve, if you can go back just to -- there you go. Perfect. Sutherland
Farms, as you all know when I worked for the city, Sutherland Farms was a project that
actually past across my desk and we went through this project and at that time when
Sutherland Farms came through they really wanted this piece to be included as part of
it. This is the one we are talking about tonight. Because, of course, it has access to
Eagle Road and has access to Easy Jet, which is the collector road that runs through it
and it made perfect sense with the office uses, surrounding it on all three sides, they
thought this would be a great addition for that. Recently I have met with Trevor Roberts,
the developer from Sutherland Farms and he is interested in developing that whole
street right now. He's got a concrete placing company lined up right now to complete
his half plus 12 of Easy Jet. As you know, ACHD will let you build a portion of the road,
leave a portion unfinished and sidewalk unfinished. I met with Trevor on site, met
Richard Evans, the developer for this site, and they both agreed that now would be the
appropriate time to develop the entire site and to build the entire roadway. In addition to
that, there is a small creek -- actually, it's not a creek, but, actually, a ditch -- an
irrigation ditch that runs across Trevor Roberts, Sutherland Farms property, runs across
this property, across Sutherland Farms and dumps into the Eight Mile. Trevor is
interested -- Mr. Roberts of Sutherland Farms is interested in eliminating that ditch at
this time and eliminating that ditch he would like to have this be vacated as well, this
ditch portion vacated as well. We are happy to accommodate him in doing that, but at
the same time, if this project isn't able to move forward at this time, we don't want to
give up our water rights for this, because it's a timing issue, we don't want to give it up if
we don't have to at this time. I understand from meeting Anna and meeting with our
representative from Pinnacle that there was $ome support for this project and just
wanted to gauge what your support would be for this project tonight. We would like to
move forward, we'd like to complete the project with Sutherland Farms at this time and
considering the fact that it's currently surrounded by office uses that, granted, the office
zoning, the L-Q zoning, is an apparent, it's R-4 zoning masquerading as L-Q or I guess
backwards, it's L-O masquerading as R-4. The use is office surrounding it on three
sides. Eagle Road is adjacent to this site. Furthermore, it's on an arterial and on a
collector. I understand your reasoning for wanting to wait for the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change prior to setting a precedent, but state code says with regards to
comprehensive plans that they are a guide and that you do have some discretion to go
beyond that and I know that is past as a Council you have taken action on other projects
and recently on other projects as well to allow zoning that doesn't match the
Comprehensive Plan and I asked that you give some consideration as well to this
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 15 of 76
project. With that I guess I would ask if you have any questions and we would really like
to move forward with this project tonight.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Okay. No. Thank you.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to testify on this application? Okay.
Council? Any further comments from staff?
Siddoway: None, thanks, but I will respond to any questions if you have any.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Hearing no comments, I move that we close the public hearings on Items No.
9 and 10 for Southstone Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items
No.9 and 10. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion? Hearing none, do t have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the request for annexation and zoning for Item No 9,
AZ 04-006, subject to all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item NO.9. Is there any
further discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 16 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Well, I guess I'm a little confused, because I guess I thought when we talked
about this a couple weeks ago we had come to some consensus that we didn't feel we
had enough support in the Comprehensive Plan to support this -- this particular type of
zone and I -- and I did hear what Mr. McKinnon stated and I guess I'm not -- I guess I'm
still a little unsure of whether or not we think it's adequate and I don't know that I heard
that from staff either, because I think we just set it over for them to tell us if they wanted
us to deny it, so I guess I hadn't heard anything differently this evening.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: My recollection is is that this got the effect of the matrix that we didn't move
forward with.
Nary: Right.
Rountree: Staff did have a legitimate explanation of how this related to the guidance
and the existing zoning that was adjacent to it in their recommendation to us to approve
the matrix. We didn't approve the matrix not because of their argument in support of the
matrix, but just that we didn't feel like that the matrix was not the right tool to make those
decisions and that this process probably was. So, as opposed to hearing that argument
and that supporting again, I make that motion to approve it, but if that's not sufficient to
-- maybe we need that staff comment entered back into the record, but I believe it's in
their correspondence.
Nary: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And I'm having the same recollections as Mr. Nary. I believe the only reason
we held this over was to ask Mr. McKinnon, who was not available for the initial Public
Hearing, to ask his client whether they would like to have this continued until a
Comprehensive text amendment -- not a map amendment, but a text amendment could
be issued or whether for certain property reasons they would rather have the project
denied and so those are my recollections and --
Rountree: Steve's about ready to pop now.
Siddoway: No.
De Weerd: Mr. Siddoway, before you pop --
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 17 of 76
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe everybody is right. My
understanding is that the staff report does support the rezone, but the Council was
uneasy in making the findings as had been written in the staff report. My understanding
is that last time it had been continued to find out whether to -- to continue it pending a
text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or to deny it if it was better for their client,
but there are findings in the report to support it as well, so it's really a judgment call of
the Council at this point.
De Weerd: And I guess, Mr. Nichols, if we could get a legal opinion on this. And I guess
the concern, too, is -- if we are setting a precedent and, you know, what we might be
opening it to.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, first, Steve, just a question to you. Is
there anything in the Comprehensive Plan text that would prohibit this requested
rezone?
Siddoway: It does not match the median density residential designation that it is under.
Nichols: But that's from the map.
Siddoway: That is from the map.
Nichols: Okay. In the text apart from the map --
Siddoway: I know of nothing -- I can review the findings that are in here, but I know of
nothing that would prevent it in the text.
Nichols: Okay. Given the -- and I guess another question, Steve. From a planner's
standpoint, with the planned development surrounding it on three sides with office uses,
would it make sense to keep this medium density residential?
Siddoway: No. In fact, we were in support of it going to office through the consistency
matrix. The consistency matrix that we had developed would have supported it in this
case.
Nichols: And the consistency matrix would have supported it because of what the
surrounding approved uses were?
Siddoway: Both the surrounding approved uses, the size of the lot, and the fact that it
has frontage on an arterial.
Nichols: Okay. Which is, generally, not suitable for residential development.
Siddoway: Correct.
Meridian City Council
June 1,2004
Page 18 of 76
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the law in this state is that a
comprehensive plan is, as Mr. McKinnon stated, a guide. It's not -- does not have the
force of a zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinance, it's an attempt to try to sort out
what future land uses will be down the road. With the planned development, then, you
have a legal circumstance -- not a physical one, but a legal circumstance which
effectively limits the use of this particular property and you can take that into account in
determining whether you should vary from what the map designation is for this particular
parcel. With regard to precedence, as Steve has pointed out, you have some unique
circumstances here that I don't think you open it up for precedence to -- just simply
because what a person wants to do with the property doesn't match the land use map,
that they can point to this to say do something different. Here we have unique
circumstances because of those surrounding uses and because of the arterial and the
collector street that they would have to at least fit into those circumstances as well in
order to argue that it's precedence. So, I don't believe it's a precedent setting factor.
It's probably one that we need to do some thinking about to see if we can do some
things in the text of the comp plan long term to take into account what, essentially,
becomes an odd lot because of the uses around it -- that are approved around it. So,
that's a long answer to I think it's okay, if the Council so chooses, to zone this L-O, even
though the map designates it medium density residential.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And I just -- I'm just recollecting the last public hearing we had -- not the last
public hearing we had this open, but when we heard the application and we had this
very argument and these discussions and while we didn't have a vote, I assumed that
we were just putting on, because what we wanted to do was instead of patch this actual
problem, we wanted to address it in a text amendment that would -- that would really
allow these kinds of things to happen, because I don't think we had disagreed as a
Council that this shouldn't be zoned L-O, but I think that the process that we had was
not in place for that and rather than, I guess, patch that, we had agreed to look at
continuing that, but I'm certainly up for -- in my mind I guess the discussion was closed,
but we can certainly reopen that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Call for the question.
De Weerd: Okay. The question has been called for on the motion to approve Item No.
9, AZ 04-006. Mr. Clerk will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 19 of 76
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Nary, nay.
Berg: Two ayes and two nays. Mayor De Weerd.
De Weerd: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE.
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 10.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: It's been requested by Brad Watson to -- oh, ten. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Charlie.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we request the -- or approve the requested preliminary plat for
Item No. 10, PP 04-008, for Silverstone Subdivision, subject to all staff comments.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 04-008. Is there any
discussion? Mr. Clerk?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yes; Nary, yes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
Public Hearing: Trunk Line Water & Sewer Assessment, Connection
and Miscellaneous Fee Proposal:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 11 has been requested to continue or to, actually,
postpone to July 6,2004.
Bird: Do you want to open the Public Hearing, Madam Mayor, and, then, continue on
there, don't you, so we don't have to re-notice this?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, do you want me to?
Berg : Yes.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 20 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. I will open the Public Hearing regarding the trunk line water and
sewer assessment and, again, to note that the city engineer has asked that this Public
Hearing be continued to July 6,2004. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move we continue the Public Hearing for the trunk line water
sewer assessment connections to July 6, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing for
Item 11 to July 6. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4
to L-O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood
Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15
building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres
in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road:
Item 14:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for office and assisted Jiving in proposed R-15 and
L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC
- 2090 South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Items 12, 13 and 14, if Council has no objection, I will open all three
for the Public Hearing on RZ 04-004, PP 04-007, and CUP 04-008. I will open these
public hearings on these items with staff comments.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The proposed project is
outlined in black for you on the -- it's on the east side of Meridian Road and abuts
Meridian Greens Subdivision to the east, just below the Southern Springs commercial
project that was recently approved to the north and it is 9.47 acres in size. They are
requesting a rezone -- I'd point out this is already annexed. It is currently zoned R-4.
They are looking to rezone the property to L-O and R-15. You can see the aerial photo,
it's basically in pasture today. The proposed preliminary plat -- a little difficult to see the
site lines, so I'm going to move forward to the actual site plan. It's a little easier to see.
Along Meridian Road there is the office portion of the project. Road coming in and
bisecting here. Then, the next portion of the project is a multi-family residential planned
development and, then, on the other side of the Ten -- the Ten Mile Creek crosses the
property in this location and there is a proposed alzheimer's facility on the east side of
the Ten Mile Creek. This is the proposed elevation for their facility. Just flip through
these. You should have the staff report that spells out all the staff conditions of
Meridian City Council
June 1. 2004
Page 21 of 76
approval. I would just like to highlight briefly some of the outstanding conditions or
outstanding issues for Council as spelled out in the recommendation. Similar to the
project that was just approved, the Camp Plan -- Comprehensive Plan designation for
this land is medium density residential -- is it medium or low? It is medium. Thank you.
The Comprehensive Plan shows the area to the north down to Calderwood as
commercial, in the Comprehensive Plan and the proposal would be to nudge or
transition from that commercial designation to an office designation, on the subject
property. That issue is spelled out, as the first bullet point, on the cover sheet on the
recommendations. The second thing to point out is that the applicant has revised their
site plan since the one that was discussed at Planning and Zoning Commission. One of
the major points of contention at the Planning and Zoning Commission was the
orientation of the parking lot at the alzheimer's. There were several parking stalls that
faced directly east towards the existing residences. The revision removes those parking
stalls and places them on the south and this is now a drive aisle, as you can see. The
third item -- the third bullet deals with pathway. The Comprehensive Plan does require
a mix -- a multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek. They do show said pathway
along the south side that would be continued through the Southern Springs project.
However, it's shown as six feet on it and the applicant has agreed to revise the
dimensional standards to ten feet per the city parks department standards for multi-use
pathways to landscape the area beside it and that, I have been told, has been reviewed
by the parks director and the parks department is in approval of that proposal to have
the landscaping up to the pathway and maintained by the project. The last item has to
do with the required buffers. The landscape ordinance would say that since this is an
office multi-family and residential care facility next to single family residential, it would
require a 20-foot buffer between land uses. The project as proposed shows a 15-foot
buffer on the east and in a couple of locations on the south it's as narrow as 15 feet.
There was a letter faxed from the applicant today, which, I believe, the clerk received
and should have been copied for the Council, dated June 1st, requesting the exception
to the 20-foot setback and allowing it to go down to 15 feet. This also is going to be a
judgment call for the Council. There is in the planned development ordinance a
statement that on the perimeter of planned developments setbacks should not be
reduced and, then, it says that buffers between land uses are also required per the
landscape ordinance. Whether the Council sees to hold them to the full 20 feet or to
grant the exception as proposed, what they are proposing to do is take that narrow area
and increase the number of trees and plantings in there to help solidify that buffer area
a little more. But I think those are the only four outstanding issues. The pathway is
really taken care of. I would point out for clarification that their site plan shows this
internal path system coming up and looping and does not show it actually connecting to
the southern property line and it must connect to the southern property line, so that it
can continue in the proposed Larkspur project to the south, which will also be continuing
that multi-use pathway in the future, potentially. And with that I will stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Before I
ask the applicant to come up, we have received a number of written statements, both
via e-mail and mail. With this being an open Public Hearing, we cannot comment or
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 22 of 76
return -- return letters commenting about those. They have been received and entered
into the record and are a part of the consideration on this application. So, with that said,
I would ask the applicant, if they are here tonight, to, please, come forward. Were you
sworn in, sir?
Perez: I was.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Perez: Rob Perez, 4148 North Westview Way, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of
Calderwood Community, which is the entity that has acquired the land and currently has
ownership. I'd like to just give a brief overview and, then, turn it over to my colleagues.
Doug Clegg, who will be the owner and operator of the senior housing complex to the
easterly portion of the property and, then, to Scott Stewart. Some of you may know
Scott as the developer for the Generations Plaza downtown here in Meridian and Scott
will make brief comments regarding light office.
De Weerd: Mr. Perez, just to keep in mind that the total of your--
Perez: Is 15 minutes.
De Weerd: -- presentation is 15 minutes.
Perez: Understand.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Perez: We originally looked at this property approximately a year ago. A real estate
agent had approached us to sell the land as four-plex, two story four-plex structures.
We looked at the land at that point in time and determined that with approval of
Southern Springs to the north and with the increasing traffic on Meridian Road that we
have the highest and best use for the portion of the property at the corner of
Calderwood and Meridian Road would be a light office usage that would provide a
buffer, in our opinion to whatever usage we would ultimately arrive at the easterly
portion of the property. We held two neighborhood meetings. At that time there were
three issues that the neighbors told us were concerns. One was traffic, increasing
traffic. Two was obstruction of views. And three were impact on property values. I'd
like to just take a moment and address those things in terms of how we hopefully
address those. One, Calderwood is a collector, as you probably know, and is used at
just a fraction of its actual collector capacity. Secondly, the senior housing usage in the
back, the comment multi-family was used. We are, actually, at R-9 density, but as you
can see looking at -- we have about 46 percent of the site -- senior housing site
landscaped, as opposed to the required 17 percent. So, the comment is R-15, which is
the one step up from the R-8 medium density, we are really at closer to R-9. But
regarding the traffic with senior housing, the seniors, for the most part, will not be
driving, a number of them will not be ambulatory, and those that do drive will drive
Meridian City Council
June 1 . 2004
Page 23 of 76
outside peak hours, that's been the experience of those people that do senior housing.
The light office enables internal access to professional services within a large residential
area, which we all think will have a positive traffic impact. The second was obstruction
of views, concern regarding loss of views. We have agreed in our neighborhood
meetings to limit the structures to one story. We have also, as I indicated before,
heavily landscaped on the buffer areas and although contrary to staff comments, our
approval was approved unanimously at P&Z without any change, we have modified the
parking in the memory care area and made some other accommodations because we
felt that would be an enhancement to the project for the neighbors. The third issue was
property values. We are looking at a senior housing complex here. It would not be
used a comparab[es for any appraisers. And, again, we think that what we are trying to
do here is you will see in a moment with my colleague Doug Clegg to get a sense of the
quality of the projects. So, I think that ends my comments. I'd like to just have Doug
Clegg, who is going to be the owner-operator of the senior housing complex, make a
few comments. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Clegg: Thanks.
De Weerd: Were you also sworn in?
Clegg: I don't know, but I'll te[1 you where I live.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Clegg: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please, state your name and address.
Clegg: My name is Doug Clegg. I live at 1091 North Pinnacle Way in Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Clegg: And I'll try to stay brief, too, as Rob was. I was not -- just a clarification. I was
not under the impression that the 20-foot landscape buffer dealt with actual
landscaping. In fact, when we worked with Wendy, she informed us that the buffer
actually had to do with structures, with other contiguous projects, not landscaping, and
I'm not real sure that -- the east property line over there, actually, the Alzheimer's unit is
actually 22 feet from the east and about 28 feet or 26 feet from the north side of the
project and I think the only place it would actually encroach is unit 14 down there and it's
about 16 feet from the post on the patio there to the south property line, but maybe that
could be clarified for us, because we are more than happy to change to make that work
if you guys don't think that that's a workable deal. We have -- just to give you an
introduction of who we are, we have been in long-term care services for -- since 1995 in
Meridian City Council
June 1,2004
Page 24 of 76
the state of Idaho and we are licensed with the Department of Health and Welfare. We
currently have 122 units or beds. We have probably taken care of well over 700 seniors
in the ten years that we have been doing this and it's been a treat for us. We have been
looking at this project now in this area for well over a year and are doing this because
your community needs this type of a project. To the best of our knowledge in a market
study, there is not another project in the state of Idaho that reflects the total care
campus that we are sharing with you tonight, which is independent, assisted living, and
Alzheimer care. There is a need for that. I don't know if you guys know this, but this
also is a gated community, it's very private, it's very exclusive. We have found in our
experience that critical mass is important for seniors. They like to be together in large
groups and having a multi-stage care project is helpful for their emotional and social
well being. I have a small Powerpoint presentation. I don't know -- Steve, do you guys
have that? These are some pictures of some of the projects that we currently own that I
thought you might be interested in looking at. The closest one we have is, actually, in
Eagle. It's just off of Eagle Road north of State Street downtown Eagle. This is a
project that we just completed up in St. Anthony with Mayor Beck. I believe it is,
anyway. You can just roll right through these. There is probably about 30 photos. This
is an interior shot and an exterior shot of the facility we own in Soda Spring. That's the
backside of it there. I want to point out, too, that all of our projects are in residential
areas. This is one in American Falls. I don't know if you guys have driven to Pocatello
on 84, but when you get to the water tower, if you look to the left that's the project off the
freeway that you're seeing. That's our project there. I also want to comment that this
particular project is nestled in an area of real estate that has the highest property values
for that city. All the real estate that surrounds this are upper end residential. This is the
interior of the project we just finished in St. Anthony. You saw the exterior of that
earlier. This is an elevation shot of that project, which is similar to what we are
proposing here in Meridian. Piano. Kitchen facilities. Administrative offices. That's
another exterior elevation of American Falls. Another elevation of St. Anthony, Entry.
Dining facility. It's a little bit dark. This is our Eagle project. This is the assisted living
part of this project. You can just keep rolling right through these here. Kind of give you
a feeling for the type of project that we are proposing here in Meridian. This is real
similar to what we are proposing here. In Eagle this is also a gated community, which is
similar to what we are proposing here. This is a water feature in the back that we have.
These are the backsides of actually some town homes we built there. These were units
that we sold. If you would pause on this photo for just a moment? I want to show you
here the backside of this project is actually the Clear Creek Development project, which
Doug Jayo did. All the homes that are currently under construction there are between
350 and 650 thousand dollars. I'm pointing that out, because I want the Council to
understand that our projects do not devalue real estate. That is the farthest thing from
the truth. In fact, this project was done for two years before any of these lots were
finished and purchased, which means that consumers or homeowners sought out these
lots, purchased them, and developed half million dollar homes right next to our project
after they could see what we had completed. This is the interior of Eagle. Another shot
of the inside of Eagle. That's the library. You can just roll right through these. Other
shot of the library. Dining facilities. Another interior shot. Exterior elevation. Another
shot of the outside of that particular project. I think that's it. I think that's it. I'll turn
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 25 of 76
some time over to Scott now and, then, if you guys have questions we would be happy
to answer those.
De Weerd: Thank you. Sir, were you sworn in?
Stewart: I was not.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Stewart: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Stewart: My name is Scott Stewart. llive at 1643 East Highgate Court in Eagle, Idaho.
And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I appreciate this opportunity to speak
tonight. I'll briefly talk about the L-O portion and what we did there. One of the original
reasons for this design, as Rob mentioned, was as a buffer from Eagle Road. We all
know the number of cars that travel by there and were concerned about putting
residential clear up to Meridian Road. So, we decided as we started some research
that there truly was a demand for some professional neighborhood offices in that area.
We have -- we are currently in discussions with a number of professionals, including a
dentist, chiropractor, another group who wants to put a small office there for their
company. We have had -- recently had a number of inquiries -- inquiries from other
professionals who are interested in this area, because of its growth and what's going on
in that part of the city that we are anxious to talk to and are very interested in this area.
We have worked carefully with the city in an effort to provide very high quality design.
We have built-in flexibility to allow for the actual users and the needs they are going to
have as they put their professional offices. There we anticipate six to nine small
professional office buildings. And, again, as we -- are going to -- we understand and
know that we are going to need to combine a few of those lots to provide for that -- for
that and for that flexibility. We have always been concerned about this buffer again for
this senior community. Because of the high traffic on Meridian Road and to provide the
quality of life we want for that senior community, we felt like not only will it provide
services for them, but it will provide that buffer that they need. We appreciate the help
of the city staff. They have been very helpful in helping us design this and put this
together and we are very grateful for all that they have done and now we can stand for
any questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Okay. Thank you very
much.
Stewart: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 26 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. We did have a number of citizens that signed to testify or at least
indicate their opposition. Is Lester Briton here? And I did see that you participated in
the swearing in.
Briton: Yes, I did.
De Weerd: So, if you will just state your name and --
Briton: Lester Briton.
De Weerd: -- address for the record.
Briton: Lester Briton, 2019 Southeast 3rd Way in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Briton: And I do have copies of the letters we sent in and we have some pictures on the
back and some drawings. I'm just going to read some of our comments on this.
De Weerd: r did want you to know we did receive this.
Briton: You did receive it? You did read them?
De Weerd: Yes, we did. Thank you.
Briton: Regarding the rezone of R-15, variances, and planned unit development for
Southwood Subdivision, we have several concerns regarding the proposed Southwood
Subdivision and the accompanying rezone request -- variance request and planned unit
development request. Our home is located immediately adjacent to the proposed
Alzheimer's facility and we will be directly affected by the development. R-15 zoning is
incompatible with the surrounding area and the required criteria for rezone are not met.
We see no justification for R-15 high density zoning on the back east part of the
property that abuts our single-family resident neighborhood. The note on the
Comprehensive Plan land use map was misapplied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The step up in density referred to in the note would allow, for example,
high density residential on half of the property, the step up, and low density residential
on that other half, maintaining an overall density of medium density as shown on the
land use map. This interpretation is the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, the
land use map is meaningless as a planning tool. In all cases rezones must meet all of
the criteria listed in the zoning ordinance for approving a rezone. The ordinance
requires there to have been a change in the area or adjacent area that dictates the
property should be rezoned. There has not been any change in that area that would
justify a rezone to R-15. Meridian Road has always been an arterial. This has always
been single family residential and agricultural. Another of the required criteria for a
rezone is that the proposed uses will be harmonious and appropriate with the existing
character of the vicinity and not change that character. It is impossible to find that the
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 27 of76
us"es allowed by R-15 zone -- that's up to 93 dwelling units at 6.22 acres proposed for
R-15 zoning, would not change the character of low density four dwelling units per acre
residential neighborhood that abuts this property. Another of the required criteria is that
the proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses. Excuse me.
There would be a number of ways in which the proposed uses would be disturbing,
even if the property develops exactly as presented. But three shifts per day of
employees coming and going from the property with vehicle headlights and noise, the
security lighting, daily garbage pickup, also experience in the health field, has made us
aware that patients suffering from advanced Alzheimer's often moan loudly. We
consider these noises and lights to be highly disturbing to the ambience of our home
and backyard, which would be just feet away from the Alzheimer's facility.
De Weerd: Mr. Briton, are you representing a number of--
Briton: Several of the people that signed are the abutting property owners.
De Weerd: Then, who all is he speaking on behalf of? If you will raise your hand?
Okay. So, he's providing testimony for you. Thank you. I'm sorry; we wouldn't have
buzzed you if we had known that.
Briton: That's fine. Thank you.
De Weerd: Go ahead.
Briton: We, therefore, do not believe the proposed rezone to R-15 can properly be
granted. If, however, the Council does not agree and decides to rezone the property
R-15, we have additional concerns we ask the Council to address as follows: A
development agreement is necessary to protect the neighborhood and the city. If the
land receives a rezone to R-15, then, the owners or future owners have every right to
put high density -- 93 dwelling unit housing on this 6.22 acres. A development
agreement should be required to tie to rezone to this development, rather than allowing
any and all R-15 uses to be placed on the site. The development that is proposed is too
dense and intense for the site. We would like to see a redesign of the site that meets all
the requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The location of the
Alzheimer's facility is incompatible and hazardous. We have heard -- excuse me. The
Meridian police department told planning staff they had concerns about the location of
the Alzheimer's facility, as documented by two separate staff planners on March 26.
We have all heard of the instances where Alzheimer's patients have walked away from
secure facilities. It would be a very short walk to the Ten Mile Drain. We would like to
see the Alzheimer's facility relocated to the interior of this site. Additional information is
necessary before reaching a decision. It is important to know the specific concerns of
the police department regarding the location of the Alzheimer's facility. Do regulations
regarding flood plain and wetlands apply to this area? We would like to see issues
addressed before the Council makes a decision on the planned unit development. The
setback and buffering requirements should not receive variances. On the revised site
plan dated May 18th, a 15 feet wide landscape strip is shown between the Alzheimer's
Meridian City Council
June 1,2004
Page 28 of 76
faCility and parking lot and our back fence. The notes on the site plan state five feet will
be provided, 20 feet is required by planned unit development regulations. In the
required 20 feet wide buffer we would like to see an eight-foot high masonry wall
adjacent to our back fence. The wall would deflect the noise and block some of the
excess light coming from the site. We would prefer the land abutting our property to
remain zoned R-4 and would prefer no adjacent high density or institutional uses.
However, if rezone proceeds, we would like to see a development agreement that would
tie the rezone to the specific development proposed. We would also like to have the
Alzheimer's unit relocated within the property to minimize its impacts on us and also to
improve the safety of the facility's residents. In any case, if the development proceeds
on this property, we would like the 20 feet wide buffer as described above. Thank you.
Any questions?
De Weerd: Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: No. Thank you very much.
Briton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Rebecca Briton? I think -- okay. Doug Olsen? Okay. Thank you.
Richard Openshaw.
Openshaw: My name is Richard Openshaw, I'm at 2049 Southeast 3rd Way and J also
am adjacent to the property. It's right behind me. Just a couple of things. When J
bought that property -- had I known there was going to be a facility like that there, I
would have never bought the property there in the first place. My in-laws in California
lived next door to one and it was a nightmare and so I have an experience with that.
So, I do know what it is like. It's a lot of noise, a lot of yelling, because the people in
those things have a tendency to, you know, not know what they are doing and, you
know, and where they are half the time. Also, Chuck Fuller was the builder of that
property and I was concerned when I bought that property at what might be there and
he told me at the time, along with other neighbors there, that the city had told him at that
time -- and I couldn't get a hold of him, he's out of -- he lives out of state now -- that
whatever went in there would have to be agreed on between the city and whoever
developed it and the owners of the property that abutted it. So, that we all agreed on
what would be there. And the only other thing is when they are talking about
Calderwood, I think there needs to be more study on Calderwood Road, because that
road is a nightmare now. We -- if you ever have to get out there in the morning between
about 8:00 -- oh, about 7:30 and to about pretty close to 9:00 o'clock, you can't get on
there, because of the traffic on Meridian Road and what it's doing is it's forcing the
people to go out to Overland Road. Also, since the high school went in down there, the
traffic on 3rd Way has increased by a lot as it is, because they are coming through and
going all the through to Victory, because of that road going through now, and
Calderwood is going to bring all that traffic in there from all those places and the
Meridian City Council
June 1 . 2004
Page 29 of 76
businesses and everything, that's a small road, it's not a -- if you have been on
Calderwood, it's not a very good road and it's just not -- I don't see where they can say
that it's holding -- or it's going to be able to hold all that traffic. All those people are
going to be coming down there and going through into 3rd Way into our' division and
that is going to be disruptive to us. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. I had Glenda Openshaw. Okay. Marie
Olson. Okay. Thank you. Bill Pagent. Okay. Thank you. And Linda Pagent as well?
Thank you. Gary Phillips. Were you sworn in, sir?
Phillips: No.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Phillips: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state you name and --
Phillips: Gary Phillips. I live at 332 East Calderwood Drive, Meridian, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Phillips: I have one question in regards to what Mr. Perez that presented talked. He
was stating that the actual density that was an R-9 -- somewhere between an R-8 and
an R-9, so I'm curious why they feel that they need an R-15. And it's just -- maybe
somebody -- you know, it's a question I have and I need to have answered in my mind.
If, for some reason, this project doesn't fall through, like they were stating in this letter
that was sent to you guys, what happens to that once it's designated an R-15, there is
no going back. So, that means that anything can go in there, just about, and I have
concerns about that. Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. I will have -- Mr. Phillips, I will have staff answer your question
right now, if you don't mind.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The number on the
zoning designation sets the upper limit of the density, which they can go. The current
zoning options for the property would be typically R-4, as it's currently zoned, R-8, and
the next one after R-8 is R-15. We don't have an R-9 zone. It doesn't mean they have
to develop up to 15, but they would need that to do anything more than eight. They
would also need it to do the townhouse style buildings and the care unit. They want to
do -- that would be allowed in R-15 through the conditional use process. As staff I do
understand the concern that what if it's rezoned and, then, this project doesn't happen
and, then, someone could come in and do 15 units to the acre. The remedy for that
would be the development agreement as a potential solution to keep the proposal to the
densities as proposed tonight. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
June 1 , 2004
Page 30 of 76
De Weerd: Well, the plat would as well. Correct?
Siddoway: The plat would, although there is multiple units on the plat. I suppose the
Conditional Use Permit would, even more so than the plat.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Blaine Bennett. Please, state your name and address.
Bennett: B[aine Bennett, 343 East Calderwood Drive in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bennett: Most of what I have to say [ have already said, either myself or my wife, in a
[etter, so I'm just going to take a minute, but one of the biggest concerns [ have with the
project is the claim that Mr. Perez made at the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting a few weeks ago, that the neighborhood was in agreement with this project
when he held a neighborhood meeting in late 2003. November, I believe it was. And at
that meeting what he proposed was an independent gated community and the
neighborhood was in approval of that. And it appears like now there has been a bait
and switch. The other thing that ['d like to mention -- and [ mentioned this in our letter,
too, is that, really, [ think the operative word here for those who are especially adjacent
to the Alzheimer's unit is transition, not a stark contrast, and what we saw here in their
presentation was all very attractive, but I didn't see in the A[zheimer's unit a motel-hote[
like structure -- motel structure that I saw there, I didn't see residential homes right
contiguous to it. The facilities that they showed in Eagle, there were some nice homes,
but it didn't look as though that was an Alzheimer's unit, it looked -- you know, the same
type of structure at a[1. So, I think, really, I'd like to urge you, Mayor and Council, to
consider the neighborhood and the quality of it and really put some emphasis on the
transition. We are not opposed completely to the project, but just the way that they
have it laid out and also the density and we would just ask you to consider citizens of
Meridian before businessmen from Eagle and Boise. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Mary Jane Bennett?
Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application?
Okay. Hearing none, [ would ask the applicant to come up and respond to the
testimony. Please restate your name and address.
Perez: Yeah. Rob Perez. 4148 North Westview Lane in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Perez: Our original neighborhood meetings had contemplated high-density sing[e-family
housing, patio homes, which were about seven to the acre and a gated community. We
had always talked about the potential for senior housing and even in our original
meeting referenced Spring Creek as a potential. Certainly, in our neighborhood
meetings we have had numbers of those for, you know, numerous developments. We
Meridian City Council
June 1. 2004
Page 31 of76
make no commitments as what housing will look like, but certainly our general direction
has always been senior housing. The housing to this extent is the result of Spring
Creek having an interest in the property relative to studies that they have done about
the demand on the marketplace. Briefly, in terms of R-15, one time step up from R-4 to
R-8, that's allowed. That's why I think P&Z unanimously approved this project. With
regards to traffic lights and other issues, we have redesigned the parking, which we
thought addressed those concerns and apparently tonight there is a change of heart, we
are willing to certainly continue to work on those issues. Heavy landscaping. You can
see the number of trees that butt up against the memory care facility. This is not a flood
plain or wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers has been consulted on that. They
govern any activities along the Ten Mile drain. Traffic issues are really for this project a
non-issue, particularly given the light usage of Calderwood as a collector already.
Harmonious usage here. Again, this -- we have had numerous contacts from people
not here to testify about their interest in putting their mother or father or the combined in
the complex. Let me just end with my comments and, then, Doug can address some
quick technical response regarding the construction issues, and that is a comment from
Brad Bankson, who owns the sliver of property just to the north of us and Brad said this,
he said: You know, I'll take a senior housing facility like this next to me anytime if it
compares to having teenagers. This is not a four-plex, two story complex. This is not
high-density housing in terms of high traffic impact. This is not high-density housing in
terms of loud and raucous behavior. This is going to provide almost 22 FTE in new jobs
to this community. You saw Spring Creek, the high quality of construction, the
commitment to quality. We can talk about what we like and don't like in our backyards.
The fact of the matter is we are all going there age-wise. We all have parents that are
going there age-wise. There is a need in this community. We can show you the data.
We think we are servicing it in a way that's as harmonious as is possible and as with the
Planning and Zoning, we would urge your complete endorsement.
Clegg: I just -- I had a couple of --
De Weerd: Restate your name and address.
Clegg: Thank you, Madam Mayor. My name is Doug Clegg, 1091 North Pinnacle Way,
Eagle, Idaho. One is that -- I just want to draw your attention to the elevations that are
here in front of you. This is what we are going to build out here. We have designed our
projects specifically to be a residential area. I mean they could not have a project that
has a higher quality construction, there is no cottage lap siding on these, there is stucco
exterior with rock, we have 40-year architectural type roofs, and we are willing to sign a
development agreement. We are not worried about that. We have every intention of
going through with this project and doing everything we are proposing we are going to
do tonight. I think that there can be some stigmas in the community, and especially with
our potential neighbors here about Alzheimer care and I want to emphasize that we
spent a lot of time designing this project. In fact, I think we went through eight drafts
before we ever came to the city with this project and we not only counseled with the fire
marshal, but also with the police department about this Alzheimer unit and I can
promise you that the location of this Alzheimer's unit is the best location on the site. It's
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 32 of 76
isolated. It's secure. It's surrounded by more fences than I can get anywhere else in
this project, unless I'm going to build a compound. That's the only other way we can do
that. The only exit on that building they can even get out of that is not fenced is a front
door and it has a keypad and mag locks. There is no way for a resident to get out of
that facility. In addition to that, to meet some of the concerns that the police department
had, we have actually committed to put surveillance cameras on the exterior of the
building, so that if somebody for some freak chance got out of that facility, that we could
manage them -- or find them. Is that my buzzer?
De Weerd: Yes, it is.
Clegg: Okay. Thank.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for the applicant?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: One thing I -- it may have been stated, I just -- I guess I haven't seen it is what
amenities besides the path is there for this planned development?
Clegg: Including the professional office?
Nary: I don't think of an office as an amenity, so -- a path --
Clegg: Yeah. I'm asking you including the professional office part of the project,
meaning the whole ten acres or just the senior development part of it?
Nary: Yeah. The item -- the item for the conditional use permit includes a planned
development, so --
Clegg: Yeah.
Nary: I mean -- and the planned development in our ordinance requires two amenities
and I heard one on the pathway, but I was wondering -- I didn't hear what the other one
was.
Clegg: That is a great question. In fact, that's probably one of the redeeming qualities of
these projects -- could you show the site plan again? In the center of the site plan you
will notice there is an octagon building there. Do you see it right in the middle of that
island? That is a 2,000 square foot recreation building that's been designed as a public
facility for all the seniors that live on this campus. They will dine there; they will have
family gatherings, birthday parties, social events, all types of meals, whatever they want
to do there. So, that one other amenity that we have there. Does that count?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 33 of 76
Nary: Yes. That's good.
Clegg: Okay.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: I would point out for the staff report that they also meet the ten percent open
space requirement as an amenity as well.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. And I guess while you're still up here -- chief, did you have any
comment? I know you mention of police concerns was noted in the public testimony.
Can you comment on that, so the applicant can respond?
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we were able to sit down with them
and discuss security measures, location of fencing adjacent to the canal, because those
are some of our concerns, knowing that Alzheimer's patients can and do frequently find
access out of buildings. However, we were satisfied that these folks do know what they
are doing, they have provided access, in particular, with mag lots or other identifying
features which would prevent the residents from freely accessing the doors that only
those folks that would have them would be able to go in and out. And they also
increased their vestibule at the front, which would be the only free access, so that they
have a little bit more capacity to put on some added controls. They also addressed the
issue of if somebody get out and was able to track past the fences and across the canal
area into the more open area, that they would have surveillance cameras, so we would
be able to track and have some way of being able to find out where they were last seen
headed to, so we could attempt to do a locate in conjunction with the fire department, if
we were called out in that area. So, we were satisfied that they were meeting the
criteria and the concerns that we had to provide for a safe and secure environment for
the type of residents they would be serving.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief.
Clegg: And we appreciated all the input. It was very helpful.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Could you point out the fencing for the Alzheimer's unit?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 34 of 76
Clegg: Does this light work up here?
Rountree: Yes, it does. Just be careful.
Clegg: It looks like something my daughter has on one of her Mr. Gadget tools. What
happens is the fence comes out here; it runs this way, comes to here, comes around,
comes out and, then, comes in. There is an exit, an exit here, and an exit here and all
of these are in a gated secure area and, then, we have the main entrance here and this
is the vestibule area that the chief was --
De Weerd: Well, I think that needs a battery.
Clegg: Does it? It's probably just my --
De Weerd: Or is it my eyes?
Rountree: It's not quite a bright as it should be.
Clegg: How is that? So, the fence, again, come around here, stops here. We have an
exit here, an exist here, and an exit here and, then, we have the main entrance and this
is the vestibule area that the chief was talking about that we had expanded. There is,
actually, two doors here. I'm going to set my hand down over here so it's more stable.
That didn't help. There is actually two doors. There is a door here and, then, there is a
door on the interior. The administrative offices for this facility are right here. Anybody
that wants to come in and out of that facility has to go through a secured lock, a mag
lock right here before they even get to the outside door. So, it's going to be pretty
obvious. If someone comes to this door and wants to get out, they are going to be in
open view of the administrator and his staff that are in these offices right here and, then,
they have to either have a card swipe or another key code or have to be let out by the
administrator with a secondary button that they would let them out with.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, we heard previously from Mr. Perez that this is the best spot
in the location -- in the location. With that fencing configuration, I'm at a loss as why
that same configuration couldn't be applied to the property on the southern end right
across the street from the park, right --
Clegg: Right in here?
Rountree: No, just the middle piece.
Clegg: Right in here?
Rountree: Right there. Five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.
Clegg: Oh, over here?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 35 of 76
Rountree: No.
Bird: No, right in here.
Rountree: Five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten.
Clegg: Oh, right here.
Rountree: Yeah.
De Weerd: Yeah.
Clegg: Gosh. Thanks. I need to learn to count. Sorry. Well, one of the -- one of the
things we are trying to do here is create -- when we work with seniors, they want to be
in an area that -- and surrounded by individuals that have the same level of care needs
that they have. Access to this common area here is much more important for the folks
that still have limited driving skills -- and maybe I need to explain this part of the project.
The folks that live in these independent living units have 24 hour nurse call that tie into
the assisted living facility and we also provide their meals, their laundry, their house
keeping, transportation, and their activities. A lot of those activities are going to take
place in this common area and most of them are going to want their meals on wheels,
so we are going to have a golf cart and we will actually take the meals to their
residences in these areas from the main facility. It's important for these individuals to be
close to this common recreation area and also to where their meals and some of their
indirect care and cleaning services are coming from. Having this facility here is not a
problem per se, but there is a lot farther for these folks to travel to get out onto
Calderwood from this -- nestled into this back corner, which is -- has a lot less traffic, is
a lot easier for us to surveillance. If they get out of here and they come across the
bridge and want to walk through here, we have got another whole group of staff in this
facility that are going to be able to see them wandering through the complex. It's just a
more secure, isolated situation. And folks with pre-dementia and sundowners typically
perform much better with that disability when they are in a secured, regular, consistent
environment. It's just a better environment for that type of a facility.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: J heard some other issues from the neighbors that haven't been addressed by
the applicant. One is concern about noise from the residents from the Alzheimer's unit.
Would you speak to that?
Clegg: Yeah, I can. The folks that we are talking about right are on a fairly consistent
and regulated pharmaceutical regimen and I'm not going to say that nobody is ever
going to -- never walk outside the building and communicate, but I can guarantee the
Council that the folks that are staying in that facility are going to make a lot less noise
Meridian City Council
June 1 , 2004
Page 36 of 76
than a neighbor with a dog or a group of kids that are playing softball in the backyard or
a bunch of teenagers having a barbecue. The possibility of a senior with Alzheimer
dementia getting outside the facility, first of all, without direct of the care of -- the staff
ratios in that facility are usually one to two or one to three, which means I have
somebody there during their wake hours, one person for every three residents. That's
pretty high. If somebody gets outside that facility, they are -- we are going to know they
are outside and we are going to know that if they area a -- they are a noise pollution risk
to our neighbors. We will know that before they ever leave. So, I think that that's a
manageable concern. I think that they are running a lot less risk with this type of a
facility than they ever would be just even having a regular neighbor next to them,
because we can control the activities of our residence that are there.
Rountree: Thank you. Madam Mayor? There were also some concerns expressed
about security lighting and shift work. Three shifts a day was mentioned. I don't know if
that's what you plan on. Could you speak to those issues?
Clegg: Yeah. I would be happy to. This project will employ at any given time nine folks
during the wake hours and three at night. So, that's the maximum potential -- possibly
with housekeeping of employees that will be on staff. Now, we will employ 40 people,
but you have to remember, this is 24 hours, seven days a week wake care. So, the
total volume, meaning the peak volume of staff that will be there at any given time will
be somewhere around nine to ten.
Rountree: That's in all of your facilities or --
Clegg: That's correct.
Rountree: Okay.
Clegg: Yeah. We will have three to four in the Alzheimer unit, four to five in the assisted
living and, then, right now our current plan is just to have one additional person during
the wake hours to do house keeping for the independent living units additional person
during the wake hours to do housekeeping for the independent living units and also help
us to manage the meals for those people. So, somewhere around ten -- ten people. At
night we will have one person in the assisted living and two people in the Alzheimer's
unit that will be there 24 hours -- you know, from basically 10:00 o'clock at night until
6:00 o'clock in the morning. There are going to be shift changes, but as far as the
Alzheimer unit goes, you will have one shift at 10:00 o'clock change and there will be
two people that will change at that time, so you will have two vehicles arriving at that
time. And, then, at 6:00 o'clock in the morning you will have three people come. And,
then, the administrator usually comes on at 8:00 and housekeeping comes on about
that same time. So, that is the volume of traffic that we are talking about five days a
week and, then, on the weekend you wouldn't have the administrator in the Alzheimer
unit. So, it's pretty amenable. There wouldn't be -- it would be comparable and much
less than it would if you had three or four residential homes there. Much less than that
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 37 of 76
and probably closer to one or two families that were living an active lifestyle. I don't
know if that answers all your --
Rountree: Security lighting.
Clegg: Oh, security lighting. We don't have any security lighting per se, other than just
parking lot lighting that's going to be required by the city. So, you know, we are going to
have lights at -- you have a major directory or monument sign here. There is one over
here. There will be some lighting at the entrance at the gates. There is a keypad right
here. And the gates, just you know, they, actually, open at 7:00 o'clock in the morning
and close at 6:00 o'clock at night or somewhere thereabouts and everything is closed.
The only way anybody can get in and out of this facility after hours is if they dial into one
of the residents that are living in the independent living units or they dial into one of the
main facilities and get permission to access the project. So, traffic is pretty minimal
after hours in this project and the rest of the lighting is pretty much just going to be your
standard parking lot lighting at various locations for directions. So, we haven't planned
any, unless, Chief Musser, wants us to do something that we are not aware of right
now.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the only lighting that we'd probably
have any concern with would be low ambient building lights, so they could at least light
the areas that are fenced in the rear of the building, if there was somebody that was out
in that area, so your staff could see them and you would have some lighting adjacent to
that. That's similar to what we usually use on most of the buildings, it's usually on at the
night in commercial areas and with the way they are constructed now, it's usually not
overwhelming.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Clegg, what IS the -- how many patients do you expect to have in the
Alzheimer's?
Clegg: We have 16 units in there.
Bird: Sixteen units?
Clegg: Yeah.
Bird: And you're going to have two staff people on at night?
Clegg: Yeah.
Bird: So, how do we get the one staff person to three patients?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 38 of 76
Cregg: Well, that's during wake hours and that's a good question. At night most of the
folks that stay with us will be asleep. There will be some of them that will wander at
night that have sundowners.
Bird: I have been around Alzheimer's and they are -- they don't work on the normal --
Clegg: They don't.
Bird: -- time that we do.
Clegg: They don't. And that is a good question. So, we will not have three to one
staffing ratios at n ig ht.
Bird: Thank you.
Clegg: You bet.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Clegg, could you address the 15 foot buffer thing that was brought up by the
staff? You needed -- rather than 20 you wanted a variance for that.
Clegg: Yeah.
Nary: I'm not clear from your testimony why you can't meet the 20-foot requirement.
Clegg: Well, I think we are. The Alzheimer unit right here meets that 20 foot
requirement and that was alluded to by one of the residences that it doesn't, but there
was actually 21 or 22 feet from the edge of the building to the edge of the property and
it is all landscaped, either hard-scape or landscaping.
Nary: I thought the southern portion was where the --
Clegg: Right here -- this comes down to 15 feet. We -- the challenge we have with this
parking lot is that the -- the fire department -- we, actually, originally, had a drive-thru --
you see how this comes out here and you can drive under a covered let-off area, on our
original design, that's the way we had the Alzheimer unit also. We had to delete that so
that the fire department, when they come in with their fire trucks, can make a full circle,
and they have got some pretty strict requirements on what we can do. We pushed that
to the very edge that we could -- we could do and, then, we added a whole bunch of
extra landscaping here and 15 feet was as close as we could get in that area to
accommodate that. And we will change it again. We will change it ten times, if
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 39 of 76
somebody can teach us how to do it, but we have gone through a whole series of
getting my architect out with the old CAD circles and just going let's try this, let's try that,
and we just -- we haven't been able to find a better way to do it that provides the
maximum distance from the paved areas and that actual east property line there.
Nary: And there was a request by a neighbor for a masonry wall. I assume it's just a
wood fence that's there right?
Clegg: Well, there is a mixture of fencing products there right now. We are not opposed
to that. They are expensive and we would be happy to do that. Eight feet seems a little
high. If they are worried about their view, that's -- their backyard is going to look like a
blockade. I mean that's a tall fence, so --
Nary: Thank you.
Clegg: You bet.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Thank you.
Clegg: You bet.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further information needed from staff at this point?
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, I would just point out that the maximum fence height for the
zone is six feet, although eight feet could, potentially, be approved as -- through the
planned development. There is a planned development in front of you, but the standard
requirement would be a maximum of six.
De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. Okay. Council, any discussion at this point? Mr.
Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor. I'm going to give my discussion and direct it towards the
rezone. It will sound similar to the previous application. I think if we have got a problem
within our Comprehensive Plan, that we need to fix it and not patch it and not patch it
twice this evening. That being said, as far as the rest of the development, the largest
problem that I see and that I hear -- I will just give you my thoughts -- has to deal with
the Alzheimer's unit and the location of it, not necessarily the existence of it. I hear from
the police department the need for lighting around the fencing areas, I hear from the
neighbors the existence of that close to their homes as a buffer when there are other
units which are more similar to the single family residential. And, then, I hear the
concern about buffer and shows us how to draw it when we are trying to get -- in this
area right here trying to get enough radius for the fire truck to make sure that this
building can sit in this location and so those are the things that I have heard from -- from
the plat application, I guess.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 40 of 76
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: You know, I don't -- I guess I don't have as big a concern as has been expressed.
I think there are ways to deal with some of the issues in regards to the assisted living
facility. I think the development agreement is the way to go. The step up for the
residential really is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and that was the intent
when we added those provisions to allow those types of changes, but I would agree
with Councilman Wardle that that L-Q in the front, although it makes sense, is
inconsistent with the language that we have in the Comp Plan and we need to fix it and
that was the reason I voted against the last project and that's my concern with this
rezone. I think there is some -- I think there is very good things that this development
could bring, I just think there is some -- some technical problems that we need to
address and if we don't address them and we patch them, then, we never address
them. And that's my -- that's my big concern is that by fixing them in the short run we
don't actually fix the overall problem, we just keep patching it. But I'm not as concerned
as the neighbors are. I think we can address those concerns. If this was an R-4
residential zone and it was just homes along there, you're going to have noise, you're
going to have garbage trucks and vehicles and barbecues and -- I mean those are
things that are -- those things are not something that we can really guard against. What
we have to do is try to adjust to those things. I think this is a fair adjustment for the
assisted unit area, but I am concerned with the L-O. We didn't talk about it very much
and in the staff report, the basis for it is the same basis we had in the last one that
Councilman Wardle and I voted against, which was the land use consistency matrix,
which we denied. So, I don't have the legal basis to support the change for the rezone
and if you don't have the rezone, you can't do the other things. So, although I like this --
I like this to some degree, I just don't think we have the support for it in our Camp Plan
to do it.
De Weerd: Is there any further comments?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I agree with the comment Shaun made about the Alzheimer's unit and how
it's located. I'm somewhat satisfied with the response I got to the answer -- or to the
question. As far as the concerns, I believe what Councilman Nary said is it is subject to
development agreement, should address most all, if not all of the issues. One comment
I would make about the development agreement -- and I don't know if we have ever
done this, but there has been a fair amount of testimony tonight about how this
particular facility would be operated if it were approved and I don't know if those kinds of
comments can or would be subject to a development agreement, but I would suggest if
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 41 of76
we get there, that that be considered, such as the type and amount of staffing for patient
care and that sort of thing.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, I guess I would ask if that's something that could even be put in
a development agreement.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you can specify in a development
agreement aspects of the use that mitigate effects upon the neighborhood. I would be
reluctant to write the staffing requirements in, because you could find -- particularly in
this area where there is substantial regulation by the state and federal government with
regard to residential care facilities, that you could have a difference between what your
development agreement says and what the federal regulations say and, then, you have
conflicts between the two that -- how does the developer or the -- actually, the owner
and operator of the facility square those up. J think it's more adequate to specify in
terms of what the outcome that you want to see, that the use operator would maintain
security measures to minimize patients and residents gaining access to the open areas
that they -- you know, those sorts of things, because, then, you would have a better --
better handle on any if there were repeated escapes, if you will. That would be easier to
gauge than trying to do head counts as to how many staff people they had at any given
time. So, I think you want to regulate what the effect would be, not necessarily how
they get there. If they have to put on more staff to prevent the escapes, then, that's
what they'd have to do.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further comment? Okay. Where do you want to go with
this, Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing no further discussion, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. And that was closing the Public Hearing on
Items 12, 13 and 14; is that correct? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion by Council? Do I hear anyone who wants to
make a motion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 42 of 76
Nary: I guess so we have something to talk about, [ will move to deny RZ 04-004, the
request for the rezone of Southwood Subdivision by Calderwood Community based
upon the conditions in the city code for zoning amendments 11-15-11, that is not
harmonious and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and there has not been an
application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and that is one of the conditions we
must find to rezone.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny Item No. 12. Any
discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: [ guess ['d just like to hear the motion one more time, maybe discuss the
rationale.
Nary: Certainly. The motion is that 11-15-11 of the Meridian City Code requires that
one of the conditions we must find to grant a rezone is that the new zone will be
harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and, if not, there has
to be an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The staff report indicates
the support for the L-Q zone along Meridian Road is the Comprehensive Plan
consistency matrix. We did not approve that consistency matrix. The staff report and
even the testimony doesn't indicate specific Comprehensive Plan guidelines that are
consistent with this amendment to the L-Q zone along Meridian Road in a residential R-
4 zone. So, although it may make sense -- I guess from a discussion purpose, although
it may make some sense, there isn't any -- there isn't any facts or testimony to support
the change on the map with the text in the Comprehensive Plan to support that rezone
for the L-O. All the testimony and information received is the report to move from an R-
4 medium density residential -- R-4 or R-8 for medium density to R-15 and not on the L-
a and that is required by the code and I just didn't have enough evidence to make that
finding.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, my only comment on the motion, if we are having discussion
at this point, is that on that technicality, assuming we act favorably to the motion does
not make this issue go away.
Nary: Sure.
Rountree: And would simply postpone it.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 43 of 76
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: It would be of some assistance, too, Councilman Rountree -- I mean in reading
through the other requirements, the seconder can tell me if he agrees or not -- in
reading through the rest of the 11-15-11 it also requires that we make a finding that the
area included in the zoning is intended to be rezoned in the future. Again, I didn't hear
any evidence that the area along Meridian Road was intended to be rezoned into office.
Again, it seems to make sense, but we have this discussion and I do believe the one
piece of testimony adverse to that condition was that there has been no significant
change along Meridian Road. It's an arterial, it hasn't changed its complexion at all,
there has been some changes in the zone north -- or the areas north of this property,
but, again, that wasn't part of the testimony. I think the other areas in 11-15-11 says,
again, has there been changes in the area, has there been changes that necessitates a
rezone. Again, I think in the past when we have had rezone applications, we have
stated a number of different times that to request a rezone and to support a rezone, that
the applicant must show us why the intended zone that was there originally is not
appropriate any longer and, again, I think all the evidence we have heard is for the area
east of Meridian Road and not the L-O and this is all one application. I totally agree with
you, Councilman Rountree, it doesn't make the issue go away. Part of the -- part of our
discussion point on this, as well as the prior application, was I think we need to do a
little bit more on our Comprehensive Plan and I guess my fear -- and maybe I'm the only
one that has this fear -- is that if we simply Band-Aid this problem and sort of shoe horn
it in and make exceptions to try to fit this in these requirements, then, we won't fix it. So,
you're right, it doesn't go away. I think we need to address the plan and make the -- but
the Comprehensive Plan, although as Mr. Nichols stated previously, is not an ordinance
and the state code -- or the state -- the state's report has said that more than once that
the Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance, it is in our ordinance. So, we do have to
make a finding that it's concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan and I just can't get
there.
Rountree: You lawyers just have a way with words.
Nary: After that lengthy explanation, I don't know if the seconder still agrees with my
motion or not. Because we may not have been on the same page.
Wardle: The second agrees in principal --
Nary: Good enough.
Wardle: -- to the motion, anyway.
De Weerd: All right. I guess regardless of which direction you go on this, there is a
message here to staff that -- and I think that it was Council who did not approve their
matrix and I believe that was because of the Old Town designation, so there seems to
be a little work -- you know, some work to do on that matrix or maybe even take Old
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 44 of 76
Town out to address in a separate form, but there is -- there is some measure that we
do need to clean this up with.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, just to follow up -- so, with -- with changes to the Old Town or
elimination of Old Town and addressing it some other way, is the Council interested in
seeing the consistency matrix back or are you not interested in the matrix, but interested
in something else?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I believe our direction last time was looking at a text change
in the Comprehensive Plan.
De Weerd: The text change would also support the matrix.
Rountree: Once that's done, then, the matrix itself, as a tool, would be there.
Siddoway: The matrix seeks -- seeks to -- not to get too much into that, but it seeks to
set forth, based on the Comprehensive Plan designations, what zones could be
requested and specifically addressing special circumstances such arterials and things
that we have seen tonight. So, it sounds like some version of the matrix as a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, with some modification specifically to Old Town and
maybe there is others, you know, could be modified and brought back to the Council.
De Weerd: Those were the two primary issues that came up.
Siddoway: Old Town and the --
De Weerd: And the text.
Siddoway: -- Comp Plan amendment. Okay.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. Okay. Sorry. I didn't mean to cloud your discussion, but we
wanted to emphasize the direction you were all going.
Bird: Call the question.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? The question has been called. The motion
on the table is to deny Item No. 12, RZ 04-004. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay. Item No. 13.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 45 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move to deny PP 04-007 request for preliminary plat for Southwood
Subdivision, the basis being that the rezone requested was not granted and, therefore,
it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances and map.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to deny Item 13 for the reasons stated. Any
further discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Item 14. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, I'd move to deny CUP 04-008 for a Conditional Use Permit for
Southwood Subdivision consistent with the fact the rezone was denied and the prior
reasons stated for the preliminary plat.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny Item 14 as stated. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. We are going to take a five-minute break and reconvene -- I
can't see the clock. It's the glare; it's not my eyes.
Rountree: At 9:25.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
(Recess. )
Item 15:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-002 Request for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-O
to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine
Avenue:
Item 16:
Public Hearing: PP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52
residential building lots and 1 common lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 46 of 76
15 zone for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of a mix of residential and commercial
uses with reductions to building setback requirements for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call our meeting back to order again. We are on
items 15,16 and 17, public hearings for RZ 04-002, PP 04-005, and CUP 04-006. I will
open all three of these public hearings with staff comments.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision. It is located on the south side of Pine Street next to the existing
Treymore apartments project, which is immediately to its west and Roundtree
Subdivision was proposed on the south side, but was denied by the Council previously,
but would have been in this location here. The proposed site is outlined in black for
you. You can see the aerial photo. There is a church property on the site to the east
and the existing Sunrise nursing home facility beyond it to the west. This is the -- this is
not south -- or Rock Creek, this is the Roundtree Subdivision and Treymore apartments
project to the west. This is the proposed project. You can see the elevation and the
proposed layout. The applicant is here tonight with some minor revisions. I would
simply point out the four issues that are raised in the staff summary of the
recommendation to Council as outstanding issues. The first is that the revised legal
description had been required and at the writing of this was still being reviewed by the
Public Works Department. That review is now complete and has been approved by the
Public Works Department as accurate. The second item deals with the rear setbacks.
This is similar to the discussion we had on one of the items on the previous project and
that is on a planned development the perimeter of the project is not allowed to reduce
the rear setbacks along that perimeter. The recommendation as written does require
the minimum 15 foot rear setback, but during the hearing the applicant did testify that
they were still seeking a 12-foot rear setback and so it needs to be clarified what
setbacks wi[] be adhered to during the process tonight. I would submit that we can look
for the applicant for some further clarification, but it is my understanding that the
encroachment is a three-foot encroachment by the upper story balconies. Now, the
ordinance does allow for an encroachment by balconies for up to two feet into required
setbacks. So, they may be able to accommodate this simply by shifting the building
one-foot forward and, then, allow a two-foot encroachment and that would still meet
straight ordinance requirement without a reduction. The third bullet deals with a
required meeting between the police department and the applicant and I would withhold
any comments for the chief. The one comment I would point out is that there was
concern about this area, which had been proposed as a tot lot, as not having many eyes
on it and would be better if there was windows that were facing it. An alternative -- and I
believe is what's being proposed tonight is to shift that amenity to the central portion of
the project that would have direct visibility onto it and I believe would be meet the needs
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 47 of 76
of both the applicant and the police department. The final bullet asks for two items that
it says have not yet been submitted. The first, being a schematic of how those amenity
lots will be developed. I'll point out the amenities for you. There will be a barbecue area
and if the tot lot is shifted, the tot lot would also be in this location. That would be two.
They are also proposing a horse -- a series of horseshoe pits over here and where the
tot lot was they would be replacing that with a half court basketball court. So, basketball
court, tot lot, barbecue area and horseshoes. But to my knowledge we don't have
specific layouts for those amenities. The second item dealing with the floor plans of the
four-plexes, I believe the applicant has some floor plans tonight, but by shifting the tot
lot out of this area, it may not be such a pressing issue if we are able to get adequate
visibility onto the tot lot in the central location. So, with that I will stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Steve, if you -- would you address what's going on in the front of the
subdivision? It looks like there is a single parking lot for the two units and, then, an
entryway.
Siddoway: Yeah. Looking at the landscape plan for some additional help. It appears to
me that there is a street buffer of trees right out along Pine Street. You would -- there is
an access to these lots directly off of Pine Street and it appears to be separated from
the rest of the internal circulation and the remainder of it funnels through this location
and circulates as you can see. I'd also point out this stub here, there is an issue of a
need for secondary emergency access and there would be a need to get this connected
to some future project in this location before this project could be built out in order to do
full build out of this project as proposed and that is addressed by the police department
in conditions of -- or the fire department in the conditions of approval.
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, another issue on circulation, Steve, is what happens in this
direction in this area here in terms of access for it in the backside? And on this side
where you showed that roadway? Will there be a cross-access agreement established
so whatever happens to the west could also utilize that access for emergency use?
Siddoway: There is some debate over whether the access -- I'll take the one to the west
first, because I know more about that one. There is some debate over whether it should
be emergency only access or if it should be a full cross-access for -- to allow residents
from this project to go through the project to the west, as well as residents of this project
to funnel through the proposed Rock Creek Subdivision and just have it be a joint cross-
access agreement, so that they can use the -- the various curb cuts as alternate routes
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 48 of 76
should one be blocked. So, that is -- that is one debate. I do not see any provision for
access along the eastern property line. I look to the applicant, maybe, for some
direction and I can read through the staff report for any specifics that are in there while
he's doing so, but it is a good question.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Steve, I guess to elaborate on it to the property to the east of that--
Siddoway: Yeah. Right here?
De Weerd: Is that a stub street right there?
Siddoway: I believe it is. I was going to get up and look at some of the maps and see if
it is actually stubbed.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is the
applicant here? Were you sworn in?
Ralphs: J have been sworn at.
De Weerd: We all have. But were you --
Ralphs: Madam Mayor, no, I have not been sworn in yet.
De Weerd: If you will raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ralphs: Yes, it is, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Ralphs: Rod Ralphs. My address is 850 East Franklin Street, Suite 406, here in
Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ralphs: If it pleases the Mayor and the Council, I have some handouts.
De Weerd: Okay.
Ralphs: Madam Mayor, just as a preliminary matter, what I have handed out is a small
eight and a half by eleven map and also a glossy of the Rock Creek Subdivision project
and just as we leaf through here, I think it will answer some of the questions as we go.
If you leaf through page two, that's a front elevation on our four-plexes and we have
side elevations as well. Now, in all candor, this is prepared to address some of the
Meridian City Council
June 1,2004
Page 49 of 76
saJety issues that have been raised by the police department and I had an opportunity
to meet briefly with Chief Musser and it seems like we have been able to resolve that.
So, just for ease of reference, that's available to you to check out the floor plans that we
do have. Just to discuss a little more about this project, this is a 23 unit project with
residential, a multi-unit attached residential here in the back. In response to
Councilman Rountree's questions, the two units here off of off Pine are, actually, what
we are asking to be L-O, Light Office, and they are going to have direct access off of
Pine and what we expect in there would be things such as dentists or doctors or light
office type applications. Here on the back -- and I wanted to address the tot lot issue as
well. We did move it here, trying to be very sensitive to the needs of the people living
there and also to the concerns of the police department, wanting to one make sure that
the children have a safe place to play and it's also by the barbecue area, so it's very
convenient. One of the other amenities that we did add was a series of walking paths
and you will see those -- they come from the west and they will join here as they cross
over the Nine Mile Drain and, then, they join in again here onto the east side of the
project. And so among the additional amenities I would just add to what staff
commented, that we do have walking paths as well. What we have got here is a fairly
narrow property. It's divided by the Nine Mile Drain and in working with the different
concerns of neighbors and, then, also looking at the different applications on the
Comprehensive Plan, we feel we have come up with a very workable solution for this
property. I know one of the concerns was the access there off the south end of the
property and I would like to talk about the east side of the property raised by
Councilman Rountree. Currently, you have a narrow lot just to the east that is owned by
the Friends church and there is one of their trustees here this evening. I did have an
opportunity to also meet with Pastor Redford and just visit a little bit about some of the
interests and possible applications that the church had for that back portion. One of the
layouts that he showed me showed a parking lot for further expansion for them. One of
the concerns that he had was that it was a 150 yard walk from the back parking stall up
the sanctuary, but that was one layout that I saw. To the east of him, though, as we go
into this -- and if we could get -- go back a little in the slides just to show the overhead of
the -- there we go. Show me the green one. That would be great. We do have a spite
strip in here of 15 feet and that is owned separately and the city is very well aware of
the ownership on that piece and what we should basically be asking, if we are going to
be concerned about access to the east from our property, you would be looking at either
condemnation or some other type measures to gain access to the east and so we didn't
explore that. We had a chance to also visit with the church about some of the concerns
also with that spite strip and so that's why we haven't provided for a sub to the east.
The stub to the west -- if we can go back now to that elevation. Or, excuse me, to that
layout. Thank you. What we have talked about here -- and you will hear me refer to
Treymore -- there is -- as Treymore One up on the front where the senior apartments
are and, then, just for ease of convenience, I call it Treymore Two in the back. I know
that they have applied and they have renewed their application with the city and they
are currently working with Planning and Zoning, but what we have proposed is -- as was
referenced earlier, a cross-access between the two properties to allow an emergency
access. That addresses some of the concerns that might be expressed by Treymore
One residents for general concern of increased traffic along a road that goes along to
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 50 of 76
the west of them. In visiting with Chief Musser, we can put in mechanisms that are
called bollards or some other such agreeable appliance or mechanism, so that it would
be used just for emergency access. So, we feel like we have addressed it in the way.
And I think I'm out of breath, but I think that addresses a lot of the questions that we
had. We feel that this is a project that, in working with Planning and Zoning and also
with the other concerns with this property, we feel that we have met those application
concerns. One of the things that is -- that we have asked for is a reduction in the
setbacks on the back. Now, why have we done that? A couple of reasons. We have a
balcony feature on the back there. As Council is well aware, there is a code that
requires a certain amount of open space on the upper units, as well as the bottom. We
have to have a hundred square feet of -- on the back part here we have a 64 square
foot, which is a nine-by-six foot balcony. What that means is that is counterlevered out
six feet. If we go with 15 foot setbacks, then, we are just encroaching into that setback
four feet. But if we can have the 12 feet, then, that gives us an even more greater
advantage than to set the building back from the front setback even more. What we are
trying to avoid is sometimes what we will see where we have a four-plex community go
up, where those units are just jammed right there on the front of the street and it is a
purely esthetic thing. We would need to -- if the Council felt strongly about maintaining
that 15 foot, then, we have some other options available to us, but we are not --
certainly wouldn't be our first choice. The other thing I would -- I have just noted in
researching with Mr. Siddoway and staff, there seems to be some inconsistent language
in the code for Meridian, one that allows for setback variances when you go in for a
planned development, then, another one that says that you can't do that and so when
we go into design and plan -- and I can point to those references, if that would be
helpful. But in looking through there, it allows -- it's under development -- or developer
incentives and it allows for those setbacks to be reduced. And, then, when we go into
where we start talking about the setbacks in a planned development, then, it says you
can't. So, we are at a loss about which one we could go with tonight, but it seems to be
an inconstancy and I had raised that with Mr. Siddoway today, we can address it here
this evening. If we have to move the buildings forward to accommodate the various
setbacks, then, what we would ask on the front is an additional foot and a half to
accommodate our stair well. Stairs are allowed to protrude out the front two feet and
from the front footprint of our building our stairs actually come out three and a half feet.
And so what we would ask from the Council tonight is anyone of a number of options.
If you want us to push the buildings farther toward the parking, please, give us another
foot and a half for our stairs, and if we are allowed to keep it there in the back, then,
allow us to encroach instead of two feet for our overhang for a balcony, four feet. And
that's all I have, if there are any questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Ralphs, I heard you say the balconies are nine by six for the upper --
Meridian City Council
June 1. 2004
Page 51 of 76
Ralphs: Correct. There was also -- and I know you're going for the hundred foot.
Nary: Right.
Ralphs: Okay. I didn't do math in school, but I mean that's where you're going.
Nary: Yeah.
Ralphs: We are also using some front access there. We have a front deck in front of
the upper balcony and so if we could go to a front elevation.
Siddoway: Which elevation? Sorry.
Ralphs: The front. Okay. Up here in this area, if you were to divide this area in half,
you would end up with 54 feet and so we would pick up the other on that. The code is
not clear whether we can access that or not. That's porch and we would argue and we
would certainly ask for that to be counted as far as our open space for these units.
Nary: That's a porch in front of the front door?
Ralphs: Well, you have -- you have the front door and you have -- actually, what I will do
is I will have you refer to your packets that has the floor plan, would probably be the
best way to go on this.
Nary: We had this lengthy discussion with the other one that we talked about --
Ralphs: Oh. Okay. So, I'm probably walking into--
Nary: -- about 100 square feet -- about the 100 square feet and what the code says is
100 square feet of private open space.
Ralphs: Okay.
Nary: So, we had a lengthy discussion about not sharing that space, not having it wide
open, that was -- that particular project they had no separation between the different
units. So, I'm trying to be consistent with how we have this previous discussion. Now,
the back certainly appears to me to be okay, but the front, that appears to be the
landing for the front door; is that --
Bird: That's a common -- that isn't split.
Nary: Yeah. I mean that doesn't appear to be a private open space, that appears to be
the landing at the top of the stairs that's not private for anybody, so --
Ralphs: Well, then, what we could --
Meridian City Council
June 1. 2004
Page 52 of 76
Nary: Do I have this wrong?
Ralphs: No, because that's how we were counting it and we had gone back to staff and
said now just exactly what is counted as private space or, you know, this open space for
the -- especially for the balcony areas. There is a couple things I guess we would do
and I could suggest and my designer would probably shoot us, but if we can go back
through to your elevation showing the main floor -- I guess we could put some type of
screening around the first floor, so we can work on our patios in the rear and, then, also
on the front a little bit of a divider there that would be in keeping, so that might make it a
little more private. The other thing, of course, would be to just add more space on the
back and we would go with the recommendation and if the Council is going to just
expressly state that the front decking area there on the upper story of a four-plex is not
to be considered in that counting and they are going to provide that clarification tonight,
then, you know, we can certainly go back and address that as far as final plat approval,
but it isn't that way in the statute, I believe.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I don't believe looking -- you can't -- you can't divide that landing up there on the
second floor, it's got to stay open. So, I don't know how you could call it individual
deals. I think it's all going to have to come off the patio in the back somehow.
Ralphs: Okay. The patio--
Bird: You might have to squeeze the window down a little there and extend the width of
your patio.
Ralphs: Well, if that's the express finding tonight, then, I mean we live with that. But we
would just ask for that clarification in the future as we are designing these units. I had
an opportunity to speak with Planning and Zoning about this, I don't know if it was Mr. -
- I believe it was Mr. Siddoway. I don't know that it was really clear whether it was
private or not, and I certainly don't want to put Mr. Siddoway in a hard spot, but I -- and
my short term memory is long gone, but I would only ask that if -- if we are going to ask
that it be balcony or patio, that that's how clear it gets.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Rountree, do you have something?
Rountree: Yeah. Are these going to be owner occupied?
Ralphs: They can be.
Rountree: Would you put the site plan back up, Steve?
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 53 of 76
Siddoway: You bet
Rountree: Could there be provisions on either side of the drain to extend the pathway?
Both of these lots look like if they are ever sold there is no easement or no way to
extend that pathway if it were to go on through the city. So, it would end at this point,
the way you have it laid out and I would prefer to -- and I'm not asking you to develop
the pathway, but it would be nice if you would, but at least provide an easement or
recognition that it would be extended.
Ralphs: That it could be extended in the future.
Rountree: Extended through either one of those lots.
Ralphs: Oh, and have the option, either/or? Certainly. You bet.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Okay.
Ralphs: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Now, I have two people that have signed up, Greg Embry.
Were you sworn in at the beginning of --
Embry: Yes, I was, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Embry: Greg Embry, 251 East Front Street with Spink Butler on behalf of Thomas
Development
De Weerd: Thank you.
Embry: Thomas, as was mentioned, developed Treymore One and Two and most
important for tonight the senior center in Treymore One, the northern most lot next to
Pine Street Thomas isn't substantively opposed to Rock Creek, but has three concerns
It would like to register. First, it would like to -- for a requirement to be imposed that the
CC&Rs for the development be reviewed by the city attorney and would suggest that
this might be an appropriate context to resolve any of the internal cross-access
easement proposals that were in the staff report. Second, in the staff report, site
specific condition number three -- and I may be misunderstanding this, but it talks about
a cross-access easement for the internal residential owners to use the driveways within
Rock Creek, but it lists in a parenthetical Lot 1, Block 1, that's, [ believe, Treymore One.
I think it should be Lot 3, Block 1, which would be Rock Creek. So, that might just need
to be corrected. The major concern -- and I think the applicant is -- seems to be In
agreement with this -- is the special consideration number C -- or letter C regarding
emergency access and this involves the stub street and if you could, please, show the
overhead -- the aerial or the vicinity map. And the concern is -- I'm not sure jf this still
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 54 of 76
works. The concern is the stub street. The stub street is down here. We would ask
that if that is to be used -- or, rather, Thomas Development is amenable to that being
used for alternative -- emergency access, but not for cross-access, general access for
the residents. The point being that the narrow strip to the west of Treymore Senior
Center is built up against that, that narrow strip is a private 25 foot width driveway built
by Treymore. The senior center drive -- some of their garages back onto that narrow
strip and, in fact, I believe the City Council recognized the potential problems in denying
Rountree the use of that for general cross-access. 80 that what we are asking is that if,
indeed, we would be willing to allow an alternative emergency access along that, but we
would ask that it be designed and built out with influence such as bollards or gates to
prevent general access through that narrow strip on Treymore. And that is all.
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You just indicated that you would have issues with access along your
western boundary, because of the narrowness and the access that your residents have
on that. What is your position about the remainder of that portion to the south being
developed and utilizing that as an access? And I assume that's a private drive as well.
Embry: Councilman Rountree, are you talking about the north side of the Nine Mile?
Rountree: You just indicated that you have an issue with this being used as access for
this area.
Embry: Exactly.
Rountree: Do you have an issue for that being used as access for this area?
Embry: For general access, yes. And in the -- in the Roundtree application that was
voiced and that was one of the City Council's reasons for denying the Roundtree
application, that that be -- I think the City Council was fine with that being emergency
access, but not for general access, given what's constructed right there with the senior
center.
Rountree: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. I also had Maxine Johnson signed up. Okay. If you will, please,
state your name and address.
Johnson: Maxine Johnson, I'm with Summit Real Estate Services. We manage
Treymore. Our address is 413 West Idaho, Suite 201, in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Johnson: And it's just the same thing that I said the last time I was here, which was for
the Roundtree application and it's the safety of the seniors at Treymore that we are
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 55 of 76
concerned with and that is the narrow strip that you have pointed out for general
access. We do -- have no problem with emergency services and whatnot, that it needs
to be -- you know, if this goes through, that it would be very necessary. But we don't
want any access through our property of the general public of those two different
developments.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony on
this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond to any of the testimony?
Ralphs: I just -- I think the big concern was about what is that cross-access going to be
used for and we, in discussions with Treymore Two, that's emergency cross-access
and, you know, the owners of those two pieces, whoever owns that, I guess, ultimately
gets to decide who gets to use that and that's not what we are about tonight. So, we
are just interested in emergency access and we have visited with the police chief on
that and we think we have got an amenable solution to that by putting up the bollards.
And that's alii have.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council for the applicant?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay.
Ralphs: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Steve?
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in -- I have been looking up some
response to Councilman Rountree's initial questions about the connectivity. I would
point in the staff report on page nine, item 0, about the interconnectivity. It talks about
both Idaho Avenue and Broadway Avenue located approximately 250 feet east of the
subject site, so we are -- let me flip to the -- this is -- this is Broadway and this is Idaho
and they do stub to -- those projects, eastern -- or, I'm sorry, western boundary and it
says they have to construct stub streets to the west property line of Treymore
Subdivision, which is the east property line of Meridian Friends Church. Now, it has
come up that there is a 15-foot spite strip in there. ACHD and city staff reviewed the
traffic circulation pattern in this area as to whether these public streets will or should
ever be extended to the west. Idaho Avenue, being this one, is too close to the existing
church office to ever be reasonably extended as a public street. However, Broadway
Avenue on the south side of the Nine Mile Drain is stubbed to an area where it could be
extended if necessary. As proposed, Rock Creek does not provide any vehicular
access to the east. If Broadway were extended, Rock Creek would have no opportunity
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 56 of 76
to' connect. Staff recommends this issue be further discussed at Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing, et cetera. So, my personal opinion -- I don't know that just
because there is a 15-foot spite strip there would be a reason to throw up our hands
and say that it would never be connected. I think it does warrant some consideration as
to whether it -- whether we do want public access across the south side of that drain
and hope -- so that is what's in the staff report in relation to that issue. For the issue of
the pathway, moving on, it looks like they are showing the one here and as Councilman
Rountree pointed out, it really should be designed so that it can be extended across the
project. I guess whether that's done now as part of the project or just as an easement is
up for the Council. The perimeter setbacks -- I was trying to find the code reference for
the Council. The copy of the code that I have available to me tonight doesn't include the
revisions to the planned development ordinance, but it does state in there that the -- the
perimeter of planned developments -- the setbacks along the perimeter should not be
reduced. And, then, there was a reference earlier by one of the gentlemen relating to
page nine, number three, and wondering if the lot and block should be corrected to
match the lot and block in Treymore. I don't believe that that's the case. I believe that
this intentionally references Lot 1, block 1, of Rock Creek, which is -- all of the
circulation internally sits on -- on that lot. It's a requirement that internal to this project
that they provide cross-access across the entire project and, then, the issue would be
specifically in item number -- condition number four of the preliminary plat, on page nine
of the staff report, states that -- provide the fire department, the planning and zoning
department, approve secondary vehicular access to serve the lots south of the Nine
Mile Drain prior to issuance of the 12th four-plex. Probably the question is over the
word vehicular and whether vehicular refers to emergency access only or to all the
residents of the subdivision. If you felt it should be emergency access only, then, you
could just change vehicular access to emergency access and just make the one word
change and that would be able to handle that. Or if you feel that the residents should
have access back and forth -- we are not really conditioning the project to the west here.
We would, basically, be giving access through this project if it were left open for
residential cross-access. So, residential or emergency access, I guess that's the
clarification that would need to be made there by the Council.
De Weerd: Steve, what is a spite strip?
Siddoway: It's a small piece of land that's owned by someone else, has no intention of
developing it, but may not be interested in cooperating with the development to get the
road extended. It would either require purchasing the property by the adjoining
development that is trying to develop in order to get the connection through or it would
require condemnation by the city.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions by Council? Since our staff got the last
word, do you need to add anything to that? Do you feel a need to respond? Never ask
an attorney that.
Ralphs: If my crystal ball were working tonight and I knew how you were going to go,
but I think we have been very clear that this is for emergency access only on the south
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 57 of 76
arid it's not just a spite strip that we are looking at there on the east, but you're also
looking at another property owner and we have no idea, you know, really, in any
foreseeable future exactly what they are going to do with it. The other point that I just
need to emphasize -- and we expressed this also at Planning and Zoning, is we have
private streets here and we wouldn't be doing interconnectivity with a street there and
so, again, just to reiterate, I think this is just a great application for this property and we
have satisfied the requirements and we just ask you would approve it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. My questions -- or could be my comment -- is you have a
property to your east that you will, essentially, land lock. Now, they could get through
this spite strip -- J don't know who named it that, but --
Ralphs: It's actually a spite strip would be --
De Weerd: Spite.
Ralphs: It's in spite, but it's spite would be the --
De Weerd: In spite.
Ralphs: Uh-huh.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. But, you know, I guess we have very limited connectivity in this
area and we just piece by piece continue to attribute to it and I -- that's just -- I don't
have a vote, so you don't have to worry about me. But, you know, it's just -- well, I did
earlier tonight.
Rountree: May have another one.
Bird: Almost got another one.
De Weerd: I just -- it concerns me that we have a lack of connectivity and that's my
comment as far as that's worth. Thank you.
Ralphs: Thank you. Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: You commented about land locking to the east. It appears to me that the
parcel that was before us previously, that would be, if this were to be approved, land
locked to the west, so -- and, personally, I think this is a good concept, I like it, but I
don't necessarily see how we help do anything but create piece of properties on either
side that -- or at least on the west side -- the east side, at least, is owned and has some
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 58 of 76
plans for it and some frontage, but I don't know what you do in that situation. We
certainly did the right thing with the previous application, however.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: In looking at the staff report, I mean I think there is two issues from the prior
application, the Roundtree Sub, that are still problematic, I guess, to me and the primary
one is this access. I recognize that it's not -- not trying to say that it's the obligation of
this property owner to fix all the problems. They have got a strangely shaped flag lot to
the west, you have got an issue of connectivity to the east, but I think Madam Mayor's
comment is correct, is we can't simply just throw up our hands and just approve it as an
alternative. I think there has to be some better connectivity between these properties
and there needs to be better circulation to these properties and just an emergency
access isn't likely to cut it. I'm not trying to decide for everybody else what it is today,
but it doesn't appear that this is -- this appears to be just an immediate fix to one
property, versus really looking at how to make this work together. The other is the 100
square feet of private open space. I think our code says that all residential planned
developments shall provide each dwelling unit with at least 100 square feet of usable
private open space, such as a patio or deck. This is Meridian City Code 12-6-2. It does
say that the Commission or the Council shall judge each project on its own qualities and
may recommend deviations from this open space requirement, when it is satisfied that
the private and common open space proposed meets the intent and purposes of this
code. So, what that says to me is that we could approve 54 feet of -- square feet of
open space on these small decks that are being proposed, but we have to make the
finding that everything else is adequate to address the needs of common open space.
This appear to be 23 building -- 23 four-plexes, which adds up to over 80 units -- over
90 units of people, you know, if -- I think I saw an earlier one -- I don't know if it was in
this one, but I have seen -- even if you're looking at two units -- or two people per unit,
we are talking a couple hundred people with one small tot Jot, one barbecue pit,
horseshoe pits, which -- I'll just leave that alone. Whether or not those are adequate
alternatives. There is very little green space in here; there is very little other space,
other than that 54 square feet of private open space. I guess for me to make that
finding that it's adequate, based on our ordinance, I need more evidence as to how
that's -- how that's going to be available for everyone and whether or not there is truly
adequate open space for the number of people, the vehicles and the like, that are going
to be using this. So, I guess I can't make those two findings that we did not approve the
prior one that was on the west side of this, I think those are probably my two concerns
that -- we haven't closed the Public Hearing, so if the Council wants Mr. Ralphs to
address those, that's up to the Council, but those are the two areas to me that are a
concern.
De Weerd: Any other comments from Council? Okay. Council, what would you like?
Rountree: I have no problem if Mr. Ralphs wants to -- that's fine.
Meridian City Council
June 1. 2004
Page 59 of 76
Bird: Also brought up a couple points.
Ralphs: I'd like to touch on the 54 square feet, just for clarification. Are you talking
about the rear balconies?
Nary: Yes.
Ralphs: Okay. And perhaps I didn't express that earlier. If we need to expand that
space in the back to make that up on each of those units, we will do that. So, don't
table us or kill us because of that, because we have expressed that we will do that. The
other thing is that with the four amenities we are still at our ten percent open space as
required by the City of Meridian. So, even though you're going to have a lot of people in
there, when you start looking at the requirements for this size of a project, we have
exceeded our open space and so I would address the issue first. I played horseshoes
with my dad and that's about as often as I see it and that's -- I share your sentiment with
the horseshoe pits, but I'm -- it is an amenity. But we have also -- that isn't our only
amenity, with the half court basketball court, the paths and the tot lot and the barbecue
area, we have exceeded that. I wanted to talk a little bit more about the connectivity --
and I didn't really want to get into this, because there is a lot of these issues you will see
when Treymore Two or Roundtree comes back through, but if we go back to that flag
elevation that just shows the aerial, this is what you're going to probably be hearing and
I'm not counsel for the -- for Treymore Two when it comes through, but they own this.
They are the ones who get to use that, okay? You're not land locking them. And while
there may be some objection and there may be some concern about the amount of
traffic that comes through there, our project is only for emergency access. You can arm
wrestle with these guys about the suitability of the width of that thing and as far as what
kind of access they have got. We have already got a cross-access agreement to
Treymore Two. We have both been very good about working with each other and we
will continue to do that. But I just need to Jet you know that as you continue to receive
objections from Treymore One, okay, no one likes to have a lot of traffic going through
there, but this back lot here is owned, along with that flag lot, by Treymore Two or
Roundtree. And I will leave it up to their counsel to make that argument, but that's not
our animal to skin tonight and you will have that access. I would also add we can tear
out the bollards. We don't need to have them there. We were just extending that as a
courtesy based on some of the concerns expressed by Treymore One about cross
public access and so we will leave that up to, you know, the fire safety and the police
safety people as far as what they want to do with that emergency access. But, again,
you're not land locking any tonight. The church will have its plans. Your connectivity --
if the -- if you want to go in here and start doing some condemnation here on the back
end, I don't know when that will happen and I don't know when the church is going to
act. What we do know is that we have a project here and we have got these private
streets here and we have worked with ACHO, we have complied with everything they
have asked, and we would just ask you to approve it. Thank you.
Rountree: Thank you
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 60 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. Council? Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, just a quick comment and, then, a clarification and I agree with
Mr. Nary, I like the concept of the project and it seems when you add the additional
open space per unit for the individual space, the developer has indicated they are willing
to do that. I need just a quick clarification from staff, if I might on the setback issue. I
don't know with that I have a resolution -- earlier, Steve, I heard you say one -- if we
move one foot, we don't need it or -- could you, please, clarify that real quick?
Siddoway: The ordinance states that even on planned developments you cannot reduce
setbacks along the perimeter of the project, because they wanted to match up with what
next door might not be a planned development. My understanding is the only
encroachment is three feet of the balcony into the required 20-foot setback. Is that -- or
15-foot. I'm sorry. Yes. Fifteen foot setback. The ordinance does have a provision to
allow balconies, specifically stated, to encroach into required setbacks up to two feet.
So, by -- if we were shifting the -- the entire building forward one-foot, the balcony would
project into the required setback two feet, which is allowed by ordinance. Is that
confusing?
Wardle: No. Madam Mayor, follow up?
Siddoway: It's four feet?
De Weerd: Well, maybe we need to ask the applicant, instead of having this dialogue
going on back and forth.
Wardle: Then, if the Council would agree, I would ask the applicant --
De Weerd: Okay.
Ralphs: I just indicated I would provide some -- some cites for that. It's Meridian Title
12-6-6, going down to -- oh, no. And, then, go down to 11-9 at 0-1 and you would also
look at 0-2. The following encroachment shall be permitted in any rear yard, an
unroofed balcony in the rear yard provided that such balconies shall project no more
than four feet into such yard. And what we had asked is if we could get two more feet
on that balcony, again, to get us up to the hundred feet and that's by sliding the building
forward and so we are not right there looking over the fence into someone else's
backyard. Or going with our 12-foot setback in the back. And I just -- I understand
there is some pretty strong sentiment about not making a change for that periphery, but
as I point out, there seems to be just a bit of a discrepancy in the code that's easily
fixed, but it appears that on one hand you can change the setbacks and on another you
can't. In either event, if we are allowed to slide the buildings forward, we would ask for
two more feet for a variance here on 11-9-0-2, which would allow us to have a six foot
balcony into the yard, but, then, also on the front, just because of the depth of our units,
they are 37 feet deep, we have got a stair well that comes down, as you saw in the
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 61 of 76
elevations from the top floor that goes straight out and it, actually, extends out from the
front footprint three and a half feet and so we are allowed to do two, but if we move it up
closer, then, we would need that extra foot and a half for the stairs. Does that help?
Wardle: Sure.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, the correct code is 11-9-2, D-2.
De Weerd: I just had a clarification, Mr. Ralphs, if I can ask you.
Ralphs: Sure.
De Weerd: On the open space, where -- I don't know when you talk about the private
space and you're including the porches or --
Ralphs: The balcony only.
De Weerd: -- balcony, is that part of the open space as well?
Ralphs: No.
De Weerd: Is that just for private --
Ralphs: It is not part of our calculation. Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Anything further, Council?
Bird: It didn't answer Shaun's question.
De Weerd: Did that answer your question, Shaun? Or is that clear as mud?
Wardle: Madam Mayor, it answered my question. I guess the question on how we
make it happen is up to us now.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ralphs: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no further discussion, I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
(
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 62 of 76
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearings on 15, 16 and 17 on the Rock Creek
Subdivisions.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items
15, 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion? Or motion. On Item 15. Mr. Rountree. Mr. Wardle?
Rountree: I was just going to -- Madam Mayor, I was just going to make a comment. It
would be helpful for me to -- if one of us knew the numbers on the setbacks and it's -- I
think Shaun has got it figured out, if you want to do that. If not, we can struggle along.
Wardle: 1111 tell you what -- because I donlt think we need them for the rezone or the
preliminary plat, so I will make those motions, if someone wants to look them up. Okay.
Let's do the first one. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: I move that we approve RZ 04-002, rezone for Rock Creek Subdivision.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 15. Is there any
further discussion? Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, if I could ask the attorney for some specifics -- reference that
code again for me, please.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if may first ask some questions of my
own.
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 63 of 76
Nichols: If I understand correctly, if the balcony can extend four feet into the rear yard
setback, then, there is no setback problem with this development, because the
testimony from Mr. Siddoway was the balconies extended three feet into the setback
and now that code section specifically says they may extend four feet. So, apparently
we have -- I have missed something here.
De Weerd: We are having a team huddle there.
Bird: It might be midnight, but we will get done.
De Weerd: Thank you for the question, Mr. Nichols.
Siddoway: Okay. I'm going to try and work my way through this. It is even more
complicated than I thought. Okay. The box represents the building and --
De Weerd: Who is the artist?
Siddoway: The front setback is currently 15 from the sidewalk, but they were asking for
an encroachment of three and a half feet for the -- on, no. How many feet for the
stairs? For the stairs. Three and a half. Okay. Yeah. A three and a half foot
encroachment for the stairs project into that front. The rear -- they have the rear
designed as a 12 foot setback from the building to the property line and the full six feet
width of the balcony projects over that, so they were saying that a four foot allowed
projection, they would ask for an additional two. Now, if we say there has to be a full 15
feet of setback that shifts the project towards the front an additional three feet, which
would provide 12 feet from the front of the building, still having a three and a half foot
encroachment within that 12 feet for the stairs, but the balcony is still a full six feet wide
and they would have the four feet allowed by the ordinance cited by Mr. Nary -- or Nary,
['m sorry. The attorney Mr. Nichols and -- but there was an additional two feet beyond
that. I was just pointed out that these setbacks are measured from the back of sidewalk
to the front of the building.
De Weerd: Well, sure would seem with the six foot balcony, it would really limit what you
could do on the other property with the balcony being that close, so I -- I donit know. I'd
almost like to see you push it up towards the sidewalk. But, you know, of course, I donit
have a vote.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have got to comment before Shaun makes his deal. I would agree also, I think
we need the 15 foot in the back and I can live with the 12 in the front, with even the
three and a half, because that gives us nine foot from that balcony to the actual property
line, if we go to the six foot balcony, so -- and [ -- I just feel that it's more neighborly to
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 64 of 76
do' something like that and to bring it up, you're losing three foot off of the front. Three
foot of front yard isn't that much in my book.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Very nicely said. Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Wardle: I will attempt to clarify this in my motion. I move that we approve PP 04-005,
preliminary plat for Rock Creek Subdivision, to include all staff, applicant, and public
comments. In addition to the plat to approve on the perimeter boundary -- or, excuse
me, to keep the 15 foot setback on the perimeter boundary, allowing an additional two
feet of patio to encroach upon that, to reduce the front setback to 12 feet, and allow an
additional three and a half feet of stairway to encroach upon that.
Bird: Second.
Wardle: And, in addition, if the second will agree, the walking path mentioned before
along Nine Mile.
Bird: Easements? Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Any discussion on the bollards? Or
connection to the --
Nary: Emergency exits.
De Weerd: Do the emergency exits? Just keep it as proposed.
Wardle: Yeah.
comments.
Madam, I believe it was part of the staff, applicant, and public
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further comments? Mr. Clerk?
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle?
Wardle: I move that we approve CUP 04-006, Conditional Use Permit for Rock Creek
Subdivision, to include all staff, applicant, and public comments and, in addition, to
include the applicant comments regarding the 100 feet of individual open space and to
approve, again, 15 foot rear setbacks, with the two foot encroachment for patio, 12 foot
front setbacks with the three and a half foot encroachment for the stair case.
!
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 65 of 76
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 17. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18:
Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies
De Weerd: Okay. Item 18 is the water, sewer and trash delinquency. This is to inform
you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a pre-termination hearing at
7:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 1st, 2004, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in
person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city that your
water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be
discontinued on August 1 st, 2004, unless payment is received in full. August 1 st? Is
that wrong? Unless payment is received in fulL Is there anyone present who wishes to
contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Hearing none, they are hereby
informed that they may appeal and have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth
Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their
water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $16,489.81. Okay. Any
discussion? How about a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the delinquency turn off schedule for June 2nd in the
amount of $16,489.81.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 18. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19:
Continued from May 25,2004: Ordinance No.
Parks and Recreation Commission Ordinance:
04-1080
De Weerd: Item 19 is continued from May 25th, Ordinance No. 04-1080 for the Parks
and Recreation Commission ordinance. I guess where we left off is Council had not all
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 66 of 76
had a chance to take a look at the final amended draft or organized draft and -- do you
have comment?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think part of the discussion that we had previously was a provision regarding a
youth member--
Bird: Yes.
Nary: -- and I guess my comment would be is that provision of the Code -- it looks like it
would be 2-2-1, subsection B-4. There is an additional line added into that code that
says: And an additional position may be added to represent youth which may be, at the
time of the appointment under 18 years of age. I guess my preference would be to add
that -- take that line out of section four and put it in section three. Section three is the
general requirement of both residency for both within the city limits and without,
members of the area of impact, but they are all full members. My particular purpose is
that if there is a youth member that is selected for the board, that they be a voting
member, just like the other members of the commission. So, if we took that line out of
section four, then, actually, we wouldn't be -- other than one amendment, deletion of the
work and in that section, all of the positions, the Council member, the parks director, the
member of the joint school district, are ex-officio members, but the youth member could
be a voting member if selected to be on the board. That's the only change I noted.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I had several in 2.2.3, the duties talk
about to work in conjunction with the parks department and to advise the Mayor, but as
you read further down, it starts to have some conflicts. It says to advise the parks and
recreation commission, department staff, the city, and the mayor in A-1. Then, in a
further one it talks about that the parks and recreation commission shall be deemed
advisory and report to the Mayor and City Council, which struck out parks and
recreation director. [t talks about -- so, you know, there is just inconsistencies in 2-2-4
on the fees it says make recommendation subject to approval by. I think that's already
been established that it's advisory. So, they can do all they want, it's still advisory. But
-- so just to clean that up and make those more consistent. I guess, secondly,
budgetary is a large priority or it was since the inception of the commission and it's kind
of lost in item A. I would like to see that item as B under duties, instead of part of A
under supervision of recreation areas, that it has its -- its own item and also 14 might be
another possible addition to a duty, as it can appoint members to sub committees and
focus on specific areas. That seems to be separate as well to supervision of recreation
areas. Then, they deleted B, which talks about reports, and, J'm sorry, I'm one of those
anal people who feel that our commission should be making reports to this Council that
they are advisory to, in forms of their recommendations and also in forms of an annual
report to bring accountability and also direction as to the direction of the commission.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 67 of 76
S6, I don't know why that was taken out. And, then, Band C on page five of six seem a
little redundant. So, those are my comments.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, I believe that the monthly reports that were stricken was one
that was to come from the parks and recreation director and so it didn't really have
anything to do with the commission itself. And I believe that was one of the reasons it
was stricken.
De Weerd: Well, the last part of that did say the parks and recreation commission
chairman will submit an annual report to Mayor and Council. And I really like that part
and it hasn't really happened with our current director, where the report from the
commission got a little bit changed when that report was given to Council. So, the need
is not as clear that they should represent their own opinion. But I still would put that out
for discussion by Council on how they would like that best to be presented to them.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I do agree on certain items here, but I believe this is something that the
commission worked hard on themselves. I do, I like the yearly report. I don't believe we
have ever had an annual report and we have all sat as liaisons. Usually, the liaison has
come back with a monthly report at times if anything has been brought up. I just think
that this is a -- reading this against our old one, I just think this is 180 times better. les
not perfect. It's based off of a -- off of an ordinance that has been successful for upteen
years in another city, that has a very active parks and recreation commission, and I
think we will find out real fast how active our parks and recreation commission wants to
be by having this. It is an advisory board to the Mayor and the Council. It -- you know, I
don't think it's -- it's not taking any power away from the director, but, in the same token,
it's helping, I believe, the director and it's helping the city, because you're having seven
people jump in there. I -- I know there is probably some flaws in here and I agree with
you on a couple of the items, but on the overall, the redo of it is much stronger and
much better, as far as I'm concerned, than what our old one was.
De Weerd: I would agree with you, Mr. Bird. Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: The one -- as I'm rereading this, since we are looking at this again -- and I think
this is -- this is similar to what's in the Boise City Code, but what I'm reading is in 2-2-
3,B, it says all actions of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall be subject to
approval by the Mayor and Council and after such approval shall have the force and
effect of ordinance. And I guess I'm not -- I'm not comfortable with that language, only
because I don't know that we can really -- I don't know that we can say that an action of
Meridian City Council
June 1 , 2004
Page 68 of 76
the commission, if we approve it, without what the method is to approve it, that that is
similar to an ordinance. If it's an ordinance ies a crime, a violation of it would, then, be
prosecutable and J think the language is fuzzy for what that's intended. [think it's -- if
the Mayor and the Council approve of an action and want it to be an ordinance, then,
they have to pass an ordinance.
Bird: Where is that at?
Nary: 2-2-3,B.
Rountree: B. How about have the force as enacted by the Council?
Nary: Yeah. J mean the action, I think, ultimately is ours. I mean -- and so it's really a
responsibility of action is the Mayor and the Council's, not the commission. They, again,
are making an advisory decision or recommendation and, then, if the Mayor and Council
want to approve that, then, if we want it to have the force of ordinance, then, we would
pass an ordinance. If we don't want it to have that or we wanted to have some other
impact, then, we should just say what that is. But I don't know whether by ordinance -- [
guess I'm afraid of having -- and we have dealt with this occasionally in Boise, of having
posted rules in the park that we try to enforce as crime, that aren't incorporated into an
ordinance specifically as to what they are. And I don't know that that's what's intended.
I guess that's just the way I read that, that it may be going beyond what we really want
the parks and recreation commission to do and, really, the burden should be upon us to
pass an ordinance specifically to address whatever they recommend.
De Weerd: And I think they did get this from Boise.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh. Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I -- Bill, I'm glad you brought that up, because that is a very very good point.
Yeah, I don't want to -- I think whatever we are going to try adhere to, we better have an
ordinance to cover it, and thaes up to us to make that. They could give us a
recommendation, but, J don't know, this is a much better tool than what we had. And,
like I say, there is flaws in it that we can probably work out, but we need to get it worked
out and changed and get done.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Where did you want to jump shift 2-2-3, A-8?
De Weerd: I'd like to see that as its own item, as item B, and just title it budget and -- so
it's -- it's listed as a primary function.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 69 of 76
Rountree: Could that wording be fashioned into that duties statement? Because it
seems to me that's more appropriately a duty than a separate paragraph.
De Weerd: Yes.
Rountree: And I agree with those points that you have raised about your read of being
inconsistent and your changes probably make that easier to administer for all of us.
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, on the annual report from the Parks and Recreation
Commission I just noticed that we had moved that provision under subparagraph C,
which is on page five of six. So, there is still a provision for submitting an annual report.
De Weerd: Well, thank you.
Nichols: And, then, to -- with regard to 2-2-3, A, which is supervision of recreation areas,
and, then, I think what we need to do there is just simply revise that and take that part of
it out and just say -- just remove that supervision of recreation area -- and those are all
duties, and, then, we have got all the duties, which includes the budgetary function and
the rest of those things and, then, it becomes a checklist for the commission to go
through, instead of knowing the budget is off in this part and everything else is in
another part. That would seem to flow a little better. We just simply strike those words
supervision of recreation areas.
Rountree: Because all of those things are duties and supervision.
Nichols: If you want us to, we can change it and put budget number one or something
like that, but I think this way it becomes kind of a laundry list for them to go through.
Bird: I think it's a good idea.
De Weerd: That would clarify it. I guess, then, the only thing I see, you know, subject to
approval by Mayor and City Council, I think that's pretty clear when it says that it's
advisory to Mayor and Council and that any recommendations or ordinance changes
would be subject to approval, but -- so if that could be cleaned up. And just to, you
know, clean up duties it says work in conjunction with parks department staff to advise
Mayor and City Council, that should be also consistent through this as well. And those
would be, I think, then --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 70 of 76
Bird: If you're going to delay this, I want to add something in there. I want it known that
the meetings will be run under the Rules of Roberts. We need to get that in all our
commission meetings.
De Weerd: Okay. And that means that the Council liaison can insure the Rules of
Roberts.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the only people I know that really
know Roberts Rules of Order are our committee chairman in the legislature and FFA
kids who go to these parliamentarian debates.
De Weerd: No. Union people do, too.
Nichols: Okay.
Bird: Any ex-president of the Meridian Athletic Association knows it, too, because they
get a book when they get elected.
Nichols: But, anyway, I don't know that you want to tie -- I would advocate that you not--
despite my friend -- or Councilman Bird's attention, if you want to tie them down to
Robert's Rules of Order, because, then, you get into whether it's a motion to lay on the
table or a motion to postpone to a date certain and some other things, they can get
pretty well hung up, when the whole idea is to make sure that when they do take an
action that everybody understands the action that they are taking and particularly where
they are a recommending body, rather than an adopting body, some of the formalities
may not be quite so strict. If there are particular issues that you wise to address, then,
maybe we can address it through a training session on the Parks and Recreation
Commission or with the chairman or some particular things to help their meetings move
along or address some of the issues that maybe come up and so I would -- before we
put it into the ordinance, maybe we try a little education first.
Bird: I pull my motion.
De Weerd: Okay. He will withdraw his comments.
Bird: I withdraw my comment.
Berg: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Berg: If I could add my two bits -- or, actually, three points.
De Weerd: You bet, Will.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 71 of 76
Berg: Draw your attention to 2-2-A, in the last sentence it talks about staff support being
from secretarial service. I want to just make it clear that the city clerk's department will
do anything that we can to help that department, especially for noticing any other kind of
recordkeeping that we need to do. I don't know if you need to have it in there, but we
will support that.
De Weerd: Doug, you have that on public record. Use it.
Berg: On B just below it, it talks about the commission adopting bylaws, rules, and
regulations for proper conduct of the business, so I don't know if you got into the
Robert's Rules of Order or whatever you may have, they may have separate bylaws that
they can adopt and have the Council approve as far as how they are going to run their
meetings and so maybe you can look at their bylaws if they have some currently or
whatever it may be.
Bird: Bill is going to give them a lesson.
Berg: And, then, the last item is if you want to make this a structured commission, like
the Planning and Zoning Commission, on 2-2-5 that talks about the meetings, I would
suggest that you set meeting dates, one that we don't have to try to make sure we
publish a notice that we are having a meeting, because that's what has to be done right
now, if they are meeting on the second Wednesday, and do that. We don't have to
have a public hearing to change this ordinance, we can change it like we have in the
City Council and the P&Z, but that would make it very structured for anybody that says
when does the P&Z -- or P&R Commission meets, we can say the second Wednesday
of each month at city hall at such and such. If it varies from that, then, we can do a
notice. That would probably keep the burden of trying to keep up with the notices for
the secretarial staff or the parks and rec. department. Those are my only just structural
suggestions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Will. Anyone else? How about you, Doug? Any comment?
Strong: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there has been quite a lot of work put
in the ordinance and I think the suggestions I'm hearing would make it read clearly and I
can't think of anything else that I would add to it.
De Weerd: Thank you. Well, Councilman Nary wants to withhold any further comment,
so he can change it again.
Nary: No. No.
De Weerd: There are bylaws and they probably haven't been visited since Keith and I
stepped off the commission. That's probably how old they are. Doug, are you familiar
with any bylaws?
Strong: I am not. I have not ever seen them at this point.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 72 of 76
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I recall that during my tenure we briefly revisited them, so I
know that there has been knowledge of them, probably not much work done, but they
can certainly -- that would, obviously, be the next step.
De Weerd: If you can resurrect your copy, either that or I'll have to dig for mine. I'm
sure I still have them. Okay. Is there -- and, you know, just for clarification, Mr. Bird, I
know in my tenure as president and Mr. Moe's tenure as president annual reports did
happen.
Bird: Yes. I agree with you. But they haven't happened for -- in your tenure as liaison
or my tenure as liaison or --
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Moe was during my tenure and, yes, he did submit reports.
Bird: One year he wasn't.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Anyway --
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Well, we will put this on what seems a reasonable time
frame, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam Mayor, I believe we could probably have this on next week. My only
question is I need to -- if I may. I need clarification on how you want to address the
actions of the parks and recreation commission shall be subject to approval by the
Mayor and Council. Do you want to have -- do you want me to change that language to
say -- I think [ know what was intended and what was intended was if they decided to
put up a sign in the park that said no smoking or something, that -- and it came to you
and you said, okay, we agree to smoking in the parks, that you wouldn't necessarily
have to pass an ordinance, but if you want us to address each one of those regulations
by ordinance forum as a method of approval, then, I would be glad to change the
language to say -- and after such approval by enacting an ordinance, I mean that's kind
of redundant to, then, say shall have the force and effect or ordinance. But however
you wish to do it, why we will reflect it accordingly. I just need a little more clarification
from Council.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess, Mr. Nichols, I think -- I think it either isn't necessary, because if they are
making a recommendation to the Council and we agree with it, then, we would either
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 73 of 76
en"act an ordinance or we need it as part of this ordinance a method in which to
criminalize rules and regulations. That their either be a provision that allows that to be
an action we can take or we don't need it. So, either one of those scenarios is fine with
me, I just -- the way it's written it doesn't have -- it doesn't feel to me -- it-feels like it's
overreaching without having some -- some teeth in this ordinance that says when we
pass something or we agree with a recommendation for some rule and regulation that
there is some ordinance provision that says we can point to a judge and say here is our
-- here is the substance of reason why this is an ordinance and this is a crime. Or it isn't
necessary, because they will just recommend it and we will create an ordinance for it.
Either one of those things. It doesn't matter to me. I don't know what the rest of the
Council's preference is and I didn't hear anybody else on the youth member on whether
or not we want to be a voting member, if we select one.
Bird: I want it to be voting. If a youth is going to be here, I want them to be able to vote.
Nary: Sure.
De Weerd: I heard all the heads nod.
Rountree: Uh-huh. Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay.
Strong: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Strong: To address the question of ordinance, I need a clarification. As I recall when we
worked on the general park ordinance last year, we had a provision that any rule that
we would post at the park would be brought forward as a recommendation from the
commission as a resolution and, then, we could post rules in a park to regulate activity.
So, that's the way we have been pursuing it since then and we have done that on a
couple of occasions with different things and that seems to me like that would cover this
question of anything that we would need to enact to be enforceable within a park setting
or a recreation environment.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. And that -- that rings a bell, Doug. I didn't remember the language in it,
because this code that we have on our laptop isn't updated. That includes that. And
that may be adequate. We may just need a cross-reference and Mr. Nichols can check
to see whether or not there is some language we can simply tie the actions of the
commission here to that other ordinance that allows that to become an ordinance for the
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 74 of 76
pu"rposes of enforcement and I just don't know what that language is, so -- I'm sure Bill
can check that out.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue Item 19 until June 8, 2004.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table Item 19 -- or continue 19 to
June 8. All in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Ordinance No. AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier SprinQs
Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - North of East Victory Road
and east of South Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. So, Mr. Clerk, would the next ordinance be number 04-1080 or one?
Berg: Madam Mayor, I'd prefer that we go to eight zero, so we can keep in consistency
of how we approve them.
De Weerd: Okay.
Berg: Because if we continue this on, we might have a couple more ordinances that
goes in front of the parks.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Could you, please, read this ordinance by title only.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 04-1080, an
Ordinance finding that Jim Cobble and Shirley Cobble, the owners of certain real
property generally located on the north side of Victory Road East and South Meridian
Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Glacier Springs Subdivision and which lies
contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land
be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Low Density Residential
District (R-4) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described
below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all
ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the
city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and
directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and
map of the areas to be annexed with the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer, and
Meridian City Council
June 1,2004
Page 75 of 76
assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code
Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215.
De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this ordinance by title only. Is there anyone in
these empty seats that would like to hear it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I would
entertain a motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 20, Ordinance 04-1080, with suspension of
rules.
Bird: I'll second that.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve this Item No. 20. Mr. Clerk, will
you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Nary, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. And I just wanted to make note that the ITD meeting we have
are 20 minutes of fame in front of the board is on June 18th at 3:00 p.m. Please mark it
in your calendars.
Bird: That's AIC.
De Weerd: It is, but you need to be there.
Bird: At their building?
Rountree: No. It's at District Ill's office, I believe, is the --
Bird: At District III? Is that on Chinden?
Rountree: It's on Chinden.
De Weerd: Okay. And so, please, let all your friends know that want Ten Mile
Interchange to be there. They won't get to talk, but they can sure show public support.
Bird: And we won't be down to the thing. Don't forget to remind us.
De Weerd: I would accept any comments on the scope of work draft that I gave you
from -- on the Ten Mile Interchange and next meeting I'd like to discuss the burning
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 76 of 76
ordinance, because we have a burning issue here to get it done. And I would like to
show you the fine work that our -- both our police and fire officers did on a CD that I
have every 15 minutes and I think it's about 15 or 20 minutes to show and so I'd like to
give you that at next pre-Council as well. Anything further?
Nichols: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: If you can -- just back to the parks matter. I think we have a way, if you can
open up two browsers, since you're hooked into the internet with these network cables,
you can pull up the city code online, along with your other stuff here, so I did that and
the -- we have adopted a definition for a park rule that says particular rules or codes of
conduct the parks and recreation has adopted and the City Council has designated by
resolution as those for which a violation may lead to exclusion from a city park. So, I
think we change that one section in the draft by inserting the words by resolution, that
will take care of those kinds. Anything else is going to have to be by ordinance.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Okay. Council?
Bird: How do we get that at home?
De Weerd: You have on it on your e-mail.
Nary: No. It's a different -- from what Mr. Berg has said before the meeting is if you
have dial up, you have a different web address.
De Weerd: I know. It's in our e-mail. Terry sent it in your e-mail.
Nary: Today?
De Weerd: Uh-huh. This afternoon.
Nary: Oh. Okay.
De Weerd: So, if you have any questions, please -- you know, you might try it between
now and Friday, so if you have any questions we have an opportunity to respond. We
should adjourn, so, then, we can talk.
Bird: Move we adjourn.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
June 1, 2004
Page 77 of 76
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:06 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
~~
MAYOR T Y DE WEERD
\\\Inl1llrIJI/1
\\\\ C M.Z- III1
,\\ _lOr Jt::.8!.,......II//
,'- .{ -.. Uf"", //
,'- \.' "'11 .-
.$' (j O't\POl1'"j )'; '/' ~
~ ~CJ <"'<:--0 ~
::: ~ -::.
- -
- -
- -
= ~
ATTEST:
I~
, CITY CLEFK
-;:.
6 / !'?/ &1-
DATE APPROVED
"
-
-
-
c
May"27,2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT Tuscany Development, Inc.
AZ 03-024
June 1 , 2004
ITEM NO. 5-t.
REQUEST Development Agreement - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT
to R-4 zones for Glacier Springs Subdivision -- north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian
Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
See attached Development Agreement
-vJ..l
~nryfV
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Contacted:
Emailed:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~;
ADA COUNTY RECORDER J, DAVID NAVARRO
BOISE IDAHO 06110/04 04:26 PM
DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig
RECORDED-REQUEST OF
Meri di an City
AMOUNT ,DO
35
111/111111I1111111111111 J 111111111111
104073(130
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
PARTIES: 1.
2.
3.
City of Meridian
Jim Cobble and Shirley Cobble, Owners
Tuscany Development, Inc., Developer
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREE~~~this "Agreement"), is made and
entered into this 2B-r!::. dayof Ilpr/Z ,24(B, by and between CITY OF
MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called "CITY', and
JIM COBBLE and SHIRLEY COBBLE, whose address is 15 North Ridgeway, Jerome,
Idaho 83338, hereinafter called "OWNERS", and Tuscany Development, Inc., whose
address is 660 E. Franklin, Suite 240, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereinafter called
"DEVELOPER" .
1.
RECITALS:
1.1 WHEREAS, "OWNERS" are the sole owners, in law and/or
equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho,
described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto
and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full,
herein after referred to as the "Property"; and
1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. 9 67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities
may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re-zoning
that the "Owners" or "Developer" make a written commitment
concerning the use or development of the subject "Property"; and
1.3 WHEREAS, "City" has exercised its statutory authority by the
enactment of Ordinance 11-15-12 and 11-16-4 A, which authorizes
development agreements upon the annexation and/or re-zoning of
land; and
1.4 WHEREAS, "Owners" and "Developer" have submitted an
application for annexation and zoning of the "Property's"
described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of (R-4)
Low Density Residential District, (Municipal Code of the City of
Meridian); and
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 1 OFf te
1.5 WHEREAS', "Owners" and "Developer" made representations at
the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning
Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the
subject "Property" will be developed and what improvements will
be made; and
1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested
annexation and zoning designation of the subj ect "Property" held
before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently
before the City Council, include responses of government
subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian
planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and conunent;
and
1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the c9S-th day of
Novem beY" , 2003, has approved certain Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth
in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as
(the "Findings"); and
1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the "Owners" and "Developer"
to enter into a development agreement before the City Council
takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and
1.9 "OWNERS" and "DEVELOPER" deem it to be in its best
interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges
that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging
and requests; and
1.9 WHEREAS, "City" requires the "Owners" and "Developer" to
enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring
that the "Property" is developed and the subsequent use of the
"Property" is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
development agreement, herein being established as a result of
evidence received by the "City" in the proceedings for annexation
and zoning designation from government subdivisions providing
services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property
owners and to ensure ailllexation and zoning designation is in
accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE20F1/8
"r,
Meridian adopted August 6,2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the
Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian City
Code Title 11 and Title 12.
NO\V, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions
set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are
contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
3. DEFINIJ'IONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words,
terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defmed and interpreted as
herein provided for, unless the clear context ofthe presentation ofthe same requires
otherwise:
3.1 "CITY": means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this
Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government
subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue
oflaw ofthe State ofIdaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho
Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642.
3.2 "OWNERS": means and refers to Jim Cobble and Shirley Cobble,
whose address is 15 North Ridgeway, Jerome, Idaho 83338, the
parties developing said "Property" and shall include any
subsequent owner(s)/developer(s) of the "Property".
3.3 "DEVELOPER": means and refers to Tuscany Development,
Inc., whose address is 660 E. Franklin, Suite 240, Meridian, Idaho
83642, the party developing said "Property" and shall include any
subsequent owner( s)/ developer( s) of the "Property".
3.4 "PROPERTY": means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of
"Property" located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as
described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be annexed and
zoned R -4, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein as if set forth at length.
4.
USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 3 OF/IS
4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses
allowed under "City's" Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City
Code Section 11-7-2 (E and H) which are herein specified as follows:
Construction and development of 52 building lots and 8 other
lots on 17.5 acres, in proposed R-4 zone.
4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed
without modification oftms Agreement.
5. DEVELOPMENT IN CONDITIONAL USE: "Owners" and
"Developer" have submitted to "City' an application for conditional use permit, and shall
be required to obtain the "City's" approval thereof, in accordance to the City's Zoning &
Development Ordinance criteria, therein, provided, prior to, and as a condition of, the
conunencement of construction of any buildings or improvements on the "Property" that
require a conditional use permit.
6. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY:
6.A "Owners" and "Developer" shall develop the "Property" in accordance with the
following special conditions:
A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as
follows:
1. The minimum home square footages shall be restricted to 2,000 square feet for a
single-level home or for a two-level home (not including the garage), with an 8,000
square foot minimum lot size with approval as R-4 zoning.
B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as
follows:
1. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project from
their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are
available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes
such as landscape irrigation.
C. Adopt the Recommendations ofthe ACHD as follows:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 4 OF,r Ie
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Dedicate by donation a total of 35-feet of right-of-way from centerline along
Victory Road, and construct a minimum 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk along
Victory Road, located a minimum of28- feet from the centerline of the right-of-
way.
b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide
concrete sidewalk along Victory Road, located a minimum of28-feet from the
centerline of the right-of-way, in an easement provided to the District.
c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide
concrete sidewalk along Victory Road, located at the back edge ofthe existing right-
of-way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing
drainage and utilities.
2. Construct South Trinidad Drive to intersect Victory Road approximately 140-feet
east of the west property line (measured from property line to near edge of the
public right-of-way).
3. Extend Loggers Pass Street into the site from the west property line, as proposed.
4. Construct Trinidad Drive (from Victory Road to East Loggers Pas Drive) and
Loggers Pass Drive as 36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete
sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-way, as proposed.
5. Construct East Forest Ridge Court, FaIlingbranch Court and East Trinidad Drive
(from Loggers Pass Street to the north) as 29-foot street section with curb, gutter
and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within 42-feet of right-of-way, as proposed.
6. Construct two standard residential cul-de-sacs without center islands. Provide a
minimum turning radius of 45-feet.
7. Construct one non-standard residential cul-de-sac without a center island. Submit
a design of the non-standard turnaround for review and approval by District
Development Division staff.
8. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE50F7(g
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the
site shall be borne by the developer.
3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be
damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact
Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details.
4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless
approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at
387-6258 (with file numbers) for details.
5_ All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway
District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements,
Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless
specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State ofIdaho shall
prepare and certify all improvement plans.
6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of
building permit (or other required permits), which incolporates any required
design changes_
7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all
applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District
approval for occupancy.
8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction
in accordance with Ordinance # 197, also known as Ada County Highway District
Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the
right-of-way_ The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities
damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-
800-342-1585) at least t\.vo full business days prior to breaking ground within
ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-
6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 6 OF J{ ,6
10. No change in the terms and conditions ofthis approval shall be valid unless they
are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized
representative and an authorized representative ofthe Ada County Highway
District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of
any change from the Ada County Highway District.
1 L Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the
subject oftrus application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules,
regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at
the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of
its intent to change the planned use ofthe subject property unless a
waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to
the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
D. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows:
The following will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide minimum levels of fire
protection for the proposed project:
1. That a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute be available to service the entire project.
Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart.
2. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins.
3. Acceptance of water supply for fire protection is contingent upon acceptance of the
water system by the City of Meridian for water quality.
4. All radii shall be 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
E. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows:
1. The District requires a Lane Use Change Application to be filed for review prior to
final platting.
2. All laterals and waste ways must be protected.
3. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage
leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 7 OF 7' {8
4. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805.
5. Should the development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be
owned, operated and maintained by the District, contact the District concerning the
installation of the pressure system.
6. Fill out and return the questiOllllaire in order to initiate the process of contractual
agreements between the owner and developer and the District for the ownership,
operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
F. Adopt the City Council action taken at their November 12,2003 meeting as follows:
1. The zoning is approved as R-4 and not the requested R-8.
2. The applicant is to submit a revised Landscape Plan and Preliminary Plat to
the Planning and Zoning Department for their approval.
Additionally, the applicant shall comply with the Preliminary Plat recommendations
and conditions for Case No. PP-03-028.
7. COMPLIANCE PERIOD I CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement
and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation
reversed, upon a default of the "Owners" and "Developer" or "Owners" and
"Developer's" heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 6 entitled "Conditions
Governing Development" of subject "Property" of this agreement within two years ofthe
date this Agreement is effective, and after the "City" has complied with the notice and
hearing procedures as outlined in I.C. 9 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or
recodifications thereof.
8. CONSENT TO DE-ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF
ZONING DESIGNATION:
"Owners" and "Developer" consent upon default to the de-annexation
and/or a reversal of the zoning designation of the "Property" subject to and conditioned
upon the following conditions precedent to-wit:
8.1 That the "City" provide written notice of any failure to comply
with this Agreement to "Owners" and "Developer" and if the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 8 OF% 18
"Owners" and "Developer" fails to cure such failure within six (6)
months of such notice.
9. INSPECTION: "Owners" and "Developer" shall, immediately upon
completion of any portion or the entirety of said development ofthe "Property" as
required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and
request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed
improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the "City" that apply to said
Development.
10.
DEFAULT:
10.1 In the event "Owners" and "Developer", "Owners" and
"Developer's" heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of
the "Property" or any other person acquiring an interest in the
"Property", fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and
conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the
"Property", this Agreement may be modified or terminated by the
"City" upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
10.2 A waiver by "City" of any default by "Owners" and "Developer" of
anyone or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply
solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any
other rights or remedies of "City" or apply to any subsequent
breach of any such or other covenants and conditions.
11. REQillREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a
memorandum ofthis Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at
"Owners" and "Developer's" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Owners" and
"Developer", prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection
with the annexation and zoning of the "Property" by the City Council. lffor any reason
after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with
the annexation and zoning ofthe "Property" contemplated hereby, the "City" shall
execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement.
12. ZONING: "City" shall, following recordation of the duly approved
Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the "Property" as specified
herein.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 9 OF.9' (8
13. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of
competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Owners" and "Developer", or by any
successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may
be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance
ofthe covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein.
13.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties
agree that "City" and "Owners" and "Developer" shall have thirty
(30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same
prior to the non-breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided
for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default
which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day
period, ifthe defaulting party shall commence to cure the same
within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the
curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed
to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be
necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and
continuity.
13.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed
hereunder by either "Owner" and "Developer" or "City" is delayed
for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party
responsible for such performance, which shall include, without
limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the
time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time
of such delay.
14. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The "City" may also require surety
bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as
allowed under Meridian City Code ~ 12-5-3, to insure that installation ofthe
improvements, which the "Owners" and "Developer" agrees to provide, if required by the
"City" .
15. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The "Owners" and "Developer"
agree that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are
completed, unless the "City" and "Owners" and "Developer" have entered into an
addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased
developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in
which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the "City".
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 10 OF rer IS
16. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That "Owners" and
"Developer" agrees to abide by all ordinances ofthe City of Meridian and the "Property"
shall be subj ect to de-mmexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not
meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this
Development Agreement, and the Ordinances ofthe City of Meridian.
17. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this
Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days
after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return
receipt requested, addressed as follows:
CITY:
OWNERS:
c/o City Engineer
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Jim and Shirley Cobble
15 North Ridgeway
Jerome, Idaho 83338
with copy to:
DEVELOPER:
City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Tuscany Development, Inc.
660 E. Franklin, Suite 240
Meridian, Idaho 83642
17.1
A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the
other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
18. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the
parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in
addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's
fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed
to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or
forfeiture ofthis Agreement.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 11 OF y( 18
19. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and
agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition
and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations
hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other
party so failing to perform.
20. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and
personal representatives, including "City's" corporate authorities and their successors in
office. This Agreement shall be binding on the "Owners" and "Developer" of the
"Property", each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the
"Property". Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation ofthe "Property",
or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions
hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefitted and bOlmd by the
conditions and restrictions herein expressed. "City" agrees, upon written request of
"Owners" and "Developer", to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of
tennination ofthis Agreement if "City", in its sole and reasonable discretion, had
determined that "Owners" and "Developer" has fully performed its obligations under this
Agreement.
21. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision ofthis Agreement is held not
valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised
from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any ofthe other provisions
contained herein.
22. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises,
inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Owners" and
"Developer" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises,
agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied,
between "Owners" and "Developer" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except
as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to
this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and
signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect
to "City", to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of "City".
22.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development
ofthe subject "Property" herein provided for can be modified or amended
without the approval of the City Council after the "City" has conducted
public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 12 OF % (8
zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed
amendment.
23. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be
effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the
Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the
"Property" and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 13 OF}.3'" (lJ
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IN" WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this
agreement and Made it effective as hereinabove provided.
OWNERS/COBBLE:
B\i/JiJ~
By-j]
SlllrleyCobble /'
----
DEVELOPER/TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT,
INC.:
Attest:
BY: f2-Y
-
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 14 OF J4' lt3
Attest:
STATE OF IDAHO )
: ss:
COUNTY OF )
On t~ I~ 'f-L day of M~ ' in the year 2004, before
me, _~J..M..d. fA..- d eL~ S a Notary Pub ic, personally appeared JIM AND
SIDRLEY COBBLE, husband and wife, mown or identified to me to be the persons who
executed the instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same.
'.,
t.
LINDA N. ABAMS
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF iDAHO
.' - .... ~ ...-. })"- ~
~~.~ '~..-'~.-
. _ __ ..... _ ":-":-',Jt...J. ....10.,......
;-.;i::'~.~t~~
~i..~
No Publ~ for Idaho
Residing at:--.J .I V~ IM.,J.) .
Commission expires: I~';>'l- Ie
.~
.-
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 15 OF 0' (8
STATEOFIDAHO )
:ss
COUNTY OF ADA )
On this ,;)8.JJ,. day of Jl~" I dLh <t , in the year 2004, before
me, 0'\0...-, \ fll.. L \1 OY'\t c._ a Notary ublic, personally appeared Greg Johnson and
. - ,known or identified to me to be the '))'rf'~ t'd PT\.t- and
of TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT, INC., and the persons
who executed the instrument and acknowledged to me that they have executed the same on
behalf of said TUSC~ DEVELOPMENT, INC..
~~auauugQt
..........~.. "ON Cz ............
..'" v' c.oOOOOOc. ..~
.... ~ c.t11 eo * ~
/! {q"o ~ -Q..~ ". ~
;:...:,/ f'? ,,~
(SE~: 0.(" ~ CJ ~ 0 :
:::<:~~. ..... :~:::
::. ...,,;. ~ -<9""1: -<<: ::
':. P 0.. ~'\) ",0 ~ ::
~\ De. eO. r,.~ $'
'",...)f ..O......QOO. 0......::-
"'<'<'';>119 ST A 't~ ..........
!}:::;1J.r:: t:' ~'3\l;~~1.1a
~k.o( ~
Not Public for Id'!,ho
Residing at:~o~ J~
Commission ex ires: ~ 30}
STATE OF IDAHO )
:ss
County of Ada )
(SEAL)
On this b+ day of 0~ L , in the year 2004,
before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William G. Berg,
know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian,
who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said
City, and acknowledgedJ4fliM,fipt such City executed the same.
.", ,"
~...." _,:\.CB L, J' ........4';
!I>" ,..~ ..00..... ~.t: ....
~ '\ .. .. .I> ":0
.... . "p,"
... . #'
:: ll\OTA~ ~ 'a
=*. rt:
.. : -.- . * :
= , : :
\. f.P..o., -POBL1C I S
~ :r .. ... I
~"" "1)>, .......... ~ 0 .......
........" lJ 0 F lP ~ ,........
"""HUI lIatt"
ublic for Idaho
Re d' gat: fJ1trl't/;((i\
Commission expires: ()</ b..o/C7
I I
z:\ Work\M\Meridian\M.eridian I 5360M\Glacier Springs Sub AZ-03.024 PP-03-028\DevelopAgr.doc
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 16 OF }6' (8
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION
A parcel ofland lying in the SE ~ of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East
of the Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the South 'l4 comer of Section 19, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., the REAL
POINT OF BEGINNING of this description.
Thence N 00034'26" E 1746.61 feet along the east boundary of Observation Point
Subdivision, and Meridian Greens Subdivision, to a point on the Westerly boundary of
Kachina Estates Subdivision;
Along said Boundary the following:
Thence S 50026'42" E 628.42 feet to a point;
Thence S 00022'15" W 1180.62 feet to a point;
Thence S 12021'47" E 170.89 feet to a point on the South Line of Section 19;
Thence N 89052'18" W 530.96 feet along said Section Line to the REAL POINT
OF BEGINNING of this description.
This Parcel contains 17.50 acres more or less.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 17 OF)/f (B
EXHIBIT B
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law/Conditions of Approval
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 18 OF 18
("
\...
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING OF 17.5 ACRES FOR
PROPOSED GLACIER SPRINGS
SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF VICTORY ROAD,
EAST OF SOUTH MERIDMN
ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
APPLICANT
C/C 11/12/03
Case No. AZ-03-024
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING APPLICATION FOR
AMffiXATIONANDZOMNG
on November 12,2003, at the hour of7:00 p.m., and Brad Hawkins-Clark Planner III for the
Planning and Zoning Department, and Matt Schultz, Larry Chase, Gary Sackett, Stephanie
. Howard, John Berg, and John Shay, appeared and testified, and the City Council having dilly
considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore makes the following Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Idaho Code SS 67-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code SS 11-15-5 and 11-16-1.
2. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivision and development
ordinances codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDMSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGEIOFl7
and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary.
3. The property which is the subject of the application for annexation and
zoning is described in the application, is approximately 17.5 acres in size and is located on the
north side of Victory Road, east of South Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho, all within the Area of
Impact of the City of Meridian and the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defmed in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
4. The parcel ofla.J1d is contiguous to the existing city limits of the City of Meridian.
5. The owner of record ofthe subject property is Jim and Shirley Cobble, and they
have provided notarized consent for submission of the applications. The applicant is Tuscany
Development Inc.
6. The property is presently zoned RUT (Ada County) and consists of vacant land.
7. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as R-8 (Medium Density
Residential), with approval for zoning as R-4 (Low Density Residential).
8. The subject property is bordered to the north by RUT, to the south by RUT, to the
east by RUT, and to the west by R-4.
9. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the foHowing manner:
as a residential subdivision with 52 building lots and 8 other lots.
10. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as R-8, which is
consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates
the subject property as Medium Density Residential.
FlNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDMSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 2 OF 17
11. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the
consideration oftrus application.
12. The City Council recognizes the concerns of John and Marlene Shay and Matt and
Aneke Binford in their letter to Steve Arnold dated 10/09/2003, and the Meridian Greens
Homeowners Association letter of Carla Everhart dated October 21,2003. Additionally, the
Council recognizes the concerns of Jo1m T. Berg and Jerry L. Caven in their letters dated October
6,2003 and October 8,2003.
13. Giving due cOI!sideration to the comments received from the
govenunental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction,
public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense
upon the public if the following conditions of development are imposed:
A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows:
1. Applicant must enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Meridian restricting
the minimum home square footages to 2,000 square feet for a single-level home or for a
two-level home (not including the garage), with an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size
with approval as R-4 zoning. (per action of the Council taken at their November 12, 2003
meeting.)
B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as follows:
1. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project from their
domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the
City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation.
C. Adopt the Recommendations of the ACHD as follows:
Site Specific Conditions of ApPl'oval
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONlNG FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDMSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 3 OF 17
1. The applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Dedicate by donation a total of 35-feet of right-of-way from centerline along Victory
Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory Road,
located a minimum of28- feet from the centerline of the right-of-way.
b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Victory Road, located a minimum of 28-feet from the centerline of the
right-of-way, in an easement provided to the District.
c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Victory Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way.
Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and
utilities.
2. Construct South Trinidad Drive to intersect Victory Road approximately 11 O-feet east of
the west property line (measured from property line to near edge of the public right-of-
way).
3. Extend Loggers Pass Street into the site from the west property line, as proposed.
4. Construct Trinidad Drive (from Victory Road to East Loggers Pas Drive) and Loggers
Pass Drive as 36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within
50-feet of right-of-way, as proposed.
5. Construct East Forest Ridge Court, Fallingbranch Court and East Trinidad Drive (from
Loggers Pass Street to the north) as 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot
concrete sidewalk within 42-feet of right-of-way, as proposed.
6. Construct two standard residential cul-de-sacs without center islands. Provide a
minimum turning. radius of 45-feet.
7. Construct one non-standard residential cul-de-sac without a center island. Submit a
design of the non-standard turnaround for review and approval by District Development
Division staff.
8. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDMSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 4 OF 17
2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site
shall be borne by the developer.
3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged
during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at
387-6280 (with file number) for details.
4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in
writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file
numbers) for details.
5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District
Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services
procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An
engineer registered in ~e State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building
permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for
occupancy.
8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in
accordance with Ordinance #197, also known as Ada County Highway District Road
Impact Fee Ordinance.
9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right~of~
way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the
applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two
full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant
shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare
or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in
writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an
authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon
the applicant to obtain written confumation of any change from the Ada County Highway
District.
11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subj ect of tbis
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICA nON
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDMSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 5 OF 17
plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its
successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use
of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief
is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
D. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows:
The following will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide minimum levels of tire protection
for the proposed project:
1. That a fue-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute be available to service the entire project. Fire
hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart.
2. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins.
3. Acceptance of water supply for fire protection is contingent upon acceptance of the water
system by the City ef Meridian for water quality.
4. All radii shall be 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
E. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows:
1. The District requires a Lane Use Change Application to be filed for review prior to final
platting.
2. AU laterals and waste ways must be protected.
3. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the
site, the District must review drainage plans.
4. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805.
5. Should the development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintained by the District, contact the District concerning the installation of the
pressure system.
6. Fill out and return the questionnaire in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements
between the owner and developer and the District for the ownership, operation and
maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
FJNDlNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDMSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 6 OF 17
F. Adopt the City Council action taken at their November 12, 2003 meeting as follows:
1. The zoning is approved as R-4 and not the requested R-8.
2. The applicant is to submit a revised Landscape Plan and Preliminary Plat to the
Planning and Zoning Department for their approval.
14. It is found that the requested zoning designation, R -8, is harmonious with and in
accordance with the effective Comprehensive Plan C02) and the Future Lane Use Map. The parcel is
designated for Medium Density Residential (3 to 8 dwelling units per acre). The project has a gross
density of 2.97 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 3.62 dwelling units per acre. The
common open space for the project is 0.97 acres (5.5% of the plat area). There are proposed changes
to the landscaping and open space, and therefore, the applicant will need to submit a new
Landscaping Plan and Preliminary Plat. However, the zoning is approved for an R-4 fe-zone.
15. The applicant has not indicated that they intend to rezone the subject property in the
future.
16. It is found that the proposed subdivision of single-family detached homes will be
allowed within the requested R-8 zone, but the zoning will be R-4 and will also be allowed in this
zoning designation.
17. The area in the vicinity of Locust Grove Road and Victory Road has undergone a
significant level of development recently. Tuscany Village Subdivision has recently been approved
south of Victory Road, and Sageland and Soda Springs Subdivisions are currently proposed on the
east side of the subject property along Victory Road. Sageland and Soda Springs have both
requested R-8 zoning designations.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUB"DIVISION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 7 OF 17
18. It is found that the proposed use (single family residential) is designed appropriately
to match \."ith the existing and intended character of the general vicinity. Any change in the existing
character of the area is in hannony with the intended future land use envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan.
19. It is not anticipated that the proposed residential and office uses will be hazardous or
disturbing to future or existing neighbors, however, it is deemed that R-4 zoning would be more
compatible with the neighboring Meridian Greens and Observation Pointe Subdivisions, as long as
the recommended conditions pf approval are complied with.
20. It is found that the property to be annexed will be served adequately by all essential
public facilities and serviGes. An existing sewer trunk line nms through the subject property.
Sanitary sewer and water shall be provided via existing and new main line extensions. Applicant
shall be required to pay for the extension of water and sanitary sewer mains to and through the
proposed development. Public road access to the proposed subdivision is available off of Victory
Road and Loggers Pass Street (a stub provided by Observation Point Subdivision). All internal
streets will be constructed by the developer of the proposed subdivision.
21. It is found that there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and
that the annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
22. It is found that the proposed subdivision will not create excessive traffic, noise, or
other nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. The f~ct is
also recognized that the traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this subdivision;
however, it is not felt that the amount generated will be detrimental to the public welfare of the City.
FINDINUS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICA nON
FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 8 OF 17
23. It is found that the subdivision's vehicular approaches off of Victory Road will create
new traffic on surrounding roads. However, it is not believed that the subdivision entrances will
cause significant interference on the surrounding public streets. Review of ACHD's report
concerning the vehicular approaches and traffic generation "Will reveal their comments on these
ISSUes.
24. It is found that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or
damaged by approval of this annexation and re-zone request. Any existing trees larger than 4"
caliper that are removed shall. be mitigated for, per the Landscape Ordinance.
25. It is found that the annexation of this property would be in the best interest of the
City.
26. It is found that if the developer pays for the requested improvements
and complies with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact No. 13, and all sub-parts, the
economic welfare of the City and its residents and tax and rate payers will be protected, a
condition of annexation and zoning designation.
27. It is also found that the development considerations as referenced in Finding No.
13 are reasonable to require and must be taken into account, in order to assure the proposed
development is designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner which is harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing, or intended character of the general vicinity, in
order to assure that the proposed use "Will not change the essential character of the affected
vicinity and will insure that the proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing,
or future neighboring uses, particularly considering the impact of proposed development on
FINDlNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRlNGS SUBDIVISION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 9 OF 17
potential to produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare and odors.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The City of Meridian has authority to annex real property upon written request for
annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said
property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code Section 50-222. The
Meridian City Code S 11-16 provides the City may annex real property that is within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Council n:ay take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and
of actual conditions existing within the City and State.
3. The City of,Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by
"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975", codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the
adoption of the Amended Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382.
4. The zoning of (R-4) Low Density Residential District is defined in the Zoning
Ordinance at ~ 11-7-2 C as follows:
(R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only single-family dwellings shall be permitted
and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for planned residential development and
public schools. The purpose ofthe R-4 District is to permit the establishment oflow density
single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominantly residential
development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and
to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible
nonresidential uses. The R-4 District allows for a maximum offoUT (4) dwelling units per
acre and requires connection to the Municipal water and sewer systems ofthe City.
6. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has
authority to place conditions upon the annexation ofland. See Burt VB. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONJNG FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDMSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 10 OF 17
Idaho 65, 665 P2d 1075 (1983).
7. The development of the annexed land, if annexed, shall meet and comply with the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian including, but not li.mited to: Section 12-2-4 which pertains to
development time schedules and requirements; Section 12-4-13, which pertains to the piping of
ditches; and Section 12-5-2 N, which pertains to pressurized irrigation systems, and Zoning and
Subdivision and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian.
8. Pursuant to Section 11-16-4 A of the Zoning and Development Ordinance the Ql"vner
and/or developer shall enter ip.to a Development Agreement, if such is required by the City.
DECISION AND ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby Order and this does
Order:
1. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning of approximately 17.5 acres to Low
Density Residential (R -4), is granted subj ect to the terms and conditions of this Order hereinafter
stated.
2. The application is for annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres. The legal description
shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State ofIdaho, and shall conform
to all the provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. The legal description for
annexation must place this parcel contiguous to the Corporate City Limits per Ordinance No. 686.
3. Developer shall be required to meet the conditions set forth and in the event the
conditions herein are not met by the Developer that the property shall be subject to de-annexation,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 11 OF 17
with the City of Meridian, which provides for the following conditions of development, to-wit:
A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission cas follows:
1. Applicant must enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Meridian restricting
the minimum home square footages to 2,000 square feet for a single-level home or for a
two-level home (not including the garage), with an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size
with approval as R-4 zoning. (per action of the Council taken at their November 12,2003
meeting.)
B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as follows:
1. Remove any existing cdomestic wells and/or septic systems within this project from their
domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the
City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation.
C. Adopt the RecoII111lendations of the ACHD as follows:
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall do one of the following:
a. Dedicate by donation a total of35-feet of right-of-way from centerline along Victory
Road, and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Victory Road,
located a minimum of28- feet from the centerline of the right-of-way.
b. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Victory Road, located a minimum of 28-feet from the centerline of the
right-of-way, in an easement provided to the District.
c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but constroct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Victory Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way.
Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and
utilities.
2. Construct South Trinidad Drive to intersect Victory Road approximately 11 O-feet east of the
west property line (measured from property line to near edge of the public right-of-way).
3. Extend Loggers Pass Street into the site from the west property line, as proposed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTJN"G APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRlNGS SUBDMSION ~ (AZ-03-024)&PAGE 12 OF 17
4. Construct Trinidad Drive (from Victory Road to East Loggers Pas Drive) and Loggers
Pass Drive as 36-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot concrete sidewalk within
50-feet ofright~of-way, as proposed.
5. Construct East Forest Ridge Court, Fallingbranch Court and East Trinidad Drive (from
Loggers Pass Street to the north) as 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot
concrete sidewalk "vithin 42-feet of right-of-way, as proposed.
6. Construct two standard residential cul-de-sacs without center islands. Provide a
minimum turning radius of 45-feet.
7. Construct one non-standard residential cul-de-sac without a center island. Submit a
design of the non-standard turnaround for review and approval by District Development
Division staff.
8. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Avproval
1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site
shall be borne by the developer.
3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged
during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at
387-6280 (with file number) for details.
4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in
writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file
munbers) for details.
5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District
Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services
procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An
engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building
permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 13 OF 17
occupancy.
8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in
accordance with Ordinance #197, also known as Ada COlll1ty Highway District Road
Impact Fee Ordinance.
9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-
way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the
applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two
full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant
shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare
or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in
writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an
authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon
the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway
District.
11. Any change by the applicant in the plalIDed use of the property which is the subject ofthis
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances,
plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its
successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use
of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief
is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
D, Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows:
The following will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide minimum levels of fire protection
for the proposed project:
1. That a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute be available to service the entire project. Fire
hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart.
2. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins.
3. Acceptance of water supply for fue protection is contingent upon acceptance of the water
system by the City of Meridian for water quality.
4. All radii shall be 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
FlNDJNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICA nON
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDNlSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 14 OF 17
E. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows:
1. The District requires a Lane Use Change Application to be filed for review prior to final
platting.
2. All laterals and waste ways must be protected.
3. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the
site, the District must review drainage plans.
4. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805.
5. Should the development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintain~d by the District, contact the District concerning the installation of the
pressure system.
6. Fill out and return the questionnaire in order to initiate the process of contractual agreements
between the owner and developer and the District for the ownership, operation and
maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
F. Adopt the City Council action taken at their November 12, 2003 meeting as follows:
1. The zoning is approved as R-4 and not the requested R-8.
2. The applicant is to submit a revised Landscape Plan and Preliminary Plat to the Planning and
Zoning Department for their approval.
4. The City Attorney shall prepare for consideration by the City Council the appropriate
ordinance for the annexation and zoning designation of the real property which is the subj eet of the
application to (R-4) Low Density Residential District and Meridian City- Code S 11-7-2.
5. Subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance provided for in section 4 of this Order the
engineering staff of the Public Works Department shall prepare the appropriate mapping changes of
the official boundaries and zoning maps as provided in Meridian City Code 9 11-21-1 in accordance
with the provisions of the annexation and zoning ordinance.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONlNG FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDMSION - (AZ~03-024)
PAGE 15 OF 17
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS A.NAL YSIS
The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may
request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in vvriting, and must be filed with the City
Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A
request for a regulatory takings analysis 'will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial
Review may be filed.
Please take notice that this is a final action ofthe governing body ofthe City of Meridian.
.
Pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-6521 an affected person is a person who has an interest in real property
which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the annexation and zoning and who
may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as
provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
/J /~.f'~
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the L/ /' - day of
;t/tlve 1'rV~
,2003.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD
VOTED $v
COUNCILWOMAN TAMMY deWEERD
VOTED$tv
COUNCILWOMAN CHERIE Mc CANDLESS
VOTED d&~
COUNCILMAN WILLIAM L.M. NARY
VOTED$?L
-
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRlE (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXA nON AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRlNGS SUBDMSION - (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 16 OF 17
DATED:
MOTION:
APPROVED:
11--2t!? --t)3
~0(
u
DISAPPROVED:
"'''~~,;;~
\\' - h..;1;-, '1/. I .
\",,\~-{ '~ye~ll;~~. Conre
A.;:;;...... \. '\ <.. ''./1 <5;. A - ..1 "-J:
tiest: .! 0 c; / 'f. n~ reJI1C-€n-C / dlJ.1j??,?/ c(-e Iv-u:1..c:&
, if <0 -::;. v
II 2:" ~
../t~,6{Jc~.h ~ "" Si>AL 6;' ~
WIlham G. Berg, Jr., City eler~ ~ \,06 . .....Q\ 0 $
~ '1'o~ '-.."01, 10\ ' ...'f $
. ~ ~1 . ",tc ,.;:;;. .
Copy served upon Apphcant, the Plmm~iH:.4Z:()n1Jilg D'epttitment, PublIc WOli\%h{eoartment and
. I!f . ....','iJ. I . \\\ \1\\1" 'f1'711
the City Attorney. 1Iil/)Ill )lnl"\\ \'\\~f Of Mff?J/.II"
....'," :\" VI. 1';1'.>';
.:;:.... 0 fWO~, ~A. ~
I/~ L~n /)6 ./7-:/1 ~cP 'L<j~'v %
By: -dl"/~~ /d- ~ )ffilated: 1- ?--, -v -::> f ~
City Clerk 17 _ -
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M'Glacier Springs Sub AZ-03-Q24 PP-03-Q28IAZFfCl&Order.~c"7. T~tt ....'{? 0 f
r;.. <> '&f 151 ' ~ '"
~/~ ~.,$'
"/.../ cou;,~"{ ~ ,......",
IIIII '':11 · \\\,...
111i1/1t tHIII1\
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICA nON
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDNISION - (AZ-03~024)
PAGE 17 OF 17
May"27, 2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
June 1, 2004
5-F
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Temporary Easement Contract for the 2004 Waterline Improvement Project, Eagle
Road Waterline Extension
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
See attached
Ov~
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetrngs shall become property of the City of Meridian.
City of Meridian "
Public Works Dept.
RECEIVED
MAY 27 2004
. City Of Mericlian
City Clerk Office
Memo
To: Will Berg; Tara Green
From: Clint Dolsby
CC: Brad Watson
Date: 5/27/2004
Re: Proposed Agenda Item for June 1, 2004 City Council Meeting
The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the June
1 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration:
Temporary Easement Contract for the 2004 Waterline Improvement Proiect, Eagle Road
Waterline Extension. A temporary easement has been signed by Bart Bryson for the
construction of the receiving pit on Eagle Road for this project.
Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends
that City Council approves the temporary easement contract for the
construction of the receiving pit on Eagle Road for the landowner Bart Bryson
and authorize the Mayor to sign it.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding
any of these items.
. Page 1
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
THIS INDENTURE, effective this 20th day of May, 2004, by the undersigned, Bart
Bryson, who maintains a mailing address of 2600 N. Eaqle Rd, Meridian, Idaho,
hereafter referred to as "GRANTOR" for the benefit of the City of Meridian, a municipal
corporation of the State of Idaho that maintains a mailing address of 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereafter referred to as "GRANTEE";
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of a cash payment of One Thousand Fifty Dollars ($1,050.00),
and for the term and uses and on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth,
GRANTOR does hereby grant to the GRANTEE an easement (the "EASEMENT") under,
over, through and across that certain real property owned by GRANTOR situated in the
COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO more particular!y described or depicted on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Servient Estate").
This grant is made on the following terms:
1. Authorized Uses by GRANTEE. The GRANTEE's use of the Easement granted
herein shall be in connection with the construction of a water main on adjoining and
abutting property owned by GRANTEE (the "Dominant Estate"), for access and egress for
equipment and vehicles, for construction, excavation, storage of earth and other materials
thereon, for surveying, and for all other reasonable uses that are necessary, advisable or
convenient to GRANTEE in connection with such water construction and improvement,
and for ingress and egress to and from the Dominant Estate.
2. Use bv Others Under GRANTEE. The GRANTEE's right to so use the Servient
Estate during the term of the Easement shall extend to use by GRANTEE's
Commissioners, employees, contractors and agents.
3. Term This Easement shall be for a term commencing on the date that GRANTEE
or its employees, contractors or agents, begin construction activities (including the storing
of construction materials) in the Easement Area, but not later than July 30, 2004.
GRANTEE shall notify GRANTOR not less than three (3) days prior to the
commencement of construction activities in the Easement Area. The Easement shall
expire upon written notification to GRANTOR that all construction and restoration
activities in the Easement Area have ended. On the expiration of the term of this
Easement, the rights and privileges granted to GRANTEE hereunder shall. cease and
terminate and this Easement shall be null and void and of no further force and effect. In
the event the term of this Easement exceeds a period of three (3) weeks, GRANTEE
shall pay GRANTOR the additional sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each day the term of
this Easement exceeds the three (3) week period.
4. Indemnification. GRANTEE hereby indemnifies and holds GRANTOR harmless
from and against any and all loss, injury, death and damage, and attorneys' fees and
costs that might be incurred by GRANTOR in defending any such claim, that shall result
from the use of the Servient Estate by GRANTEE, its Commissioners, emptoyees,
contractors and agents, hereunder.
Temporary Easement
Page 1 of 2
5. Restoration on Expiration of Term. On the expiration of the term of this
Easement, the Servient Estate shall be restored by GRANTEE, at its sole cost and
expense, to at least as good a condition as existing on the date of this Indenture.
6. Access to Servient Estate. GRANTEE shall at all times maintain the southern
twenty (20) feet of the existing driveway to the Servient Estate in a manner clear of any
impediments and as appropriate to allow unimpeded ingress and egress to and from the
Servient Estate to the adjacent public right-of-way.
7. Bindinq Effect. This Easement, and the covenants and agreements herein
contained, shall, during the entire term hereof, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
(i) GRANTEE AND GRANTOR, respectively, and their successors and assigns, and (ii)
their respective interests in the Dominant and Servient Estates.
8. Appurtenant. The Easement herein granted is appurtenant to the Dominant
Estate.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this Easement unto the GRANTEE for the term hereinabove
set forth.
GRANTOR covenants to the GRANTEE (a) that the GRANTEE shall enjoy the
quiet and peaceful possession of the Servient Estate throughout the term hereof; and, (b)
GRANTOR warrants to the GRANTEE that GRANTOR is lawfully seized and possessed
of the Servient Estate and has the right and authority to grant this Easement to
GRANTEE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Temporary Construction Easement has been duly
executed by GRANTOR, the day, month and year herein first above written.
ATTEST:
GRAN~: .~ ~~_
BY.~ YLat-A. L--
Printed: pMT L~ 13tt.ftJoJJ
Date: [;)5-- ~ - Of{
Social Security Number: 9'8- 'Sl{....3l{3Z-
CITY of Meridian
By
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
William Berg, If., City Clerk
City COlUlcil Approval Date:
Temporary Easement
Page 2 of 2
i ,L :!~, - -- -- - - .,;~,i
i
EXHIBIT A
~ ~j u..-.- -- ::~>::i~: ~ -. -:
I '
I i
i '
':;;:
'S: I- "-
:=' ~o:.
I ,~
I
<:) 1'1) j :
I '; I j
, 1.0 _- - --r
20' -~MrN. i ,;
./ i . r--nW
MAINTAIN DiRJVEI~jY:;,!
If)! GRES:;i LE..Q_R~__SSf5,f'= \
.- --- ~- - ,LI. I > ;-+j /
~ I I ::> ~.J~~
to ;~j !: ,
<:.-/' I i ~
I , -
, I
--r-<:--lt
'; - 1;-
L.....0
<;
;
16" GATE VALVE, FLGxMj
16" TEE, FLG.:
(2) 16" BLIND FLANGg"":i
i
,
, ,
EAGLE RdAD BORE
.30" CASING C.::i
16" WATERLINE
~
q
.:~
l
~1
I _
~ f!
====W-= J==-:-w:: =;
i
i
"J
\..,.j'
a
<C
o
a::::
w
---l
C)
<(
w
i 1
PROPQSED i
16' W,? TER!
- !
(!)
I
r,)
I
- In--- - - --- -. lil
I
[
FUTIjRE
WA;TER
!
i
'-'
f~
~
"-
Ct::
I:
30'
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT, (1050 S.F.)
N
......'j
~ i
I.
I
I'
,r ~'.
\----/
i--
I
I
~?~Jl,
(--1]r
, ,
, I >.:
I, :;;:
; i "-
,;-_ Ct::
h:)
--
T:
.i
l,
,;
i_____
! f
LC.....
2'!r' - -ro- -0 20
SCALE: 1"= 2D'
2004 WATEAUNE IMF'RQVEMENT PROJECT
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
.
40
SI-l;&r
1
~
("J.U.B .l
~
ct'
: I'M'R Mar.!. .$I.l1VII;~+Pla'wut:l
...., tlI\.~..-.:PHK.
BART BRYSON PROPERTY
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
1
May27,2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
June 1,2004
ITEM NO.
5-(;
REQUEST Approve Bills
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
~
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
May '27, 2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Department Reports
June 1,2004
APPLICANT Police Department -- Chief Musser
ITEM NO. -1o~A-J
REQUEST Discussion of Purchase of Trained and Certified Police K-9 Dog from Existing Capital
Monies approved in Police Budget
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
~
() wtJ"^ ()
4- ~{/O,V r
vV
fJrr
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meellngs shall become property of the City of Meridian.
May27.2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Department Reports
June 1, 2004
APPLICANT Police Department -- Chief Musser
ITEM NO. l.o-A-L
REQUEST Shared Update with Parks Director Strong on proposed improvements and plan for
five acres west of police building on Watertower Lane
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
. Iv pJfr
. J--- rO {J.-~
rJe1Je. p 4 (U C~.
pffO
~
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Morldian.
FJ~~CEIVED
J U N '<' 1 2004
CITY OF MERID1Hl\I
May '27, 2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 2004
APPLlCANT City Council Member - Shoun Wardle
REQUEST Update on Golf Course
Department Reports
ITEM NO.
lo-B-L
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLlCE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
art ..{vr
~p (;)#
VlJJV - /}
.c . ~ l' {-yV
(]vif\; ;f!
J
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meollngs shall become property of the City of MeridIan.
May 27,2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
June 1, 2004
ITEM NO. ---.J 3
REQUEST Water, Sewer, and Trash Delinquencies
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
~
~
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materiels presented et publlc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
DELINQUENCY FOR TURN
OFF SCHEDULED FOR
June 2, 2004
CYCLE 2
MAYOR: This is to inform you in writing, if you so
choose, that you have the right to a pre-termination hearing
at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 1, 2004, before the Mayor and
City Council, to appear in person to be judged on the facts
and to defend the claim made by this City that your water,
sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel.
This service will be discontinued on June 1, 2004 unless
payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who
wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash
delinquency?
(No response.)
MAYOR: They are hereby informed that they may appeal
or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth
Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even
though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The
amount of the turn-off list is $16,489.81
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinq uent Account List. cou ncil Page: 1
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 03:59pm
Current Period; 06105/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDetinquent Balance
Report Criteria:
Terminated customers not included
Customer,Cust No () = {<} 880000001
Customer. Bill Cycle = 2
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02/20/2004 Date Amount
3.03.5382.1 6.96 3.48 3.48
8.15.0030.1 A & R FRAMING 22.00 18.52 3.48
13.13.8426.2 A.M. THOMPSON MOONLAKE TI 120.00 58.44 61.56 04/28/2004 54.00 -
7.40.0174.1 AHREND, STEVEN 65.76 37.54 28.22 04106/2004 40.00 -
18.42.2990.2 ALEJANDRO, ANGELO & LEIDA 75.88 37.94 37.94 05/04/2004 38.92 -
16.31.0202.2 ALFERINK FAMILY TRUST 43.48 35.42 8.06 05103/2004 60.00 -
18.43.0156.1 ALlBEGIC, MUSTAFA 28.28 24.80 3.48
16.31.3422.1 ALLEN. SEDENA 64.52 55.26 9.26 OS/28/2004 46.00 -
15.15.0110.2 ALTA 92.88 46.44 46.44 05/05/2004 46.44 -
17.34.2730.1 ALVEREZ, ROSALlO 82.86 41.30 41.56 04106/2004 96.00 -
16.32.1532.2 ANDERSON, CHRISTY 87.68 46.86 37.06 3.76
15.21.0566.1 ANDERSON, JAMES 49.26 24.14 25.12 04/16/2004 42.72 -
14.19.1360.1 ANDERSON, KIRK & CHERYL 35.20 17.60 17.60 04/27/2004 35.20 -
17.34.1102.3 ANDERSON, LADELL 103.34 52.16 51.18 04/01/2004 50.20 -
16.32.1434.5 ANDERSON, LADELL 56.78 27.90 28.88 04/02/2004 58.51 -
14.19.0068.2 ANDERSON, SKIP & JULIE 117.40 59.68 57.72 04/19/2004 57.72 -
18.42.1988.2 ARMSTRONG,GARY&LAURA 109.08 59.44 49.64 05/0412004 40.16 -
15.21.2708.4 ASAY, ALAN & JULIE 61.06 57.88 3.18 05104/2004 100.00 -
18.42.1028.1 AV II L.L.C. 367.53 361.53 6.00 05/1312004 329.21 -
18.42.2148.1 AZARY,SUSAN 70.50 34.76 35.74 04/06/2004 80.24 -
17.33.4274.2 BACON,THOMAS 38.04 37.06 .98
16.31.3480.1 BAIRD, CATHARINE D 70.60 40.98 29.62 04/16/2004 75.00 -
10.10.0092.2 BAKER. DUSTIN 107.46 57.16 50.30 04106/2004 140.48 -
14.19.7766.3 BAKER. SUSAN 51.22 26.10 25.12 04106/2004 21.36 -
16.32.0678.1 BALL, WILLIAM 67.66 46.52 21.14 01/27/2004 102.54 -
15.21.1876.1 BARNETT, DOROTHY A. 58.22 30.56 27.64 04/2812004 27.64 -
15.21.1894.1 BARNHART. CLINTON 78.18 52.80 25.38 03/1612004 50.00 -
15.21.3036.2 BARR, GERALDINE 110.98 66.76 44.22 05/04/2004 41.44 -
9.92.7014.1 BEACHWOOD BUILDERS lNC 6.96 3.48 3.48
14.14.5010.2 BEAUCANNON, JUSTIN 93.20 49.54 43.66 05/03/2004 42.68 -
18.18.0022.2 BECK, KENNETH 80.82 39.43 41.39 04112/2004 33.87 -
16.32.0508.1 BELL, DERRICK 89.12 65.16 23.96 05106/2004 60.00 -
17.34.1902.3 BENGOECHEA, MIKE 181.92 76.94 104.96 0410712004 174.24 -
14.19.6666.1 BENNETT,MASON 80.46 39.90 40.56 05/0412004 43.00 -
14.14.3004.2 BEWLEY, SANDRA & DAVID 95.85 10.49 42.68 42.68 04/06/2004 38.92 -
17.33.2730.1 BLEAZARD, BARRETT 96.34 47.68 48.66 04/27/2004 44.28 -
17.34.1316.2 BOOHER, CRAIG & DANA 130.26 100.56 29.70 OS/28/2004 34.00 -
15.22.0894.1 BOTIMER, STEVEN 48.76 48.72 .04 OS/26/2004 40.84 -
15.21.0464.2 BOUSSATTA, BILLlSUE 41.96 40.00 1.96
14.20.0040.4 BOWERS, JAMES & CYNTHIA 77.06 37.06 40.00
15.21.3068.1 BOYDSTUN, PATRICK & JUDY 63.92 58.94 4.98 0510312004 67.00 -
10.10.0098.2 BRADBERRY,JOSEPH 75.42 38.20 37.22 04/0112004 72.80 -
15.22.1312.1 BRADY, RODNEY 102.68 55.26 47.42 04/22/2004 38.92 -
16.31.3068.4 BRATT, DENISE 125.02 80.94 44.08 05/0512004 40.16 -
16,16.3306.2 BREWER, CHRIS & ELIZABETH 62.78 61.80 .98 04/29/2004 104.16 -
15,22.2262.2 BRICE, DAVID 64.76 33.36 31,40 05/04/2004 59.04 -
10,10.10021 BRIDGETOWER DENTAL 150.26 75.13 75,13 04113/2004 71.37 -
16,32,05043 BRIGHT, ARRON & SONIA 93.06 48.98 44,08 05105/2004 4016 -
1631.2306.1 BRIGHT. LEANN 73,60 47.08 26.52 05112/2004 40,00,
14.19.1570.2 BRIGHTON HOMES 30.00 30,00 02/25/2004 123,94,
... in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinqu ent Accou nt List- counci I Page: 2
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01. 2004 03:59pm
Current Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04f20f2004 03f20f2004 02f20/2004 Date Amount
15.21.3056.3 BRUCE AND VIOLA HARTMAN T 90.92 47,42 43.50 04/13/2004 23.88 -
18,42.1822.1 BRUCE. BITTON 78.82 38.92 39.90 04/06/2004 74.08 -
8.08.0144.2 BRUCE, TIMOTHY 101.00 50.84 50.16 04/29/2004 50.16 -
16.32.0732.2 BRUNGER, DWAYNE & LINDA 358.51 106.24 75.86 46.44 129.97 05107f2004 20.00 -
15.22.1324.1 BURDEN,DAREON 123.60 66.70 56.90 05106f2004 83.96 -
15.22.2396.2 CAIRL, SCOTT & DENISE 110.72 59.12 51.60 04/30/2004 55.20 -
16.31.3536.2 CAMPBELL, SCOTT 57.76 28.88 28.88 04/06/2004 25.12 -
14.19.7158.2 CAMPBELL. BENJAMIN 102.80 36.40 66.40 04/07/2004 69.04 -
15.21.1116.2 CAMPBELL, CHRISTOPHER 52.82 31.72 21.10 03f25/2004 47.76 -
14.19.7186.2 CAMPBELL, SHELLl 77.84 38.92 38.92 03f30/2004 31.40 -
16.32.0910.3 CANNELL. FRANK & CATHY 121.82 60.42 61.40 05103/2004 47.68 -
3.03.5038.1 CANYON RIVER CONSTRUCTIO 13.38 4.46 5.44 3.48
18.42.0258.1 CAPITOL CHRISTIAN CENTER 632.88 327.72 305.16 05107/2004 523.10 -
18.42.0260.1 CAPITOL CHRISTIAN CENTER 318.86 172.59 146.27 05107/2004 123.71 -
15.21.3130.2 CARSTENSEN. LUCINDA 69.68 64.74 4.94 05/04/2004 146.58 -
6.06.2074.2 CARTER, MICHAEL & HEIDI 35.99 35.01 .98 05/04/2004 30.11 -
16.31.2252.1 CASADY, WARREN A. 64.78 62.78 2.00 05/12/2004 220.17-
15.21.1402.2 CHAPMAN, JAMES 115.51 57.16 57.16 1.19 05105/2004 50.00 -
18.42.2582.1 CHAPMAN. LORRI 79.66 54.60 25.06 04/30f2004 50.00 -
15.22.0848.1 CHAPMAN. THOMAS 215.64 113.70 101.94 05/05f2004 61.48 -
16.32.0360.1 CHERRY LANE MOBILE PARK 1.481.31 1,339.92 141.39 05/1 3/2004 1,110.92 -
15.21.1866.2 CHRUCH, ALAN 81.36 39.02 42.34 04/14/2004 37.00 -
15.15.2000.1 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF 67.74 60.19 7.55
16.31.3282.2 CLAJUS. ALMA 87.90 59.02 28.88 05/04/2004 40.00 -
15.21.1902.2 CLARKE, MICHELE 87.64 45.78 41.86 04/27/2004 65.16 -
15.21.2214.4 CLEVELAND, RICHARD & KAREl 169.44 169.44 09104/2003 109.08 -
8.15.7001.1 COBRE 1 COPPER BASIN 48.56 40.72 7.84
7.40.0066.1 COCHELL, TIM & ANGELlA 60.58 44.08 16.50 04/28/2004 59.08 -
16.16.3302.2 COLDWEll BANKER ASPEN RE 360.51 360.51 1 2f03/2003 180.00 -
16.31.0796.2 COLLINS, llNDA 69.84 69.74 .10 05/14/2004 56.00 -
17.33.2566.2 CONNEll, EDWARD 97.76 46.70 50.62 .44 05/04/2004 51 .00 -
14.20.1950.1 CONROY, MICHAEL S. 56.78 56.72 .06 04/27/2004 40.00 -
15.22.2628.2 COSTNER, SHANNON 118.72 40.88 38.92 38.92 03/02/2004 37.92 -
16.31.3420.1 COUCH. JULIA 73.28 38.36 34.92 05/03/2004 30.00 -
15.21.1740.2 COX. JAY & CARROL 99.62 54.71 44.91 04/06/2004 17.05 -
18.42.1172.4 COX. POLLY 33.78 30.84 2.94 05/04/2004 57.76 -
17.34.2710.5 CRANE, SHANE 88.82 44.90 43.92 05104/2004 38.40 -
17.34.0724.3 CRAWFORD, MICHAEL & KRISTI 57.64 41.14 16.50 04/27/2004 59.08 -
16.32.0714.2 CRUZ, EDUARDO & MARCIA 94.58 89.58 5.00 06/01/2004 78.80 -
16.31.3336.1 CRYER, JUDITH 66.32 45.70 20.62 04/06/2004 50.00 -
3.03.5048.1 CURT PRINDLE 62.58 34.26 21.36 3.48 3.48
15.22.1640.1 CURTIS, BERNICE 110.32 28.88 46.28 35.16 02128/2004 111.40 -
6.06.1508.2 CVITANICH. ANTHONY & ROCHI 27.79 27.49 .30 04/29/2004 25.23 -
3.03.5308.1 DALE HOMES 28.92 25.44 3.48 04/21/2004 3.48-
18.42.0346.2 DARRON STOUT 102.34 48.72 53.62 05103/2004 38.92 -
10.10.2362.1 DARYL WILSON CONSTRUCTIO 10.44 3,48 3.46 3.48
15.21.1788.2 DAVENPORT. ANTHONY 126.18 63.58 62.60 05103/2004 67.00 -
18.42.2288.3 DAVIS. RENEE 66.19 62.12 4.07 04/30/2004 61.14-
15.22.2410.2 DAVIS. RICHARD & JOANNE 60.18 32.54 27.64 05104/2004 27.64 -
14.14,4324.1 DBD INC. 115.36 46.44 68.92 05103/2004 38.92 -
8.08.1266.2 DELEON, ERNESTO & CHRIST'! 82.28 42.12 40.16 04106/2004 76.56 -
16.32.1098.2 DERRICK, ARTHUR J & LAURA f- 70.50 40.64 29.86 05/04/2004 57.76.
17.33.2594.2 DONALDSON, NEAL 66.30 41.70 24.60 06/01/2004 50.00.
17.33.2612.6 DONALDSON, NEAL 100.18 35.58 64.60 04/07/2004 114.40.
17.33.2272.2 EARLY, DIANA 44.90 42.94 1.96
... in M s9 column indicates no Notice is to be sent
( ..
\
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 3
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 04:00pm
Current Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance
last Pmt last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02/20/2004 Date Amount
18.42.2596.2 EASTBURN,GARY 133,74 67.36 66.38 05/03/2004 61.48 -
18.42.4284.1 ECHEVERRIA CONSTRUCTION 24.56 17.60 3.48 3.48
16.31.3034.1 EDWARDS, MARILYN 47.02 29.86 17.16 05/04/2004 50.00 -
16.32.1258.2 ELAM, ROGER & LUCAS. PHAEC 103.86 53.40 50.46 05/04/2004 51.44 "
15.21.3164.2 ELEOPOULOS, JAMES 107.76 61.72 46.04 04/26/2004 81.44 -
15.21.2108.4 ELLISON, COLETTE 44.04 32.64 11.40 04/29/2004 50.00 -
15.21.1896.5 EMMEN,DUSTIN & KATHY 55.42 52.32 3.10 05/11/2004 50.20 -
7.48.3001.1 ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS 692.08 315.66 376.42
16.32.1110.2 EQUITIES, ACACIA 87.00 35.58 51.42 10/21/2003 200,00 -
15.22.1634.1 ERICKSON, EVA LOUISE 45.80 22.90 22.90 05/03/2004 20.12-
15.21.2876.1 ERNESTO, BRIAN 70.89 49.38 21.51 05/13/2004 40.00 -
16.32.1156.1 FARBER, BRIAN & KtMBER 106,14 56.50 49.64 04/14/2004 43.92 -
10.10.0676.1 FENIX CONSTRUCTION INC 10.72 7.24 3.48
15.15.0412.2 FERGUSON. CHARLOTTE 45.56 45.46 .10 05/11/2004 44.38 -
16.31.3238.1 FIFE, LARRY 59.14 32.80 26.34 02/27/2004 50.00 -
6.06.9052.2 FLEISCHER, MARK 59.24 34.85 24.39 04/21/2004 25.00 -
14.20.1532.3 FOLWEll, RITA 51.22 25.12 26.10 04/06/2004 21.36 -
17.34.1288.1 FOURNIER, JAMES 78.22 53.72 24.50 05/03/2004 70.00 -
16.32.1540.1 FROMAN, BRUCE 133.28 61.30 39.34 32.64 03/08/2004 36.40 -
16.32.1542.1 FUHRMAN. JOSHUA 83.58 38.36 45.22 04/12/2004 69.04 -
15.22.1184.1 GAilEY, ERON 122.62 69.64 52,98 04/02/2004 100.40 -
10.10.1006.1 GAlLARY HOMES 620.46 22.59 597.87 03/30/2004 26.35 -
14.14.1040.2 GANN, LANCE & KRISTIN 80.14 40.56 39.58 04/08/2004 31.40 -
17.33.2302.1 GARRARD. DALE 73.78 38.36 35.42 05/05/2004 36.40 -
17.34.2896.2 GAYTHWAITE, LARRY & TAMI 38.16 33.62 4.54 OS/27/2004 60.00 -
15.22.1652.2 GlORFIELD, VARONA 74.80 44.80 30.00 05/04/2004 38.92 -
15,22.1622.4 GOHR, DOUGLAS 148.55 44.80 103.75 03/22/2004 100.32 -
17,34.2114.1 GRANO, TRACY 52.70 28.72 23.98 05/07/2004 30.00 -
16.32.1256.2 GRASS, JOYCE 40.76 20.38 20.38 04/14/2004 37.15 -
17.33.0851.1 GROFF, MARY 37.24 31.90 5.34 01/15/2004 3.48 -
17.33.0850.2 GROFF. MARY 60.26 55.87 4.39 04106/2004 62.47 -
17.34.0366.4 GUEVARA, JAIME & ROJAS, PIL, 56.66 48.82 7.84
15.21.0462.3 GUNNARSON. HOWARD & RUn 215.55 104.25 111.30 05105/2004 70.00 -
16.31.0124.3 GUSSIE, DOROTHY 72.80 35.42 37.38 03/30/2004 32.64 -
15.21,2696.2 HAAS, DAVID & JUDY 89.14 48.00 41.14 05104/2004 32.64 -
15.22,0924.1 HAll, KEVIN 45.94 41.86 4.08 05/03/2004 70.00 -
14.19.0164.1 HALL, MARY ANN 50.24 25.12 25.12 05/04/2004 25.12 -
16.31.3394.2 HANHARDT, ANDREW & CAMIU 125.64 58.10 36.14 31.40 04/06/2004 31.56 -
14.14.3666.2 HANSEN, ROBERT & MARY SUS 40.08 25.68 14.40 03/30/2004 38.92 -
10.10.0104.3 HARDY, MICHAEL & FELICIA 116.92 49.38 47.42 20.12
17.33.2368.2 HARNECK, KARl 36.78 35.42 1.36 OS/28/2004 37,00 -
6.06.9816.1 HARPE, LARRY & BARBARA 46.16 23.57 22.59 04/06/2004 15.07 -
18.42.1820.1 HARRINGTON-BLACK, JODY 101.60 72.68 28.92 05/05/2004 50.00 -
3.03.5270.1 HARRIS, CHEREE 283.50 152.46 131.04 05/04/2004 151.07-
15.22.2590.2 HART, JULIE 96.00 33.20 35.16 27,64 03/29/2004 61.40 "
15.21.1776.2 HARTSOOK, HOWARD 87.54 87.54 11/17/2003 34.71 -
17.33.0356.1 HARTZ, MATTHEW 59.54 29.77 29.77 04/23/2004 42.03 -
17.33.0354.2 HARTZ. MATTHEW 107.74 77.88 29.86 04/23/2004 28.88 -
15.22.1202.6 HATFIELD. TED 105.52 71.60 33.92 OS/28/2004 50.00 -
15.21.0178.3 HAZEN, DEBORAH 39.70 39.50 .20 05/11/2004 34.40 -
18.42.2308.1 HEATH, REX & ANNE 65.09 58.78 6.31 04/30/2004 45.00 -
16.31.0828.4 HELTON, DEWEY & LISA 13176 73.72 58.04 05/03/2004 46.44 -
14.141050.1 HIGH DESERT 89.20 32.64 17.60 21.36 17.60 02/06/2004 28.32 -
3.03.5124.1 HIGH DESERT CONSTRUCTION 6.96 3.48 3.48
3.03.5164.1 HIGH DESERT CONSTRUCTION 6.96 3.48 3.48
... in Msg colu mn indicates no Notice is to be sent
( (
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- counci I Page: 4
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01. 2004 04;00pm
Current period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmounLDelinquent Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02120/2004 Date Amount
14.14.1008.1 HIGH DESERT CONSTRUCTION 30.32 21.36 8.96 03/29/2004 47.60 -
17.34.1640.3 HIGHBARGER, MICHAEL & LIND 109.44 61.96 47.48 04/20/2004 76.44 -
15.21.1928.2 HOLMES, MICHAEL & LAURIE 132.02 82.48 49.54 05/05/2004 68.92 -
14.14.5008.2 HOMEONLlNE REAL ESTATES 40.24 20.12 20.12 04/20/2004 30.00 -
15.21.0492.2 HUGHES, BRIAN 51.34 48.40 2.94 05/14/2004 46.44 -
17.33.2754.1 INGOE, BRADLEY 101.38 49.22 52.16 04106/2004 89.12 -
16.32.1148.1 IRWIN, DAVID 86.86 44.90 41.96 04/06/2004 72.80 -
8.08.1296.2 ISAACS, CAROLYN 71.16 37.54 33.62 04/01/2004 65.28 -
16.32.1090.1 IVERSON, GARY & SHEILA 56.56 50.84 5.72 05/03/2004 62.80 -
16.32.1552.1 JAKOMEIT, MICHAEL 81.96 81.96 11/24/2003 43.79 -
15.15.0019.1 JAMES A BENJAMIN 35.40 32.64 2.76 03/3112004 96.00 -
17.33.0358.1 JAMES COURT APTS 630.04 622.04 8.00 06/01/2004 566.18 -
16.32.0936.1 JARDINE, MICHAEL 120.06 59.94 60.12 05/05/2004 56.00 -
16.31.0516.1 JARRETT, SHARON 58.24 57.24 1.00 05/05/2004 66.02 -
14.19.1202.1 JEFF & PAM PUGMIRE 114.32 57.16 57.16 04/19/2004 55.20 -
14.19.1630.2 JENKINS, LEROY 104.84 57.32 47.52 04/06/2004 146.80 -
10.10.2344.1 JOHN FLAHERTY CONSTRUCTII 14.48 11.00 3.48
18.42.2482.1 JOHNSON, BRYON & MARYLEN 105.94 70.88 35.06 05/05/2004 60.00 -
18.42.0374.3 JOHNSON, DORTHY & REX 212.18 70.88 66.96 51.44 22.90 OS/24/2004 40.00 -
15.21.2790.2 JOHNSON, REX & DORTHY 121.69 26.35 45.14 50.20 03/11/2004 46.40 -
16.31.0160.1 JOHNSON, WILLIAM G 43.26 42.28 .98 05/11/2004 36.40 -
15.22.0330.1 JONES. ELDON & LORI 139.88 85.92 53.96 05/0612004 46.44 -
16.32.0522.2 JUHASZ, DON C. 95.94 51.44 44.50 05/03/2004 50.00 -
15.21.0028.2 KEENEY, DONLAN & ELlSABEH 110.24 44.80 65.44 05105/2004 40.00 -
17.33.2756.1 KELLER, KEVIN 80.78 40.88 39.90 04/29/2004 38.92 .
15.21.2676.1 KELLY JR, RICKY 93.72 90.94 2.78 04/21/2004 5.20.
18.42.1810.2 KESTER,ROBERT 43.02 42.68 .34 06101/2004 47.00.
15.22.1338.2 KILLION, DAVID & AMY 62.00 41.60 20.40 05/13/2004 35.00.
9.09.9230.2 KOCH, CHRISTOPHER & MISHE 99.60 57.72 41.88 03/26/2004 100.00 -
10.10.1294.1 KOLE CROFTS 35.20 17.60 17.60 04/0212004 17.60 -
16.32.0512.2 KRUSE, BRENDA 50.24 25.12 25.12 05/03/2004 42.72 .
13.13.1190.3 KYSER, GREGORY & OCEAN 86.34 42.68 43.66 03/31/2004 81.60.
18.42.2594.2 LABRENZ, JEAN A. 76.20 38.10 38.10 04/06/2004 35.16.
18.42.4056.1 LAMOREAUX, KIM 159.82 94.42 65.40 05/05/2004 65.24.
16.32.0632.1 LANDER, WALLACE & VIRGINIA 64.91 61.24 3.67 OS/27/2004 55.61 -
15.22.2066.2 LANORE, TAMARA 72.80 37.38 35.42 03/29/2004 32.64 -
16.31.0866.1 LARSON-POOLE, VICKEE K. 117.90 57.48 60.42 05/05/2004 43.92 -
18.42.2736.1 LENAGHEN, CHRIS 56.54 42.18 14.36 OS/21/2004 35.00 -
15.22.2420.1 LEVCO CONSTRUCTION 120.40 66.44 53.96 03/31/2004 35.16 -
17.34.1074.1 LEWIS. LANNY 66.28 37.38 28,90 04/07/2004 70.00 -
6.06.9086.2 L1N, EUGENE 52.70 26.35 26.35 04/21/2004 22.59 -
15.22.1581.1 LINDER ELEMENTARY 49.54 36.80 12.74
16.31.1002.3 L1NDGREEN, NATHANAEL & HEi 81.64 53.30 28.34 05/18/2004 20.00 -
18.42.2706.1 LINDT, TAMMY 37.36 36.96 .40 04/30/2004 39.50 -
14.19.4464.1 LITTLE, CRAIG 42.97 39.18 3.79 05/04/2004 65.00 -
3.03.5001.1 LOCHSA FALLS HOA 1,237.84 1,224.12 13.72
18.42.2520.1 LOCKYER, MERRIE 104.36 54.94 49.42 05/03/2004 50.00 -
6.06.1804.2 LOWENSTEIN, TIM & DIANE 50.21 48.25 1.96 04/28/2004 42.37 -
6.06.1492.2 LOWRY, ROBERT & DEBI 150.68 103.57 47.11 05/05/2004 35.15 -
13.13.9082.2 LUCAS, CATHERINE 51.22 26.10 25.12 04/13/2004 25.12.
16.32.1320.1 LUKE, SHELLlE M. 76.20 68.98 7.22 06/01/2004 50.00 -
17.33.2340.3 LYON, CHRIS & TAMMY 190.59 7609 74.06 40.44 OS/26/2004 75.00 -
15.22.1724.1 MACHADO. DAVID 70.66 2806 26.10 16.50 04/14/2004 30.00 -
6.06.9858.2 MAl, CURTIS 40.45 1703 16.05 7.37 0410212004 40.00 -
9.09.9336.1 MALLON CONSTRUCTION 28.32 17.60 7.24 3.48
... in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
~-
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquenl Account List- council Page: 5
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 04:00pm
Cu rrent Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Ba lance Non-Delinq 04/20f2004 03/20/2004 0212012004 Qate Amount
17.34.2808.1 MANN, KEVIN & VIVIAN 97.86 73.18 24.68 05/18f2004 35.00 -
3.03.5198.1 MARKAR DESIGN & CONSTRUC 6.96 3.48 3.48
3.03.5210.1 MARKAR DESIGN & CONSTRUC 17.74 12.30 5.44
17.34.1472.1 MARKHAM,RON 94.84 45.46 49.38 05/03/2004 42.68 -
17.33.2740.5 MARTIN, ROBERT 48.76 46.70 2.06 04f15/2004 43.92 -
8.08.1288.2 MARTIN, SCOTT & JANELL 45.76 45.46 .30 05f27/2004 44.18 -
18.43.0188.1 MAYNES, STEVE 108.76 53.40 55.36 05/04/2004 51.44 -
16.31.3474.1 MCDONALD, SHAWN 67.24 32.64 34.60 03/24/2004 94.16 -
17.33.1674.2 MCFALL, MICHAEL 64.30 32.64 31.66 04106/2004 32.64 -
15.21.2114.3 MCGAHEY, JAMES & LISA 61.04 37.94 23.10 05103/2004 80.00 -
14.20.1326.5 MCGEE. RICHARD & SHARILEE 36.96 34.18 2.78 06/01f2004 31.40 -
15.22.2138.2 MCHUGH, RYAN 77.84 38.92 37.94 .98 04/2912004 37.94 -
18.42.2538.1 MCINTIRE, CHRISTINA 72.89 50.94 21.95 04/2812004 20.00 -
16.32.0454.3 MCLEAN, JACK & BOB 77.60 61.08 16.52 05/03/2004 100.00 -
17.34.0968.2 MEHOlCHICK, VICKY 212.14 98.24 113.90 04/30/2004 100.00 -
18.18.0024.1 MELLOR, DOUGLAS 22.10 21.12 .98
9.09.1000.1 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 439.95 157.95 282.00 04/30/2004 52.70 -
16.31.0494.2 MESZAROS,L1LLI 94.84 49.38 45.46 05/1212004 61.60 -
16.31.2310.2 MEYER, SHERYL 99.63 99.63 11/18/2003 10.00 -
18.42.2118.1 MilLER, JIM & SANDI 111.18 60.98 50.20 05103/2004 44.64 -
15.22.1440.1 MILLER, JOSEPH 96.06 77.82 18.24 05104f2004 73.90 -
13.13.8110.3 MILLER, ROBERTA 85.36 42.68 42.68 04/16/2004 38.92 -
9.09.0062.1 MILLER. SCOTT & RHONDA 92.88 50.20 42.68 04/30/2004 42.68 -
16.31.0860.2 MilLS, DONOVAN 104.96 54.12 50.86 04/30/2004 43.00 -
8.08.0304.2 MILLS, JOHN 65.40 64.42 .98 06/01/2004 61.48 -
18.42.2082.1 MIYASATO, GENOVEVA 128.46 64.74 63.72 04f13/2004 54.00 -
17.33.4264.3 MOMA, MICHAEL 110.92 40.46 70.46 05/04/2004 71 .44 -
18.42.1836.3 MONROE, BUD 71.02 59.52 11.50 06/01/2004 50.00 -
15.22.2088.2 MOODY, SHAIN 104.10 68.52 35.58 05105/2004 50.81 -
16.32.0654.1 MORRISON, MICHAEL & BENICI, 155.91 82.82 73.09 05104/2004 80.00 -
16.32.0650.2 MOWRY, CHARLOTTE 72.46 41.62 30.84 04/06/2004 75.36 -
18.42.1982.2 MURRAY, JAY & MELISSA 85.64 55.68 29.96 04/30/2004 60.00 -
15.21.1068.1 MURRAY, JOHN 67.82 59.92 7.90 05/03/2004 80.00 -
15.21.1094.1 MUZALIWA, ILUNGU 78.80 68.66 10.14 05/17/2004 45.00 -
6.06.9262.1 N W CONSTRUCTION 21.22 10.34 6.42 4.46
14.19.0046.2 NEITZELl , JAMES & HEATHER 66.72 62.62 4.10 05/04/2004 50.00 -
16.31.0508.2 NELSON JOHN H. 60.86 31.98 27.08 1.80 05/1 212004 27.08 -
16.31.3308.2 NICHOLS. TAMMY 51.66 42.12 9.54 05/0312004 68.00 -
15.21.0170.1 NIELSEN, BRIAN 161.20 85.50 75.70 04f0812004 95.32 -
16.31.2198.2 NORRIS, JOSHUA & COREY 54.16 35.32 18.84 04/20/2004 58.44 -
9.09.0156.1 O.P.M. ENTERPRISES 120.04 72.68 47.36 05/05/2004 38.00 -
13.13.8816.2 OLIVER, SHELLI 92.22 43.66 48.56 05/05/2004 45.36 -
17.34.2134.4 OPAL BLUME TRUST 73.26 37.12 36.14 03/26/2004 31.40 -
18.42.2258.2 OVERDEVEST,ROBERT 74.30 64.50 9.80
15.22.0454.1 P. JANSSON. JANIE 124.60 59.36 65.24 05/04/2004 59.20 -
18.43.0376.1 PACKARD ESTATES DEVELOPf>, 55.54 25.89 29.65 OS/24/2004 29.65 -
16.31.3504.1 PADDOCK, LINDA 99.14 34.44 64.70 05104/2004 34.00 -
15.21.2732.5 PALMER, TROY 142.20 99.52 42.66 04/20/2004 61.60 -
10.10.0114.2 PAPADOPULOS,AURORA 40.34 40.16 .18 05/21/2004 39.00 -
17.34.1230.1 PARENT,BEAU 61.40 40.16 21.24 05/11 f2004 36.00 -
16.32.1700.1 PASTIAN, BRYON 118.40 74.46 43.94 05/1 3/2004 30.00.
16.32.1392.1 PATTEN, JASON 49.77 39.34 10.43 05/24/2004 32.65 .
17.34.2110.1 PENCE, STEVEN 118.24 63.04 55.20 03f3112004 55.20.
10.10.0084.3 PENDER, KAREN 60.84 31.40 29.44 04/3012004 27.64 -
15.21.3096.1 PENDER, WILLIAM 81.35 79.66 1.69 03/05/2004
... in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 6
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 04:01pm
Current Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountOelinquent Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02/20/2004 Date Amount
16.32.0690.2 PETTERSON,KENNETH 74.71 28.38 46.33 04/09f2004 102.80 -
16.31.0156.3 PETTINGILL, LEWIS 88.44 31.66 31.66 25.12 03/30/2004 28.88 -
3.03.5234.1 PHIL HORTON 72.40 21.52 40.16 7.24 3.48
15.21 .3022.3 PHILLIPS, SCOTT & MELANIE 96.92 76.84 20.08 04f30/2004 80.00 -
14.14.1012.1 PHOENIX HOMES 101.12 17.60 58.96 17.60 6.96
15.15.0036.2 PIERCE, CHUCK SR. & MARY 131.92 64.00 67.92 05/05/2004 45.20 -
18.42.1160.1 PIETRZAK. JOHN 111.84 52.00 59.84 05/04/2004 50.20 -
13.13.6036.1 PINNACLE BUILDING CO, INC 25.96 7.24 15.24 3.48
14.19.0836.2 PIPPIN, GLORIA 74.12 37.06 37.06
18.42.1886.2 POPE, GERARD & JANET 83.04 55.02 28.02 05/04/2004 9.36 -
15.21.3062.1 POWELL, GREG & CATHERINE 121.74 84.26 37.48 02/27/2004 205.28 -
15.22.1024.1 PRESZLER, SHARON M. 63.96 37.86 26.10 04/12/2004 25.12 -
10.10.0068.2 PRIESS, JENNIFER 108.24 56.08 52.16 05f17/2004 46.64-
17.33.2732.2 PRYOR, KELSEY 122.74 75.72 46.70 .32 05/12/2004 50.00 -
15.22.0844.1 PRYOR, LOIS JUNE 112.68 61.24 51.44 04/27/2004 43.92 -
17.34.1172.1 aUARNBERG, CARL & DOROTH 151.78 78.40 65.66 7.72 05/05/2004 55.00 -
15.21.0012.2 RAINFORD, ROBERT & ALlNOA 116.52 47.18 69.34 04/07/2004 99.04 -
16.16.3001.1 RATCLIFFE INVESTMENTS 20.68 20.88
15.22.1016.4 REBER, RANDALL 68.56 34.28 34.28 04/06f2004 21.36 -
16.31.3390.2 REIF, JANELLE & HULL, JASON 91.39 46.04 43.10 2.25 04/02/2004 16.00 -
15.21.0118.2 REIS, DAVID 32.76 31.40 1.36 04/21/2004 33.36 -
17.33.3712.1 RHYMER, RICK 46.86 43.92 2.94 05f18/2004 40.00 -
16.31.2286.3 RICH, CORY 94.34 61.14 33.20 05/04/2004 33.00 -
15.21.1102.3 RICHARDSON, ANGELA 73.06 39.96 33.10 04/08/2004 30.16 -
16.31.3406.3 RIDER, ARTHUR & MAXINE 144.86 50.36 69.38 25.12
18.42.0310.3 RINKE, JOE & SMITH, RANDALL 101.68 50.04 51.64 05/10/2004 45.00 -
17.33.2348.1 RIPOLL, RHONDA 93.68 30.02 25.12 38.54 05/10/2004 35.12 -
15.15.0064.1 ROBERTS,CHAD 43.10 39.34 3.76 04/27/2004 36.40 -
17.33.2758.1 ROBERTSON, ROLAND 57.10 30.02 27.08 04/21/2004 21.36 -
17.34.1236.2 ROBINSON, LINDA 61.68 28.68 32.80 04f19/2004 25.12 -
14.14.4450.2 ROGERS, JACK & DENISE 53.42 37.12 16.30 05f03/2004 55.00 -
14.19.7130.5 ROMANS, NICK 71.30 34.18 37.12 04/29f2004 31.40 -
17.33.2546.3 ROWLAND, SAUNDRA 34.92 31.00 3.92 04/13/2004 25.12 -
17.34.2840.2 ROWLES, JOHN 107.10 67.76 39.34 04/06/2004 40.16 -
14.20.1864.1 ROWLEY, HELEN 40.16 39.16 .96 05/26/2004 39.18 -
17.33.0128.1 ROYAL DYNASTY 447.50 229.39 218.11 04/28/2004 109.07 -
13.13.6060.1 RUNGE, DUNCAN 115.68 48.82 66.86 04/06/2004 51.44 -
10.10.0080.3 RUSH, JAMES & ROSALIE 90.78 46.86 43.92
17.34.0874.1 SAHNI, RAJEEV 112.08 50.94 61.14 04/06f2004 32.64 -
16.32.0460.3 SALAZAR, RUBEN 65.60 55.84 9.96 04/30f2004 40.00 -
14.20.2042.1 SANCHEZ. DANEEN 114.58 46.96 65.62 05/16f2004 65.62 -
17.34.1078.2 SAVELBERG, DOYLE 157.52 80.46 77.06 05/06/2004 75.00 -
16.32.1104.1 SCHMIDT, JERRY 54.16 28.06 26.10 04/21/2004 46.48 -
17.33.2306.1 SCHNEIDER, ROBERT & MARY 74.76 36.40 38.36 04/13/2004 36.40 -
16.42.3050.1 SCHOLZ, LESLIE 151.35 28.47 46.44 76.44 03f03/2004 130.40-
15.21.1114.1 SCHOOLCRAFT, DANNY 64.70 45.78 38.92 05/03f2004 35.16 -
16.31.3334.1 SCHUSTER,DELBERT 47.80 32.38 15.42 04/30f2004 15.00 -
15.22.1636.4 SCOTT, CHUCK & TIFFANY 59.16 58.76 .40 05/04/2004 66.22 -
14.20.1338.2 SEARLE, DARRIN 46.96 41.14 5.82 04/26/2004 66.00 -
17.33.2406.1 SEEBERGER,GREG 68.30 51.44 16.86 03/31/2004 85.20 -
16.31.0444.1 SEIDEL, RICHARD 50.34 44.56 5.78 05/12/2004 28.00 -
15.22.2112.2 SEMANCIK JOHN 48.86 46.44 2.42 OS/21/2004 42.68 -
7.40.0070,3 SESSIONS. DEAN 114.78 57.88 56.90 04/26/2004 69.00 -
17.33.2402.3 SHACKELFORD,RANDALL 21.36 21.36 12/02/2003 28.88 -
17.33.3572.2 SHAPEL, NORENE 44.90 38.04 6.86
... in Msg column indicates no Nolice is to be sent
( ,.
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account Ust- council Page: 7
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01,2004 04:01pm
Current Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq o412of2004 o3f20/2004 02l2of2004 Date Amount
16.32.0970.4 SHEARER, JOE & RENEITA 158.76 82.32 76.44 05/05/2004 42.68 -
18.42.2526.1 SHELTRON, ROGER 108.30 45.62 62.68 05/03f2004 38.92 -
13.13.2036.2 SIMON, DARCI 67.82 64.90 2.92 05/28f2004 43.00 -
15.21.2836.2 SINGLETON, RODNEY 143.64 75.94 67.70 05/03/2004 76.00 -
17.34.0822.1 SITZLAR, RON & GAY 90.52 50.94 39.18 .40 04/06/2004 36.00 -
15.21.1406.2 SKIDMORE, LINDA & RONALD 38.20 35.42 2.78 05/04/2004 32.64 -
13.13.6076.1 SKINNER CONSTRUCTION 57.20 17.60 32.64 3.48 3.48
15.22.0208.1 SLUDER,DAYNA 75.36 37.68 37.68 0410212004 33.92 -
16.31.3562.3 SMITH, JUSTIN & TAMMY 105.94 62.28 43.66 04/06/2004 69.04 -
17.34.3316.1 STADLER, STEPHEN & HEATHE 104.56 59.92 44.64 05/04/2004 70. 00 -
6.06.9040.1 STEWART, LYNDON & SHAUNA 59.40 29.29 30.11 04/08/2004 48.94 -
10.10.1066.2 STOESSER, RICHARD & PATRie 52.42 45.88 6.54 04/06/2004 80.32 -
14.20.1688.3 STOLZ, DONALD 144.20 60.32 52.48 31.40 03/29/2004 11.28.
6.06.1914.1 SWANSON, STEVE 61.20 31.09 30.11 04/06/2004 56.46 -
8.85.0040.1 THOMAS & DUNN 10.72 7.24 348
8.85.0116.1 THOMAS & DUNN 6.96 3.48 348
16.32.0640.1 THORNGREN, CURTIS D. 115.30 59.12 56.18 03/26/2004 47.68 -
15.21.2736.2 THURBER, RICK 118.34 73.38 44.96 03/30/2004 66.56 -
9.09.9168.2 THURSTON, DWIGHT & AMY 89.89 33.62 33.62 22.65 0310212004 75.00 -
13.13.6022.1 TIMBERSTON BUILDERS LLC 25.92 18.52 7.40 04109/2004 20.00 -
7.40.0250.1 TOMICH, LONNY 82.28 41.14 41.14 05/03/2004 40.16 -
16.31.3300.2 TONEY, TAMMY 80.32 40.16 40.16 04/29/2004 36.40 -
15.22.0990.3 TOWNSEND, BRYANT & TANISI- 52.00 51.00 1.00 05/28/2004 62.94 -
7.40.0054.2 TRACY, DANIEL & KAREN 231.00 116.48 114.52 05/05/2004 65.24 -
16.31.0454,2 TRACY, JOL YNN 62,00 46.10 15.90 05/03/2004 50.00 -
16.31.0578.1 TRINIDAD, DAN 48,50 48.48 .02 04/30/2004 46,50 -
18.42.2348,3 TUTTLE, T AMI 107,15 23.57 39.58 20.12 23.88 1212212003 223.80 -
15.22.0918,2 ULLRICH, JENNIFER 94.70 47.84 46.86 04/27/2004 43,90 -
17.34,1946.4 VANCE, CHRISTY 202.94 110.36 92,58 05/1012004 60,00 -
16.31.2304.4 VARIN, ANDREW 121.82 69,24 52.58 05/03/2004 40,16 -
15,21.1032,1 VELADA, FEDERICO 92.46 49.70 42.76 05/17/2004 39.00 -
15.21.1940.4 VESPER, JACOB 90,78 45.88 44.90
15.22.0318.1 VOORHEES, MICHAEL 97.44 56.56 40.88 04/13/2004 59.24 -
9.09.9126.1 WAGNON GENERAL 88.92 25.12 17.60 21.36 24.84 01/23/2004 3.48-
17,34.0294.1 WALGREENS STORE # 620 338.06 257,19 80.87 06/01/2004 75,00 -
14.20,1398.1 WALKER, JUSTIN 141.12 74.48 66.64 05/1212004 58.96 -
17.34.2734.1 WALL. MIKE 65.38 32.64 32.64 .10 05/03/2004 32.54 -
16.32.1306.2 WALSH, DAVID & CARA 93.86 46.44 47.42 05/04/2004 46.44 -
15.22.1734.1 WALTERS, J. SCOTT 96.24 49.64 46.60 05104/2004 45.00 -
18.43.0212.2 WANG, KENT & PERA DAVID 74.12 37.06 37.06 04/14/2004 25.12 -
16.32.0444.1 WARNER, MICHAEL & CYNTHIA 90.12 80.84 9.28 05/1012004 50.00 -
14.20.1894.6 WATERS, JENNIFER 54.60 34.60 20.00 OS/24/2004 31.66 -
10.20.0001 .1 WATERSONG ESTATES 1,03890 551.30 487.60
17.34.1652.2 WATSON, BRIAN 125.40 73.48 51.92 04/30/2004 40.16 -
18.42.0462.4 WEBB, HENRY & CHERRIE 62.42 57.88 4,54 06/01/2004 50.00 -
15.21.2192.3 WEBER, THOMAS 151.24 89.52 61 .48 .24 05105/2004 65.00 -
15,22.0946.1 WEBSTER, RICHARD & KATHY 80.58 64.08 16.50 05/17/2004 42.68 -
16.31.3322.1 WESTON, DECKER 40,28 36.40 3.88 05104/2004 100.00 -
14.20.1724.2 WHALEN, JOHN JR 142.48 46.44 68.40 27.64 04/07/2004 20.12 -
18.42.2492,1 WHITE, TAMELA 115.76 56,90 58.86 05/06/2004 53.96 -
15.21.1590.1 WHITTEN, DAVID 101.70 56.40 45.30 04/3012004 43.00 -
15.21.1960.2 WILI<INSON, MARK 40.00 39.02 .98
18.18.0020,1 WILLIAMS, WALTER & ROBERT! 39.75 3583 3.92
16.32.12522 WILLIAMSON, DALE 54,59 36.30 18.29 04/21/2004 136.64 -
16,32.1638.2 WILOTH, MARK 102.94 36.96 65.98 04/07/2004 66.56 -
... in Msg colu mn indicates no Notice is to be sent
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Delinquent Account List- council
Standard Payment Customers
Current Period: 06105/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance
Page: 8
Jun 01, 2004 04:01pm
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02120/2004 Date Amount
15.21.2184.2 WILSON, BRADLY 116.76 56.42 60.34 05/04/2004 89.24 -
14.14.3006.2 WOOD, DOUGLAS & MELANIE 43.43 40.06 3.37 05/26/2004 40.00 -
17.34.1506.2 WOODWARD, ROBERT 87.78 42.42 45.36 04/07/2004 75.36 -
17.33.2382.6 YAMAMOTO, KRISTINE 95.74 38.36 57.38 04/30/2004 32.64.
15.21.1130.5 YASUDA, GARY & SHAWNA 92.68 77.24 15.44 06/01/2004 50.00 -
18.42.2742.1 YOUNG, THOMAS 112.48 58.20 54.28 05/03/2004 46.44 -
16.32.1602.1 ZAHM, ROBERT 45.30 43.66 1.64 05/18/2004 43.00 -
6.06.9192.2 ZAHM, TAMMY 25.97 24.55 1.42 04/28/2004 40.00.
15.22.1130.1 ZARAK, JENNIFER 100.96 64.58 36.38 OS/24/2004 75.00.
Grand Totals: 39,620.34 23,130.53 14,558.34 853.56 1,077.91
Report Criteria:
Terminated customers not inclUded
Customer.Cust No 0:; {<} 880000001
Customer. Bill Cycle:; 2
... in M sg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
DELINQUENCY FOR TURN
OFF SCHEDULED FOR
J uue 2, 2004
CYCLE 2
MAYOR: This is to inform you in writing, if you so
choose, that you have the right to a pre-termination hearing
at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 1,2004, before the Mayor and
City Council, to appear in person to be judged on the facts
and to defend the claim made by this City that your water,
sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel.
This service will be discontinued on June 1, 2004 unless
payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who
wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash
delinquency?
(No response.)
MAYOR: They are hereby informed that they may appeal
or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth
Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even
though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The
amount of the tum-offlist is $16,489.81
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List. council Page: 1
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 03:59pm
Current Period: 06105/2004
No Delinquent Minimum Amoun!Delinquent Balance
Report Criteria:
Terminated customers not included
Customer.Cust No () = {<} 880000001
Customer.BiII Cycle = 2
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02/20/2004 Date Amount
3.03.5382.1 6.96 3.48 3.48
8.15.0030.1 A & R FRAMING 22.00 18.52 3.48
13.13.8426.2 A.M. THOMPSON MOONLAKE Tf 120.00 58.44 61.56 04/28/2004 54.00 -
7.40.0174.1 AHREND, STEVEN 65.76 37.54 28.22 04/06/2004 40.00 -
18.42.2990.2 ALEJANDRO, ANGELO & LEIDA 75.88 37.94 37.94 05/04/2004 38.92 -
16.31.0202.2 ALFERINK FAMILY TRUST 43.48 35.42 8.06 05/03/2004 60.00.
18.43.0156.1 ALlBEGIC, MUSTAFA 28.28 24.80 3.48
16.31.3422.1 ALLEN, SEDENA 64.52 55.26 9.26 OS/28/2004 46.00 -
15.15.0110.2 ALTA 92.88 46.44 46.44 05/05/2004 46.44 -
17.34.2730.1 ALVEREZ, ROSALlO 82.86 41.30 41.56 04106/2004 96.00 -
16.32.1532.2 ANDERSON, CHRISTY 87.68 46.86 37.06 3.76
15.21.0566.1 ANDERSON, JAMES 49.26 24.14 25.12 04116/2004 42.72 -
14.19.1360.1 ANDERSON, KIRK & CHERYL 35.20 17.60 17.60 04127/2004 35.20 .
17.34.1102.3 ANDERSON, LADELL 103.34 52.16 51.18 04/01/2004 50.20 -
16.32.1434.5 ANDERSON, LADELL 56.78 27.90 28.88 04/02/2004 58.51 -
14.19.0068.2 ANDERSON, SKIP & JULIE 117.40 59.68 57.72 04/19/2004 57.72 -
18.42.1988.2 ARMSTRONG, GARY & LAURA 109.08 59.44 49.64 05/04/2004 40.16 -
15.21.2708.4 ASAY, ALAN & JULIE 61.06 57.88 3.18 05/04/2004 100.00 -
18.42.1028.1 AV II LLC. 367.53 361.53 6.00 05/13/2004 329.21 -
18.42.2148.1 AZARY, SUSAN 70.50 34.76 35.74 04/06/2004 80.24 -
17.33.4274.2 BACON ,THOMAS 38.04 37.06 .98
16.31.3480.1 BAIRD, CATHARINE D 70.60 40.98 29.62 04/16/2004 75.00-
10.10.0092.2 BAKER, DUSTIN 107.46 57.16 50.30 04/06/2004 140.48 -
14.19.7766.3 BAKER, SUSAN 51.22 26.10 25.12 04/06/2004 21.36 .
16.32.0878.1 BALL, WILLIAM 67.66 46.52 21.14 01/27/2004 102.54 -
15.21.1876.1 BARNETT, DOROTHY A. 58.22 30.58 27.64 04/28/2004 27.64 -
15.21.1894.1 BARNHART, CLINTON 78.18 52.80 25.38 03/16/2004 50.00 -
15.21.3036.2 BARR, GERALDINE 110.98 66.76 44.22 05/04/2004 41.44 -
9.92.7014.1 BEACHWOOD BUILDERS INC 6.96 3.48 3.48
14.14.5010.2 BEAUCANNON, JUSTIN 93.20 49.54 43.66 05103/2004 42.68 -
18.18.0022.2 BECK, KENNETH 80.82 39.43 41.39 04/12/2004 33.87 -
16.32.0508.1 BELL, DERRICK 89.12 65.16 23.96 05/06/2004 60.00 -
17.34.1902.3 BENGOECHEA, MIKE 181.92 76.94 104.98 04/07/2004 174.24 -
14.19.6688.1 BENNETT, MASON 80.46 39.90 40.56 05/04/2004 43.00.
14.14.3004.2 BEWLEY, SANDRA & DAVID 95.85 10.49 42.68 42.68 04/06/2004 38.92 -
17.33.2730.1 BLEAZARD, BARRETT 96.34 47.68 48.66 04/27/2004 44.28 -
17.34.1318.2 BOOHER, CRAIG & DANA 130.26 100.56 29.70 OS/28/2004 34.00 -
15.22.0894.1 BOTIMER, STEVEN 48.76 48.72 .04 OS/26/2004 40.84 -
15.21.0464.2 BOUSSATTA, BILLlSUE 41.96 40.00 1.96
14.20.0040.4 BOWERS. JAMES & CYNTHIA 77.06 37.06 40.00
15.21.3068.1 BOYDSTUN, PATRICK & JUDY 63.92 58.94 4.98 05/03/2004 67.00 -
10.10.0098.2 BRADBERRY, JOSEPH 75.42 38.20 37.22 04/01/2004 72.80 -
15.22.1312.1 BRADY,RODNEY 102.68 55.26 47.42 04/22/2004 38.92 -
16.31.3068.4 BRATT. DENISE 125.02 80.94 44.08 05/05/2004 40.16 -
16.16.3306.2 BREWER, CHRIS & ELIZABETH 62.78 61.80 .98 04/29/2004 104.16-
15.22.2282.2 BRICE, DAVID 64.76 33.36 31.40 05/04/2004 59.04-
10.10.1002.1 BRIDGETOWER DENTAL 150.26 75.13 75.13 04/1312004 71.37 -
16.32.0504.3 BRIGHT. ARRON & SONIA 93.06 48.98 44.08 05/0512004 40.16 -
16.31.2306.1 BRIGHT. LEANN 73.60 47.08 26.52 05/1 2/2004 40.00 -
14.19.1570.2 BRIGHTON HOMES 30.00 30.00 02/25/2004 123.94 -
n. in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 2
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01. 2004 03:59pm
Current Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmounlDelinquent Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02120/2004 D,ate Amount
15.21.3056.3 BRUCE AND VIOLA HARTMAN T 90.92 47.42 43.50 04/13/2004 23.88 -
18.42.1822.1 BRUCE, BITTON 78.82 38.92 39.90 04/06/2004 74.08 -
8.08.0144.2 BRUCE, TIMOTHY 101.00 50.84 50.16 04/29/2004 50.16 -
16.32.0732.2 BRUNGER. DWAYNE & LINDA 358.51 106.24 75.86 46.44 129.97 05/07/2004 20.00 -
15.22.1324.1 BURDEN, DAREON 123.60 66.70 56.90 05/06/2004 83.96 -
15.22.2396.2 CAIRL. SCOTT & DENISE 110.72 59.12 51.60 04/30/2004 55.20 -
16.31.3536.2 CAMPBELL. SCOTT 57.76 28.88 28.88 04/06/2004 25.12-
14.19.7158.2 CAMPBELL. BENJAMIN 102.80 36.40 66.40 04107/2004 69.04 -
15.21.1116.2 CAMPBELL. CHRISTOPHER 52.82 31.72 21.10 03/25/2004 47.76 -
14.19.7186.2 CAMPBELL. SHELLI 77.84 38.92 38.92 03/30/2004 31.40 -
16.32.0910.3 CANNELL, FRANK & CATHY 121.82 60.42 61.40 05/03/2004 47.68 -
3.03.5038.1 CANYON RIVER CONSTRUCTIO 13.38 4.46 5.44 3.48
18.42.0258.1 CAPITOL CHRISTIAN CENTER 632.88 327.72 305.16 05/07/2004 523.10-
18.42.0260.1 CAPITOL CHRISTIAN CENTER 318.86 172.59 146.27 05/07/2004 123.71 -
15.21.3130.2 CARSTENSEN. LUCINDA 69.68 64.74 4.94 05/04/2004 146.58 -
6.06.2074.2 CARTER, MICHAEL & HEIDI 35.99 35.01 .98 05/04/2004 30.11 -
16.31.2252.1 CASADY, WARREN A. 64.78 62.78 2.00 05/1 2/2004 220.17-
15.21.1402.2 CHAPMAN. JAMES 115.51 57.16 57.16 1.19 05/05/2004 50.00 -
18.42.2582.1 CHAPMAN, LORRI 79.66 54.60 25.06 04/30/2004 50.00.
15.22.0848.1 CHAPMAN, THOMAS 215.64 113.70 101.94 05/05/2004 61.48 -
16.32.0360.1 CHERRY LANE MOBILE PARK 1.481.31 1,339.92 141.39 05/13/2004 1,110.92 -
15.21.1866.2 CHRUCH. ALAN 81.36 39.02 42.34 04/14/2004 37.00 -
15.15.2000.1 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF 67.74 60.19 7.55
16.31.3282.2 CLAJUS. ALMA 87.90 59.02 28.88 05/04/2004 40.00 -
15.21.1902.2 CLARKE, MICHELE 87.64 45.78 41.86 04/27/2004 65.16 -
15.21.2214.4 CLEVELAND, RICHARD & KAREl 169.44 169.44 09/04/2003 109.08 -
8.15.7001.1 COBRE / COPPER BASIN 48.56 40.72 7.84
7.40.0066.1 COCHELL, TIM & ANGELlA 60.58 44.08 16.50 04/28/2004 59.08 -
16.16.3302.2 COLDWELL BANKER ASPEN RE 360.51 360.51 12/03/2003 180.00 -
16.31.0796.2 COLLINS, LINDA 69.84 69.74 .10 05/14/2004 56.00 -
17.33.2566.2 CONNELL, EDWARD 97.76 46.70 50.62 .44 05/04/2004 51.00 -
14.20.1950.1 CONROY, MICHAEL S. 56.78 56.72 .06 04/27/2004 40.00 -
15.22.2628.2 COSTNER, SHANNON 118.72 40.88 38.92 38.92 03/02/2004 37.92 -
16.31.3420.1 COUCH, JULIA 73.28 38.36 34.92 05/03/2004 30.00 -
15.21.1740.2 COX. JAY & CARROL 99.62 54.71 44.91 04/06/2004 17. 05 -
18.42.1172.4 COX, POLLY 33.78 30.84 2.94 05/04/2004 57.76 -
17.34.2710.5 CRANE, SHANE 88.82 44.90 43.92 05104/2004 36.40 -
17.34.0724.3 CRAWFORD, MICHAEL & KRISTI 57.64 41.14 16.50 04/27/2004 59.08 -
16.32.0714.2 CRUZ, EDUARDO & MARCIA 94.58 89.58 5.00 06101/2004 78.80 -
16.31.3336.1 CRYER. JUDITH 66.32 45.70 20.62 04/06/2004 50.00 -
3.03.5048.1 CURT PRINDLE 62.58 34.26 21.36 3.48 3.48
15.22.1640.1 CURTIS, BERNICE 110.32 28.88 46.28 35.16 02/26/2004 111.40 -
6.06.1508.2 CVITANICH, ANTHONY & ROCHI 27.79 27.49 .30 04/29/2004 25.23 -
3.03.5308.1 DALE HOMES 28.92 25.44 3.48 04/21/2004 3.48-
18.42.0346.2 DARRON STOUT 102.34 48.72 53.62 05/03/2004 38.92.
10.10.2362.1 DARYL WILSON CONSTRUCTIO 10.44 3.48 3.48 3.48
15.21.1788.2 DAVENPORT,ANTHONY 126.18 63.58 62.60 05/03/2004 67.00 -
18.42.2288.3 DAVIS. RENEE 66.19 62.12 4.07 04/30/2004 61.14-
15.22.2410.2 DAVIS. RICHARD & JOANNE 60.18 32.54 27.64 05104/2004 27.64 -
14.14.4324.1 DBD INC. 115.36 46.44 68.92 05103/2004 38.92 -
8.08.1266.2 DELEON, ERNESTO & CHRISTY 82.28 42.12 40.16 04/06/2004 76.56 -
16.32.1098.2 DERRICK, ARTHUR J & LAURA t 70.50 40.64 29.86 05104/2004 57.76 -
17.33.2594.2 DONALDSON, NEAL 66.30 41.70 24.60 06101/2004 50.00 -
17.33.2612.6 DONALDSON, NEAL 100.18 35.58 64.60 04/07/2004 114.40.
17.33.22722 EARLY, DIANA 44.90 42.94 1.96
... in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
~ ,
l
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List. cou ndl Page: 3
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 04:00pm
Current Period: 06105/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmounlDelinquent Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04120/2004 03/2012004 02/20/2004 Date Amount
18.42.2598.2 EASTBURN,GARY 133.74 67.36 66.38 05/03/2004 61.48 -
18.42.4284.1 ECHEVERRIA CONSTRUCTION 24.56 17.60 3.48 3.48
16.31.3034.1 EDWARDS. MARILYN 47.02 29.86 17.16 05104/2004 50.00.
16.32.1258.2 ELAM, ROGER & LUCAS, PHAEC 103.86 53.40 50.46 05/04/2004 51.44 .
15.21.3164.2 ELEOPOULOS, JAMES 107.76 61.72 46.04 04/26/2004 81.44 .
15.21.2108.4 ELLISON, COLETTE 44.04 32.64 11.40 04/29/2004 50.00 .
15.21.1896.5 EMMEN,DUSTIN & KATHY 55.42 52.32 3.10 0511112004 50.20 -
7.48.3001.1 ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS 692.08 315.66 376.42
16.32.1110.2 EQUITIES, ACACIA 87.00 35.58 51.42 10/2112003 200.00 .
15.22.1634.1 ERICKSON, EVA LOUISE 45.80 22.90 22.90 05/0312004 20.12.
15.21.2876.1 ERNESTO, BRIAN 70.89 49.38 21.51 05/1312004 40.00 .
16.32.1156.1 FARBER, BRIAN & KIMBER 106.14 56.50 49.64 04114/2004 43.92 -
10.10.0676.1 FENIX CONSTRUCTION INC 10.72 7.24 3.48
15.15.0412.2 FERGUSON,CHARLOTTE 45.56 45.46 .10 05111/2004 44.38 .
16.31.3238.1 FIFE, LARRY 59.14 32.80 26.34 02/27/2004 50.00 .
6.06.9052.2 FLEISCHER, MARK 59.24 34.85 24.39 04/21/2004 25.00 .
14.20.1532.3 FOLWELL, RITA 51.22 25.12 26.10 04/06/2004 21.36 -
17.34.1288.1 FOURNIER. JAMES 78.22 53.72 24.50 05/03f2004 70.00.
16.32.1540.1 FROMAN, BRUCE 133.28 61.30 39.34 32.64 03f08f2004 36.40.
16.32.1542.1 FUHRMAN, JOSHUA 83.58 38.36 45.22 04f12f2004 69.04.
15.22.1184.1 GAILEY. ERON 122.62 69.64 52.98 04f02/2004 100.40 .
10.10.1006.1 GALLARY HOMES 620.46 22.59 597.87 03f30/2004 26.35 .
14.14.1040.2 GANN, LANCE & KRISTIN 80.14 40.56 39.58 04f08/2004 31.40 -
17.33.2302.1 GARRARD, DALE 73.78 38.36 35.42 05f05/2004 36.40 .
17.34.2896.2 GAYTHWAITE. LARRY & TAMI 38.16 33.62 4.54 05f27/2004 60.00.
15.22.1652.2 GLORFIELD, VARONA 74.80 44.80 30.00 05/04/2004 38.92 .
15.22.1622.4 GOHR. DOUGLAS 148.55 44.80 103.75 03/22/2004 100.32 -
17.34.2114.1 GRANO. TRACY 52.70 28.72 23.98 05/07f2004 30.00 -
16.32.1256.2 GRASS, JOYCE 40.76 20.38 20.38 04114/2004 37.15.
17.33.0851 .1 GROFF, MARY 37.24 31.90 5.34 01/15f2004 3.48 -
17.33.0850.2 GROFF, MARY 60.26 55.87 4.39 04/06/2004 62.47 -
17.34.0366.4 GUEVARA, JAIME & ROJAS, PIL, 56.66 48.82 7.84
15.21.0462.3 GUNNARSON, HOWARD & Run 215.55 104.25 111.30 05/05/2004 70.00 -
16.31.0124.3 GUSSIE. DOROTHY 72.80 35.42 37.38 03/30f2004 32.64 -
15.21.2696.2 HAAS. DAVID & JUDY 89.14 48.00 41.14 05/04f2004 32.64 -
15.22.0924.1 HALL, KEVIN 45.94 41.86 4.08 05f03f2004 70.00 -
14.19.0164.1 HAll, MARY ANN 50.24 25.12 25.12 05/04f2004 25.12.
16.31.3394.2 HANHARDT, ANDREW & CAMILl 125.64 58.10 36.14 31.40 04/06f2004 31.56.
14.14.3666.2 HANSEN, ROBERT & MARY SUS 40.08 25.68 14.40 03/3012004 38.92.
10.10.0104.3 HARDY, MICHAEL & FELICIA 116.92 49.38 47.42 20.12
17.33.2368.2 HARNECK, KARl 36.78 35.42 1.36 OS/2812004 37.00 -
6.06.9816.1 HARPE. LARRY & BARBARA 46.16 23.57 22.59 04f06/2004 15.07 -
18.42.1820.1 HARRINGTON-BLACK. JODY 101.60 72.68 28.92 05f05/2004 50.00 -
3.03.5270.1 HARRIS. CHEREE 283.50 152.46 131.04 05/0412004 151.07 -
15.22.2590.2 HART. JULIE 96.00 33.20 35.16 27.64 03f29/2004 61.40 -
15.21.1776.2 HARTSOOK, HOWARD 87.54 87.54 11 f17/2003 34.71.
17.33.0356.1 HARTZ, MATTHEW 59.54 29.77 29.77 04f23/2004 42.03 -
17.33.0354.2 HARTZ. MATTHEW 107.74 77.88 29.86 04f23/2004 28.88 -
15.22.1202.6 HATFIELD, TED 105.52 71.60 33.92 05f28/2004 50.00.
15.21.0178.3 HAZEN. DEBORAH 39.70 39.50 .20 05/11/2004 3440 -
18.42.2308.1 HEATH. REX & ANNE 65.09 58.78 6.31 04130/2004 45.00 -
16.31.0828.4 HELTON. DEWEY & LISA 131,76 73.72 58.04 05/03/2004 46.44 -
14,14.1050.1 HIGH DESERT 8920 32.64 17.60 21.36 17.60 02/06/2004 28.32 -
3.03.5124.1 HIGH DESERT CONSTRUCTION 6.96 3.48 3.48
3.03.5164.1 HIGH DESERT CONSTRUCTION 6.96 3.48 3.48
... in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
I
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 4
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 04:00pm
Current Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance
Last pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02120/2004 Date Amount
14.14.1008.1 HIGH DESERT CONSTRUCTION 30.32 21.36 8.96 03/29/2004 47.60 -
17.34.1640.3 HIGHBARGER, MICHAEL & LIND 109,44 61.96 47,48 04/20/2004 76.44 -
15.21.1928.2 HOLMES, MICHAEL & LAURIE 132.02 82.48 49.54 05105/2004 68.92 -
14.14.5008.2 HOMEONLINE REAL ESTATES 40.24 20.12 20.12 04/20/2004 30.00 -
15.21.0492.2 HUGHES, BRIAN 51.34 48.40 2.94 05/14/2004 46.44 -
17.33.2754.1 INGOE, BRADLEY 101.38 49.22 52.16 04/06/2004 89.12 -
16.32.1148.1 IRWIN, DAVID 86.86 44.90 41.96 04106/2004 72.80 -
8.08.1296.2 ISAACS, CAROLYN 71.16 37.54 33.62 04/0112004 65.28 -
16.32.1090.1 IVERSON, GARY & SHEILA 56.56 50.84 5.72 05/03/2004 62.80 -
16.32.1552.1 JAKOMEIT, MICHAEL 81.96 81.96 11/24/2003 43.79 -
15.15.0019.1 JAMES A BENJAMIN 35.40 32.64 2.76 03/31/2004 96.00 -
17.33.0358.1 JAMES COURT APTS 630.04 622.04 8.00 06/01/2004 566.18 -
16.32.0936.1 JARDINE, MICHAEL 120.06 59.94 60.12 05/05/2004 56.00.
16.31.0516.1 JARRETT, SHARON 58.24 57.24 1.00 05/05/2004 66.02.
14.19.1202.1 JEFF & PAM PUGMIRE 114.32 57.16 57.16 04/19/2004 55.20 -
14.19.1630.2 JENKINS, LEROY 104.84 57.32 47.52 04/06/2004 146.80 -
10.10.2344.1 JOHN FLAHERTY CONSTRUCTII 14.48 11.00 3,48
18.42.2482.1 JOHNSON, BRYON & MARYLEN 105.94 70.88 35.06 05/05/2004 60.00 -
18.42.0374.3 JOHNSON, DORTHY & REX 212.18 70.88 66.96 51.44 22.90 05/24/2004 40.00 -
15.21.2790.2 JOHNSON, REX & DORTHY 121.69 26.35 45.14 50.20 03/11/2004 46.40 -
16.31.0160.1 JOHNSON, WILLIAM G 43.26 42.28 .98 05/11/2004 36.40 -
15.22.0330.1 JONES, ELDON & LORI 139.88 85.92 53.96 05/06/2004 46.44 -
16.32.0522.2 JUHASZ, DON C. 95.94 51.44 44.50 05/03/2004 50.00 -
15.21.0028.2 KEENEY, DONLAN & ELlSABETI- 110.24 44.80 65.44 05/05/2004 40.00 -
17.33.2756.1 KELLER, KEVIN 80.78 40.88 39.90 04/29/2004 38.92 -
15.21.2676.1 KELLY JR, RICKY 93.72 90.94 2.78 04/21/2004 5.20 -
18.42.1810.2 KESTER,ROBERT 43.02 42.68 .34 06/01/2004 47.00 -
15.22.1338.2 KILLION, DAVID & AMY 62.00 41.60 20.40 05/13/2004 35.00 -
9.09.9230.2 KOCH, CHRISTOPHER & MISHE 99.60 57.72 41.88 03/26/2004 100.00 -
10.10.1294.1 KOLE CROFTS 35.20 17.60 17.60 04/0212004 17.60-
16.32.0512.2 KRUSE, BRENDA 50.24 25.12 25.12 05/03/2004 42.72 -
13.13.1190.3 KYSER, GREGORY & OCEAN 86.34 42.68 43.66 03/31/2004 81.60 -
18.42.2594.2 LABRENZ, JEAN A. 76.20 38.10 38.10 04/06/2004 35.16 -
18.42.4056.1 LAMOREAUX, KIM 159.82 94.42 65.40 05/05/2004 65.24 -
16.32.0632.1 LANDER, WALLACE & VIRGINIA 64.91 61.24 3.67 05/27/2004 55.61 -
15.22.2066.2 LANORE, TAMARA 72.80 37.38 35,42 03/29/2004 32.64 -
16.31.0866.1 LARSON-POOLE, VICKEE K. 117.90 57,48 60,42 05/05/2004 43.92 -
18,42.2736.1 LENAGHEN, CHRIS 56.54 42.18 14.36 OS/21/2004 35.00 -
15.22.2420.1 LEVCO CONSTRUCTION 120.40 66.44 53.96 03/31/2004 35.16 -
17.34.1074.1 LEWIS. LANNY 66.28 37.38 28.90 04/07/2004 70.00 -
6.06.9086.2 L1N, EUGENE 52.70 26.35 26.35 04/21/2004 22.59 -
15.22.1581.1 LINDER ELEMENTARY 49.54 36.80 12.74
16.31.1002.3 L1NDGREEN, NATHANAEL & HE} 81.64 53.30 28.34 05/18/2004 20.00 -
18.42.2706.1 LINDT, TAMMY 37.36 36.96 .40 04/30/2004 39.50 -
14.19.4464.1 LITTLE. CRAIG 42.97 39.18 3.79 05/04/2004 65.00 -
3.03.5001.1 LOCHSA FALLS HOA 1,237.84 1 ,224.1 2 13.72
18.42.2520.1 LOCKYER, MERRI E 104.36 54.94 49.42 05/03/2004 50.00 -
6.06.1804.2 LOWENSTEIN, TIM & DIANE 50.21 48.25 1.96 04/28/2004 42.37 -
6.06.1492.2 LOWRY, ROBERT & DEBI 150.68 103.57 47.11 05/05/2004 35.15 -
13.13.9082.2 LUCAS, CATHERINE 51.22 26.10 25.12 04/13/2004 25.12 -
16.32.1320.1 LUKE. SHELLlE M. 76.20 68.98 7.22 06/01/2004 50.00 -
17.33.2340.3 LYON, CHRIS & TAMMY 190.59 76.09 74.06 40.44 OS/26/2004 75.00 -
15.22.1724.1 MACHADO, DAVID 70.66 28.06 26.10 16.50 04/14/2004 30.00 -
6.06.9858.2 MAl, CURTIS 40.45 17.03 16.05 7.37 04/0212004 40.00 -
9.09.9336.1 MALLON CONSTRUCTION 28.32 17.60 7.24 3.48
... in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
( (
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 5
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 04:00pm
Current Period: 06105/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance
Last Pm! Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02/20/2004 Date Amount
17.34.2808.1 MANN, KEVIN & VIVIAN 97.86 73.18 24.68 05/18/2004 35.00 -
3.03.5198.1 MARKAR DESIGN & CONSTRUC 6.96 3.48 3.48
3.03.5210.1 MARKAR DESIGN & CONSTRUC 17.74 12.30 5.44
17.34.1472.1 MARKHAM,RON 94.84 45.46 49.38 05/03/2004 42.68 .
17.33.2740.5 MARTIN, ROBERT 48.76 46.70 2.06 04/15/2004 43.92.
8.08.1288.2 MARTIN, SCOTT & JANELL 45.76 45.46 .30 OS/27/2004 44.18 .
18.43.0188.1 MAYNES, STEVE 108.76 53.40 55.36 05/04/2004 51.44 "
16.31.3474.1 MCDONALD, SHAWN 67.24 32.64 34.60 03/24/2004 94.16 -
17.33.1674.2 MCFALL, MICHAEL 64.30 32.64 31.66 04/06f2004 32.64 "
15.21.2114.3 MCGAHEY, JAMES & LISA 61.04 37.94 23.10 05f03/2004 80.00.
14.20.1326.5 MCGEE, RICHARD & SHARILEE 36.96 34.18 2.78 06/01/2004 31.40 .
15.22.2138.2 MCHUGH, RYAN 77.84 38.92 37.94 .98 04/29/2004 37.94 -
18.42.2538.1 MCINTIRE, CHRISTINA 72.89 50.94 21.95 04f28/2004 20.00 -
16.32.0454.3 MCLEAN, JACK & BOB 77.60 61.08 16.52 05/03f2004 100.00 -
17.34.0968.2 MEHOLCHICK, VICKY 212.14 98.24 113.90 04/30/2004 100.00 -
18.18.0024.1 MELLOR, DOUGLAS 22.10 21.12 .98
9.09.1000.1 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 439.95 157.95 282.00 04/30/2004 52.70 .
16.31.0494.2 MESZAROS, LILLI 94.84 49.36 45.46 05/12/2004 61.60.
16.31.2310.2 MEYER, SHERYL 99.63 99.63 11/18f2003 10.00 -
18.42.2118.1 MILLER, JIM & SANDI 111.18 60.98 50.20 05f03/2004 44.84 -
15.22.1440.1 MILLER, JOSEPH 96.06 77.82 18.24 05/04/2004 73.90 -
13.13.8110.3 MILLER, ROBERTA 85.36 42.68 42.68 04/16/2004 38.92 -
9.09.0062.1 MILLER, SCOTT & RHONDA 92.88 50.20 42.68 04/30/2004 42.68 -
16.31.0860.2 MILLS, DONOVAN 104.98 54.12 50.86 04/30/2004 43.00 -
8.08.0304.2 MILLS, JOHN 65.40 64.42 .98 06/01f2004 61.48 -
18.42.2082.1 MIYASATO, GENOVEVA 128.46 64.74 63.72 04/13f2004 54.00 -
17.33.4264.3 MOMA, MICHAEL 110.92 40.46 70.46 05/04/2004 71 .44 -
16.42.1836.3 MONROE, BUD 71.02 59.52 11.50 06/01/2004 50.00 -
15.22.2088.2 MOODY, SHAIN 104.10 68.52 35.58 05/05/2004 50.81 -
16.32.0654.1 MORRISON, MICHAEL & BENICI. 155.91 82.82 73.09 05/04/2004 80.00 -
16.32.0650.2 MOWRY, CHARLOTTE 72.46 41.62 30.84 04/06/2004 75.36 -
18.42.1982.2 MURRAY, JAY & MELISSA 85.64 55.68 29.96 04/30/2004 60.00 -
15.21.1068.1 MURRAY, JOHN 67.82 59.92 7.90 05f03/2004 80.00 -
15.21.1094.1 MUZALlWA, ILUNGU 78.80 68.66 10.14 05/17/2004 45.00 -
6.06.9262.1 N W CONSTRUCTION 21.22 10.34 6.42 4.46
14.19.0046.2 NEITZELL, JAMES & HEATHER 66.72 62.62 4.10 05/04/2004 50.00 -
16.31.0508.2 NELSON JOHN H. 60.86 31.98 27.08 1.80 05/12/2004 27.08 "
16.31.3308.2 NICHOLS, TAMMY 51.66 42.12 9.54 05/03/2004 68.00 .
15.21.0170.1 NIELSEN, BRIAN 161.20 85.50 75.70 04108/2004 95.32 .
16.31.2198.2 NORRIS, JOSHUA & COREY 54.16 35.32 18.84 04/20/2004 58.44 .
9.09.0156.1 O.P.M. ENTERPRISES 120.04 72.68 47.36 05/05/2004 38.00 "
13.13.8816.2 OLIVER, SHELLI 92.22 43.66 48.56 05/05f2004 45.36 "
17.34.2134.4 OPAL BLUME TRUST 73.26 37.12 36.14 03/26f2004 31.40 -
18.42.2258.2 OVERDEVEST.ROBERT 74.30 64.50 9.80
15.22.0454.1 P. JANSSON, JANIE 124.60 59.36 65.24 05/04f2004 59.20 -
18.43.0376.1 PACKARD ESTATES DEVELOP!\. 55.54 25.89 29.65 OS/24f2004 29.65 -
16.31.3504.1 PADDOCK, LINDA 99.14 34.44 64.70 05f04/2004 34.00 -
15.21.2732.5 PALMER, TROY 142.20 99.52 42.68 04/20/2004 61.60 -
10.10.0114.2 PAPADOPULOS,AURORA 40.34 40.16 .18 OS/21/2004 39.00 -
17.34.1230.1 PARENT, BEAU 61.40 40.16 21 .24 05/11/2004 36.00 -
16.32.1700.1 PAST1AN, BRYON 11 8.40 74.46 43.94 05/13/2004 30.00 -
16.32.1392.1 PATTEN, JASON 49.77 39.34 10.43 OS/24f2004 32.65 -
17.34.2110.1 PENCE, STEVEN 118.24 63.04 55.20 03/31f2004 55.20 -
10.10,0084.3 PENDER, KAREN 60.64 31.40 29.44 04f30f2004 27.64 -
15.21.3096.1 PENDER. WILLIAM 81.35 79.66 1.69 03105f2004
... in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
(. ,
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account Ust- council Page: 6
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01, 2004 04:01pm
Current Period; 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquenl Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20f2004 03/20/2004 02120/2004 D.ate Amount
16.32.0690.2 PETTERSON. KENNETH 74.71 28.38 46.33 04/09/2004 102.80 -
16.31.0156.3 PETTINGILL, LEWIS 66.44 31.66 31.66 25.12 03/30f2004 28.88 -
3.03.5234.1 PHIL HORTON 7240 21.52 40.16 7.24 3.46
15.21.3022.3 PHILLIPS, SCOTT & MELANIE 96.92 76.84 20.08 04/30/2004 60.00 -
14.14.1012.1 PHOENIX HOMES 101.12 17.60 56.96 17.60 6.96
15.15.0036.2 PIERCE. CHUCK SR. & MARY 131.92 64.00 67.92 05f05/2004 45.20 -
18.42.1160.1 PIETRZAK, JOHN 111.84 52.00 59.84 05/04/2004 50.20 -
13.13.6036.1 PINNACLE BUILDING CO, INC 25.96 7.24 15.24 3.48
14.19.0836.2 PIPPIN, GLORIA 74.12 37.06 37.06
18.42.1866.2 POPE, GERARD & JANET 83.04 55.02 28.02 05f04/2004 9.36 -
15.21.3062.1 POWELL, GREG & CATHERINE 121.74 84.26 37.48 02127/2004 205.26 -
15.22.1024.1 PRESZLER, SHARON M. 63.96 37.86 26.10 04/12/2004 25.12 -
10.10.0066.2 PRIESS, JENNIFER 108.24 56.08 52.16 05f17f2004 46.64 -
17.33.2732.2 PRYOR, KELSEY 122.74 75.72 46.70 .32 05fl2/2004 50.00 -
15.22.0644.1 PRYOR, LOIS JUNE 112.68 61.24 51.44 04/27/2004 43.92 -
17.34.1172.1 QUARNBERG, CARL & DOROTH 151.78 78.40 65.66 7.72 05/05/2004 55.00 -
15.21.0012.2 RAINFORD, ROBERT & ALlNDA 116.52 47.18 69.34 04/07/2004 99.04 -
16.16.3001.1 RATCLIFFE INVESTMENTS 20.88 20.88
15.22.1016.4 REBER, RANDALL 68.56 34.28 34.28 04/06/2004 21 .36 -
16.31.3390.2 REIF, JANELLE & HULL, JASON 91.39 46.04 43.10 2.25 04/02/2004 18.00 -
15.21.0118.2 REIS, DAVID 32.78 31.40 1.38 04/21/2004 33.36 -
17.33.3712.1 RHYMER, RICK 46.86 43.92 2.94 05/18/2004 40.00 -
16.31.2286.3 RICH. CORY 94.34 61.14 33.20 05f04/2004 33.00 -
15.21.1102.3 RICHARDSON, ANGELA 73.06 39.96 33.10 04f08/2004 30.16 -
16.31.3406.3 RIDER. ARTHUR & MAXINE 144.86 50.36 69.38 25.12
18.42.0310.3 RINKE. JOE & SMITH. RANDALL 101.68 50.04 51.64 05/10/2004 45.00 -
17.33.2348.1 RIPOLL. RHONDA 93.68 30.02 25.12 38.54 05/10/2004 35.12 -
15.15.0064.1 ROBERTS. CHAD 43.10 39.34 3.76 04/27/2004 36.40 -
17.33.2758.1 ROBERTSON, ROLAND 57.10 30.02 27.08 04f21 f2004 21.36 -
17.34.1236.2 ROBINSON, LINDA 61.68 28.88 32.80 04/19/2004 25.12 -
14.14.4450.2 ROGERS, JACK & DENISE 53.42 37.12 16.30 05/03/2004 55.00 -
14.19.7130.5 ROMANS, NICK 71.30 34.18 37.12 04/29/2004 31.40 -
17.33.2548.3 ROWLAND, SAUNDRA 34.92 31.00 3.92 04f13f2004 25.12 -
17.34.2840.2 ROWLES. JOHN 107.10 67.76 39.34 04f06f2004 40.16 -
14.20.1864.1 ROWLEY, HELEN 40.16 39.18 .98 05f26f2004 39.18 -
17.33.0128.1 ROYAL DYNASTY 447.50 229.39 218.11 04/28/2004 109.07 -
13.13.6060.1 RUNGE. DUNCAN 115.68 48.82 66.86 04/06/2004 51.44 .
10.10.0080.3 RUSH, JAMES & ROSALIE 90.78 46.86 43.92
17.34.0874.1 SAHNI, RAJEEV 112.08 50.94 61.14 04f06/2004 32.64 .
16.32.0460.3 SALAZAR. RUBEN 65.80 55.84 9.96 04f30f2004 40.00 -
14.20.2042.1 SANCHEZ, DANEEN 114.58 48.96 65.62 05/18/2004 65.62 -
17.34.1078.2 SAVELBERG, DOYLE 157.52 80.46 71.06 05/06/2004 75.00 -
16.32.1104.1 SCHMIDT, JERRY 54.16 28.06 26.10 04/21/2004 46.48 -
17.33.2306.1 SCHNEIDER, ROBERT & MARY 74.76 36.40 38.36 04/13/2004 36.40 -
18.42.3050.1 SCHOLZ, LESLIE 151.35 28.47 46.44 7644 03f03/2004 130.40-
15.21.1114.1 SCHOOLCRAFT. DANNY 84.70 45.78 38.92 05f03/2004 35.16 -
16.31.3334.1 SCHUSTER,DELBERT 47.80 32.38 15.42 04/30/2004 15.00 -
1 5.22.1636.4 SCOTT, CHUCK & TIFFANY 59.18 58.78 .40 05/04/2004 66.22 -
14.20.1338.2 SEARLE, DARRIN 46.96 41.14 5.82 04/28/2004 66.00 -
17.33.2406.1 SEEBERGER,GREG 68.30 51.44 16.86 03/31/2004 85.20 -
16.31.0444.1 SEIDEL, RICHARD 50.34 44.56 5.76 05/12/2004 28.00 -
15.22.2112.2 SEMANCIK JOHN 46.86 46.44 2.42 OS/21/2004 42B8 -
7.40.0070.3 SESSIONS, DEAN 11478 57.88 56.90 04f28/2004 69.00 -
17.33.2402.3 SHACKELFORD,RANDALL 21.36 21.36 12f02/2003 28.88 -
17.33.3572.2 SHAPEL, NORENE 44.90 38.04 6.86
... in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List. council Page: 7
Standard Payment Customers Jun 01. 2004 04:01pm
Current Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmounlDelinquent Balance
Last Pmt Last Pmt
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02/20/2004 Oate Amount
16.32.0970.4 SHEARER, JOE & RENEITA 158.76 82.32 76.44 05/05/2004 42.68 .
18.42.2526.1 SHELTRON, ROGER 108.30 45.62 62.68 05/03/2004 38.92 .
13.13.2036.2 SIMON. DARCI 67.82 64.90 2.92 OS/28/2004 43.00 -
15.21.2836.2 SINGLETON. RODNEY 143.64 75.94 67.70 05/03/2004 76.00 -
17.34.0822.1 SITZLAR, RON & GAY 90.52 50.94 39.18 .40 04/06/2004 36.00 -
15.21.1406.2 SKIDMORE, LINDA & RONALD 38.20 35.42 2.78 05/04/2004 32.64 -
13.13.6076.1 SKINNER CONSTRUCTION 57.20 17.60 32.64 3.48 3.48
15.22.0208.1 SLUDER, DAYNA 75.36 37.68 37.68 04/02/2004 33.92 -
16.31 .3562.3 SMITH. JUSTIN & TAMMY 105.94 62.28 43.66 04/06/2004 69.04 -
17.34.3316.1 STADLER, STEPHEN & HEATHE 104.56 59.92 44.64 05/04/2004 70.00 -
6.06.9040.1 STEWART, LYNDON & SHAUNA 59,40 29.29 30.11 04108/2004 48.94 -
10.10.1066.2 STOESSER, RICHARD & PATRie 52.42 45.88 6.54 04106/2004 80.32 -
14.20.1688.3 STOLZ. DONALD 144.20 60.32 52.48 31 040 03/29/2004 11.28 -
6.06.1914.1 SWANSON, STEVE 61.20 31.09 30.11 04/06/2004 56,46 -
8.85.0040.1 THOMAS & DUNN 10.72 7.24 3.48
8.85.0116.1 THOMAS & DUNN 6.96 3.48 3.48
16.32.0640.1 THORNGREN, CURTIS D. 115.30 59.12 56.18 03/26/2004 47.68 -
15.21.2736.2 THURBER. RICK 118.34 73.38 44.96 03/30/2004 66.56 -
9.09.9168.2 THURSTON, DWIGHT & AMY 89.89 33.62 33.62 22.65 03/02/2004 75.00 -
13.13.6022.1 TIMBERSTON BUILDERS LLC 25.92 18.52 7.40 04/09/2004 20.00 -
7.40.0250.1 TOMICH. LONNY 82.28 41.14 41.14 05103/2004 40.16 -
16.31.3300.2 TONEY. TAMMY 80.32 40.16 40.16 04/29/2004 36.40 -
15.22.0990.3 TOWNSEND. BRYANT & TANISI- 52.00 51.00 1.00 OS/28/2004 62.94 -
7.40.0054.2 TRACY. DANIEL & KAREN 231.00 116.48 114.52 05105/2004 65.24 -
16.31.0454.2 TRACY, JOL YNN 62.00 46.10 15.90 05/03/2004 50.00-
16.31.0578.1 TRINIDAD, DAN 48.50 48.48 .02 04/30/2004 46.50 -
18.42.2348.3 TUTTLE, TAMI 107.15 23.57 39.58 20.12 23.88 12/22/2003 223.80 -
15.22.0918.2 ULLRICH, JENNIFER 94.70 47.84 46.86 04/27/2004 43.90 -
17.34.1946.4 VANCE, CHRISTY 202.94 110.36 92.58 05/10/2004 60.00 -
16.31.2304.4 VARIN, ANDREW 121.82 69.24 52.58 05/03/2004 40.16 -
15.21.1032.1 VELADA, FEDERICO 92.46 49.70 42.76 05/17/2004 39.00 -
15.21.1940.4 VESPER, JACOB 90.78 45.88 44.90
15.22.0318.1 VOORHEES, MICHAEL 97.44 56.56 40.88 04/13/2004 59.24 -
9.09.9126.1 WAGNON GENERAL 88.92 25.12 17.60 21.36 24.84 01/23/2004 3.48-
17.34.0294.1 WALGREENS STORE # 620 338.06 257.19 80.87 06/01/2004 75.00 -
14.20.1398.1 WALKER, JUSTIN 141.12 74.48 66.64 05/12/2004 58.96 -
17.34.2734.1 WALL, MIKE 65.38 32.64 32.64 .10 05/03/2004 32.54 -
16.32.1306.2 WALSH, DAVID & CARA 93.86 46.44 47.42 05/04/2004 46.44 -
15.22.1734.1 WALTERS, J. SCOTT 96.24 49.64 46.60 05/04/2004 45.00 -
18.43.0212.2 WANG. KENT & PERA OAVIO 74.12 37.06 37.06 04/14/2004 25.12 -
16.32.0444.1 WARNER, MICHAEL & CYNTHIA 90.12 80.84 9.28 05/10/2004 50.00 .
14.20.1894.6 WATERS, JENNIFER 54.60 34.60 20.00 OS/24/2004 31.66 -
10.20.0001.1 WATERSONG ESTATES 1,038.90 551.30 487.60
17.34.1652.2 WATSON, BRIAN 125.40 73.48 51.92 04/30/2004 40.16 -
18.42.0462.4 WEBB, HENRY & CHERRIE 62.42 57.88 4.54 06/01/2004 50.00 -
15.21.2192.3 WEBER. THOMAS 151.24 89.52 61048 .24 05/05/2004 65.00 -
15.22.0946.1 WEBSTER. RICHARD & KATHY 80.58 64.08 16.50 05/17/2004 42.68 -
16.31.3322.1 WESTON, DECKER 40.28 36.40 3.88 05/04/2004 100.00 -
14.20.1724.2 WHALEN, JOHN JR 142.48 46.44 68.40 27.64 04/07/2004 20.12 -
18.42.2492.1 WHITE. TAMELA 115.76 56,90 58.86 05/06/2004 53.96 -
15.21.1590.1 WHITTEN, DAVID 101.70 56.40 45.30 04/30/2004 43.00 -
15.21.1960.2 WILKINSON, MARK 40.00 39.02 .98
18.18.0020.1 WILLIAMS, WALTER & ROBERTI 39.75 35.83 3.92
16.32.1252.2 WILLIAMSON, DALE 54.59 36.30 18.29 04/21/2004 136.64 -
16.32.1638.2 WILOTH, MARK 102.94 36.96 65.98 04/07/2004 66.56.
... in Msg column indicates no Nolice is to be sent
('
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Delinquent Account List- council
Standard Payment Customers
Current Period: 06/05/2004
No Delinquent Minimum AmountDelinquent Balance
Page: 8
Jun 01,2004 04:01pm
Lasl Pmt last Pml
Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 04/20/2004 03/20/2004 02/20/2004 Date Amount
15.21.2184.2 WilSON, BRADl Y 116.76 56.42 60.34 05/0412004 89.24.
14.14.3006.2 WOOD, DOUGLAS & MELANIE 43.43 40.06 3.37 05126/2004 40.00.
17.34.1506.2 WOODWARD, ROBERT 87.78 42.42 45.36 04107/2004 75.36.
17.33.2382.6 YAMAMOTO. KRISTINE 95.74 38.36 57.38 04/30/2004 32.64 .
15.21.1130.5 YASUDA, GARY & SHAWNA 92.68 77.24 15.44 06/01/2004 50.00 .
18.42.2742.1 YOUNG, THOMAS 112.48 58.20 54.28 05103/2004 46.44 .
18.32.1602.1 ZAHM, ROBERT 45.30 43.66 1.64 0511812004 43.00.
6.06.9192.2 ZAHM, TAMMY 25.97 24.55 1.42 04128/2004 40.00 -
15.22.1130.1 ZARAK, JENNIFER 100.96 64.58 36.38 OS/24/2004 75.00 -
Grand Totals: 39,620.34 23,130.53 14,558.34 853.56 1,077.91
Report Criteria:
Terminated customers not included
Customer. Cust No () = {<} 880000001
Customer. Bill Cycle = 2
... in Msg coiumn indicates no Notice is to be sent
May-27,2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
July 1 r 2004
ltl
ITEM NO.
REQUEST Ordinance -- Parks and Recreation Commission Ordinance
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
See aHached Ordinance
1 PO, ~
~lr
/J" /0 tY
b/V
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MAY 2 7 2004
ORDINANCE NO. 04-
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
BY:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, REPEALING
CHAPTER 2 TITLE 2 AND REENACTING THE PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT, VALIDITY, SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO:
SECTION 1: That Chapter 2 Title 2 Parks and Recreation Commission of the Meridian
City Code, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2: That Chapter 2 Title 2 Parks and Recreation Commission of the Meridian
City Code, be, and the same is hereby reenacted to read as follows:
2-2-1: Establishment, Membership, Terms, Vacancies:
A Commission Established: There is hereby established a Meridian Parks and
Recreation Commission of the City.
B. Membership; Compensation:
1. This Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of seven (7) members-,-
who shall receiye no salary. Any four (4) members ofllie Commission shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business of the Parks and
Recreation Commission. Members of the Commission shall be appointed by
the Mayor and approved by the City Council on a vote of one-half (112) plus
one of the Council members, and Commission members may, in like manner,
be removed.
2. Residents '.'{ho reside Y/ithin the City limits, or area of impact and arc a
minimum of eighteen (18) years of age are eligible to serve on the
Commission. .^.t least one but not more than three (3) members may be
appointed from residents o[the City impact area, outside the corporate limits.
Page 1 of6
All members of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the officers thereof
shall serve without salary or compensation. The City shall provide the
necessary and suitable equipment and supplies to enable the Commission to
properly transact and attend to its business. The budget for Commission
equipment and supplies shall be provided for it through the Parks and
Recreation budget.
3. .^~ subcommittee of three (3) individuals of the Parks and Recreation
Commission vlill revievl the application and submit a recommendation to the
Mayor. The location of the applicant's residence, in order to provide a
representation based upon geographic areas and population '.",ill be gl'.'cn
strong consideration. Residents who reside within the City limits, or area of
impact. and are a minimum of eighteen (18) years of age are eligible to serve
on the Parks and Recreation Commission. One (1) member shall be a resident
of the area of impact but no more than two (2) members may be appointed
from residents of the City impact area, outside the corporate limits.
4. One member of the Meridian City Council, the City's Parks and Recreation
Director, aOO one member who represents the administration of the Joint
School District No.2, Ada County, State of Idaho, and an additional position
may be added to represent youth which may be, at the time of appointment,
under eighteen (18) years of age. All shall serve as ex-officio members with
no vote.
C. Terms of Office:
.L. Each Commissioner shall serve a term of three (3) years-;- provided that the
youth member shall be appointed to a term of up to one (1) year and may be
reapoointed to up to three (3) successive terms. Commissioners wishing to
serve additional terms must submit a letter of interest thirty (30) days prior to
the first term expiring. Reappointments are at the discretion ofthe Mayor,
with confirmation by the City Council.
2... Starting dates oftcnns were staggered at the inception of the Parks and
Recreation Commission so that three (3) Commissioner's terms expire each
year starting in October 1, 1999.
D-: 2. Vacancy:
a. When vacancy occurs, interested citizens will submit a letter of interest or
resume to the Mayor within an advertised time period. (Ord. 822,4-20-
1999)
b. A subcommittee of three (3) individuals of the Parks and Recreation
Commission will review the application and submit a recommendation to
the Mayor. The location ofthe applicant's residence, in order to provide a
Page 2 of6
representation based upon geographic areas and population will be given
strong consideration.
2-2-2: Organization; Rules and Regulations:
A. Officers: At the fu:s.t December meeting of each fueal year, the members of the
Parks and Recreation Commission shall meet and organize by electing one of
their members chairman President, Vice President and such other officers as may
be necessary. The City Parks and Recreation staff shall provide secretarial service
for the Commission.
B. Rules And Bylaws: The Parks and Recreation Commission shall adopt bylaws,
rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the business ofthe Parks and
Recreation Commission. The bylaws, rules and regulations are subject to the
approval of the Mayor and City Council after recommendation by the
Commission. (Ord. 822, 4-20-1999)
2-2-3: Duties: It shall be the duty of the Parks and Recreation Commissioners to work in
coniunction with the Parks Department staffto advise the Mayor and the City
Council in the orderly and efficient administration of the city Parks and
Recreation system as hereinafter amended, and any other ordinances hereinafter
enacted and amended relating to parks, urban forestry and recreation:
A. Supervision of Recreation Areas:
1,. ~ To advise the Parks and Recreation Commission shall advise tho Mayor,
City Council. and Parks and Recreation Director, on the plar..ning for. conduct
of. operation of, and tho supervision of, public parks and public playgrounds,
athletic fields, recreational facilities and other recreation activities on any of
the properties mvned or controlled by the City, and on any other properties in
the area of impact upon ';:hich recreational facilities and/or acti'/ities are
conducted and/or plan.~.ed. Department staff, the City Council. and the Mayor
as to the best use of all public parks and any land or lots hereinafter
purchased. leased, devised and bequeathed to the City for park and recreation
purposes, and as such to make recommendation re~arding the ornamenting,
adorning. laving out and improving onhe grounds of said parks.
2. Each year during the preliminary stages of budget preparation the
Commission shall assist in planning and prioritizing projects and expenditures
for the next fiscal year, and 3-ha11 Tovie,:,' the Parks and Recreation Department
budget before its submission to the City Council. The Commission shall also
revie'?,' and comment on any needed changes and/or revi:Jions to the City's
Comprehensive Plan as that plan relateD to Parks and Recreation. To study the
economic and physical conditions and problems in connection with the
maintenance, operation, management. control and use of all the vublic park
grounds, park and playground facilities in the City.
Page 3 of6
3. To propose and recommend rules and regulations for the control and
regulation of the use of the public park grounds, buildings, and playground
facilities; subject to approval by the Mayor and City Council.
4. To study and propose plans. and recommend rules and regulations for the
planting, growing, care. regulation and control of trees and shrubbery in all
public places.
5. To represent the public interest in making suggestions and recommendations
for the development. use and expansion of needed and required playground
and other recreational and leisure program activities.
6. To propose plans. recommendations and suggestions for the future growth
development and regulation of park. playground, and recreation facilities of
the City.
L To set priority to plans, reconunendations and suggestions for the future
growth development and regulation of park, playground and recreation
facilities onhe City; subject to approval by the Mayor and City Council.
~ To propose plans. recommendations, and suggestions to the annual budget to
be submitted by the Parks Director for the proiects and expenditures for the
next fiscal year prior to the budget proposal being submitted to City Council
for approval.
9. To suggest and recommend such rules and regulations necessary and desirable
to carry out the intent of the Chapter.
lit. To review and comment on the Parks and Recreation Department's
Comprehensive Plan and Action Plan.
lL. To review and comment on the City's Comprehensive Plan as that plan relates
to Parks and Recreation.
.l.b If requested by the Mayor. to review candidates for Parks and Recreation
Director and make recommendations to the Mayor regarding those candidates.
13. To suggest and recommend such rules and regulations necessary and desirable
to carry out the intent ofthe Chapter, and to improve and correlate the
problems of governmental administration or all recreation and leisure
programs of the City.
~ To appoint members of the commission to subcommittees to provide
community information to the Parks and Recreation Commission concerning
particular facilities or programs orthe park and leisure movement of the City.
Ih Reports: The Parks and Recreation Director shall make monthly reports to the
MaYDr and City Council, and other reports from time to time as requested by the
Page 4 of6
Mayor and the City Council. The Parks and Recreation Commission chairman
'.vill submit an a-lmual report to the Mayor and Council.
B. All actions of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall be subject to approval
by the Mayor and Council and after such approval shall have the force and effect
of ordinance. All rules and regulations of the Parks and Recreation Commission
now in effect shall remain in full force and effect until amended, altered or
repealed.
C. Advisory Status: The Parks and Recreation Commission shall be deemed advisory
and report to the Parks and Recreation Director, Mayor and City Council. The
Parks and Recreation Commission chairman will submit an annual retJort to the
Mayor and Council. (Ord. 822,4-20-1999)
2-2-.4 Fees: The Parks and Recreation Commission is hereby authorized to make
recommendations regarding the establishment of all fees for facility reservations
and/or rental. facility admission, program activity participation, and league
registration: and the establishment of fees for urban forestry services. All rules
and regulations pertaining to fees shall be subject to approval by the Mayor and
the Meridian City Council. (Ord. 4895, 12-30-85: ard. 5227,4-17-90).
2-2-42: Meetings: The Commission shall meet regularly each month at a time and place
determined by the Commission. All meetings shall be open to the public and shall
be publicized; the Commission shall allow and promote public participation in the
meetings of the Commission. The Commission shall also review and comment on
any needed changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan as it relates to Parks and
Recreation. (Ord. 822, 4-20-1999)
SECTION 3: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled.
SECTION 4: VALIDITY: The Meridian City Council hereby declares that any
section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance as adopted and amended herein be
declared for any reason to be invalid it is the intent of the Meridian City Council that it
would have passed all other portions of this Ordinance independent ofthe elimination
herefrom of any portion as may be declared invalid.
SECTION 5: SAVINGS CLAUSE: This Ordinance does not affect an action or
proceeding commenced or right accrued before this Ordinance takes effect.
SECTION 6: DATE OF EFFECT: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
after its passage, approval and publication, according to law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this
day of , 2004.
Page 5 of6
(
l..
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; this
day of , 2004.
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
ATTEST:
City Clerk
An Ordinance of the City of Meridian By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk
First Reading:
Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code
50-902: YES NO
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
STATE OF IDAHO,)
: ss.
County of Ada. )
On this day of ,2004, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY de WEERD and
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of
the CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO
RESIDING AT:
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian I 5360M\Ordinances City Hall\2004 Ord\Parks Commission Ord 05 II 04.doc
Page 6 of6
NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.c. ~ 50-901(A)
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 04-
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEALING AND REENACTING OF
CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 2
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
This ordinance of the City of Meridian is repealing existing Chapter 2 Title 2 and enacting a new
Chapter 2 Title 2 regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission; to provide for a Commission
quorum definition; to provide that the City budget shall contain provisions for equipment and
supplies for the Commission; to require one and allow up to two members from the area of
impact; to provide for a youth member with an ex-officio position; to delete the staggered term
language and to allow for appointments to mid-term vacancies such that they do not affect the
staggered rotation; to provide for a change in the time of election of officers from the beginning
of the fiscal year to the end of the calendar year; to provide that the Commissioners shall work in
conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Department to advise the Mayor and City Council in
the administration of the City Parks and Recreation System; to provide that the Commission is
the recommending body for parks with the ability to direct how parks are landscaped and
designed; to provide that the Commission shall recommend rules and regulations for the control
and regulation of the use of public park grounds, buildings and play ground facilities with Mayor
and Council approval; to allow the Commission to determine priority for plans, future growth,
etc. with the final decision for the City Council; to provide for the involvement of the
Commission in the budget planning; to provide for the Commission to make recommendations to
the Mayor regarding candidates for the Parks and Recreation Director position; to provide for the
appointment of members of the Commission to subcommittees; to provide that all the actions of
the Commissioners shall be subject to approval by the Mayor and City Council; and to provide
that the Commission can suggest or recommend fees for adoption by the Council.
A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East
Idaho, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective on the _ day of
2004.
City of Meridian
Mayor and City Council
By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk
First Reading:
Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902:
YES NO
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
Parks and Recreation Commission Sununary Ordinance
Chapter 2 Title 2
Page 1 of 1
C:\Documents and Settings\greent\Local Settings\Temporal)' Internet Files\OLKl88\Parks Commission Sum Ord OS 13 04.doc
May 27, 2004
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 2004
APPLICANT Tuscany Development, Inc. ITEM NO.
AZ 03-024
"'20
REQUEST Ordinance - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones
for Glacier Springs Subdivision -- north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMP ANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
See attached Development Agreement
f{)O
kAO
rfO ~ Ji- 0
OVff /
V
(rr
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
WHITE PETERSON
KEVIN E. DINIUS
JULIE KLEIN FISCHER
WM. F. GIG RAY, III
T. GUY H!.LL\M'
JILl. HOLlNKA
D. SAMUELJOHNSON
WU.t.tAM A. MORROW
WILLIAM F. NICHOLS'
CHRISTOPHER S. Nl'E
WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A.
PHILlPA.PETERSON ATIORNEYSAT LAw NAMPA OFFICE
ERICA S. PHILLIPS
ERIC S. ROSSMAN 5700 E. FllANKUN RD.,
TODD A. ROSSMAN SUITE 200
TERRENCE R. WHmH NAMPA, IDAHO 83687-8402
NICHOLAS L. WOLLEN lEL. (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 466.4405
4 Also admitted in OR
n Also admitted in
WA
November 18, 2003
REfJEIVED
NOV 2 0 20D3
William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk
MERIDIAN CITY HALL
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT, INC. / ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS / AZ
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT / ORDINANCE & CERTIFICA nON OF CLERK / SUMMARY
ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE COVER LETTER I Az...03~024
City Of Meridian
C'hy Clerk Office
Dear Will:
Please find enclosed the original of the FINDlNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING prepared as per instructions from the Council meeting of November 12,2003, and which
are on an upcoming Council agenda. I have also attached the original of the Development Agreement for
the owner(s) and/or developer(s) signatures. After the Council meetin~, if Council approves the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for the above matter, then the Findmgs will need to be attached to the
Development Agreement as Exhibit "B". After the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and
Order Granting Application for Annexation and Zoning have been adopted, please submit the Development
Agreement to the owners(s) and/or developer(s) for signatures.
Also, please find enclosed the above AZ Ordinance and the Certification of the Clerk for the
annexation and zoning for the City of Meridian. After the Findings of Fact and Conclusions have
been adopted, then please place this ordinance on the City Council agenda. This ordinance should
not be passed until the Findine:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order
Grantinl! Avplication for Rezone are adopted. Additionally, I have enclosed a Summary
Ordinance and the cover letter, which Summary Ordinance will need to be presented to the Council
at the same time the full annexation and zoning ordinance is presented to Council for approval.
If you have any questions arise, please advise.
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 1 5360M'Glacier Springs Sub AZ-03-024 PP-03-028\FFCL DEV AGMT ORD Clerk LIT ] I 1803.do;)
CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and
The State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho
I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, ofthe City of Meridian Ada County, State of
Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. G3-()4-/ {} eO , passed by the
City Council of the City of Meridian, on the /$1 day of J~ ~~, is a true and
correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custody and control of tltt1l~ftX
Clerk of the City of Meridian. ,\\\\\\\~f MER;~I'////
,\ ,,-.I. VL.,., "",
" ~, -VL ........
$' (j _()f',POR-41; 'V 'S
.:: .,:,..V- <t'o ~
,~ ~
~ ~
- -
- -
~
~
STATE OF IDAHO, )
: ss.
County of Ada, )
On this 1M day of ..,Ju,,",e.- , in the year .;200<1 , before me,
--Ja:,,\h~ L. SM~-+l...... , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM
G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho that
executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the
City of Meridian.
(SEAL)
",III .......,
,""~\CB L. s"'",
l'" '\'t- .......... ~~...
:: ..' ". :;. \.
: ..L I 1'\.OT-4~ .. ~ ~
:- JJt" : .;..,.-:
: . ........ : :
S ~ p : * :
-:'<fl.':. {rSLIC/ :
\~.'e J' ~
""1 e. . ^ ,:>
".... )>IJ ........ ~ V !I>'"
....", 0 F ID 1>>- "",
#"'illlunl'"''
.;/b
P lie for Idaho
i ion Expires: Oct /:10107
I I
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian I 5360M'Glacier Springs Sub AZ-03.o24 PP.o3-028\CertificationOfClerkOrd.doc
CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
AZ-03-024
PAGE 1 OF 1
WHITE PETERSON
WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRA Y, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P .A.
KEvIN E. DINIUS
JULIE KLEIN FISCHER
WM. F. GIGRAY,]1l
T. GUY HALLAM'
JILL HOUNKA
JILL HOLINKA
D. SAMUELJOHNSON
WILLIAM A. MORROW
WILLIAM F. NICHOlS'
CHRISTOPHER S. NYE
PHILIP A. PETERsON
ERlCA S. PHILLIPS
ERlC S. ROSSMAN
TODD A. ROSSMAN
TERRENCE R. WHITE"
NICHOLAS L. WOLLEN
A ITORNEYS AT LAw
NAMPA OFFICE
5700 E. FRANKLIN RD.,
SUrrE 200
NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-8402
TEL. (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 466-4405
5700 E. FRANKLIN RD.,
SUrrE 200
NAMPA, IDAHO 83653-8402
TEL (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 466-4405
PLEASE REPLY TO
NAMP A OFFICE
· Also admitted in OR
.. Also admitted in W A
November 18, 2003
William G. Berg, Jr.
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re:
Ordinance No. 03-
Summary of Publication
, (JIM COBBLE AND SHIRLEY COBBLE)
Dear Will:
Pursuant t9 the direction of the Meridian City Council, this office has prepared a
summarization of the ordinance providing for an annexation and zoning ordinance for Jim Cobble
and Shirley Cobble, pursuant to the City's action. I do hereby advise the City, and make this
statement, that said summary is true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public ofthe
provisions of said ordinance.
You are hereby directed to file this statement with the ordinance, pursuant to the
provisions of Idaho Code S 50-901(A).
Enclosure
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Merldian 15360M'Glacier Springs Sub AZ-03-{)24 PP-{)3-{)28\Berg Sum Ord Ltr 11 18 03.do::
NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. ~ 50-901(A)
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ~ ()1--( pO 0
PROVIDING FOR AN ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Meridian granting annexation and zoning for land owned by Jim
Cobble and Shirley Cobble, to be known as Glacier Springs Subdivision, consisting of 17.5 acres
and commonly located on the north side of Victory Road, east of South Meridian Road, Meridian,
Idaho, with a zoning designation ofR-4 Low Density Residential; and providing for effect of
invalidity; providing that all ordinances and resolutions in conflict are repealed and rescinded;
and providing an effective date.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION
A parcel ofland lying in the SE 1;4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the
Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the South 1;4 corner of Section 19, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., the REAL
POINT OF BEGINNING of this description.
Thence N 00034'26" E 1746.61 feet along the east boundary of Observation Point
Subdivision, and Meridian Greens Subdivision, to a point on the Westerly boundary of Kachina
Estates Subdivision;
Along said Boundary the following:
Thence S 50026'42" E 628.42 feet to a point;
Thence S 00022' IS" W 1180.62 feet to a point;
Thence S 12021 '47" E 170.89 feet to a point on the South Line of Section 19;
Thence N 89052'18" W 530.96 feet along said Section Line to the REAL POINT OF
BEGINNING of this description.
This Parcel contains 17.50 acres more or less.
A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, Cjty#Meridian, 33
East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall brl~Wj1j1e effective on the day of
-r;-, ~ _ A_ IIIIII 1I111t
QVf/}'I..L , ~20or-. ,\\\\\ Of MEn, ttlll
\' ~-{ If/DJ: .........
" ~, ~A 'l
.L. .::.-'" () o~POR4 h f/-:;'
~/J' _I ~() ~ %_
City of Meridian - -
Mayor and City Council f'J -
By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk -:;. "'c'ou ,r:f5 0 !
~.,.O 'Sf lS\ ' .,z',,,
First Reading: 6 --/-tJ 4-- "'-;........../ '1 Co . '1 ~<;;>$
Adoptexer first reading by suspension oftl1O't.R:u{Jllil a~~Q..w8d pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902:
YES NO IfiftH nIl
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Glacier Springs Sub AZ-03-024 PP.03-02&\SUMANNEXZONGORD.doc
City of Meridian
Public Works Dept.
RECEIVEr~
DEe -2 2003
Memo
City of Meridian
City Clerk Officf"
From:
City Clerk: Sharon ~mith
Steven J. O'Brien p 0
File .
1'0:
cc:
Date:
11/26/2003
Ordinance Map for Glacier Springs Subdivision
Re:
Per your req uest.. . .
From the desk of. ..
Steve O'Brien
Engineering Tech. I
Meridian Public Works Depm1ment
660 E. Watertower., Suite 200
Meridian, Idaho 83642-2600
Phone: (208)898-5500
Fax: (208) 887-1297
. Page 1
ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO
BOISE IDAHO 06/10/04 04:26 PM "
DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig
RECORDED-REQUEST OF
Meridian City
AMOUNT .00
5
1111111111111111111111111111111111111
104073031
CITY OF MERIDIAN
ORDINANCE NO. ~ 0.4---; () B 0
AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT, JIM COBBLE AND SHIRLEY COBBLE, THE OWNERS OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VICTORY
ROAD, EAST OF SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO, TO BE KNOWN AS
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION AND WHICH LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO
THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO;
HAVE MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND
THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING
DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4), AND DECLARING THAT
SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH;
AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL
MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY
OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE
AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND
ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT
TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to
the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for
annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owners of said Property, to-wit:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION
A parcel of land lying in the SE 1;4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the
Boise Meridian, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows:
ANNEXA nON AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 1 OF4
Commencing at the South Y4 corner of Section 19, T.3N., RIB., B.M., the REAL POINT
OF BEGINNING of this description.
Thence N 00034'26" E 1746.61 feet along the east boundary of Observation Point
Subdivision, and Meridian Greens Subdivision, to a point on the Westerly boundary ofKachina
Estates Subdivision;
Along said Boundary the following:
Thence S 50026'42" E 628.42 feet to a point;
Thence S 00022'15" W 1180.62 feetto a point;
Thence S 12021 '47" E 170.89 feet to a point on the South Line of Section 19;
Thence N 89052'18" W 530.96 feet along said Section Line to the REAL POINT OF
BEGINNING of this description.
This Parcel contains 17.50 acres more or less.
SECTION 2: That the above-described real property be, and the same is hereby annexed and
made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho.
SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian
hereinabove described shall be zoned Low Density Residential District (R-4).
SECTION 4: That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well
as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the
City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance.
SECTION 5: The zoning designation set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance is subject to
the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement by and between the City of
Meridian and the owner of the land described in Section 1 dated the 2 g--lb day of
ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 2 OF 4
/lpr it
2004-
,..geffi, and that the uses are to be developed lll1der the planned unit development
process and conditional use permit process.
SECTION 6: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled.
SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval and publication, according to law.
SECTION 8: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the
effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a
draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including
the lands herein annexed, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit:
the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of
this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, all in compliance with
Idaho Code g63-2215 and g50-223.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-03-024)
PAGE 3 OF 4
Is'?
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of
J~ ,4003.2004-,
/ .r;!
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of
"\.7 tA/1o-e.- ,~2.oo4-.
~~-
- ~ ~------.
MAYO
111111111111
\\ II
A TTEST: "\\~I Of MERll)/1111
,'~"""\ V",A "...
" s...' .,A .....-
.$.... 0 cP'i\.PORr/ h . {/ ~
uf i ~ (b %
J~'~~'fA ~
CITY CLERK" · 't"Y'C,: d? g
First Reading: f-Io/~ ~ \ '"70 .QUST 15\' '\ II}
Adopted after first readmg by ~u'~~!9.n R.1J;l~}ts allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-
902 Yes: \C"",//IIIOU!\fN!'o:\\\\\\
Illliil'll\1\\\
Second Reading: - ,
Third Reading: -
STATE OF IDAHO,)
: ss.
County of Ada )
l .,2()() tf
On this~day of vu.~C1...- , ?003", before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared~DERI D ~qutrn and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known
......,..y e ~ t.r
to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of Ole CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the
within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day
and year first abov~~""~
!to" Ci. L. 8"-~###1!
" ~~ ..;:./";. ~"''''
I ...'t"'.;. ... + '\
(SEAL) i +OTAIl}- \ :. YPUBLICF.9RIDAHO
: * ...... . * : ING AT: //71//dit n
\ "'111\.t~ j COMI\1lSSIONEXPIRES: ()f/~O/07
\~~ ..~ol
.. ";" .'V ~
Z:\Work\M\Meridian~rf~" "",b:~1Springs Sub AZ-03-024 PP-03-028\AZOrd.doc
"oJ;?! 1. v ~~..
""unu"""
ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-03-024)
PAGE40F4
0
~5 ->
m
~
~(j) \
'""- -
~\Z ~ '6
\ ~g uJ ~ul(',\
& \:::~
"? -~
g(J) Om
~ (i cio
W(J) U1ul~
()<9 \-' ~~8
~~ a> 1-: .
~ u...\X:2,
C Oul-
z," 0 \;(8
-~ "-'5 'r~~
Q) t:.~~
'" ~?il (J)
,. O~
0 It> ~\
.. 0_
0; '5
III z-
.' ~
u..t ~
::t. Gi
<9 <6, ~
(;)
.&9" 09 \. \.
Mug \,.&&0005
~
C>
u..~
oz
I-Z
Z-
0$
a,. CO
~ ltD3J.L CJS\- ~'f 9vb\ Ie ;0ntl
:]itAV\to \
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
Shaun Wardle Bill Nary
Charlie Rountree Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance:
3. Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LDS Church:
4. Adoption of the Agenda:
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 Pre-Council Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 04-
002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setback of the
existing house on Lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feet to 13.55 feet for
Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North
Locust Grove Road:
D. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission:
PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-
family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision
No.3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick
Road and east of North Locust Grove Road:
E. Development Agreement: AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier
Sprinas Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of
East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council Agenda - June I, 2004 Page 1 of3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodatiOll for disabilities related to documents andfor hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office lit 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
F. Temporary Easement Contract for the 2004 Wateriine
Improvement Project. Eagle Road Waterline Extension:
G. Approve Bills:
6. Department Reports
A. Police Department - Chief Musser:
1. Discussion of Purchase of Trained and Certified Police
K-9 Dog from Existing Capital Monies approved in
Police Budget:
2. Shared update with Parks Director Strong on proposed
Improvements and Plan for five acres west of police
building on Watertower Lane:
B. City Council Member - Shaun Wardle:
1. Update on Golf Course:
7. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
8. FP 04-031 Request for Final Plat approval for 66 single family residential I
office I commercial building lots and 7 common lots on 27.17 acres in a
R-4 zone for Bridaetower Crossina Subdivision No.7 by Primeland
Development, LLP - southeast corner of West McMillan Road and North
Ten Mile Road:
9. Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: AZ 04..006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L~O zone for proposed
Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner
of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane:
10 Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PP 04..008 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a
proposed L-Q zone for proposed Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. - northeast comer of South Eagle Road and East Girdner
Lane:
11. Public Hearing: Trunk Line Water & Sewer Assessment. Connection
and Miscellaneous Fee Proposal:
12. Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R~
4 to L-O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by CaldelWood
Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council Agenda - June 1,2004 Page 2 of3
All materials presented at public meetings shalI become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring ~commodlltion for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
13. Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15
building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres
in proposed R~15 and L-Q zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, lLC - 2090 South Meridian Road:
14. Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R~15 and
L-Q zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LlC
- 2090 South Meridian Road:
15. Public Hearing: RZ 04-002 Request for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from Lw
Q to R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure
Valley Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine
Avenue:
16. Public Hearing: PP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 52
residential building lots and 1 common lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-
15 zone for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
17. Public Hearing: CUP 04-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development consisting of a mix of residential and commercial
uses with reductions to building setback requirements for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
18. Water, Sewer, & Trash Delinquencies:
19. Continued from May 25, 2004: Ordinance No.
Parks and Recreation Commission Ordinance:
04-1080
20. Ordinance No. : AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier Sprinas
Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road
and east of South Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council Agenda - June 1, 2004 Page 3 on
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodati()lt for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
ple!lSe coutact the City Clerk's Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
AS OF MAY 28 '04 16:57 PAGE. 131
135
136
137
138
139
113
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
213
21
22
23
24
25
26
DATE TIME TO/FROM
OS/28 16:19 38101613
135/28 16:21 PUBLIC WORKS
135/28 16:23 12084664405
OS/28 16:24 8841159
OS/28 16:26 20888413744
OS/28 16:27 POLICE DEPT
OS/28 16:29 89855131
135/28 16:30 LIBRARY
135/28 16:32 92083776449
OS/28 16:33 2138 388 6924
135/28 16:36 2088886854
135/28 16:37 ALL AMERICAN INS
OS/28 16:39 208 895 0390
OS/28 16:40 128300040
135/28 16:42 208 387 6393
OS/28 16:44 ADA CTY DEUELMT
135/28 16:46 8885052
OS/28 16:47 CHERRY LANE
OS/28 16:513 IDAHO RTHLETIC C
OS/28 16:52 887 0816
OS/28 16:54 ID PRESS TRIBUNE
135/28 16:56 20888867131
MODE
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
G3--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
G3--S
EC--S
G3--S
EC--S
EC--S
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MIN/SEC PGS
01'45" 0133
01 '01" 1303
01'133" 003
01'131" 003
131'131" 13133
01'01" 13133
01'1313" 0133
131'19" 13133
01'01" 003
131'19" 1303
131'131" 13133
01'131" 13133
131' 131" 003
131'19" 13133
01' 16" 13133
01'02" 003
01' 00" 0133
02' 01" 0133
131' 131" 13133
02'01" 0133
01'131" 0133
01 ' 01" 0133
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
CMDt:I
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
Shaun Wardle Bill Nary
Charlie Rountree Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
5. Consent Agenda;
Tuesday, June 1,2004 at 7:00 p8m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
STRTUS
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
~lto1L ~O*.to'f 90IJiC JJM1LL.:ryV1Mk:.o\.
2.. Pledge of Allegiance:
3. Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LOS Church:
4. Adoption of the Agenda:
(
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
AS OF MAY 28 '0417:04 PAGE. 01
CITY OF t~ERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM
Z7 0~V28 15:58 3810160
28 OS/28 16:59 PUBLIC WORKS
29 OS/28 17:00 12084564405
30 1215/28 17:01 8841159
31 OS/28 17:02 2088840744
32 OS/28 17:03 POLICE DEPT
MODE M[WSEC PGS CMDJ:I STATUS
EC--S 00'54" 002 146 OK
EC--S 00'34" 002 146 OK
EC--S 00'35" 002 146 OK
EC--S 00'35" 002 146 OK
EC--S 00'35" 01212 146 OK
EC--S 0121'35" 002 146 OK
~ ~ ~ Os,+ {of ? ub\; G No1l~ -1\rlo\(\Cb\
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PRE-COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 1. 2004 at 5:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
_ Shaun Wardle _ Bill Nary
_ Charlie Rountree Keith Bird
_ Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Executive SUslon per Idaho State Code 81~2346(1)(a):
("90 mInutes)
4. Discussion and Presentation by COMPASS on Transportation
Improvement Plan and Corridor Studies:
,r* 30 minutes)
· Appmximate allowable tlme set for agenda Item may change depending on
discunsion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only.
Mi!\1dlan City Pre-Council Agenda -June f, 2004 Page f of 1
All metel1$ prooenled al public moo~ngo shall become property "r the city of Meridian.
AnYDne iles1rinll aecommodallon for dmbilitlero related to documenls and/or hearings
please oontac:l the Cily Clerk's OffiClll at 86S-4433 at Jelllll 4S houm prior 10 the public meeUl1S/.
(..
** TX CONFI~MATION REPORT **
AS OF MAY 28 '04 1..":4 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAA
DAT!:; TIME: TO/FROM MODE I1IN/SEC PGS CMDil STATUS
01 OS/28 17:04 8985501 EC--S 00'34" 002 146 OK
02 OS/28 17:05 LIBRARY EC--S 00'42" 002 145 OK
03 OS/28 17:07 IDAHO STATESMAN EC--S 00'35" 01J2 146 OK
04 OS/28 17:08 208 388 6924 ec--s 00'41J" 002 145 OK
05 OS/28 17:09 2088886854 EC--S 130'34" 002 146 OK
06 OS/28 17:10 ALL AMER[CAN INS EC--S 00'34" 002 146 OK
07 OS/28 17:11 208 895 0390 EC--S 00'34" 002 145 OK
El8 OS/28 17:13 128300040 G3--S 130'44" 002 146 OK
09 OS/28 17:14 208 3875393 EC--S 00'34" 002 146 OK
Hl OS/28 17:15 ADA CTY Deu8LMT EC--S 00'35" 002 146 OK
11 OS/28 17:16 8885052 ec--s 00'34" 002 146 OK
12 OS/28 17:17 CHERRY LANE 83--S 131' 11" 002 146 OK
13 135/28 17:19 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 130'35" 002 146 OK
14 135/28 17'20 8B7 0816 63--S 131'11" 002 146 OK
15 135/28 17:22 [0 PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 130'35" 002 146 Ok
16 135/28 17:24 2088886701 EC--S 1313'35" 002 145 OK
~~ ~O:-+ {of ~vbl;G Nnrkv -1\1b\rvb>\
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PRE-COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 5:00 p.m.
City Council Chamber&:
1. RolJ-call Attencfance:
_ Shaun Wardle _ 8i1! Nary
_ Charlie Rountree Keith Bird
_ Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Adoption Of the Agenda:
3. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 61-2346(1)(a):
{.90 minutes)
4. DIscussion and Presentation by COMPASS on Transportation
Improvement Plan and Corridor Studies:
,I. 30 minutes)
.Approximate allowable time settor agenda Item may change depending on
discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only.
Motkll:ln cay Pre-Council Agonda-June 1.2004 Pauel cf I
All maler'laJo prOOllnled at public mBoII"98 .hall hecomo properly af the Cily of Meridian.
Anyone desiring a:cemmod811on fer d~ah~iti.8 rel<ltod to doCum8n~ andior hBlrln!J$
please ..",1:oel \he Cty Clel!<'s Off"", III 68S-U!3 III Jeasl48 hou", prior to lhe pubUc meatll1jj.
f
** TX IRMRTION REPORT ** AS OF JUN 02 '134 ._~.04 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN.
DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDll STATUS
134 06r132 00'20 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01' 19" 004 167 OK
0S 06r02 00: 21 12084664405 EC--S 01'20" 004 167 OK
e6 06r02 00:23 8841159 EC--S 131'17" 004 167 OK
07 06r02 00:25 2088840744 EC--S 01'17" 0134 167 OK
08 06rla2 00:27 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01' 18" 004 167 Ok
09 06r02 30:29 8985501 EC--S 01' 17" 004 167 OK
10 06/132 00:313 LIBRARY EC--S 01'41" 004 157 OK
11 06r02 03:32 92083776449 EC--S 31'17" 004 167 OK
12 06r02 00: 34 208 388 G924 EC--S 131'40" 004 167 OK
13 06/02 00:37 2088886854 EC--S 01' 18" 004 167 OK
14 06/02 03:38 208 89S 03913 EC--S 01' 18" 004 157 OK
15 06r02 33: 43 200 387 6393 EC--S 01'17" 004 167 OK
16 06r32 313:42 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC--S 01'18" 004 167 OK
17 06/02 00:44 88851352 EC--S 01'17" 004 167 OK
18 0OrEl2 00:46 CHERRY LANE G3--S 02'38" 1334 167 OK
19 06r02 00:49 IDAHO ATI-LETIC C EC--S 01'18" 004 167 OK
20 36r02 00:51 [D PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01'18" 004 167 OK
21 06/02 00:S3 2088886701 EC--S 01' 17" 004 167 OK
22 06/02 01:02 3813163 EC--S 32'11" 004 167 OK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 1,2004 at 1:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
~ Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
-L Chartie Rountree =z: Keith Bird
-1S.....- Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: I; 'J /h4'J<>1- 7(.<""'....') dl. W-U-1.d--
3. Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LDS Church: pr€S~n-ted.
4. Adoption of the Ag8t1da: 6<J7fJrG'rrvr.--
5. COMent Agenda: ~V'Jt.-
A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 Pre-Council Meeting: ~ IA-<--
B. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 City Council Regular Meeting: ~rlH...--
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: VAR 04-
002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setbacl< of the
eXisting house on lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feel to 13.55 feet for
Packl1rd Acres ~ubdivj$lon NQ. 3 by Packard Estates
Development, lLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North
Locust Grove Road: ,?PVl<.-
D. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission;
PP 04-U06 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 sin919-
family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision
NO.3 by Packard Estates Development, lLC - south of East Ustick
Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: tlpJP-i"''''<-
E. Development Agreement: AZ 03-024 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 17.5 acms from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier
SprinQ& Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of
East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: ~i""""''-'"''''
McridiutCityC...",,;JAjJ<>>oll-.IwI.l.2tJO.& p~ I of3
All _erioIa pJ"""""u polll,. meoti"31 UolI b_1"<'P'"1l' oflbo Cj,y ofMoriof_
Anyon. ...iring ...._dolion 'orQt.ollilili.. ",Iofooll<> ..."""""" U>ilor barins
pl."""......<t lb. City c1ed:'. Ollj"".. _))>1.1....48 _pri.uoth. pIlbIio ~
//...
l.
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ~*
AS OF JUN 02 '04 15:53 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
04
05
06
DATE TIME TO/FROM
06/02 16:48 3810160
06/02 16:50 92083776449
06/02 16:52 IDAHO ATHLETIC C
CMDl:l STATUS
172 OK
172 OK
172 OK
~10DE
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
MIWSEC PGS
01'54" 003
01'07" 003
01'08" 003
,
" ,
CITY OF MERIDIAN
,ftt&t~: '
:-"':::~,i(!:;;';'.:~
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
TuefSday, June 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-calJ Attendance:
-K- Shaun Wardle X Bill Nary
'i- Chartia Rountree -X Keith Bird
- ----A- Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance: .6'J N':}-or 7p.t-y.wv'J tU /,J.u-tc&
3. Community Invocation by Cortland Walker with LDS Church: pre S.e.nte d..
4. Adoption of the Agenda: tfi.pl'roVU!---
5. Consent Agenda: ~VVl-
A. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 Pre-Council Meeting: tPff"'"" '^"-
B. Approve Minutes of May 4, 2004 City Council Regular Meating: "r/""'V'<.--'
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: V AR 04-
002 Request for a Variance for reduction of the setback of the
existing house on Lot 21, Block 5 from 20 feet to 13.55 feet for
Pac~rd Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates
Development, LlC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North
locust Grove Road: ~v:<.....
D. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission:
pp ~ Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-
family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdiviaion
~by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick
Road and east of North locust Grove Road: ~f1>VO<-
E. Development Agreement: PZ. 03-024 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier
Springs SLlbdlviajQn by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of
East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: t?--j'I'.n:>vU'
Moridilla Cjfy Counoil Agmda -1..... 1. 20D4 Paw> 1 of3
All molcrial. prClClllCd lit publicmoetinp .hoJ.l b_pr"P"'tY of the City oCMcridilm
AnyOllO dtoirillg IlOC01lIll:lodtdion for dioabilitiOll ~~<Wld to do",moaIlt nndlClf heorins.
plo8DUOldllct tho City C1<ri:'. Offi.. '" SUM33 at lcoI.Pt 48 boum prior Co tho publio ~f;.
WHITE PETERSON
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
KEviN E. DINIUS
Jm.IE KLElNFISCflER
CHRlSTOPHERD. GABBERT
WM. F. GIGRAY, III
T. GUVHAI.LAM*'"
JILL S. HOLlNKA
JOIlNR KORMANlK'"
WILLIAM A. MORROW
WILLIAM F. NICHOLS ...*
WHITB PETERSON, P.A.
CANYON PARK AT TIIE IDAHO CENTER
5700 E. fRANKLIN RD., SmTE 200
NAMPA, IDAHO 83687-7901
TEL (208) 466-9272
FlLX (208) 466-4405
CHRISTOPHER S. NVE
PHILIP A PETERSON
TODD A. ROSSMAN
TERRENCER. WHITE .........
.. Also admitted in CA
..... Also admitted in OR
..n Also admitted in W A
June 7, 2004
JUN 0 '1 2004
William G. Berg, Jr.
City Clerk
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
tv Of Ivleridian
Ci(~ Clerk Office
Re: PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT, LLP / BRIDGETOWER CROSSING
SUBDIVISION NO.7 / FINAL PLAT - (FP-04-031)
Dear Will:
Regarding the above referenced matter, please find enclosed the original of the
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT for approval and signature by
the Mayor and yourself. Please serve a copy of the ORDER upon the Applicant, with a
Certificate of Service in the file and a copy to Planning and Zoning and Public Works, and the
attorney's office.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
. ~ery trulyyours,?U
c::: Wm. F. Nichols
DC\Z:\ W ork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Bridgetower Crossing Sub No. 7 FP 04-031 \ClerkFPItr 06 07 04.doc
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
C/C 06/01/04
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
APPLICATION OF PRIMELAND )
DEVELOPMENT, LLP., FOR )
APPROVAL SIXTY-SIX (66) )
BUILDING LOTS (SINGLE- )
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, )
COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE) AND )
SEVEN (7) OTHER LOTS ON 27.17 )
ACRES IN R-4 AND C-G ZONES BY )
PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT, )
LLP, LOCATED AT THE )
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF W. )
MCMILLAN ROAD AND N. TEN )
MILE ROAD IN THE N.W. % OF )
SECTION 35, TAN., R.IW. )
)
CASE NO. FP-04-031
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT
This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to
Meridian City Code S 12-3 -7 on June 1, 2004, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review
is complete from Brad Hawkins-Clark, Principal City Planner, and Bruce Freckleton, Engineering
Technician III, dated: Hearing Date: June 1, 2004, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having
considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDMSION
NO. 7 LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TAN., R.1.W., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO, 2004, \40201-PLT.DWG 04/16/04 BKB JOB NO. 40201 SHEET 1 OF 2
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BRIDGET OWER CROSSING
SUBDIVISION NO.7 / (FP-04-031)
Page 1 of 4
PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT, LLP, DEVELOPER, MERIDIAN, ID, HANDWRITTENDA1E:
04/16/04, ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, LLP, EAGLE, IDAHO, IDAHO SURVEY GROUP,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO, 04/20/2004", Primeland Development, LLP., Developer, is Conditionally
Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the
Mayor and City Council from Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician ill, and Brad Hawkins-
Clark, Principal City Planner, dated: Hearing Date: June 1, 2004, listing 14 SITE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS, and 8 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto marked Exhibit" A", and consisting offive pages, and by this reference incorporated
herein, and the response letter from Engineering Solutions, LLP, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto marked Exhibit 'B' and consisting of two pages, and by this reference incorporated
herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their June 1, 2004
meeting as follows, to-wit:
1.1 Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their June 1, 2004 meeting,
and specifically pertaining to the Staff Report, under Conditions of
Approval, adding number 14, that will read as follows:
CONDmONSOFAPPROVAL
14. Prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat, applicant shall
provide revised metes and bounds legal descriptions to remove
the split zoning on Lots 55, 56 and 68, Block 10. (per action of
the City Council taken at their June 1, 2004 meeting)
1.2 Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health
Department as follows:
The Central District Health Department requires after written
approval from the appropriate entities are submitted, they can approve
this proposal for central sewage and central water~ that plans must be
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING
SUBDMSION NO.7 / (FP-04-031)
Page 2 of 4
submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality for central sewage and
central water~ that run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding
problem~ and it is suggested that stormwater be pretreated through a
grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to
groundwater and surface water quality; that engineers and architects
should obtain current best management practices for stormwater
disposal and design a stormwater management system that is
preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for
guidance:
1. State ofIdaho Catalog of Stonnwater Best Management Practices
For Idaho Cities And Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division
Of Environmental Quality, July 1997.
2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by
City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000.
2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City
Clerk and the City Engineer verifYing that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be
signed only at such time as:
1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer~ and
2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed
and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the
completion of off-site and required on-site improvements.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS
The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may
request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City
Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BRIDGET OWER CROSSING
SUBDIVISION NO.7 I (FP-04-031)
Page 3 of4
request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial
Review may be filed.
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest
in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days
after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,
Idaho Code.
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
\s+-
day of
:JUne..
,2004.
\\\\\\111111111'", .
,\\\\ of MEfi'!,,,> ~>>yo , Cl
"" ..(~ .'V/> //".....
~ ~ "\ . 0 -Y,,[,. ........
Attest.. ~ CJ o?-P 1~4 r ~
~ ~G ~() ~
I ~ ~
. ~ SEAL ~
~... - ~-
William G. Berg, Jr., City ~ '1'A .9 g
~v it~"'''
~". ':.<j ..{'t:?: ,.:::
....... ,,' CQ ,v,,
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning"'~l~6'rnng ~~pllrtment, Public Works Department, and
Jl/I~nl ~11'\\
City Attorney.
By: (i~.D.. ~^J)Q.IY\~
Dated:JU1L C1\ dOO.,.
Dc\Z:\Work\MIMeridian\Meridian 15360M\Bridgetower Crossing Sub No.7 FP 04-03l\OrderFP.doc
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING
SUBDIVISION NO. 7/ (FP~04-031)
Page 4 of 4
CIlY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
William L.M. Nary
Shaun Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
.',~
"
\'
V
\1 IDAHO ii
\\-j jl
-';;$C' ~.
';;;"(',y i""' .
~:;;.;.;:-'J/J~ I; . ... .t-~/.,....~ ./
~lRL^SUIU'. Vjj}:~ 'c ~"',.
-~ \ 1 'i)'J 3
CI1Y HALL
(208) 888-4433 - Fax 887-4813
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
~ ~ r CJTY OF~.-n. -c~..
~lerldi([n
,
".~
PUBUC WORKS
BtnLDlNG DEPARTMENT
(208) 887.2211 - Fax 898.9551
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272 - FAX 466-4405
STAF REPORT:
Hearing Date: June 1,2004
To:
Mayor & City Council
Brad Hawkins-Clark, Principal City Plann~L
Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Tech III
Request for Final Plat Approval of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision NO.7
Consisting of Sixty-six (66) Building Lots (Single-family Residential,
Commercial and Office) and Seven (7) Other Lots on 27.17 Acres in R-4 and C-G
Zones by Primeland Development, LLP (File# FP-04-031)
From:
Re:
We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the
applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted
by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION
This is the seventh phase of Bridget ower Crossing Subdivision, located at the southeast corner of
W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road in the N.W. 14 of Section 35, TAN., R.IW. This
phase of the subdivision includes 59 single-family, attached townhouse building lots, 3
commercial lots, 4 office lots and 7 common/other lots on 27.17 acres.
The townhouse lots and three of the office lots (Lots 69) 71 and 72) Block 10) are located in an
R-4 zone (with a Planned Development) and all three commercial lots and one of the office lots
(Lot 68) are located in an existing C-G zone. (Note: This is a correction to the application, which
states the zoning is R-4/PD for the entire phase.) When Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision was
annexed) the subject corner and the northeast corner of McMillan and Ten Mile were approved
with a commercial zone (approximately 16 acres on the north and 11 acres on the south of
McMillan). The minimum house size within the townhouse portion of the subdivision is 1,200
square feet, excluding garage area. The recorded Development Agreement also requires that the
commercial lots be developed under the CUP process.
The common area lots within the subdivision consist oflandscape/open space/drainage lots and a
sanitary sewer easement lot (Lot 70) Block 10). All of the common lots in the residential portion
of the subdivision will be maintained by the Bridgetower Crossing Homeowner's Association.
The common areas in the commercial and office portion will be maintained by either a future
Exhibit 'A' Page 1 of 5
Mayor & City Council
Hearing Date: June 1,2004
Page 2 of5
business owner's association, the HOA or a combination thereof The pressurized irrigation
system within this development is to be owned and maintained by the Bridgetower Crossing and
Verona Homeowner's Associations.
Staff finds that the proposed final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat.
There were, however, a few modifications that are detailed in the applicant's May 7 cover letter.
Specifically, the two public streets connecting McMillan and Ten Mile Roads (Montelino Way
and Quintale Drive) are additions to the final plat that were not shown on the preliminary plat. It
was always anticipated that a vehicular connection could be made through this area via private
commercial driveways, however. This change resulted in a shift of the townhouse area entrance
road approximately 220 feet to the west. These modifications were reviewed and approved by
ACHD. There was also a shift in the location of the emergency access drive from the north side
of Astonte Court to the west end of this cul-de-sac.
Staff recommends approval of this phase of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision with the
comments and conditions stated in this report.
SITE SPECIFIC REOUIREMENTS
1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-OI-003), preliminary plat
(pP-Ol-005), conditional use permit (CUP-OI-006) and development agreement (Inst. No.
l00079863).
2. The Developer shall be responsible for payment of water assessment fees for any
common areas proposing to use City water as a backup irrigation source.
3. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, pressurized
irrigation system approved and activated, drainage lots constructed, fencing installed, and
road base approved by the Ada County Highway District prior to applying for building
permits. All development improvements shall be installed and approved prior to
obtaining certificates of occupancy. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of
110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer,
water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat.
4. Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be via extensions from existing mains
installed adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Applicant will be responsible to construct
the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision
designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Warks Department.
Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of
the centerline.
5. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development. If the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to remain a
private Homeowners Association system, complete plans and specifications shall be4
Exhibit' A' Page 2 of 5
Mayor & City Council
Hearing Date: June 1,2004
Page 3 of5
reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review
process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be
submitted prior to plan approval. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized
irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. Applicant shall be
required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface
or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system
shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on
the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer.
6. The soils investigation report submitted with the application indicates that groundwater
was encountered at some fairly shallow depths within the project site. Design engineer to
provide a statement of compliance, prior to the approval of development plans that
certifies that the centerline finish grade of the streets, public or private, is at least three
feet above the established normal ground water elevation. This is an effort to ensure that
the building footings are at least one foot above the high groundwater.
7. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed along the boundaries
of this phase unless permanent fencing already exists at the subdivision boundaries. All
fencing shall be in compliance with MCC 12-4-10.
8. The Landscape Plan (Sheet LS-l, dated 4/20/04 by Harvest Design) shall be revised as
follows:
a. No landscaping is shown for Lot 67, Block 10 on the detailed plan. This lot shall
be planted in accordance with MCC 12-13-16.
b. All street trees along McMillan and Ten Mile Roads are shown in the legend as
"Flowering Trees" with no specific species called out. A mix of species is
required to be planted within each street buffer.
c. Indicate the total acreage dedicated to common open space on the face of the
landscape plan.
Submit three (3) copies of the revised plan along with an 8 Y2"xll" reduction to the
Planning & Zoning Department prior to signature on the final plat.
9. Please add or revise the following plat notes:
(9.) Revise to note that Lot 55, Block 1 0 includes a 20-foot wide emergency access
easement
(12) Add the following statement to this note: "Development on these lots may occur
only through the CUP process."
10. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and
construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to
signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374.
Exhibit' A' Page 3 of 5
Mayor & City Council
Hearing Date: June 1, 2004
Page 4 of5
1 L All drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water will
percolate or discharge within a period of time not to exceed 24 hours for all storms up to
and including a 100-year storm event. Side slopes within drainage areas must be less
than 3: 1 for accessibility and maintenance.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved preliminary
plat, conditional use permit or development agreement does not relieve Applicant of
responsibility for compliance.
14. Prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat, applicant shall provide revised metes
and bounds legal descriptions to remove the split zoning on Lots 55, 56 and 68, Block 10.
(Added per action of the City Council taken at their June 1,2004 meeting)
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per
City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owner's), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users
association approval can't be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the
Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
3. Two hundred fifty and One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be
required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be
installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire
hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are
completed by Idaho Power Company. Street light contractor to obtain design and permit
from the Public Works Department prior commencing installations.
4. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
lots receiving engineered backfill.
5. Submit "Final" letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the
subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform.
Exhibit' A' Page 4 of 5
Mayor & City Council
Hearing Date: June 1, 2004
Page 5 of5
6. Applicant's engineer will be required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying
that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the
highest established normal groundwater elevation.
7. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian's Water Works
Superintendent.
8. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance Section 12-5-2.K.
Sidewalks are to provide a clear five-foot-wide walkway pathway without encroachment
of mailbox structures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 7 with the
above stated comments & conditions.
Exhibit 'A' Page 5 of 5
Es~'1!r~f1ls~
150 East AikenS Street, Suite B
Eagle, ID 83616
Phone: (208) 938-0980
Fax: (208) 938-0941
E-mail: es-beckym@qwest.net
May 26, 2004
RECEIVI~D
MAY 2 6 2004
Mayor and City Council
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho A venue
Meridian,ID 83642
City Of I\'leridian
Citv Clerk om.ce
"
Re: Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No.7 (Final Plat)
File No. FP-04-031
Dear Mayor and Council:
We have reviewed staff comments dated for the hearing date of June 1,2004, and have the
following responses:
SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
1. The applicant will meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-Ol-003), preliminary
plat (PP-OI-005), conditional use pennit (CUP-Ol-006) and development agreement
(lnst. No. 100079863).
2. The applicant will comply.
3. The applicant will comply.
4. The applicant will comply.
5. The applicant will comply.
6. The applicant will comply.
7. The applicant will comply.
8. The applicant will comply.
9. The plat notes will be revised as requested.
10 The applicant will comply.
C:\Documents and Settings\greent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK188\RecsResponse.doc
Exhibit "B"
Pa9e. I tf' 2..
Mayor and City Council
May 26, 2004
Page 2
11 The applicant will comply.
12 The easement width will be increased as requested.
13 Noted.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
L The applicant will comply.
2. The applicant will comply.
3. The applicant will comply.
4. The applicant will comply.
5. The applicant will comply.
6. The applicant will comply.
7. The applicant will comply.
8. The applicant will comply.
We believe this letter addresses all of your concerns. Please feel free to call me if you have
additional comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Engineering Solutions, LLP
Becky McKay
Partner
BM:ss
cc: Mr. Frank Varriale
C:\Documents and Settings\greent\L:Jcal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK188\RecsResponse.doc
Exhibit "B"
fbqe. 2- of' 2.