HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-09
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 5:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd 0
=x:::= Cherie McCandless )(
)(, Mayor Robert Corrie
Bill Nary
Keith Bird
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Ufrh?V'Z.-
3. Continued Public Hearing from November 5,2003: CPA 03-003 Request
for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential
uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
t!OFl-hnUL j/llt -fo /2-9-&3 re1't-I~ Cl~hd~/~b~
4. Discussion and Presentation of Proposed Lane Rental Fee by ACHD:
(20 minutes) jJre.redcd7;;~f;':f JOlu1- Gd(/t~ l' ~~~ia- CCJh'l/~rA-
5. Discussion concerning cell towers in R zones by Dave McKinnon
from Pinnacle Engineering:
(10 minutes) fH''(S~~cL
6. Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b):
/LP ~:r/~
Meridian City Council Agenda -December 9,2003 Page 1 of I
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.
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CiTY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY AlTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEFT:
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:
JNTERMOUNT AIN GAS:
MERtDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER~
~~
Contacted:
EmaiJed:
Date:
Staff Initidls:
Phone:
Materials presented at pubDc me.tings shall beeom. property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 5:30 p"m.
City Council Chambers
1 " Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd 0 Bill Nary
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
X Mayor Robert Conie
2~ Adoption of the Agenda: Approve
3. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CPA 03..003 Request
for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential
uses within the mixed use \MNTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Continue
Public Hearing to December 9, 2003 Regular Agenda Item #5
4. Discussion and Presentation of Proposed Lane Rental Fee by ACHD:
Presentation by John Edney and Angela Comish
(20 minutes)
5. Discussion concerning cell towers in R zones by Dave McKinnon
from Pinnacle Engineering: Presented
(10 minutes)
6. Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b): No
Decision
Meridian City COWlcil Agenda -December 9~ 2003 Page 1 of 1
AU materials presented at public meetings shan 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 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Special Meetin~
December 9, 2003.
A special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 5:30 P.M.,
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, by Mayor Robert Corrie.
Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, and Cheri
McCandless.
Members Absent: Bill Nary.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Bard
Watson, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Tammy de Weerd
X Cherie McCandless
X
_ Bill Nary
X Keith Bird
Robert Corrie
Corrie: All right. I'm going to open the City Council Special Meeting, Tuesday,
December 9th, at 5:30 in the City Council Chambers. If you can't hear me, raise your
hand, so -- I may not make it through the whole meeting, but Tammy will take care of it
after if I don't. My voice sometimes gives out in about an hour. Council, we have roll call
attendance. Mr. Clerk.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Corrie: Thank you. Item NO.2 is the adoption of the agenda. Council?
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the agenda as published.
De Weerd: Second.
Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the agenda as published.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 2 of 29
Item 3:
Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CPA 03-003
Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow
new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for
proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West
Ustick Road:
Corrie: The third item on the agenda is the continued Public Hearing from November the
5th, CPA 03-003, by Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. So, at this time I
will continue the Public Hearing and hear from staff.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, at our last hearing we talked a lot about -- a
lot about different issues and standards and the conclusion was that staff was unable to,
given the information we had, provide suitable standards as requested by the City
Council at the first Public Hearing, where it was left with to continue the item to give the
applicant time to do the necessary research or provide the necessary information that
we might better evaluate the impact of this Comprehensive Plan text amendment. So,
to date we have not heard from the applicant, so -- they are here in force, so I assume
they have information to provide you, but I -- staff has not seen that yet.
Corrie: All right. Thank you, Anna. Any questions of the Council? Mr. Wardle, I believe
we need to swear you in. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, so help you
God?
Wardle: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Thank you.
Wardle: For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station
Drive in Boise. And also, for the record, Mr. Mayor, good to see you back this evening,
Corrie: Thank you.
Wardle: To start, I just wanted to back up quickly and introduce a couple people here
with us this evening. Obviously, Mr. Centers is here, as well as Joann Butler and Mark
Bottles. Mark Bottles is here with us. Part of the reason we got to where we were was
on a discussion of potential for office commercial industrial uses and Mr. Bottles is going
to give a quick overview of his view of the market in terms of those uses. Before we get
there, Mrs. Powell is correct that when we came from the last meeting we were asked to
provide information relating to other jurisdictions on how they deal with uses close to
their facilities and, specifically, sewer plants. We have done a lot of research. The only
one that we found specifically that has done anything in terms standards or
extraordinary requirements is what we provided previously, which was Las Vegas. We
did contact a lot of other plants of similar size in terms of the City of Meridian and most
of them are not -- they don't have extraordinary impacts. They deal with some of those
issues in other ways in terms of the way their plants function. I'm not an expert on it and
I can't get into that. I just want to say for the record there aren't other standards out
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 3 of 29
there that other facilities have implemented. So, in one regard we are kind of plowing
new ground here, which, hopefully, we can come to some sort of agreement. Before I
go on much further, I would like Mr. Bottles to address the issue of commercial uses,
because this was something that was very significant in terms of our previous
testimony. We were told last time that we had brought a lot of assumptions, but not a
lot of backing to those assumptions, and I just wanted to bring an expert in the field,
someone who is involved in this day to day. So, give a couple months to Mr. Bottles
and, then, I'll get right back up.
Corrie: Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Bottles: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bottles: Greetings, Mayor and Council Members. I'm sorry that I have to be first,
because I have got a son -- two boys in a play at school and I want to see them and my
wife would also hang me up if I wasn't there.
Corrie: For the record, would you give your name and address?
Bottles: Okay. It's Mark Bottles. My address is 5418 North Eagle Road. That's Boise,
Idaho.
Corrie: Thank you.
Bottles: Jake Centers had come to my office -- 1 have least -- he has an office project on
Locust Grove here in Meridian that my office we did leasing on and he's got another
office project, a small, you know, medical office building that we are doing as well, that I
believe you recently have approved as well on Locust Grove and he had came in and
brought in rece.ntly this parcel to me and came into my office and we addressed, myself
and the other sales associates, on the viability of leasing and what a project would do
there. I basically indicated to Jake, after talking with our sales associates, we did not
feel that this location was a strong location at all for leasing. I was concerned with him
putting up any spec buildings, because, as I am with any developer, they have got a
financial risk at doing that, putting up those buildings. And just with the experience that
we have had in areas both in Boise and Meridian where we deal a lot with medical
professionals, we are involved up there by S1. Luke's as well, the Montvue Subdivision
in the first project, which was a long, difficult task here getting it approved, but we deal
with a lot of both the -- which would be the orthodontists, the dental, the chiropractor,
which is more what fits in these neighborhood areas. With a lot of these we have met
we have got six or seven that we are working with right now, areas that they have
identified, I just don't feel comfortable with leasing that. I, in turn, basically, told Jake
after meeting with all our sales associates that I did not feel this was a good place to
basically go forward with any type of office or even small type of retail. I just felt like it
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 4 of 29
was just a gamble and it's not really what the market -- the market dictates, you know,
where they are going to lease space and I just told them I did not feel good at that. I felt
good about the Locust Grove site, some of these sites on Cherry Lane, and that, but I
was not comfortable with that. I don't know if you have any questions for me at all.
Bird: Mr. Mayor, I do.
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Why do think that this location is not good for office?
Bottles: Well, based on -- and I don't have -- and I'm sorry I don't have all the maps
here, but when I have looked at some of these other -- some of the other sites that are
available in the valley, there is only going to be so many orthodontists, so many
dentists, and so many chiropractors, as we all know, and with what's already going on
and what's already been built there along Ustick already, I have already not only talked
to orthodontists and dentists, they are not interested in that location, they want to get
over -- a few of them want to get over there on Cherry Lane and some of those areas. I
just think there is too much of this -- there is a lot of neighborhood offices, you know,
this being approved, there is only going to be so much of a market and we are seeing
some of this office market and larger stuff being filled up, I just -- looking at even the
rooftops at your build out, I just -- I, honestly, don't see it there and, again, our specialty,
as our office has been more these little -- more the neighborhood type office projects,
we have done a slew of them. I would be happy to give those to you and the projects
that we are working on both in Meridian and Boise and up and down this Eagle corridor.
Bird: Mayor, can I have a follow up on that?
Corrie: Go ahead.
Bird: As you know, less than a half mile down to the east there we do have a dentist
office.
Bottles: Right.
Bird: But -- so what you're saying is that it isn't very good for office space and you're
basically saying medical office space, but it's good for residential.
Bottles: Yes. And what I'm going to say is if you have office, you're only going to have --
typically you will not see two or three or four orthodontists or dentists going right next
door and competing against each other. When we are doing studies for these guys,
they want us to map out exactly where their competing orthodontists are. They want to
draw a ring and stay away from that. I think the project that's there, the other one just
on down Ustick, is a great project. I think, though, if you stack too many of those
together is where there is going to be a problem again and, you know, I don't market --
we do very little on residential marketing, I donlt even market Jake's. The only thing I
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 5 of 29
have done is done his leasing on his commercial. I donlt have -- I don't have a vested
interest -- it would be better for me, to tell you the truth, to stand here and tell you I want
office here, because I can make a fee off that. I can't make a fee off Jake's going and
doing a residential project, because I wouldn't be his marketing agent on that.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: Okay. I think your assumptions probably work today. When we get a Ten
Mile interchange, it changes the dynamics of that area. It changes even the access and
what the potentials are. So, are you just basing it on what the market would withstand
in the next couple of years or are you looking long term once there is an interchange
there? A lot of the property along Ten Mile through that whole corridor between Ten
Mile and Black Cat from Franklin to Chinden, it's going to change those dynamics and
so what would be the potential, then?
Bottles: Well, just -- you know, I should have been better prepared, I guess, in the sense
-- and I would be happy to do it, but looking at the office sites that are already approved
and what's planned with, you know, the new high school and things like that, and those
out parcels and even with Locust Grove -- and I know Locust Grove is further in -- but
with the number of them that are already there, I know the dentists and those things are
going to move in, we still have a lot of roof tops to be built. I just think there is going to
be, in my opinion, a surplus of it, because in those areas is not typically what you're
going to find as, you know, the office users, for instance, you know, the HP's and that,
as we all know, but the neighborhood office is typically your dentist, your orthodontist,
your chiropractor, you know, sometimes your insurance guys and that. But there is not -
- I mean even if we look on a map in west Boise, I mean it is very -- I mean the density
there -- I don't know. And I guess in answer to that, Tammy, it's just when we looked at
it, the sales guys, when Jake came in, I mean I don't feel comfortable and, to tell you the
truth, I'm not even sure I feel comfortable a few years from now because I know on
some of these other projects around there, they already have in these large projects,
those already identified within those projects or out in front of some of these schools
that they are doing, and, you know, like the project that you did out here with the
Meridian High School, where you had those office pads out front, that's where the
doctors are going to rush to and, obviously, it works, because the lots sales are there,
because they want to be right in front of -- right in front of that middle school or right in
front of that high school and, you know, your middle school on Cherry Lane. I can tell
you right now, people want to be there, because they want those kids walking out of
school and walking in the orthodontist or dentist's office and, then, the parents pick them
up there. Cherry Lane Baptist, which is in -- a developer in for application -- 11m not sure
where he's at in the process, but that's where all my orthodontists and dentists, they
want to go, even my chiropractors, they -- the chiropractors not so much because the
kids aren't going there to get adjustments so much, but those type of users -- and there
is only a certain number of them and they want to be by those and I feel like this is kind
of an in between spot and, you know, my biggest thing is, obviously, my reputation is
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 6 of 29
important to me, when Jake comes in and says, you know, I'm going to spec some
buildings, I'm kind of going, you know, I don't feel comfortable, even asked just spec'ing
a few in the front, that even makes me nervous at that point and I agree with you, the
Ten Mile interchange things will expand, but, again, I think what's important, what drives
a lot of that, is being by these schools and it seems like that's where they are driving
themselves more and more.
De Weerd: Mayor, just to follow up. I guess, you know, if you limit it to just those
particular users, you might -- you might have something, even though the elementary
school is there as well. But if you also look and consider the potential of Ustick Road as
an east-west corridor that connects clear into Canyon County, you know, there is --
there is just huge potential with that square mile there, with both McMillan and Ustick
Roads. Then you add to the equation the Ten Mile interchange -- and 11m not talking in
today's market, I'm talking, you know, down the road and what the development
potential is. Even if you don't look at office, industrial use, you know, there is plenty of
people, the same kind of companies that are going to locate on the Franklin Roads and
on the Fairviews, those companies are going to look at the amount of traffic that are
going to hit those roads -- we know Meridian is a through location and that's what a lot
of businesses look for is they are looking for that through traffic and what kind of traffic
they can stop and there will be a great amount of that through traffic, in particular, on
Ustick and McMillan. So, I -- and I'm not a professional, I don't mean to, but as we look
at the potentials and the market today, I would totally agree with you. But I don't know
about the market of ten years from now with the different traffic patterns and the
potentials. In particular, have you considered the developments that will be going on in
Canyon County and how everything is moving eastward in their locations, the potential
of the west campus with BSU -- you know, all of those are indicators that are going to
feed into the marketability of that area as well.
Bottles: And, you know, I understand the growth. You know, the one thing I would say
on the industrial side, I mean I have done work for BFI with their site -- I don't know they
handle the garbage here, but we did their demographic study when we moved them out
there off of Executive Drive and our firm and we also did Durham Transportation, which
handles the busing for the Boise School District. Most all these guys want to be close --
as close as they can to an interchange, they want to stay far away as they -- I mean the
Franklin corridor is an ideal corridor for that industrial use and it's just -- and 11m not
going to disagree with you, you know, with Canyon County and Meridian, just the way
things are merging there, but I think that industrial core -- I mean as an industrial user I
would be shocked if they came in and said they were looking, because right in the
middle of residential most those guys would want to be away from that, in my opinion,
and I find most of that, you know, being the case. I can tell you this, even where it's
going with even some of the -- we represent American Family Insurance and we are
doing -- we just put them here in Meridian the first site and they are going to have them
popping up all over Meridian, but American Family Insurance, which is a Fortune 350
firm, not that it makes a difference, but difference is that they are one of the fastest
growing, you know, insurance companies in the U.S. Their demographics now is we --
they typically only want to be in anchor Albertson's centers and what I'm finding with
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 7 of 29
these insurance guys is that they typically went into neighborhoods and now they are
wanting to be in strip centers. I had a hard time convincing them in there in Cherry
Lane and Linder to be there without an anchor, I think the John Stubblefield
development there. But they want those -- I mean they want those high exposure
corners and when it comes back to it, if you try to put them -- and I have tried them even
in Boise, as we have been putting them around through both Ada and Canyon County, I
think we are finding a lot of these guys are going back to what they used to go to, they
want these corner locations and those are our typical office guys that we have even
done with State Farm, we put them in the block and tried to do some of that. My
concern is it gets difficult. Now, Franklin and Ten Mile, I mean if -- you know, Ten Mile
and -- you know, that that road goes in and that becomes -- you know, I don't know if it's
going to be an Eagle corridor. It seems awful tight through there, but if it becomes a big
corridor, you know, I don't know that it would go that deep on Ustick. I look at McMillan
and Eagle Road, it doesn't go that far off the corner, it stays pretty close and people
want that exposure on that main arterial road. Even the office users in front of Pioneer
Elementary School, many of you are familiar with that, that's a highly density area and
they have got all the parking and it's a first class office project that they put in there.
They are not leasing out those spaces very fast. You go out and put a project on Eagle
Road, which is a traffic nightmare getting in and out. My office building is on there,
They want that and it's -- you know, they do that. You will get a dentist or orthodontist,
one or two pop in front of that elementary -- and that's a grade school and all I'm saying
is if you get too far off the corridor, that's my only concern with this piece here is that we
get too far off that main corridor, even the assumption that Ten Mile must become that
major corridor, which I agree it's going to be, I just don't know how depth off that corridor
that's -- the realistic possibility of that development is going to be.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I just have one more point. Since you had raised BFI
and buses and all of that, that has been proposed and they stood in front of us telling us
they did market studies and it could sustain those kind of things. So, I guess a lot of it is
based on who you talk to and what the neighbors want and that's a lot of what we had
kind of hoped would come back to us is what that mix should be. You know, I would
agree that today it couldn't support that. You look at across the street from Pioneer
Elementary that was off Eagle Road on McMillan, you know, that is starting to develop
out really nice and it's not surrounding a sewer treatment plant, it's -- and it's across the
street from residential by a school and so I guess I see today what your point is, but I'm
not certain that five, ten years down the road that those would be the same
assumptions.
Bottles: I mean, you know, I haven't talked to BFI lately or any of those guys, but having
them and their trucks in that area moving, I just say I can't imagine -- those trucks -- I
mean if you go off Executive Drive, there is no residential anywhere close to them and
that type of use is -- I mean it's strong. They are cleaning out those trucks and they
have been a good client in the past. I'm not currently doing any site selection work for
them right now, but with those trucks rolling in and out, you look at the accident record
on those, I don't think you're -- you're going to want those closer out to the freeway.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9. 2003
Page 8 of 29
De Weerd: Yeah. They were turned down.
Bottles: Pardon?
De Weerd: They were turned down.
Bottles: If I were you, from a safety issue -- you know, I live off of Chinden, but I wouldn't
want them pouring in and out of there with all their trucks as a distribution.
Corrie: Well, that's not a problem now, so --
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Bottles, if I could -- you just looked at the particular parcel that Mr. Centers
purchased. You didn't look at market viability of office on any of the rest of the parcels
that are identified on this map in the brown?
Bottles: I looked at Center's particularly in relation to the other sites that are currently
marketed and some of them the proposed where the schools are going into, where
there is additional office in the area, so we did look at that.
Nichols: Okay. But you didn't look at any market studies or availability of any of the
other parcels on this map that's on the board in brown?
Bottles: No. I haven't gone through each one and looked at those. I looked specifically
at his site is what I looked at. Yes. Correct.
Nichols: Thank you.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Bird: I have none.
Corrie: I was just wondering if the wastewater treatment plant were not there, would you
change your mind?
Bottles: If it wasn't there?
Corrie: Yeah.
Bottles: Oh, it wouldn't have -- I don't even take that into account looking at it from an
office or retail standpoint.
Corrie: And knowing what's going in all around it.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 9 of 29
Bottles: Correct.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you.
Bottles: Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, Mark. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, so help you
God?
Butler: Yes, it is.
Corrie: Thank you. Name and address.
Butler: Thank you. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street in Boise, here representing the
applicant and I appreciate the Council getting together at this early hour. I know we
have to be at the podium to get this recorded, but 11m looking at this, maybe because of
the hour, as a work session. So, I have come into this late. I know you have a lot of
hearings both during the Comprehensive Plan process and this one, so bear with me as
I struggle through this and make some comments. Also, because, unfortunately, I
wasn't able to review the City's files for this hearing, I have seen some of the minutes,
read the minutes, but, in fact, before I forget, I'm going to give Will my check for those
things, so I don't forget it. I know that the -- some of your best staff has gone on to be
with their spouse at another job and I know the clerk office has been strapped lately for
some -- so, we have just picked that up today. In any event, I'm looking at this as my
comments as a work session and I hope you take them as that. I'm going to be talking
about legal concepts. If Jerry Centers was here -- and I miss him very much, because
as soon as I started talking about legal concepts, I think he would -- steam would start
coming out of his ears, so I hope that's not the case for the Council.
Corrie: Joann, I'm just -- when you say legal, I get a little worried. Would you keep your
comments to about ten minutes.
Butler: IIII do my darnedest.
Corrie: Thank you.
Butler: First, I want to just set the stage. This property that was zoned C-N was alluded
to zoned at the time when the person living on the residential parcel immediately east
had a failing septic and the city helped out by annexing the property and providing
sewer to that person and at that time you discussed -- and 1'm looking at the minutes
from that October 17, 2002, you discussed the fact that, you know, really residential in
this area, in this square doughnut, what you called the mixed use area around the
wastewater treatment plant, residential was very appropriate and what you said at that
time was that I think we have to look at nonresidential now. Why? Because that's what
you had in Comprehensive Plan and you went onto say things like we have to work
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9,2003
Page 10 of 29
towards amending our Comprehensive Plan, amending our map, and allowing some
flexibility and this applicant took you at your word. They said, okay, we understand that
you're looking for mixed use, you have said you want mixed use in this are, but you're
also saying that you want flexibility and we will, we will come with a text amendment that
will allow mixed use, but allows residential as well. To pick up on what your attorney
has said and what Mrs. de Weerd has said, we are not saying that commercial, in
conjunction with residential, isn't appropriate, we are saying absolutely that, you need
the flexibility, you need -- the city should aspire to that flexibility of having commercial
and residential. As Mr. Bottles said, the more residential, the more likely you're going to
have those rooftops that the office people and dentists and professional people look
towards. So, we are saying that the Comprehensive Plan discussion of this mixed use
area is wanting and what it's wanting is the addition of residential use and this Council
recognized that itself last year. So, that's what we are talking about here, amending it.
Now, of course, the P&Z has recommended to you that it does get recommended, that
this text amendment be adopted before you go on, and we know of no error by the
Planning and Zoning Commission in making that recommendation to you and, of
course, we would want to hear from the Council, if you choose to deny this application,
why. What was -- in what way is our application not meeting what you were directing a
year ago and not meeting what the Planning and Zoning Commission was doing just a
few months ago. I know I have read the minutes. I know that you have said you have
been struggling with this. You said in 2002 we are not quite sure what to do and there
weren't any studies, so we are going to draw this square doughnut, basically, around
our plant. I'm just going to propose that because you didn't have those studies back
when you were doing the Comprehensive Plan, it's really sort of a holding zone or a
holding area that you have created, not bolstered by anything, and, consequently, I
think that's why in 2002 this Council started to say, you know what, we didn't know what
to do. We recognize it was a 500 pound orange guerilla and that we want to be more
flexible in the future. We are going to look at each project as it comes in. This
applicant will be proposing residential, but it's a mixed-use area and I know that this
Council will not allow totally residential in the area, you're going to look at the other
projects as mixed use. This is a smaller front parcel and it's attempt to be -- it's an
application for just residential. I want to discuss the fact that because of the concerns of
this Council, even though it doesn't appear that there has been any public purpose in
creating this doughnut, this applicant brought to the Council a positive way to help the
Council and that's that easement that was brought -- maybe the Councilor the
Commission recommended. An easement that would be recorded against the property
and I -- basically I -- letting people know that the plant is there, so that they are not
taken aback if they should discover it some day and I want to tell a little analogy. I'm
right now working for the Boise City airport and the airport -- the airport is looking at
making sure avogation easements are recorded throughout the airport influence zone
and what this does is puts on record for every parcel that has to come through the city
and get a permit, they require this avogation easement to be recorded and you are in
such a better position than the airport. The airport influence zone cuts across Ada
County and Boise City. Ada County doesn't necessarily agree with Boise City. Here
you have complete control over this area and if you so desire, that -- if your desire is to
put people on notice that this is what exists, this public facility exists, I would say this is
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 11 of 29
a very good way to go about it. It is the way that in Boise we -- the airport and the
attorneys have acknowledged this is way to go. I'm also bringing up the idea -- or
reminding the Council of its flexibility -- it's desire for flexibility with regard to residential,
because -- and this is legally -- courts around the country have said that you cannot
exclude residential merely because of its proximity to a sewer treatment plant
specifically and the courts -- and this doughnut would appear to be contrary to that legal
concept, because that legal concept is just this succinctly, you can't disallow a use,
unless there is some substantial gain to the public and I have to say -- I have come from
the outside, but I don't see that in the minutes. I have seen in the minutes that you __
staff members are concerned that people that -- if they don't know about the sewer
treatment plant and they call the city, they are going to have to answer the calls, that's
going to take some time, but on a continuum of the public good, I think that is not a
substantial gain to the public just merely trying to preclude a few calls and I think that
this easement would very much help the city avoid the issue. I'm not saying that you
won't get some calls, but I am saying that if somebody were to attempt to sue the city,
you would be on solid ground. I guess those are my main points. I think that -- I think
that this applicant has done exactly what the city is looking for, try to help it amend its
Comprehensive Plan text, try to also bring to the table some other technique -- and
that's the easement -- to help make the city comfortable as it goes forward making this a
complete mixed use area that serves the citizens of Meridian. If there are any questions
I can answer, I would be happy to --
Corrie: Council? Okay.
Butler: Thank you.
Corrie: Yes. Anna.
Powell: If I might ask a question. Just out of curiosity, Joann, the legal concepts you
gave, did they have comprehensive plans that supported residential in those areas and
that was a finding related to the development approval or was that in reference to a
Comprehensive Plan designation?
Butler: Explain -- sorry. Could you repeat that, Anna?
Powell: You would seem to be saying by that that you couldn't exclude residential from
any Comprehensive Plan designation and, clearly, we do that in other areas, so I was
wondering if that example you used was related to a development application where
they -- where the Comprehensive Plan would have supported residential, but that was
denied based on proximity.
Butler: Correct. And I'm looking back at the excerpts from this case and, yes, there
were comprehensive plans indicating that residential could be allowed and indicating
that, clearly, just by proximity to the sewer treatment plant, the -- in this case that J'm
looking at is saying that, no, just by mere proximity that it shouldn't be allowed.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 12 of 29
Powell: But -- so the analogy falls a bit short on this one, because our Comprehensive
Plan at this time doesn't say that residential is --
Butler: And that's exactly right and that's what we are saying, that just like the Council
has been asking for is the flexibility to allow a complete mixed use in this area, but there
are other cases -- I appreciate what you're saying. There are other cases that distinctly
talk about when there are public facilities, that you cannot preclude uses merely on the
basis of that use, public use, and so that's a bolstering of why we are saying that just
like the Council was looking for a year ago, more flexibility to allow residential, we are
saying that bolsters the Council's desire for residential in the area. Does that make
sense to you or to the Council? If I could also add to that, I think the issue -- and I
appreciated that in the minutes that I read -- I had some comments that the City
indicated it was trying to protect the treatment plant and I would pose this question to
the -- to the Council: In what way would residential use in any way harm the treatment
plant?
Bird: Mayor?
Corrie: I think --
Bird: Go ahead.
Corrie: Go ahead.
Bird: My answer to that would be that I don't worry about residential hurting the
treatment plant, I'm wondering what the treatment plant does to residential to deal. Are
you going to go out there, Joann, and buy a house?
Butler: I don't know. I --
Bird: Would you live out there next to a wastewater treatment plant?
Butler: There are -- I will tell you, I can -- I will just do an analogy, because I'm not a
marketer and I don't know the area that well, but I do know where Riverside Village is
and I do know where the Lander Str~et plant is in Boise and they are quite -- within the
same range of proximity and so when you speak about your -- I think what I'm hearing is
that that your concern about how the public's use of its property might affect other
people and I don't -- I would imagine that's not where you may be going, but if that's -- I
donlt -- and I know that the city runs its treatment plant very well, so I don't think that's --
that's the issue.
Bird: And I'm not saying that's an issue with me, I'm just saying that I don't worry about
what residential is going to do to the treatment plant, I worry about maybe what the
treatment plant is going to do to some of the deal. I mean I was raised in Nampa, Idaho,
so I know what the stink of the sugar beet factory is my whole life, you know, so --
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 13 of 29
Butler: And I appreciate that and I also -- but I do --
Bird: -- you know, raised on a farm, so I don't have any problems with that stuff.
Butler: And I appreciate what you're saying, although a well-run sewer treatment plant,
as we know from around the country, this does not cause issues. I understand your
desire to possibly create, in essence, more distance, but it also sounds a bit as though
that distance is being created with somebody else's property and that is an issue that I
know the city wants to avoid.
Bird: And, Joann, I think what we asked was to get some examples. Now, you said
Riverside and Lander Street treatment plant. I do know they have had some
complaints. Not a lot of them, but they have had some complaints. We just ask -- our
basic deal -- I don't think the Council, actually, said that they were absolutely against
residential in there. As I recall, we just wanted some examples and I guess Las Vegas
was the only one you could find that was around the sewer plant.
Butler: And I think that Mr. Centers has done some other work through a consultant on
that and may be able to speak to that a little bit more or would you like me to reference
those? Okay. There are some more examples that -- in which that -- that you can find
that, for sure.
Bird: And that's basically what we wanted and I don't think the Council absolutely put
their thumbs down on the residential out there, as I recall.
Butler: And, Councilmember Bird, I appreciate that, because I realize that what you are
trying to do throughout the city with the Comprehensive Plan is create those mixed
uses, where people can live, work, play in good proximity. From my position, after
working with the airport on their avogation easement and when I found out that this
people were -- had introduced that concept to you, I thought, well, that's a darn good
way to assist the city.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess that when you suggest the applicant had a great idea on this buffer,
he's using someone else's piece of property as a buffer, so, you know, it's not a good
example to me. When you say that we don't allow a complete mixed use, there are
mixed uses out there that don't allow residential in a mixed-use capacity.
Butler: I didn't understand the facts that you were referring to in terms of the buffer and
Mr. Wardle has explained to me that they had made a suggestion. I wasn't at the
hearing, I'm only going to suppose that it may have been proposed as here is something
you can consider. I wouldn't, if I were the city, I wouldn't -- if I were -- because of that
property owner. I think that that -- you would be, in essence, extending your reach
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 14 of 29
beyond your borders and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing for the city to do
and so I think that you just need to look at this property just within the bounds of this
property, acknowledge it as a smaller piece of property that's just one piece of the
overall, as you strive to develop mixed use throughout that area.
De Weerd: But we are not looking at a piece of property, we are looking at amending
the text to the Comprehensive Plan and what that would allow and what we suggested
to the applicant of this text amendment is without taking this as a whole picture, we are
not solving anything, and that's the whole point is this needs to be further defined. It
was stated that in the Comprehensive Plan amendments the applicant was to work with
our staff, develop some kind of a time frame and some kind of a process to take a look
at that whole picture and not just the piece of property that he is proposing it on.
Butler: I guess I would have to answer that in two ways, that they are -- they are as the
Council had led them to do, asking for a text amendment to help the city be more
flexible overall, so that you can look at each application in relationship to the specific
circumstances that surrounds it, which you do at any conditional use requirement, and
so that's what they are doing, providing that greater flexibility. Now, it may be that -- I'm
hearing you say that you would -- you're asking the applicant to, in essence, do the
planning for this entire area and I don't -- I don't think that's appropriate for this
applicant, nor would you want just this applicant to do that. I think that is something that
if it wasn't done when you did the Comprehensive Plan, if there isn't that basis
underpinning your Comprehensive Plan, then, it is appropriate to do it now and it is
appropriate -- I know Anna very often comes and asks the Council, okay, what priorities
-- you have many things for me to do, what priorities. I think this -- that overall mixed
use planning is a priority -- one of the priorities for the planning staff and by making this
text amendment, you give the staff that much more flexibility to talk about a complete
mixed use area.
Corrie: I guess the point was, though, if it doesn't fit within the Comprehensive Plan
now, it is your applicant's argument to explain to us why this would be of benefit and we
haven't seen that and what it does open up, is it opens up all of those possibilities
without further research into all those four years of that Comprehensive Plan with this in
consideration and I think it was part of the north Meridian planning area and it was a
recommendation that this probably shouldn't go too much further without some
considerable detail on what should be considered there and our staff can only do so
much at one time and so if there is someone that's compelled to allow a use that is not
defined, that's the wait until it's a priority of the staff and we can get to that or they take
that into their own hands.
Butler: There are a couple of different ways to answer that, Councilwoman de Weerd. I
mean you have mentioned that it opened up possibilities and I'm not sure you alluded to
the maybe negative possibilities. I don't know of any, I'm not -- I can't make that
assumption, but if, in fact, you are saying that staff may not have the time, then, now is
the perfect time to say -- to bring this before the Council, look at it, show that there are,
in fact, other examples where this has happened. I'm sure that the Council is not saying
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 15 of 29
that it's going to impinge on adjacent property and so I think it's appropriate to say if we
are talking about mixed use and if the city's saying it runs its treatment plant and its
public facilities well, then, there would be no reason not to have a complete full mixed
use area in this area, where conditional uses come before the Council and you can
assess each specific circumstance.
Corrie: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to give you about three minutes and I'm cutting it
off. This is too much information and not enough information for us. So, you have three
minutes, Mr. Wardle. If you want him to talk, that's fine. I'm going to cut it off. Raise
your right hand, please. Is the testimony you are about to give the truth, so help you
God?
Centers: It is.
Corrie: Name and address, please.
Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove. I just got to say the whole reason for calling
a special early Council was so that we could allocate time to discuss this in great detail.
Corrie: And you're also on the main Council, too. We ask -- we understand. We asked
you specific questions and we are not getting it, so __
Centers: Okay. I guess my question is why is residential not allowed in this mixed use
area and I think we have all identified that the reason is is because there is a
wastewater treatment plant in that facility. Mrs. de Weerd alluded to the fact of other
mixed-use areas that disallowed residential and I'd like to know is that an accurate
statement. Question posed to staff.
Powell: There is certainly other communities that don't allow __
Centers: Well, we are talking about the __
Corrie: Let her finish her question.
Powell: But in the City of Meridian the other ones do allow some sort of residential, yes.
Centers: Okay. So --
Powell: But the industrial zones don't.
Centers: We are not talking about an industrial zone, we are talking about mixed use.
It's a mixed-use zone. I mean that's what we are talking about and __
Corrie: No residential.
Centers: What's that?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting -
December 9,2003
Page 16 of 29
Corrie: No residential.
Centers: Why?
Corrie: Because it's in the Comprehensive Plan.
Centers: Because there is a wastewater treatment facility __
Corrie: No. That's what they had set out in the Comprehensive Plan.
Centers: Then, why did you name it wastewater treatment plant mixed use? You know,
and I would -- actually, you should abstain from this hearing __
Corrie: I'm still the Mayor and if you don't like it, you can leave. Okay. You got two
minutes.
Centers: Well, we did go and do a little bit of research and I'd like to hand out a
brochure from Washington State Department of Ecology, Criteria for Sewer Works
design. And just real quick, there is a lot of information in here, but just, primarily, I
wanted to just go to the actual fourth page, which is page six of 13, and there is just a
short sentence that's underlined in here and it says: In the absence of specific local
regulations, the buffer in residential areas should be at least, you know, 150 to 200 feet
and, you know, going down this path one could argue that, you know, our treatment
plant isn't the same one as other jurisdictions and just because they have specific buffer
zones, that doesn't mean that ours should be the same and, you know, I talked to other
plants in Eugene, Oregon, and Santa Cruz, California, and Salem, Oregon, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, and all of those plants have -- they don't have any regulation on, you know,
any buffer zone from residential, but what they do all have is some sort of odor control
equipment in place to help mitigate their odors and help to be good neighbors. You
know, I talked with Malcombe Craney, a national engineering firm that specializes in
wastewater treatment plant design and every plant that they are involved with has some
sort of odor mitigation equipment on those plants to, you know, take care of the odor
control, you know. In your local ordinance -- in your ordinance under provisions for
commercial and industrial use, it says no land or building in any district shall be used or
occupied in any manner creating dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise
objectionable conditions, which could adversely affect the surrounding areas or
adjoining premises, except that any use be permitted in this ordinance undertaking
measures, safeguards, to reduce dangerous and objectionable conditions. Noise,
objectionable noise, which is due to volume, frequency, or beat, shall be muffled. Glare.
No direct glare shall be permitted. I mean it's in the ordinance and these are all things
that staff gave public testimony on that their treatment plant produces, you know, some
noise, produces some light, some glare, and some noxious odors and it's in a violation
of your own ordinance for the industrial zone, so -- you know, and, Councilman Bird,
you alluded to the fact of, you know, would you want to live there if this application is
approved and, you know, I guess the answer to that is, you know, I think that people
(
I
Meridian City Council Special Meetirl~
December 9, 2003
Page 17 of 29
should have the opportunity to make that decision and, really, I'm the one that's taking
the risk. I'm the one that's outlaying upwards of a million dollars to develop this plat to
its full development potential and if I truly felt that the plant was -- you know, had some
offensive characteristics to it, you know, would I be up here in front of you asking for this
application to be approved and putting forth that effort and that money and I have got to
tell you, I wouldn't. I mean you would be crazy to. So, you know, the assumption that it
-- you know, there is going to be phone calls from neighbors, I don't want to get involved
in the middle of something where, you know, somebody comes back and says we didn't
know the treatment plant was there. You sold us this piece of property. That's why I'm
interested in doing this odor easement as well. I'm interested in putting it on the plat
and the CC&R's, because I don't want any problems down the road.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I guess what is frustrating to me is we have listened to this for 55 minutes
and when we postponed it or table it to now, we thought we would have information that
would we consider in advance of today. We didn't get anything. Our staff hasn't gotten
anything and we are still almost at the same point as we were last time we talked and
that's the frustrating thing, is we asked for some information and this looks interesting, I
would like to read it, but it would have been nice to have it prior to tonight. I feel that we
are spinning our wheels, just like we were prior -- in the previous hearing and so I guess
what we thought we would be getting is compelling reasons why residential should be
figured, that we would get from staff what kind of time frame that we could have some
kind of charrette or that these kind of things could be considered in a bigger picture type
of thing and we don't have any of that. So, I just think right now there is nothing new
that we can even consider to change our mind, because what we got in our packet was
exactly what we had when we last discussed this.
Centers: Well, Councilwoman de Weerd, you know, the last time we worked with staff
we came to this Council with a recommendation of approval from staff, a
recommendation of approval from P&Z, and we showed up at the hearing and got
blasted. I mean I will show you a document of approval. You had it. You had a
recommendation for approval from staff and they showed up at that Council hearing and
just laid into us, brought all this stuff. So, if you want me to work with staff, I'm not going
to go out there and lay all my cards on the table, so they can prepare an opposition to
my testimony when I get up here, which is exactly what happened. I mean __
De Weerd: Mr. Centers, I'm sorry, but, you know, one thing that Council has been
consistent on is in considering these text amendments, we have just approved this
Comprehensive Plan. We would like to see it work. And I think all of us agree there
needs to be more work on that particular designated area on our Comprehensive Plan.
A time frame needs to be put together on how that will be approached and set about
and -- so that they can share it with you. As a property owner you know what the time
frame that staff is working on and figuring out what are the best uses for that and what
(
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 18 of 29
the markets can sustain and that was the discussion last time we had this application in
front of us and I still believe that's what we need to do and I'm sorry that you don't feel
you can work with our staff, but you're going to need to.
Centers: No. I mean I thought we did. I mean, like I said, we got a recommendation for
approval and, you know, that -- if you hadn't have read that staff report, you surely
wouldn't have gathered that we had that recommendation at the Council hearing. I
mean -- I think that's pretty obvious. That's why we are here today.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think that recommendation was from Planning and Zoning. I don't know as it
was --
Centers: No. It was staff. Both.
Powell: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Anna.
Powell: Staff recommendation was for denial. The P&Z recommended approval.
Corrie: That's what I thought.
Bird: That's what I thought. Also, Mr. Centers, when you bought this property going in,
you knew what it was zoned, right?
Centers: Yes.
Bird: But you thought that -- that you were -- could get it changed, so that you could use
residential. You, evidently, had bought this property with the idea of using residential __
making it residential; right?
Centers: Yes.
Bird: Okay. That's alii have. Don't even need an answer.
Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Centers.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
(
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 19 of 29
Nichols: I would recommend that you and Council continue this hearing into the regular
agenda as an item ahead of the individual application items and, then, if you want to do
anything further, either with the text amendment or if you want to continue it to a date
certain, that you do it, then, but at least you could do it in connection with taking up
those other items that are on the regular agenda in the next meeting.
Corrie: I agree.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I would move that we take from the Special Meeting, Item No.3, the CPA 03-
003, continued Public Hearing, and move it to the regular agenda and let it be known as
Item No. 5A.
McCandless: Mr. Mayor, it's already on the regular agenda as __
Bird: No. No. This isn't. Six, seven, and -- six, seven, and eight is on there.
McCandless: Yeah.
Bird: But this was another -- this is a continued Public Hearing that we are requested for
a certain item.
McCandless: Oh. Okay.
De Weerd: Second.
Bird: And, see, tonight we have went over everything but that item.
De Weerd: I'll second that.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Berg: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Clerk.
Berg: If I may, I suggest maybe put a different letter on it, just in case you needed to pull
something off the Consent Agenda.
Bird: You're right. Just make it Item five, then. Is that agreeable with the second?
Berg: In case you wanted to discuss Sageland.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 20 of 29
Bird: Yeah.
Berg: Thank you.
Corrie: I need agreement from the second. All right. Any further discussion? All in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Discussion and Presentation of Proposed Lane Rental Fee by ACHD:
Corrie: We will now have Item 4, discussion and presentation of the proposed Lane
Rental Fee by ACHD.
Edney: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council John Edney, Ada County Highway District,
construction division head, 5744 Plantation Lane, Garden City.
Corrie: Thank you, John.
Edney: What we want to do is bring a concept to you that we are introducing and
explain that this is only a study that we are doing right now and doing some research.
We felt that we needed to out reach to all of the public entities and utility companies and
chambers of commerce on this concept and we are soliciting comment trying to keep
you advised of what the highway district is doing. In the policies of the highway district,
anybody that desires to do work within the public right of way or do maintenance work in
the right of way, has to do that through -- by securing the permit from the highway
district. Some of these permits are paid, some of them aren't. The intent of the permit
system is to recover all of the costs that are generated for testing and inspection.
However, there is no way to control the amount of time a contractor needs in the pubic
right of way and to try to encourage them not to waste any time in the public right of
way, because there is some serious issues with regard to transportation. So, what we
are looking at is on collector and arterial streets is a concept of an additional fee that
covers the rental of that lane or lanes just to accommodate that contractor's work. So,
I'd like to introduce Angie Comish, she's our consultant who is doing our research for
us, she's an engineer, and she has a presentation she'd like to provide to you. And,
then, we'd ask for any comments -- we have comment sheets that you can take and __
your staff can take and provide back to us and that will help us in our research. Thank
you.
Corrie: Thank you, John.
Comish: Hi, I'm Angela Comish and my address is 1411 North 14th Street in Boise,
Idaho. And if it's all right with you guys, I'm, actually, going to sit over there where Anna
is, so that I can click my presentation, if that's okay.
Corrie: Fine.
(
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 21 of 29
Comish: I'm going to go through this fairly quickly, because I know your night is already
kind of getting long, so feel free to stop me if I'm going too fast or if you have questions
or anything. I'd like you just get to -- if I can get this to work -- think about sometime
when you have been out on one of our Ada County roads on your way to a meeting or
something and you look up and find yourself in a situation like this. Anybody see their
car in there? I'm sure all of you have probably sat in a roadway construction zone,
Maybe you were late for meeting and you had to call ahead and tell somebody that you
weren't going to be there or that you were going to be late or maybe you missed on
flight or something and maybe you got stuck on Fairview. That would be awful. Maybe
you actually got up to where that construction project was and there was no work going
on. That's probably one of the most -- one of the calls that the Ada County Highway
District gets the most. You know, there is a detour set up, I have been delayed, I
missed something and somebody gets to the place and there is no work going on. So,
the mission of the Ada County Highway District is to provide the best public highway
system for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in Ada County. The
problem is we have got projects and crews that are competing for the same roadway
right of way as the traveling public. We end up with making an impact to the motorists,
such as a lower level of safety, frustration, delays, missed appointments, loss of
revenue to businesses and a negative image at ACHD and contractors and just about
any public agency. So, what I have been hired to do is research what other
metropolitan areas are doing to encourage contractors in utilities to work efficiently in
the right of way, see if they can minimize impacts to the traveling public and maybe
even recover some of the loss suffered by motorists due to these negative impacts. And
the second part of my research is to solicit input, like John said, from cities and I have
gone to contractors and to various agencies around the area. So far what I have found
out is that ACHD is not the only agency trying to figure out how to deal with this issue. It
seems to be a very common theme in areas where there are experiencing high growth
like we are. The thing that I have found with a lot of these agencies that are having
success in managing their right of way use is they have implemented a right of way or
lane use fee system. I put together a table of just different cities that are contacted to
kind of give you an idea of how this would work. Take just the top row, if you can read
that, and I will just kind of just briefly explain like what the city of Denver does. Say a
contractor wants to use 300 feet of a single lane, he needs to close it on an arterial or
collector, and he wants to use it all hours, except for rush hours, and he needs it for a
week. That would cost him 25 cents per lineal foot for per day. So, the charge he
would have for using that lane for a week would be 525 dollars. It's a pretty common
way -- it seems like most of these entities are doing it. Some of them do it on a per
square foot basis, some of them have a sliding scale, so like if the contractor chooses to
just work at night, he gets a reduced rate. Say he just wants to work on a sidewalk, it's
less and if he needs to take an additional lane, the rate doubles. It just depends on how
to set it up. But that's kind of a pretty common way that it's usually done. So, what are
the pros and cons of implementing something like this? Well, obviously, to contractors
the cons are loss of flexibility if they are trying to limited their impact and increase in
construction costs, of course. What are the pros? You have a significant reduction in
delays, as well as financial and safety impacts to motorists. You have shorter
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 22 of 29
construction schedules, which mean more projects can get done and I know that's been
an issue in the City of Meridian just recently. I have talked to people at Ada County
Highway District where projects are backed up, people are waiting to get things done
and they can't do it, because contractor A isn't done yet, so contractor B can't get going,
And it's a whole lot better public image for contractors and ACHD and the city. Are
there other options to try and reduce impacts? Yeah. You could require flow able fill-in
trenches, which is expense, but it can be done. You could work on setting stricter limits
on the hours that arterials and collector lanes could be closed and enforce fines. You
could do a lot more closer coordination between utilities and developers and ACHD to
try and, see, gosh, you know, maybe if this utility has a project here and he's going to
have one down the road in a couple weeks, maybe he could do it all at once. Maybe we
could do some coordination on some of these projects and also some of these entities
allow for a grace period before this right of way use fee starts being charged, like say,
you know, it ought to take a contractor a week to do X amount of work, well, he gets that
grace period and he goes beyond what's considered a reasonable amount of time, then,
the right of way fee starts being imposed. So, again, just to reiterate, ACHD's mission is
to provide the best public highway system for the safe and efficient movement of people
and goods in Ada County. That's their goal. That's the whole purpose behind them and
this is just an idea, a thought, something that we are studying -- they have asked me to
study to see whether or not this is a good idea to consider implementing. So, I would be
curious for you're -- to hear your comments, any thoughts. I have a copy of my
presentation, plus this, so I can hand that out to you, if you'd like to take it with you and
review it and either sign something now and give it back to me now or call the highway
district with your thoughts.
Edney: Thank you, Angie. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none. Very nice presentation.
Edney: Thank you very much. Happy holidays.
Corrie: Thank you, John. All right. The next discussion is concerning cell towers. Dave
McKinnon.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess I just had one question.
Corrie: Okay.
De Weerd: Contractors are not the only ones that close the roads. Does this also apply
to ACHD?
Edney: That's the intent. I don't control that operation, but it's the intent to -- for ACH 0
maintenance crews to adhere to the same policies that are directed towards contractors
and utilities.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 23 of 29
De Weerd: So, it's not that they will charge themselves, they will hold -- I guess I don't
know how it applies in their -- in a contractual situation with ACHD and their contractors,
I just donlt understand how that would work.
Edney: Councilwoman de Weerd, contractors are -- that we contract to do to projects
like Franklin Road that's ongoing right now, previously Overland Road is a good
example. We will work with the entities out there to try to keep access open as much as
possible and we provide what we call lands for work for those contractors and if it takes
six months of impacted traffic, that's generally what it takes to do the work, and so it's
already figured in that highway district contract that we manage.
De Weerd: So, what does it add to the price of road construction? I mean it's already
high enough that every dollar that's added can take away from a future road project.
Edney: I'm trying to formulate my response to that. If the contractor can close the road
and get his work done in a timely manner, then, he saves money and that's the way it is
in our construction contracts also. if we can provide him more opportunity to complete
his work and not extend his time out, then, the prices are going to be cheaper. The
Franklin Road, for instance, the price is probably quite a bit higher, because we have to
build half of a road at a time, so the impacts to the -- trying to be reduced to the
subdivision accesses, to the business accesses, by maintaining two lanes of pavement
all the time on that project and not closing roads, but if we could close the road totally,
then, that contractor would be able to probably maximize his efforts on building that
road. Did I answer your question? .
De Weerd: Yeah, to a certain degree. I think the advantage of time is great. I guess I
would like to see -- and I know you don't have to answer to me, but what it would be
nice to have the study suggest is, in essence, would it not only save time on the project,
but not add to the price of the project.
Edney: So, you would be in favor of probably a grace period for them to perform under a
normal -- they could do it in any time over that base period of time would be a fee; is
that how your concept is?
De Weerd: To a certain extent. I guess my overall concern is that what would be the
cost added to road construction? Is that a controllable cost within reason to the
contractor and every dollar added takes away from the dollar that will go to another road
project and that's -- at this point this is what we have to look at is as those roads are -- is
it going to increase the cost of road construction?
Comish: I think, Councilwoman de Weerd, I think you might be a little bit confused about
the focus of this. The primary focus of this is when Joe developer wants to come in and
do a subdivision and he needs to close down a portion of a road in order to add utilities
or he needs to widen the road or he needs to extend the road or something like that, so
it's more focused on development work.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 24 of 29
De Weerd: Okay. And that was my first question. Is it going to apply to ACHD?
Comish: And that's a good question. That's not something that we really know for sure
how that would -- how that would work right now. That's part of the study to determine
should that be included in it or should it just be development work.
De Weerd: Well, I guess I heard the answer to my first question that, yes, it would apply
to ACHD and, then, the subsequent question -- or comments were to that response,
Now, I think on the developer side, it would help that work get done quicker.
Comish: Probably with ACHD's projects, they typically have liquidated damages
associated with their projects or they can put that into the contract, so that it doesn't
generally add to their cost, but it does give the contractor some incentive to get his work
done efficiently.
Bird: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think what Tammy was referring to is ACHD does a lot of their own labor. Are
they going to be charged the same as this contractor? I understand your developers,
but a lot of it isn't development where this -- where lanes are being tied up and stuff.
They are general contractors. I'll guarantee you if you're going to charge them, it's going
to come on the bottom of the -- it's going to come on the bid with a markup in it, so it's
going to cost you a lot more money and it's going to take away projects, because it's
going to run the money.
Comish: But here is an interesting thought. If it was something that for some reason __
and, like I said, we are still studying all this. If it was applied to their projects, these lane
rental fees are collected by the Ada County Highway District to go back into the general
fund that would, then, to go towards projects.
Bird: Yeah, but at the same token, if I'm a private contractor and I'm out there having to
pay this fee and ACHD has got their own crew down the street doing the same thing,
and it's not going against their cost -- which I know it isn't going against their cost, our
taxpayers dollars pay for it, it's not fair to the private company. So, I think it's something
that we really need to look at.
Cornish: Okay. That's a good point.
Bird: And I can see it -- your development idea is very, very good, getting utilities and
stuff across the road real fast and stuff, but I don't think the majority of your projects
where the delays are is that development project, I think it's repairs of roads and stuff
like that and a lot of it is your own ACHD employees.
Comish: I can show you some stuff going both ways.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 25 of 29
Bird: Oh, I can, too.
Comish: There is lots of development going on these days, lots of development, and
especially -- I mean I know that they have had so many projects even in this town where
contractors have just -- you know, they work on something and something happens and
they got to go to another site and there is a detour sitting there and it's empty and it
keeps the other guy from getting started in his job, because he has to detour people,
too, and -- but, you're right, it's not just development that impacts the use of the right of
way and efficient use of it. Anybody else?
De Weerd: Sorry I threw that out at the end.
Cornish: Thank you.
Item 5:
Discussion concerning cell towers in R zones by Dave McKinnon
from Pinnacle Engineering:
Corrie: Thanks, John. Okay. Dave.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Dave and I are going to do the dog and pony. I think I'm the pony
because -- but we met earlier today to discuss this and the issue at hand is that our cell
tower ordinance really is focused on cell towers. What Dave has in front of you is more
like the antenna that would get mounted on those towers. So, we kind of had some
questions or just wanted to clarify the issue with you before these started going up. The
ordinance allows for co-location of items and I think what the applicants would propose
to do is locate these on light poles that are within residential neighborhoods. Otherwise,
there would be no mechanism to put this antenna anywhere in a residential
neighborhood, because cell towers, the fixture that would hold the antenna, are not
allowed in residential neighbors currently. So, they would like to do it on telephone or __
either on telephone poles or on the subdivision entrance poles, the lights at the
entrance to the subdivisions, which are about 30 feet tall. Then, we -- I guess the only
remaining question was if they couldn't -- if there wasn't one available at a space for
their coverage needs, to do a new tower as it's currently written, there would be no new
towers allowed in residential areas, so that we need to direct Dave to come back with a
zoning ordinance amendment or make some sort of determination that a stealth tower,
disguised as a lighting fixture, would suffice in residential neighborhoods.
McKinnon: Thanks, Anna.
Corrie: Thank you, Anna.
McKinnon: Mayor, Members of the Council, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Cross Timber,
representing West Com tonight. Anna just mentioned that this is like something we'd
put up on one of those antennas, this is, actually, the product that would be put up. This
is the actual size. And as you can see, it's not what you would typically see in a cell
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 26 of 29
tower antenna. This is, essentially, a wireless communication facility for high-speed
internet access. At your home you would have one of these small pieces at your house
that would communicate with one of these on top of a telephone pole or on top of a light
fixture and these would have to be about 35 feet in the air. So, you typically see one of
these with another stacked on top of it, there would basically be two of these on top of a
light fixture and at the bottom the only thing you would really see is a small electrical
transformer type of box, just for the power and for the switches to be able to go back
and forth on that, the ethernet switches and so forth. So, this is really what it is. We
wanted to know that -- in talking with Anna we realized that when I wrote the ordinance
back a year ago or so we went through the ordinance, this was never anything that I
ever envisioned that we would ever see. I never thought there would be something that
I could hold in one hand and show to you from the podium. This isn't what we expected
when we were dealing with the cell tower ordinance and, of course, as everything has
gotten bigger and better, it's also gotten littler and better as well and we are kind of into
that portion of development these days where sometimes littler is better and that's what
we have in something this small and we'd like to know if this is something that you
would really consider to be a part of a cell tower ordinance or if this is something that we
could put onto the light fixtures at the heads of the subdivisions, on top of the 30 foot tall
light towers and basically get these up 35 feet. They are not visually intrusive, they can
be painted to be the same color as the light pole. Essentially, you would see two or
three of these small antennas stacked on top of each other with a small mushroom
cover over them and that's what you would see on top of those light fixtures and so it
wasn't anything that we ever envisioned when we were dealing with the cell tower
ordinance and just wanted to know -- get your opinion on that as to whether or not this
is something you would allow under the current ordinance or if this is something you'd
like to see come back as a zoning ordinance amendment.
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor?
Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd.
De Weerd: I'd certainly be in favor of that.
McKinnon: Okay.
De Weerd: Coming back as an amendment.
Bird: I would second that.
Corrie: I would, too.
McKinnon: This is something that you guys would find favorable to also allow these in
residential districts?
De Weerd: No. We just want you to spend your time on it.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 27 of 29
Bird: To spend your time on it.
McKinnon: I just had to get it clear.
Bird: You're not on our payroll now, so you can spend all the time you want on it.
McKinnon: Okay.
Powell: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so just to clarify it, Dave kind of gave you
two questions and you -- I think you answered one of them, but I'm not sure you
answered the other one. Right now it would seem that you could put it on light poles
without doing the zoning ordinance amendment. The only thing that the zoning
ordinance amendment, I think, would be needed for is new poles. But are you saying
you would like him to do the ordinance amendment to allow them on light poles?
Bird: Yes.
De Weerd: Existing or new.
Bird: That's right.
Powell: Okay.
Bird: So that it's clear.
Powell: Okay.
De Weerd: It should be clear.
Bird: No gray area.
McKinnon: Okay.
Corrie: You can do that, Dave?
McKinnon: I think I can do that. Okay. Did you guys have any questions about what
this is or whether or not -- well, you will be seeing me again really soon, I think.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Corrie: Mr. Berg.
(
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 28 of 29
Berg: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I just have a question or a comment. Considering who owns the
streetlights and where they may be, are these going to be just on the signal lights or
actual streetlights that the city owns?
McKinnon: Actual streetlights the city owns. I have had some discussion with Brad and
with Gary about how we could do that and it would be through a license agreement.
Berg: Okay. Thank you.
Item 6:
Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b):
De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn into Executive Session per Idaho State
Code 65-2345(1 )(b).
Bird: I second.
Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call, please.
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, absent; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Corrie: Thank you.
EXECUTIVE SESSION.
De Weerd: Okay. I would accept a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
De Weerd: Do I get a second?
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. No
decisions were made. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: I would accept a motion for adjournment.
Bird: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
December 9, 2003
Page 29 of 29
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the City Council Special
Meeting. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:13 P.M.
N FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
ATTEST:
I / G / 04-
DATE APPROVED
((
December 4, 2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
December 9,2003
ITEM NO.
-4
APPLICANT
REQUEST
Discussion and Presentation of Proposed Lane Rental Fee by ACHD
AGENCY
COMMENTS
S (' -(~ Cll-\-O (heel..
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATIORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
11;:;
, J. fY · / J 1\l-1 . .
{) l"l ~ e . ';111\..1
r 0fJ r- V\; C{/rt)
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETILERS 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.
(.-
Sharon Smith
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sharon Smith
Friday, November 21,2003 10:09 AM
Will Berg; Tammy de Weerd (E-mail)
Tara Green
RE: Precouncil request
Bruce indicated that December 9th would be best for that office -- Is that ok? That &
Stapleton would probably be enough on the pre-council agenda.
-----Original Message-----
From: Will Berg
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:16 PM
To: Sharon Smith
Subject: FW: Precouncil request
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Mills [mailto:Bmills@achd.ada.id.us]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:59 AM
To: bergw@meridiancity.org
Cc: John Edney
Subject: Precouncil request
Will:
John Edney, our Construction Division Supervisor, is requesting to have
about 20 minutes on one of Meridian's precouncil meetings to discuss the
following:
"The Construction Division is studying the possibility of implementing
a "lane rental fee" to be charged to any permitee that will be closing
lanes and roadways in order to accommodate their work. The purpose of a
lane rental fee is to encourage the contractor to get his work done in
the shortest possible time and minimize the impact to the motorists.
Arterial and Collector roadways will be the focus, and local streets
would be exempt. Angie Co~sh from Engineer With A Mission has been
contracted to prepare the study and compile information. We have begun
an outreach program in which we present a power point presentation to a
group and solicit comment. The presentation and comment period seems to
take about 20-minutes total. So far the presentation has been given to
the Utility/Contractor Meeting participants, the Utility Coordinating
Council, and the Garden City Council."
Could you give me a good time (maybe 2-3 optional times) that we could
give this presentation, in the next month or two?
Thanks,
Bruce
1
\----.
Q),... .
U.
----a-c
- - - ~
- - ...- - -
_ .....:- L-_
- - - -
- -- - ~ .
.0. 'm-- ~~"":: :-.~--
- -
- -
~ .,...,..... ~
~ . -- - :._~t:f)
: ~.... "'r
.. .
c .
. "~." .....
. :':-' ..,..
. r \.I
.,. ~
o
~~
::) ::s
~~
cuCl)
~
~
o
~
..c:
.~
a::
- ---:. ._~.
- -
- - - ..... . ~-- --. - - +
~
..c
-C
(])
L..
co
a.
ID
L..
a..
- -;. -: -... - - - ~ .....
\.L. f
- -+ ... ... ~
; ..:}$CEIVED
.' 0 E C - 9 2003
. ......pI1{Y::OF MERIDIAi'i
.
W
.
a..
0)
.5 ,...
~ ....-
Q) ca 0 ~--
Q) .c: .....
c: ~. ..~..
..... ~ - ~~-~-- ':
~ ~.'o.>-,
IJ.j .
-
..c::
UJ
a_
E
o
o
co
-
Q)
C)
r::
<(
. --
~ - ... -
_.,....,..-.1.
--
t
'.
-- -"1:
-- - -t.~
- .(
~ 3 -
)-
__ _1-
I _ ____~__ __ _ ~_...L-_'_
- - ./-
. ..
~~,
"~
~-
- -
'... -,,," -
. "-."..' --;--:-" - .
_ ... - - ~fd:i::~ _ - ... - -::
- '> - ~~~~~i.
~ ~ ~t
r,
t - - >.
. - ~... ~ .:; - I -
. f ~___
~ -
--------'.' '.
;.=
. _~fl'"
J -- c_ -
.~ .'. ,I~f~f,~' \ .
A' "J? ~\:'~1k~ ~ ~';':5~
',. .".c:~"
.- .-,~!...,
.~ ;:1~"
'\..... ...
~ ~ ~
""
':.-.:r "
'.,
\' .',
'"t '
\~
\-
"
\.
\.
'\.
. __,.,I('
~..... ...:~~ :~.=..:;....;.
! --.
f :-_
,- .
~ _u
f-,-:
- -
- f-'.i
~?
.-- - - - -
, : - - - - - -
~ -- - - - - - - - -
I _ _ _ "= _-~ _
, - - - -
. - - -
r _ - - -.- -: - - _
! :-,-- -, ',>-:-- - - _:- -
)- ~-~<' :;:_~{;:~;; ;;-'-!(-:- -::-- : -- -:- --
~ _ - - - -- - : - -: _~_ ~__ ~ _ 0..::. _ =? - - - _ _
!<~:~-~~~~~~-)~??:C;~~---_ -- :-: _c- ---
L:-i- c:i~~~~~\:;}~i:;-~ ; ~; _< __- - _ _ - - -
; --_-~--~:-: ~-~[~~~_-~J ~~:.~:--:.;--/< :~__~_:- - - -.- - - --
;--- ;~H:!ei~~?~~r-;{~~::-~\;;- --: - -, -
iZ~;~;'>;>;:;2fi' >
--.:--_"':.;-: ::-: -~-~-~:--: -:--:--"':-:" ::_~- - - -;- -
IL~~~~~;~i{~-;<~-;:~~-> -__ - _
r~:-:<~<~~~:}fi(--jI~~-~~~:--::-:> ----- --:- - - -
- -
- - -
- - -
- - =.
- - -
- -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
--~,y.-...=-......:.~ ~...........:.....- ..............---:.. -...........-_--=---- - ---......_~~--- -.........-....--_..............._---...............=-~..............-...
- - --
.-.
co
-0
~ <(
co .~
S +-' (JJ
.cC-o
0).Q2 0
-- U
.c .- 0
u :t= 0)
:=CD-o
..c-oC
::J C CO
C.COCD
(j)~a.
CD CO 0
..ccnCD
CDCDC.
.c..c'+-
wI-'+-,O
CDL..wI-'
:2S53
6EE~
L.. CD CD C
C. +-' > ::J
o (JJ 0 0
~ ~EU
e
- -
--+- - -............... ......_-. ---- ~----.....- -~ ~~~ -~ ~~ ..........~~ -- -~- -~~--~ -...~ -~~--.......-..........- ~~..:: ~
LJ
r ~ ~~ -
I;......
- - - - -~ -
- - - -. - --
- ---. - - -
- - -
L ~ - - ~ -- :
- --
- - _.- - -
~ - - - -- ' - - -
~ - - --
- - ~~ ~- - - - ~ - =. - - ~-~ - '": ~ --
- - -::"" -.-.- - .--:: - - - --.-
i-:::__;;i:t~~-:)J~\f~-~~:; - ~- -:
- - - - - - -
L ~-_ __--: ,-~---< -',-,--:,--'-.-, ,', ': -- - -
-----<--(1)- --
< . - - - - -", - - - < ,
,- 0:, - -:'---
-
-- -
~- - - -
, -
- - - - -
- -
- - --
- -
- - - -
r -. --.
, -
, - - - - -
, - ,-- - --
. - - - - -
, -~---
- -
- -- - - : - - - ~
- _: --
: - - - - - -.
- - -
- -
'~---
- - - ~ --
- -- --- - - ---
- .- - -
- - - -
- - -
.-- - ~
,- - --
- - - - -
~ ----: - - - - - -
- -
-~-~ ~ - -- .-- - - - -
- ~ -~ -- - ~- -:: - - - - - - - -
-- - - -
- ~ +
-' .--' .,~
-. ~ - -
, .-.
I..
> ~ Q)
C)-'=
c:......
-- t/)
a; co
c.~
EO
8~
tn >.
~ ~ -
(1) > (.)
1..-0=
(.)co.Q
I.. 0 ~
o I.. c.
tn(1)C)
... E c:
(.) "" --
(1) ,,, -
_~ tn Q)
E (1) >
" -'= co
..........1..
......
e
- - -
(J) . '.' .';:, :(J)
........ .' '. . ..s..:..;'
c..... .",:0
en ~ .'0 . .
....., ........~.c
en c .....,.. '. . . .
._ __ c.,"
L.. 0 o"'~ .
o c.. C) ...
....., c..
o co -0 .....
E -0 ffi . ........ . .
(I.)
en (]) O' .' .
.8 ~ _~ ::J :cd,
en ........ E ~ 0. ..'
....., -.S2 - > <( '.
u co c ~ . . ~...,.....
co ,n _ 0 :O'u"
VJ - en . . .....
0.. \f- 10 en ".<1),.,.,
Eo L.. ", ....0)......
........ ~ --
. _ CD en cctr'
(]) > ::J - Ci):~
(]) ~ ::J .... -""j(
> _ _..c ' ...:CJ)
. _ L.. en:~
....., (]) ~ \f- . .~
co ~ J2 O..Jtl
0) 0 (]) ~.~<;~
(]) ....J 0 OU . ..,gJ
Z I -.::2:
I I. '}
e
- - - ~ - - --
- - - - -
~ n- - -: - - ~ - - -
,- - - - - - - - - - ~ . --- - - - .-
,- - - - - - -
, - ~- -:-- - - " - -
-- --
- -
~
-
+-'
c:
a.>
--
() >.
~ ..c
a.> -0
~ ~
s....
o ~::1
3: g:J 0
o ..c (J) ~
+-' :J (J) (J) Q)
~ 0.(J)t5~
._ c>.Q CO --
~ c: 0.-
~ ~ ~ E In
:J > +-,'- s-
en CO '+- a.> CD
S- S- 0> UJ
~ ~ EQ)~ ::1
CO +-' C> E
S- (J) 0 Q)
... C t5 (J) c: 0
ca-- 0 CO S-o s-
..c: 0 (,) - 0. ~ +-' "-
~... a.>s E 00"
C) g>() .- U -0 ::1
--=:,- CO tV' a.> Q) (J) C.
.J _:: S- LL. N S- +-' t:
o 0 ~ a.> 'E Q).~ --
~ -c ().c .- ..a 0 ~
~ c: +-' c: ~+-' 0
t: CD Q) c: 'E- Eco 0 --
u: ~.- E (5
I en
UJ
fa
e
ca
t:
ca
...
.-
-
o
c.
o
s-
...
CD
E
s-
O)
..c:
...
o
.
~
. -- - ---
N_~
_ _ ,..;".... L
- -
-- ::-
~..:.-..-::..::~ ---
- ..
_ __~~ ~ :~--.z
-: - -L.. : --.--
co -.~.
~ .~T. ~~
Q.
(ffJ'
" ~
~-
e'
~---
I GD;;<
i ct)
! .' en
,-- ",
-~ .
'>"~a'~'"
U~~;fj~~i.
.-= - ~: -. - ~- - :-~-:" --.:-~- - -- ::- - ":..=-': --.- -_.- -
- --->, :;;.y::'t <--_ ,'- - ~~---, - n--'- - - -
. - - - -- ~ -- ~ -
- -- -- -~ -.--
!<'<~> . '.
........(,/J
:.........(1)...
. ........... .........L:J:C. '.
Q) 0)
s.... c
:J "(3
C) c
ti= Q)
11-
o s....
~ Q)
a.
C) ><
C Q)
.~ Q)
s.... s....
~Q)co
~:Jro
O(/).c
C(/)+-
Q) -- CIJ
0> (/) CO
'" -- Q)
\u.c. I.-
~~ CO
-.c. .c
C ~ :!:
O-~ ~
Q) _ Q) Cf)
..c CO E s....
......., Q) Q):J
......., ~ ..c::: 0
O"""+-Q)
C 0 c~
CJ) ~ 0-
-- ~ E..c:::
o 0 E~
I..e 0 0
()~()~
<(61
.
cro
--
(/)-0
(/)Q)
Q).....
uC
uQ)
:JE
(/)Q)
~-
(/) a. E
oE
E--2
Q)~~
..em(/)
~..eQ)
g>Q)~
-- (/)
>:JQ)
ro > (/)
..e>=>
(/) 0 Q)
_~ 0:: C
u co
C O>-J
Q)Cs....
o>-tj) 0
rocos
~ffio
I-Eo::
.
- ~ - - ~ -. ~ -'" -
- - - - -.,..
_ _ _ _ L_.. ---.......
~ -- - - -
- __ I
- - .-"-~ -
- -- - - - .
_ - _ - ..J. ~
....m
I-
~....
+0":
_-1. .;r~_ _ :
"Y;'-~~:^'" .'.
. ~~~::~~~~..~,~~~:'.-'-
.~~~;:-..
0..
E
o
......()
. .
....Q)..
;. . .;__. .),~~:.n\'~;Q)\""'~ . n. '.:'
: ~ ~- ~~~: :~-~~ -;:. ~ ~~ :_~:
- -. --=:-.; : - :?~--=- -
:'$1f()g.. .
:.).'Nll:JfJ ,..
r.Jf~/'i}.is< . ...
i"}";,!-,,,,;,.!.
'~>
~.~>?~.~-- ':
- -- - -- - .-
.- ===-: - - .- - ~ - n-
- -: -=. :"-- --
:;~i..
.....()...
. .............f3r.........
.'~c .:';. .'_;. . .",:. - /
~;;;:{': -.> :"<--:L',<: __rj.;;~__~';;' ".:.
50.-
~
(l)
o
s::
o
+:i
e:!
::J
o
c:
Q)
~
c
o
~
o
--J
-f-l'
CO
~
o
:c
<.:>
<:(
l.() t.O
r-- f'-
~ Et7 ~ 6'7
3: s:
-t: ~
0 ~
3:
l?s
C'- r--
~ EfT
0 0
L{") l{')
0 0
>-r,T- ~T-
mEf3- roEfir
-0 "'0
~ 4::.:
25 ::::
L.{') g
c:i '0
-&7 ~
N N
~ ~
LO lC)
~ T-
~ ~
"+- 4-
if) .en
~ N
~
0 d
~ ~
>sO li>
roL() N
-oCt') ~ ~.
__ -E:f7
C
:::::: c
~ ~
g <.)
::0 :c
-- --
C> t.O
Li.) N
~ ~
LO L(')
~ffj ~
>.. ('W")
<<.1 ~ co ~
-a "U
ii::: 4::::
tD to
N .,.-
ci c>
w. (;17
en ..--....
(/)
>. >..
co co
"U .-0
C C.
.:::.::: ~
Q) m
Q)
3: 's
.,.- ....-
E..'
..... .m
a..
Q) 'eo
0
x 'b
<D ~ ~
~ ..c:: ~ '>.
.c ...c
U'J . - 0.. ~
ro 2 c
CD '0
s.- s-:
0 '0
~ -+-
~ . . '. c...>
lQ'
0 O'
0 0
-- ---
C\1 m
.C -c
Q) Q)
"t= t
<t: <("
Q) ',(1)
15> P2 0> ~
c c
-00 ::::J OUj :::J
'0 (/'J - ....... (/)
0 0 0
~ (3 ct= C3
0 (1) 0 '(1)
0 c: 0 c:
(V) ~ (") J!!
O(/)
8-
co
<D
c:
c:
~
(l)
~
C'O
ID
(J)
(/)
8-
~
C'G
~
co
-0
~
015
~~
"U (V)
l?5M
~~
~o
~
en
~
if) <D
(/) ~
~~
t)'t;)
<=>
C>
o
iU'~
-0
4:::
g
o
-EA-
4-
fJ)
~
d
w-
o
co
C>
ci
~
~
~
--
c
32
<.>
15
C5
o
-,:-
~
o
o
N
~
69-
o
o
>"N
{gr.6
~N
o~
M
c:i
~
;-..
(/) .'
>-
m
-0:"
'N
~
..::.::'
Q)
Q)
~
(0'
0>.
C '_
.:.0:'
.-.. =:J
.u....
.S;", ~--,. ;.
~..c:
...c ...c: . _
en
m :"2~
. . - s..;... .
o.~
o.
~.'
o.
0:'
--,>-
<tf.
":C
'0)
t..
~.
-<D'
'.0'
...~~... ~c
.-0 (Ii
.~ 0
. (.)
g 'cD
0' c:
N'~
o
C't')
CO
{fi-
co 0
-0 ~ ~
<:( en ~
~ 0 (f)
0 ill
f{3~ en Q)
(J) :::J
-0 <I") <t: ~
l?5 (Y)
~ CO 0- ""-
~ 0 U V'J
0
0
~
>, N....
co~
-0
\i::o
in
('oJ
d
-Ef7 ..
LO
~
0).
i77
"4-
en
............
~ .'
<D
0
~
O.
a::>.
~
~
;5
N
~
0
~o
('0 ~
-0 6f
i+:= i77
f.:I)
iO ~
<:;)
g
__ CO_.' .,
.~
(J)
.:::.:: .
Q).~--
Q) .00'.
'~~r .~--~:::..
~..' .,"'t:J~.;", ."_
~
...s::: . .
,..:.(tj 00' '.
< ;~. ID', ..~~.'
.:~. '.
.'c"
00:
-',~, '~.
~. ,-);q~...'4... .-' J-,:--
x~/~'- ~...
.'0>0'" .'.~ +.,'~. ~;.~' __
'" ..., -- -- >~.~.~:.;;1~:.<.~~
/ ; .~_. ;/5..g; ~ c ,:
. ..~!:::iF.i-~~'
LO
~ l(;:
en
o~
<.0 69-.
W-
e
+
L:(')
~
~
~ 0=
.@ g,.
Q;N
c ~
(0 ~.
5:;; -'_
g
d .~~.
~
~:~
o
O>~
~
'+- .'
tI) ~.
~ '-,'
o
~ ';'-
1 8::
N.
;_J...-=-:,~ ......
~.;
c ~..
:::::
~ ~~;;~~}~
0
:c 0_
C5 -.. ....... ~-
,0 ~ .>
~
&:::r ,.
I'
e.-
L()
>.. .>. ~
u ro + ro Ci> -..
-0 -0
(l) ~ .m 4:= f;F7.
'C: l:() C 0
E1 ~
.~ <'J ""0 1..(')
UJ 0 .c: 0
~ ~ N 69- - ...~ - - ~
~.,:
~.
cIj
ff?
::.,'~\
~~
.. .,~i
....::~:,-~
'.
,~,'
c..
<D
Co)
-:)~~'.'" .~
./.c,,~",~:..-
.~::>-~~..~:(Q,,~.-c-2;--....~:.~: ~
i~':;--~ ..
- -::: ~ "- ~ - -f~
,~~:':~:'€5'.
- ".-.+-11'-;
'c,;f--..
:,~
"15
,(.)
...........
co
,.;::
0),.
t
...<C~>
..;
. .--"~
.r~",: ~
.(1)
c:
'~~f\~/..~1
.: ;'.c:i;.!~,.<..
. -
- --. - -
. .
, .
-"'"'""-'I.+- _ _ ~ ~__ _......... _ ___ ~ _~~~+ ~:..:..........~~+~.:. ~:..........~_ ~ ~_ _..............~_ _ ~............... ~:.....:..........~_~ ...............~_ ~...............~
- .i.. ~-
- -
_ ~ L ---
r ... ~
1'--
~ - ---
.- -
('-.. '... ........,:~
en
:...~
i::$2~~/(':.~W?
!,. .<<!:). ..
:.....>i~
1m....; . ,.
..... -:. _ ~- _ _ .......-
: - -. ... - - - .-
en
+-'
en
o
u
c
o
--
+-'
U
::J
s...
+-'
en
C
o
U
-0
a.>
en
ro
a.>
s.....
u
c
--
~
>.
+-'
--
-
--
.c
--
><
a.>
-
\f-
\f-
0
. . en
CJ)
C en . .
0 CJ)
0 - 0
() I s....
(L
.
.
.c
u
--
.c
3:
en
a.>
-
::J
-0
a.>
.c
u
en '-
~2 c ~ ~
en.~ .Q Q a.>
>. '- +-' """ 0)
roE g~ Ero
-0 ,-'"
a.> E+-'O)--
-c en u
-c06ffi~
a.> +-' U U .c
. ~ 2 '- en c..::J
E U a.> +-'
._ ro t:: U '-
.~ c.. o.~ 2
~ E C/).c e 0)
-- c.. co
I I I
>.
+-'
~
ro
en
-0
c
ro
-
ro
--
U
c
ro
c
--
\f-
en
ro
-
-
a.>
3:
Q.)
s...
o
E
en
c
co
a.>
E
o
I
o
<(
-0
C
ro
~
o
+-'
U
~
+-'
C
o
U
--
. -
- - -
- -. ~
--
_ ~i"_:'~-~: - s-
_ _ -::....J...J.-~-- _+_ -
__ ~..J..~ ~
---.............~~~ -
('--
!....- ...en
' . . . .
- - - -
i _ _ - - ._
_. .
. . .
: - - - - - - - :- -- - ~ - -
. '.
, ~ - - : - - : :::
: : - ~ - - ~ _: - - : ~ - - -
- - ~ - -- -
~ t -~_ :-_~-:~::- -_ _ ~ ~ _
- - - - - -
i":.>~:ii~S~J"
, - - - ::""- - - .- - - - .- .-. - - -. ~ - - - ~ - - - --
i:'.">-:.>>;'-:-' .:..--'(1)-<:-....-..--: '. ',.
~ .- ~: - ..;-. -.- - - - -. :_-~--~..:.- :
r - - : ~ ~ _ :- - _ -. _:::. :-
! .- -:= - -~--~--~-- -:- ~-- - :~- - ~ -~- -~ - ~-~ ----~ ~----
. - -~: -- ~ ~ ~ - - - -= : ~ - -
:r _ - _ _ ~ .:. _. _ _ _ _
. .
- - ~ ~. -
- - --
1_ _ _._ _
~ - - - - -
. - - ~ - -:- - - - - -- -
- - - - - ~~- - - - - - -
..' E...~:.-
- - - - - - - .-
- - - - -- -
<,2.:..... .
"@'
. .
- ~.- - - -
-: - ~ - - - - - - - ~
- - - - -
- - - - - - - :
- ~- - ~- - _.- - - -
: --.:- - -- - ."y-: -:- -
- - ~ -. - - -= - - .-..: -
-. .- - .- -
_ _ __ __ _ _ _ -: _ _ _.n _ _ _ ~ _
- - -- ~-. - -
- . .
- - --
- - - - -~ ~ -~ - - - ~ -:. - - - --.-
- - ~ -:" - .- --
-- - -
- ~ - - ~ - -. -
'. .
. .
- --. -
. .
- . .
- .- - - -
. .
.- .- - -.:.- -
~ .~".n ..' _ '. _' : .' . __
. - - - -
'. .
:..~..::_-_::...........- ~ ~-~............~ ~ --~~- -=~........=- ~ ---.- -~ ~-.;.-:.-~-:_- +--
(j) -0
CD
CD (j) (j)
..c I- 0
U :J -
C 0 U
0) ..c CD
I- CD ..0
'-+-'
C ..c C
-- '-+-' CO
- C U
-
-- 0
'-I- (j)
0) en CD
- '-+-' C
..0 --
CO E CO
-
s --
- I-
0 I- 0
- CD+-'
'-I- '-+-' U
0) .2 CD
l- I- -
-- -
'-+-' 0
:J (j)
0- '-+-' U
...............
0) CD ~
c::: C/) ro
e
e
c
~O
SI:
Q)()
..o~
C (j)
o l-
.- CD
+-'0..
co 0
c_
.- CD
~ >
o 0)
0-0
U(;)
CD 0)
(j)~
0==
--
- +-'
() :J
e
- --
- -- --- ~
- - - --- _ _...L. ~_
- - . - ,- - . -
- - - - - ~ - - - - - - -~-- -"
S ~:: ........
~S
CDB
I-
~~
0)0)
..0 I-
-0 co
o..c
-- u
I-
(]) 0)
0.. C - -
--
(]) CD
u..o
co '-+-' . -
s.... s....
0) co ....
co Ci5fQ}::
s.... en 0 .'
~ (])u~
S JPCD_ _ .. .ctf
,.... - -_. La. -._
:-~~~~::';;.
g (j) C'
Q.
<( =>. . 0'
e
- - - -- -
. . -
- - - - - - -
- - - - ~
- - - - --
. .
. . .
. - .
. -
- .
- - -. -- .- -
- - - -
-. - -
. .
-- -- ------ ............ .....-....:....:_- ~: +-~:......~-"o-:.. -~~- - _ ~__........ __ ~::.:_........ _~ _ _~.......;... -I-o-::"':-A-+.-~_..:-:.o:."':._
- --- ....-~~- -
- ~ T _
- -
.,-
~ I --..... _.L.. ~
......
-- - -- - - ~ -
- -: -- ---- - -- -
- - - - -=: ~: -::: -=--::" - - :-
- - -~ ~ - ~:- - - - - - -
-:. :- ~- ~~:~::- :.--:-- :-
--- - - - --
. --- - -- - -
. - -- -~ ~ - - - - -
-- -- ---- ----=-...~:- - ~ - --
ra'fg~2~1'~:riY. '. ..... .
~ :-: - ~~~::- :-:-- - -:: --.;-:: - ~!;:;:-; -~- -
li~ij'~~I{;"u H .
l~t5ii2l~fi~~~ ..'
i<>"u,~;~'()" .
"" __u. --'~_". -<~';'~~"'k,-,o-(fJ'-'--:-"""" -:.' '.
. - ~ - - - -
~ -- ~ - :--~: - -=: -':. -: - - - - -~- -
'. - . ,. '.-._ .'n . .' '. .'
~ - - - - - - -: - - -- - -
~ -: _ = - - ~ - -_: ~ - r_
- -~: - - -- -- -;:- ~ ~ : - "-- -"': - - - - - --
- : - - - - - ~- ~ - -
- -- - -- - -- -
~~-- - - - -
_: - .:_~ ~ - - ~ - ~
- - - ~_ - - - n_ :_:_: _ ~: _ _ _ - _ _
- - - ~ - -
c. --.,.. t:/J'-- .-....
- - - - ~ ~ - -- -
- ':'on _-::-_ _- _
- - - :- - .-
- - - - -
- - - - -
- ~ - _: - -
- - - -- -- --
- ~- - - - -
- - - -
- : - - ~ -- - -- -- :- :- --
- - - - -_-: - - -
- ~ - - - - - - - :- - -
- - --
- -- - - -- -
- - n _ _~ __ __ _ _
-- - -- :- - - - - ~ - -- ":-
.' --.~ ~~; . ~.. . ".r....... '.
- ~ - - - - -
- - - -- -
-~"'.._--.~"" '~"''-'n'--'n':' ': .;,.
-- - - - -- ---
- n _ _
. . ,
. - .
. .
. . .
. - .
~ - ~ - - _- - - n _
- - --- -- ----
-- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - -- - - - ~ -
- -- -
- - - - -
- - - - -
. .
. .
- - - ~ - - -
n .
- - ~ ---
'. .
- - - -
. . .
-- -- -
- - -- - -
- -~ --J...- + _
- - - , - -
co
-c
~ <(
CO m5
~ +-' en
..c:C-c
0>.92 0
-- U
..c: .- 0
U ~ 0>
:.:CD-C
-C-CC
:J C CO
c..COCD
1i5JEc..
CD CO 0
-CenCD
CDCDc..
..c:..c:'+-
..........0
CDs...+-'
:2Sa5
6EE~
s... CD CD C
c....... > :J
o en 0 0
J- ~EU
e
-. - -
- - -
-- -- ~
~ -"
- -I - __
~ ~ - --
. -
.- +
-- --
- . .
~ -, - - -- - -- - ~~- - ~---------~~~~~~+: :- -~.............---..:.._~~.....~-~ ~'...... ~ ~ ~--+........:~~~~- ~ -- ~~ ~~.:..""':
f
1--
r-
- .L. _ ~
~ ~ .~- - ~
-..,.. - ~ - - -
--.J-- -
~
!
f--
i -
- ~ - - -
..:.' C'-.
en
+-'
.c, ..c
Q)
::J
:; 0
-....:.-.J-
>. ..c
I ·
.
c:
--
E
Q)
..c
+-'
c
"S-.
::J
.+-,
~- ~
L..
::J
o
~
(J)
L..
CO
+-'
CO
..c
~
-0
C
:(0
C
~
o
-0
E
CD
.c:
wi-'
Q)
.p.I
.. .....
'rL..
$
- ..J. _ _ ...
~ ~-....:. ~ ~:_~-~ .:-......._~ ~~- -- -~
- - t __.......___
... -- ~-
~\t~,.~ ~()St ~, ~0btiu N()~U/(~1V1aVlh \.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 5:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
Tammy de Weerd
Cherie McCandless
Mayor Robert Corrie
Bill Nary
Keith Bird
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request
for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential
uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
4. Discussion and Presentation of Proposed Lane Rental Fee by ACHD:
(20 minutes)
5. Discussion concerning cell towers in R zones by Dave McKinnon
from Pinnacle Engineering:
(10 minutes)
6. Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67 -2345(1 )(b):
rvleridian City Council Agenda -Decenlber 9,2003 Page 1 of 1
A 11 111aterials presented at publ ic meetings shal I beC0l11e property of the Ci ty of wi eridian.
Anyone desiring accomnlodation 1'01' disabilities related to doclIments and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public 111eeting.
r-
(
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
-L Tammy de Weerd ~
--X- Cherie McCandless )(
o Mayor Robert Corrie
Bill Nary
Keith Bird
2. Adoption of the Agenda: aJ7~v<, ad aM~d.e~
3. Consent Agenda: ap;PY'tJv~ as tllh-~d
5-A.
!? - B.
5-c.
D.
Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed Saaeland Planned Development by Quasar
Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road
and East Victory Road: etJ/L,ly;;~ fo /2-16-03 r.eJ~ I'l--?
Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-020 Request for
revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots
on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland
Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast
corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
CC7A-I>h~ j?P /2--/6-173 r<J~~
Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-036 Request for
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private
neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland Planned
Develooment by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South
Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
C{;rYv~u.e/ /-0 /2 -( 6 - {J:3 ~ ~/Lht.?
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing
home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for
caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point
Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory
Road: ttt'rrPV'e-
Meridian City Council Agenda -December 9,2003 Page 1 of3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring acconunodation 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.
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: M103-
009 Request for modification of condition to leave the Onweiler
Lateral open and construct a 10 foot wide paved multi-use pathway
and place a 5 foot chain link fence along the south bank of canal for
Silhouette Subdivision by Silhouette LLC - east of North Meridian
Road and south of East Ustick Road: ~V'<../
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on
4.15 acres in an L-Q zone for Stokesberrv Subdivision No.2 by
Properties West, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Fairview Avenue: (,O/Jht?v~
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and 8
other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Glacier Sprinas Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -
north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: tJ}'/jJt-oV"<:..-
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 03-
010 Request for a Rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones
for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC -
1115 North Ten Mile Road: d fl'70 V\<-.
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 5
other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC - 1115 North Ten
Mile Road: #vp jJ7'O VV<--
J. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for School Site in
Bridgetower Crossing (Primeland Dev, LLP): o/PV:;//'-<--
K. Aareement for Professional Services, Brown Environmental -
Operator Training Services: tY'?prv~
L. Memorandum of UnderstandinQ with Ada County Hiahwav
District for Routine Maintenance Activities in the Public Right
of Way: ~V'</
M. Approve Beer License for Pizza Hut -1752 W. Cherry Lane: ~v-e-
4. Department Reports:
A. Mayor's Office - Mayor
Meridian City Council Agenda -December 9, 2003 Page 2 of 3
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.
@
9.
10.
11.
" .
1. Re-appointment of Bruce MacCoy to Park's and
Recreation Commission - 10-03 to 10-06: aj7 /"()VV<-
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request
for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed StaDleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
CQrvIVh~ /J/k 1-0 ;{}ec, /b/2-PtJ 3 ~
Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03-019 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed StaDleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
C~~ jJ Ik f-o I::rzc, /6/ 2-PO g /Jv-ly
Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-lot
subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in
a proposed R-8 zone for proposed StaDlato" Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates - 3680 W~st~Ustick Ro~d: 1:. '
C~1'Yvll,".f./ pi A Iv I}ec.I.6/2pt/ '3 /110
Public Hearing: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda SorinQs Subdivision by
JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
e~fA.,L pi A -A7 ~_ 6^f2Pof- frl,/-l;--
Public Hearing: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59
building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Soda SprinQs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and
2384 East Victgry Road ~ .
ccnvlrYtlA.-U fJ 1/1- Iv Jd..r.-. 6/ ;?tPO 1- fwfJ
Public Hearing: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a mix of single-family detached residential lot
sizes and amenities for proposed Soda SorinQs Subdivision by JLJ
Enterprises, Inc. =- 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
cowl- /ni-tA./ jJ I It It? J2vn-,. PI U'o 4- #vI;J ,
CuYv~tU.d j> It-! - c pn () 3~()03
C&rn. er.-d f~ fP && tw r r .e..~,f rv~ fl kl. h-
Wrvhn~ ;'JIll.- 1-0 k<'-16{ 2#03 ~
Il. EK~Chh~ SRJF/~ 67- 2-345 (t}eh)!
Jt.-o ~Ct:r/~
6.
7.
8.
!?~
Meridian City Council Agenda -December 9,2003 Page 3 of3
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.
December 31 t 2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCil MEETtNG January 6, 2004
APPLICANT ITEM NO. a -G.
REQUEST Approve minutes of December 9, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE OEPT:
CITY BUILDtNG 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 OFF1CE:
OTHER:
w~
Contacted:
EmoiJed:
Date:
Stoff Initials:
Phone;
Moterials pre.ented at public meetings shaD become property of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Tammy de Weerd 0 Bill Nary
X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird
o Mayor Robert Corrie
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended
3. Consent Agenda: Approve as Amended
5-A. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed Saqeland Planned Development by Quasar
Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road
and East Victory Road: Continue to December 16, 2003 Regular
Meeting
5-8. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-020 Request for
revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots
on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saqeland
Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast
corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
Continue to December 16, 2003 Regular Meeting
s-c. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-036 Request for
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private
neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Saqeland Planned
Development by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South
Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Continue to
December 16, 2003 Regular Meeting
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing
home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for
Meridian City Council Agenda -Decenlber 9, 2003 Page 1 of 4
All 1l1uterials presented at public meetings shall becollle property of the City of rvleridian.
Anyone desiring accollllllodation for disabilities related to doclInlents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Onice at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
('
caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point
Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory
Road: Approve
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 03-
009 Request for modification of condition to leave the Onweiler
Lateral open and construct a 10 foot wide paved multi-use pathway
and place a 5 foot chain link fence along the south bank of canal for
Silhouette Subdivision by Silhouette LLC - east of North Meridian
Road and south of East Ustick Road: Approve
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval 0 f 1 5 building lots 0 n
4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberrv Subdivision No.2 by
Properties West, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Fairview Avenue: Approve
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and 8
other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Glacier Sprinqs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -
north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road:
Approve
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 03-
010 Request for a Rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones
for proposed Woodside Creek b y Woodside Properties, LLC '-
1115 North Ten Mile Road: Approve
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 5
other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC - 1115 North Ten
Mile Road: Approve
J. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for School Site in
Bridgetower Crossing (Primeland Dev, LLP): Approve
K. A~reement for Professional Services, Brown Environmental -
Operator Training Services: Approve
L. Memorandum of Understandinq with Ada County Hiqhway
District for Routine Maintenance Activities in the Public Right
of Way: Approve
Meridian City Council Agenda -December 9, 2003 Page 2 of 4
All 111aterials presented at public 111eetings shall becoll1e property of the City of Meridian,
Anyone desiring accoll1nlodation for disabilities related to dOCUl11ents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public nleeting,
M. Approve Beer License for Pizza Hut - 1752 W. Cherry Lane:
Approve
4. Department Reports:
A. Mayor's Office - Mayor
1. Re-appointment of Bruce MacCoy to Park's and
Recreation Commission - 10-03 to 10-06: Approve
5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
6. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request
for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Continue
Public Hearing to December 16, 2003 Meeting
7. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03-019 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to
December 16, 2003 Meeting
8. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-lot
subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in
a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to
December 16, 2003 Meeting
9. Public Hearing: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Sprinqs Subdivision by
JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Continue
Public Hearing to January 6, 2004 Meeting
10. Public Hearing: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59
building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Soda SprinQs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and
2384 East Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to January 6, 2004
meeting
11. Public Hearing: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a m ix of single-family detached residential lot
sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Sprinqs Subdivision by JLJ
Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Continue Public
Hearing to January 6, 2004 Meeting
rVleridian City Council Agenda --December 9, 2003 Page 3 or 4
All materials presented at public meetings shull become property or the City or fvleridian.
Anyone desiring accomnlodation I'DI' disabilities relaled to dOCUJ11ents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least .f8 hours prior to the public J11ceting.
5. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request
for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential
uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Continue
Public Hearing to December 16, 2003 Meeting
12. Executive Session 67-2345(1)(b): No Decision
Meridian Ci ty Council Agenda -Decenlber 9, 2003 Page 4 of 4
All nluterials presented at public nleetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring acconl1110dation for disabilities related to docunlents ancllor hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 35 of 60
had an opportunity to at least read the record. So, that I don't know the answer to. But
as long as it's in front of Council, I don't think you have to reopen the Public Hearing to
continue it. You can just simply continue it on the agenda for decision.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Berg, I would suggest that when these minutes are typed up, to,
please, package them and get them out to the new Council members, as well as the
Mayor. I did talk to him today and he did indicate a desire that he would be at one or
two meetings before the end of his term and so we would hope that is the case, so if
you can at least get information out to the Mayor and the new Council members, so they
are prepared, we will at least have this resolved by the middle of January.
Berg: Madam President, I will do so, but I think we currently are getting disks from the
Council meetings, so they do have a file electronically of what you have been seeing
throughout the process, but I will make sure that they will have a written copy, so that
they can see it separately.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue CUP 03-047, Conditional Use Permit for
Observation Point Subdivision in an R-4 zone by RF Construction until -- let's go next
week.
De Weerd: I would suggest at least the first week --
Bird: December 9, 2003.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. 11 until
December 9, 2003. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: And since both our Council members were here last week and Mr. Wardle
was here this week, they probably have the advantage of being at least prepared and
perhaps the Mayor will be back with us on the 9th, so -
Item 12:
Public Hearing: CUP 03-042 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
new Carl's Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones
- north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and
South Main Street:
['
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 36 of 60
De Weerd: Okay. Moving on. Item 12 is a Public Hearing for CUP 03-042, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Junior restaurant with drive-thru service window
by Clayton Jones and we will open the staff -- or the Public Hearing with staff
comments.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Before the staff report, I just wanted to make it clear on the public record that I did
have a discussion with Mr. Jones after the last denial of this request regarding his
application. I don't even know if what he submitted is what he talked to me about. I told
him at the time I wasn't going to commit to anything in regards to this application, but
simply he was giving me information, asking some clarification from the last meeting, so
I just wanted to make sure that was on the record, that we have had a conversation, but
it wasn't -- I donlt even know it's the same site plan as what he talked to me about, so --
De Weerd: And you talked to him before a new application was filed.
Nary: Right. And before a new application was filed.
De Weerd: Okay. Any problem with that, Council?
Nichols: Madam President. No, the requirement of the historic preservation case is that
it be disclosed on the record and, technically, that probably only applies to things after
an application is filed and so Councilman Nary has gone beyond that disclosure
preapplication.
Nary: That's why we are here.
De Weerd: Okay. Staff.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, this site is located between
Meridian and Main Street. There is an existing Kentucky Fried Chicken on the property.
We will briefly go through some of these things. I did want to focus on the new site plan
to show you what it has. Or this shows more of the site. 11m sorry. I didnlt notice that
Christy had trimmed up the last one so much. But you can see the Kentucky Fried
Chicken off to the south in this area here. Focusing on the site plan, they would come
in on off of Meridian Road and they would enter in this location. Got to go down. Yeah.
She trimmed off too much. They come off Meridian Road, through here. This would be
the drive aisle, the stacking lane. There is enough room for seven cars in that stacking
and, then, they would exit approximately at the middle of the site where they could go
either to Meridian Road or Main Street. In the staff report Steve went to great lengths to
describe the previous approvals and the concerns -- or, I'm sorry, previous applications
and the previous denials and to detail out what the Council's concerns were regarding
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 37 of 60
those applications and then he addressed how the new site plan did address those
concerns. So, the primary concerns were congestion, circulation, stacking, and parking.
Based on Council's previous concerns with the site plan and based on the zoning code,
staff had recommended approval of this project as it went to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and they have forwarded their approval to you as well. To summarize the
Public Hearing, they did hear from the applicant Clayton Jones, who testified in favor.
Skip Hofferber, who is the owner of Taco Time behind the Chevron on the other side of
Main Street. Phil Atteberry representing KFC. They still had a lot of concerns about
congestion and blocking their stacking lanes, which begin right -- their aisle -- drive-thru
aisle begins at this location. I believe they have room for five vehicles to stack, whereas
the applicant has provided room for seven vehicles to stack. Jonathan Gibbs, the
owner of the property, testified about the parking arrangements and the Welcome to
Meridian sign. I'll get back to that sign in just a moment. 'The key issues of discussion
were the Welcome to Meridian sign and, then, congestion, circulation, stacking and
parking. And, again, based on the concerns that Council had expressed last time, staff
did feel that this site plan met those concerns. Specifically, there are -- they will be
providing more parking spaces than are currently on the site and the parking exceeds
the requirements for our code by about 50 percent -- or I mean it's almost nearly double
what is required by our ordinance. In the second site design the drive-thru aisle, people
were required to the cross the drive-thru aisle to get to the main entrance of the
property. Thafs not the case here. They will be parking here, as well as over here and,
then, I think there is some handicapped spots here. This parking is likely to be used
more by Kentucky Fried Chicken and the proposal is to label these for employee use,
although I think there was -- there was a bit of testimony about whether or not it would --
that would occur. I think if there were open ones, then, the customers would probably
use those. Congestion was really the outstanding issue for the Council as to whether or
not this site can just support the two drive-thrus that are proposed and that is a
judgment call on the Council -- part of the Council at this point. The other one was
circulation. We do believe the circulation is improved. The drive-thru aisle, although
they have to wrap around quite a bit, it unloads at kind of a central location, rather than
right here next to the entrance onto Main so they have kind of provided a central
location for this -- the output of the drive-thru lane. Regarding the Welcome to Meridian
sign, this was proposed -- here we go. This was one of the older ones. But it was
proposed to be basically in this location here. That portion of property is within the KFC
lease. The owner is -- suspects that he will not be able to get permission for a sign in
that location. He is working with the Ada County Highway District to get a license
agreement to put that sign in the highway district property here. It is a very visible
location, as you're aware, at the junction of those two streets. They have proposed a
rather nice sign feature. The question that came up at the planning commission -- let's
see if there is a copy of the sign. No. The question that came up at the planning
commission was whether or not it was appropriate for what the city wanted to do in
future efforts. So, the city kind of gave -- we put a condition of approval that the city
would have until September of 2004 to come up with an alternative sign design, if they
wanted one, and, then, the applicant had agreed to -- to have a 5,000 dollar bond out
there that could be used for the construction of that sign. If the city couldn't come up
with a design, then, they would construct the sign as they had proposed it. I do have all
/
\
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 38 of 60
the old landscape plans available for you. Oh, I do need to point out one minor change.
You will notice here it says landscape plan not revised. In reviewing this with Steve, we
did realize that this landscape island here needs to be trimmed just to get the full drive
aisle width and, then, FCC -- SSC -- the trash folks had concerns about this landscape
island, because it blocks their access to this, but as you see on this one, those two
areas are circled. We just increased the radius on that corner, so that they'd have an
opportunity there. We had to pullout I believe two parking spaces there, so that there
would be room for the trash trucks, the front-enders -- front load ones to maneuver. It's
still, according to our standards, over-parked, but I do understand that there are a lot of
people out there. I believe that addresses staff's remaining concerns and summarized
the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would sit for any other questions.
Mr. Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, you guys are for this now and where has it helped in the congestion?
You're shoving the traffic from around the drive-thru out into the traffic that comes
through the Taco Bell and it's -- as I understand it -- I might be wrong, but as I
understand it, the same guy owns all that property that has Bolo's, Taco Bell, and KW
on there and everything else -- I don't know what percentage of business that Kentucky
Fried has that actually goes in and sits down and eats in the restaurant, compared to
drive-thru, but I don't think it's major. Carl's might have more sit down deal and you still
-- you know, you're bringing cars around, except for one place to get to the -- inside the
store, you got to come over and enter and you do have some parking there, but you
don't have -- if it's crowded you don't have enough parking, so why have we -- just
because they took the drive-thru and exited it out on the north side, instead of the east
side, all of a sudden it's approvable.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, I suspect that was a bit of a
rhetorical question, but I will answer it. As I tried to point out in the presentation, we
tried to look at the previous denials, the two previous denials, and what Council's
concerns were and, then, we look at the zoning ordinance and from the Council's past
concerns and our zoning ordinance, it would appear that this was an improvement over
the past designs and probably an improvement over the existing structure, which is
larger and traffic circulation doesn't seem to work and I also tried to make it clear that
congestion still is the key question. Can this -- it's the question of whether or not this
site can support another drive-thru has been discussed by you two times now and the
answer at those were not absolutely no, they were, no, this is site design doesn't do
that. So, yes, that is still a remaining question and maybe the answer is, no, it just is not
possible to support another drive-thru business. But based on Council's past actions
and based on the zoning ordinance, staff did feel that this -- that they could recommend
approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Bird: Thank you.
Meridian City Cquncil
November 18, 2003
Page 39 of 60
De Weerd: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony
you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Jones: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Jones: Clayton Jones, 14071 West Rochester Drive in Boise and I have got some of
these designs that may help you -- you can look at them. The last page is an 11-by-17.
I'd like to thank you for allowing me to present a fresh look at -- at this project and I'd
just like to take you back for just a moment to about a year and a half ago when -- when
the Kentucky Fried Chicken opened with their KFC what a wonderful dual concept it
was. They were busy as heck, cars parking on side streets, just -- it was just an
incredible -- incredible opening and great honeymoon period. Then, some idiot came
before you and proposed a -- to put a 4,000 square foot building on that same lot while
it was in the honeymoon period and going crazy with about 150 seats. I have repented.
And what -- what I wanted to point out here to start is that the conditions on the site are
different today than they were a year and a half ago. The businesses over there are
now benefiting from that first trial period and the issues that were before the Council at
that time don't exist to that great extent. We are here again before you today, because
at our last meeting Mr. Nary graciously gave a few suggestions as to how we. may
approach the Council again to -- for approval. I appreciate the meeting that we had
with Mr. Nary and this is pretty much the site plan that we discussed. I also appreciate
our Planning and Zoning and Anna and Steve, they have given a couple of very, very
good suggestions that helped the project. If I could just take a second or two to go
through the store and the layout and how it might meet concerns, I'd appreciate it. We
are proposing a 2,500 square foot building, which is just a tad large than the building
that we proposed last time around. It was 2,000 feet. But what we have done is we
have kind of commingled two of our prototype buildings and we've really kept the same
size kitchen in the larger prototype to accommodate for faster service and it just -- it's a
better flow for us, while at the same time we have limited our dining room space to 45
seats. So, we are, in essence, encouraging people to use the drive-thru, rather than the
dining room. Our normal dining rooms are about 100 seats. So, we are limiting that
space to encourage people to go through the drive-thru. You will notice -- and this was
actually Anna's suggestion -- that we move the speaker a little bit forward to
accommodate seven cars behind the speaker, which would definitely keep the cars out
of the aisle ways, which is going to really benefit the congestion situation. On the KFC
side -- and what happens, they can accommodate three cars behind their speaker, that
fourth car is, actually, in their parking lot. By the time they get to seven cars, they have
actually blocked all of their parking spaces in front of their store. So, I think we have
done -- my architect has done a good job to design this in a beneficial way. Again, we
are -- as staff commented, we are exiting in the middle to give the folks in the drive-thru
through the opportunity to go in either direction, so that they are not going to backup at
Main Street or 1 st Street, they can ~ave their choice. If we could have the larger --
thank you. On the Main Street side, it's pretty much understood or thought that that's
(
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 40 of 60
t
going to be used by mostly employees. You know, we are going to have probably six
cars or so on our staff. I'm sure KFC's about the same. I would assume that that would
be used mostly for parking -- for employees over there. However, we are not going to
limit it to just employees if there are open spots. On the south side of our drive-thru
lane there is parking for -- really, you know, ifs on the lot that we are proposing, but it's
specifically designed to accommodate the KFC folks. We have also delineated that
parking with a small barrier fence to encourage the KFC folks to park there, so that they
are going the other way, rather than -- than coming over to our store. In front of our
building there we have -- excuse me. To the west we have got approximately 18 spots,
which for a 45 seat dining room should accommodate things very nicely. The two spots
that are closest to the Taco Bell location, we envision those to be probably the manager
and assistant manager, some cars that aren't going to be moving back and forth very
often. I think in our last session with the Council, we had handicapped spots there and it
just didn't seem like it was a good idea to do that into the traffic. The project -- I'm
happy to say that the project does address all the concerns that staff had regarding the
flow, congestion and even parking. I think that KFC ends up with the same amount of
parking spots that they are currently enjoying. We have adequate parking to
accommodate our use and Taco Bell and Bolo's still have the 60 additional parking
spots on their lot. The objection to our project is pretty much I think centered around
the drive-thru as being a hindrance to the lot. Well, I would, actually, submit that the
drive-thru, actually, solves the problems, because it's encouraging people to come in,
get their food, and get out, rather than sit down for 30, 40 minutes and take up the
valuable parking space. SOl I would submit that the drive-thru and our use actually
solve the problem over there as it's designed now, maybe not how I first proposed it to
you. The amenity that was talked about regarding the sign, we are happy to provide a -
- what I think is a really nice -- really nice sign for the city and if the -- you know, if -- if
it's adopted we will be glad to put it in. If the city has another design, we will be glad to
contribute towards that. The exciting part is I do have the license agreement from
ACHD for the sign. It's location is -- is pretty much on the point of the intersection of
Main Street with 1 st. The location -- the exact location is going to be -- have to be
determined after the ACHD construction. And I believe this is in staff's packet. They
have got the designs of the sign. But we would be glad to provide the city with a
wonderful amenity and we were excited that ACHD had some extra ground for us to
use. We are also able, as you can see on the site plan that we gave you, that we are
able to address the concerns of the sanitary district. Just some final points. I don't
mean to take up too much time. But I visited the site every Thursday, Friday, Saturday
and on other occasions during the last three months and have found that there are --
that there is not the congestion that there once was, that the site flow works on both
sides. The KFC side works just fine. The Taco Bell site works just fine. The only
problem is -- is that middle part where people are kind of parking where ever they want
and really creating some congestion, especially on that west side. But our site plan
addresses that and, actually, improves the site and solves the current problems. So far
this is the sixth hearing that I have been to and I really hate to impose and take up time,
but to this point I haven't -- I don't believe there is any -- there has been any Meridian
resident that came in and testified in opposition to the Carl's Junior. As a matter of fact,
I think that they will welcome another choice at that location. The only folks at this point
(
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 41 of 60
that have been opposed to it have been the competitors on both sides and I don't know
if they are -- you know, the first time, you know, maybe they had a right to, but I think
with this plan addressing all the concerns, the staffs concerns, and our concerns,
frankly, I think that -- I think they -- that they shouldn't be able to object at this point.
You know, I don't know if it's an attempt to protect their own businesses or -- and I donlt
know if they think I'm that big of a threat, but I don't believe so. I think that all of
together will actually create a good synergy and, actually, attract additional guests to the
-- to the site. Now, I don't -- and, you know, who knows, it may be a little pay back or
something for past misdeeds of mine. But, in conclusion, I think we have brought you a
good project that is in harmony with the adjacent uses, that solves the problems at hand
that are currently on the site and that meets all the -- actually, meets and exceeds the
criteria and the ordinances of the city and I would ask that Council approve the
restaurant and drive-thru use. I'd stand for any questions.
Mr. Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Jones -- and I know this is something Carl's Junior knows. What percent of
business in a Carl's Junior is sit-down trade?
Jones: Currently at my other restaurants we are at about 58 percent drive-thru, so that
would be 42 percent dining room. Those are with nice, big, beautiful dining rooms.
This one is going to be quite small and limited -- limited seats, so I am going to assume
or suspect that this location will be up in the 70 percent.
Bird: Do you have the one at Crossroads?
Jones: Yes.
Bird: Okay. And that is 58 percent drive-thru?
Jones: That particular one is like 52. People do go into there specifically for the
playgrou'nd use and they stay there a long time and enjoy it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Jones: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Are there any others that would want to testify in favor for this
project? 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?
Gibbs: Yes.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
(
(
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 42 of 60
Gibbs: Jonathan Gibbs. I'm the administrative partner in G&H Enterprises, 9502
Scorpio, Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Gibbs: It's a pleasure for me to be here again testifying. I wish we hadn't had to go this
many times, but we appreciate you guys' patience on this project and we have tried to --
as we have gone through these meetings and heard your testimonies and the problems
with the project, we have tried to accommodate those by making the changes to make
everything fit on here. I know there is a lot of concern still from certain people about
the drive-thru traffic and how much congestion it is. If they do very -- if they are moving
them along very smoothly, they are lucky to get one car through the drive-thru in a
minute and you probably have at any stoplight in the city that has a minute timing on the
stoplight, many cars backed up. There is not a lot of congestion through a drive-thru if
they are running them smoothly at a minute at a time. There is a lot of room coming out
of that exit there adjacent to the Taco Bell to turn either direction without going over into
the Taco Bell drive-thru lane at all. There is -- there would be no congestion on the
drive-thru lane at all and I think that was mentioned by someone, that there would be
congestion there. We changed that -- the last drawing we had I think everybody had to
turn to the east there out of that drive-thru and at you guys' suggestion we made that
drive-thru exit, so it would -- there would be more room and that you could go either way
easily. There is plenty of room on that new drawing to turn either way on the entrance-
exit, either to go to Meridian or to Main Street now with this new drawing. I think it's an
excellent plan. I think they would probably run 30 percent inside and 70 percent through
that drive-thru and I don't think there would be a lot of congestion on that lot with this
setup and with them in there.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Gibbs, how far across that lane is the -- when you come out of that drive-thru?
You said there is a left clearance from the Taco Bell drive-thru lane. How much space
is that?
Gibbs: What is the distance across there on that --
De Weerd: What is the distance?
Nichols: Madam President --
De Weerd: If you could, please, answer that.
Meridian City Council
November 18. 2003
Page 43 of 60
Gibbs: What?
De Weerd: We need the question answered on the Public Hearing. You need to answer
it for us.
Gibbs: Yes. There is 23 feet.
Nary: Twenty-three feet from here to there? Isn't this -- is this the divider of the -- this is
the Taco Bell lane right here; correct?
Gibbs: Yes.
Nary: So, you're saying from this exit out, comes out -- that's the old one. From this exit
out to this, the Taco Bell lane is somewhere over here, is 23 feet?
Bird: Your architect engineer don't know what he's doing there.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, we will have to have --
Gibbs: I donlt have the plans with the dimensions on it.
Nichols: Madam President, somebody that's actual got scale drawings of both of those
locations in -- that can measure and give you the information, rather than asking Mr.
Gibbs to speculate, I think -- or ask somebody else in the audience, it will go faster.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Gibbs: I don't know.
De Weerd: Good answer. Any other questions? Thank you. Is that in our packet?
We will ask the applicant to respond to that when he comes up for the rebuttal. It is a
Public Hearing. Is there any further testimony in favor of this application? Okay. We
will take testimony in opposition. Is Mr. -- well, is Skip here? Skip, would you like to
testify? Okay.
Payne: I'm Bruce Payne from Taco Bell.
De Weerd: Okay. Bruce, if you will, please -- is the testimony you provide tonight the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Payne: It is.
De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address.
Payne: Bruce Payne. 1625 Fairmant Drive, Weiser, Idaho. 11m not from Meridian. 11m
representing Taco Bell in that location. 11m curious as to how many feet it's going to be
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 44 of 60
between my -- our drive-up -- his drive-up exit and our building. If it's 23 feet, you got a
car that's going to go in between that, plus two lanes of traffic -- lanes of traffic going
both ways. Our biggest concern is we are also doing, you know, 65 percent of our
business through the drive-up, which amounts to about 400 cars a day, plus what the
Carl's Junior is going to do and their cars a day, plus what A&W is doing and their cars
a day. It's going to get really, really -- it's already really crowded in there. I have been
there at lunch, worked at lunch, worked there at dinner, the traffic is horrible to get in
and out of there. I mean it's backing up to both -- both sides, both highways. Our
biggest concern is our guests. Our guests are going to be getting possibly in traffic
accidents -- it's just crowded in there constantly and just -- the idea of putting more and
more people there is going to increase business, I mean it gets to the point where it's
ludicrous, where you can't get in and you can't get out and, you know, great, so there is
a lot of parking, but you have got four -- our 400 cars going in and out of there, their 400
cars, and A&W's 400 cars going in there a day, that's -- I mean Albertson's would be
glad to have that many cars come into their parking lot a day. So, I mean our concern
is our guests, our employees, and the safety of them walking around all these cars.
And, then, Bolo's, you know, if anybody has been there on a Thursday, Friday, or
Saturday night, they take a lot -- there is a lot of people in there also. Traffic is horrible
in there. I don't know. I like Carl's Junior, I eat at your locations, but it's not --
competition is great, but too much competition is almost scary and we are concerned
about traffic and our guests and our employees. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Hofferber: Yes.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Hofferber: My name is Skip Hofferber, 2074 South Pebble Creek, Boise. And I do have
the Taco Time on 785 Corporate across from there and I did in bring in some pictures
for the staff and Mr. Berg copied them for you, so you can look at -- and these pictures
were taken -- they are dated at the bottom of October 31st during lunchtime, roughly
12:20 to 12:50, and as you can tell -- could you -- excuse me. Anna, could you put up
the one site plan that shows the KFC and -- there you go. And if you look at the
pictures, the lot is full here, down along the side. There are cars illegally parked here.
There are cars parked here now. And these people aren't even open yet. I understand
there is a cross-access, cross-easement parking with Bolo's and it is -- Bolo's -- there is
a lot of them that park there and they park there for hours. There is not enough parking
now, let alone the congestion. If you look at the -- how the cars are going back and
forth between here with cars parked and 11m trying to figure how you're going to -- six,
eight employees, as Mr. Jones says, where they are going to park, where their people
are going to park, their customers. On our site we have four ingress-egresses off onto
Main Street, Progress, and East Corporate. There is two on one. So, we only have 48
seats, too, and I run roughly 52 percent through my drive-thru. We have cross-access
parking of about 65 between the Chevron and myself, and with 48 seats and only one
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 45 of 60
drive-thru. I'm trying to figure out by adding another drive-thru and another -- only 45,
48 seats, where that's going to -- you know, the improvement has been made in this
new project here. And also coming out here with these -- these are 90 degree corners
and out here, like you say, this distance here you have two lanes of traffic going each
way, plus a drive-thru turn in over there, plus the Taco Bell drive-thru and I -- I was there
tonight at 6: 10 prior to coming here and it's the same way there tonight and they are not
open. So, I'm trying to figure out where this is all going to -- you know, they made it
better by, you know, changing a few things and backing up seven cars in the stack lane
and that, because, like on my side, like I said, we have four ingress- egresses. On this
one here they have two for four businesses, three of them wanting drive-thrus, two of
them already having drive-thrus. I just think the congestion is too great there and I think
it's -- you know, he calls it competition, whatever, sure, well, you know, donlt want to
see 12 restaurants in there and when you try to shoe horn them in like you're doing
here, I think it's going to be a detriment to everybody and the safety of people. I know
Mr. Gibbs testified at the Planning and Zoning that he had two other people without
drive-thrus that he could put in there and I -- I wonder why it hasn't been pursued, you
know, just for obvious reasons of safety and accessibility for all the other tenants. So,
that's all. There is one other thing. I know the amenities, they were talking about, I
know I spoke with a few of the other business people, as I am here in Meridian, and we
would be more than happy to get an entrance, because we are proud of being in
business in Meridian and I think it would be nice to have a sign there and I think we
have -- among ourselves, there is five or six of us, talked that we would be more than
happy to put that together and have a sign there, because I think it would be nice, you
know. I mean I don't think you need to approve this. We can get the sign done for you
on a basis of the existing business, people in the city. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Hofferber.
Powell: Madam President, while there is a break in between, the narrowest dimension
on the drive aisle at the -- at the western location is 27 feet to the edge of the Taco Bell
drive-thru, so there is a differentiated paving area there. The maximum dimension is 30
feet. So, it varies between 27 and 30 feet. Minimum drive aisle requirements per the
code are 25 feet.
De Weerd: And so what's the distance between the drive aisle and the building?
Powell: We didn1t measure that. Hold on.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: While you're looking at that, Mrs. Powell, where is the window for Taco Bell? Is it
directly across here? No. No. No. For Taco Bell. Right there? So, the lights from
these cars are going to shine right in that window?
(
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 46 of 60
Bird: From right here to right there you're saying -- how wide is that?
Powell: It's 27 feet at the western end and 30 feet at the east end. No. rm sorry. The
western end of the drive-thru exit, from this point right there to that point --
Bird: To that point right there?
Powell: Is 27 feet.
Bird: Is 27 feet?
Powell: Yes. Then, there is an additional 12 feet for the --
Bird: But it's full of cars.
Powell: Right. I'm sorry. Councilmember -- or President de Weerd had asked what it
was to the building, so it's an additional 12 feet.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: And my question was the drive-thru window is directly across from this exit?
Powell: 11m not sure. You will need to have someone else testify to that. I'm not sure.
De Weerd: And we can ask the applicant when he comes for rebuttal. Is there anymore
testimony? Didn't mean to look at you, Mr. Atteberry, but -- is the testimony you provide
tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Atteberry: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Atteberry: My name is Phil Atteberry. My address 1756 Stony Brook Court, Eagle.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Atteberry: I believe this is the sixth meeting that I have come to on this same project
here and it's still -- you know, the building's changed and the drive-thru's changed and
the dimension of the building has changed three times. We still have a drive-thru here,
a proposed drive-thru here, and a drive-thru over here at KFC. The distance between
this drive-thru and KFC's drive-thru is just -- it's just so congested in there now, I can't
imagine what it would be like with a third drive-thru in there. This designer spent some
time on it, I -- this redesign for this entrance-exit here is great. I think that's something
we should do anyway, whether Carrs Junior goes there or somebody else goes there.
Up here we really need that, because that gets blocked off when a car goes across out
of here right now. I mean that's a good idea, but these right here and these here --
r
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 47 of 60
some of these people are going to be Carl's Junior's customers. Their front door is
here. And at some point they are walking through this drive lane here and the
landscaping and young children and I have been doing KFC for 30 years and 20 years
ago when drive-thru's came around we used to put drive-thrus any way we could around
a building. The city just -- it was something new. But this day and time, drive-thrus, you
have to have lanes that are out of the pedestrian parking I would think, that we try to
make drive-thrus so that they -- you could get in and out very easily and adding a third
drive-thru to this small area is not going to make this conducive to more business.
Commissioner Centers at the last meeting, he said, well, we will pass it on and if it's just
too congested for the customers, they just won't go there. I really don't think that's what
our attitude should be, that it's just too congested. Customers don't go there. He even
testified that he won't go there now it's so congested. I just don't think that's what we
ought to be doing when we are planning out another drive-thru and businesses. You
know, KFC has been in business for 30 years, we spent a lot of money putting a brand
new building there, and are we excited about Carl's Junior going in there with a drive-
thru? No. Would we be excited about anybody going in there with a drive-thru? We
won't be. That's no secret on my part. Because if it gets too congested there, we all
lose. Nobody -- nobody does well. The city doesn't win on that deal either. It's just that
people will avoid that corner. So, I would hope that the City Council would deny the
req uest.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Mr. Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Atteberry, thafs basically -- if you didn1t come around the building, is basically
-- and you went straight out, is basically your old drive-thru.
Atteberry: That's correct.
Bird: And it was a pain in the --
Atteberry: It was a pain.
Bird: It was a pain in the throat that way.
Atteberry: Correct.
Bird: And you had no other drive-thrus in there.
Atteberry: Right. When we bought the restaurant three and a half years ago, we
immediately started the process to change that. I mean we were busy. We were out in
the road, because it was just not conducive to continually doing business. I mean
somebody else was going to come in with a better drive-thru and they were going to go
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 48 of 60
there for convenience, because ours was just so dang busy there. And this drive-thru
exit right in front of Taco Bell, I mean I -- speaking for Taco Bell, to have a drive-thru
that's exiting right at their window with traffic going this way and this way, plus a drive-
thru lane, to say that that's not going to be congested and this is going to be better than
what it was now, I would have to disagree.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you.
Atteberry: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant --
Jones: Thank you for the opportunity. I just wanted to clarify that staff is pretty close it
looks like about just under 30 feet on the west side of the drive-thru exit, plus the drive-
thru aisle for Taco Bell, so 42 feet up until the building is the narrower point and, then,
add a couple of feet on the eastern side. Just to I guess, rebut a few points. Skip
mentioned his restaurant across the way, that they do 52 percent drive-thru. t think we
are going to be doing way more. Way more. And his -- actually, his concerns seemed
to be the parking that wasn't adequate. Well, I think his 21 spots that he's got on his lot
seem to do him just -- just fine and I would stipulate with my 48 seats that mine would
be adequate as well. The other point, ACHD in their report did a study and they felt that
the site was adequate to accommodate the additional traffic that might be generated by
our building and the Taco Bell -- I haven't met this gentleman before, but I would love to
have 400 cars go through my drive-thru in a day. I don't -- that's not going to happen.
Anyway, so we are probably exaggerating just a tad to make a point, but I think we have
done a great job to accommodate the site, the needs of the site, and we have, actually,
done a good job to improve it. Mr. Atteberry -- you know, I think there is lots of kids that
are, actually, going up across his parking lot as his drive-thru gets backed up and I'm
sure that the cars and his guests take just as much concern as my guests will for the
safety of all that are in there. People aren't going to be zooming around at 20 miles an
hour. So, anyway, with that I want to stay positive. I think this is a good project. I
appreciate all the comments from staff, from Council, and helping us to finally present
you with a -- with a workable plan.
De Weerd: Questions for Mr. Jones? You know, I guess I do have a question. Once
they started doing the measurements, I really zeroed in on those two parking spots
there. Why on earth do you have parking spots in that drive area?
Jones: The two just to the west?
De Weerd: Yeah. If you donlt need those, why do you want them there?
Jones: We could remove them. You know, because everybody's concern seems to be
the parking. We, generally, have a manager and a shift leader on. Those could easily
go for those employees that are working the eight hour shifts and they wouldn't be going
r
\
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 49 of 60
in and out of those spaces all the time, so I don't believe that would be an issue, but if
that were a condition of approval, we would be glad to remove those two.
De Weerd: You know, I guess I would -- this is a much better plan than we have been
presented, you know, and I do appreciate it. I just -- I guess with the Bolols, it's a good
thing that Taco Bell has 65 percent drive-thru traffic, because Bolo's is a sit down -- you
know, and they take up the parking that Taco Bell has. But the three uses with Taco
Bell, Carl's Junior and KFC are -- all peak at the same time, you know, ifs all driven at
the same time and I guess when we denied this last time and the suggestion was, well,
we will come down with a sit-down restaurant or something. But, you know, I guess I
look for a use that would compliment what's there and that would be more of a morning
type of thing or, you know, something that doesn't compete. I'd hate to suggest another
drive-thru because I think three drive-thrus are really too much for that area and I know I
have said that before. But even a drive-thru Moxie Java, that gets the bulk of their
traffic early in the morning when these other ones are not hitting their peaks, seems to
make more sense than a drive-thru and peaks at the same time as everyone else does
in that same complex and today we heard a presentation from property owners that had
a concern with what ACHD is -- they are going to lose that turn lane in there because
that will become a traffic lane once some of the road improvements are readjusted. So,
that brings other concerns of accessibility into that area as well. So, have you looked at
what those impacts are going to have as well to this area?
Jones: Madam President, Members of the Council, I guess we have looked at the
ACHD plan that, actually, on Meridian is proposing to prohibit left turns, that's left in and
left out, so that will make a right out -- right out situation from the property, so we won't
have people stacking back waiting to exit. So, I think, actually, ACHD, you know, may
improve our access on the lot. Regarding your comments for peak hours, we do do a
greater percent of our business at lunch. It's quick traffic in and out. We have to -- you
know, people do need to move their cars. Luckily -- well, I mean lId love to do more
dinner, but Bolo's peaks at dinner. We do not. So, I think in that aspect with fighting
the Bolols traffic, I donlt think that -- that we are going to create a problem. And, again,
you know 70 percent of our customers are going to go through the drive-thru, freeing up
the parking for the other uses. And, additionally, just as a side note, in each -- each
time that Mr. Gibbs has come before you, he's pledged to work with Bolols to resolve
some of that problem and 11m sure hels going to find a solution to that for Taco Bell's
benefit, our benefit and KFC as well.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Mr. Jones, you said that ACHD has approved -- or found no congestion on the
site. Can you tell me where that's at in their report?
Jones: I was handed -- I was handed the documentation. It looks like page three of the
required conditions for approval, letter P, based on development patterns in this area
(
I
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 50 of 60
and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates that the transportation system,
which I guess is the off-site system, will be adequate to accommodate the additional
traffic generated by this proposed development.
Nichols: Well, Mr. Jones, I'm going to differ with you. I think that has to do with the
roads.
Jones: Yeah. And that's what I said.
Nichols: Not on your -- your inside -- inside your boundaries. So, I was just curious --
that's the only one I could find that dealt with traffic generation and then dealt with stuff
that -- on the roads themselves and not internal to your site that I could see.
Jones: Thank you for the clarification.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Jones, Mr. Atteberry had raised the concern -- and I don't think you have
addressed that in your rebuttal -- about this parking and the access into your building.
The front entrance faces the west and all of your parking for your customers -- well, not
all, but a portion of your parking for your customers is on the south and the east sides,
so, therefore, the people have to cross either through the drive-thru or through the
parking lot to get all the way around the front of the building. What's your -- I guess
what's your response on the safety issue he raised?
Jones: My response would be, Madam President and Council Members, the -- and
that's why we have proposed or we will designate for our employees to park on the east
side in the parking stalls on the east and I would anticipate on each shift somewhere
between four and six cars will park there. If we can cooperate with KFC, which, if you
approve the project I'm sure we will reach an understanding and cooperation where they
will park their employees in that same spot, that would alleviate people from -- in both
restaurants, because right now if KFC's customers park there, they are walking across
KFC's drive-thru in order to get to their -- in order to get to one of those stores. So, I
don't anticipate that -- that too many guests are going to park on that side of the
building. The -- once, again, on the south side we have pretty much designated that for
KFC and committed -- and there is -- we will put the little fence to delineate KFC's
customer currently use parking in that area and I'm sure they will continue to do that.
I'm anticipating that our customers are going to park on the west side, which is close to
the front entrance and I'm sure they will figure that out as well.
De Weerd: Any questions?
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 51 of 60
Bird: Madam President, I do have one question.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Jones, what are your hours?
Jones: The hours are 7:00 in the morning until 11 :00, Sunday through Thursday, and,
then, we open until midnight on Friday and Saturday.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess my question is you have 27 and, then in cases, 30 feet between your
area and the area separating Taco Bell and it looks like you need -- and is that wide
enough for two lanes of traffic going through?
Jones: Two lanes of traffic. I believe the requirement is 25 feet.
De Weerd: Twenty-five. Who comes up with those?
Bird: Madam President:
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Yeah. You've still got traffic coming out and if you got a small car -- but if you have
a long wheel based pickup or something, in the first place, you're going to have a hard
time getting through the drive-thru, But you do that anyway on all drive-thrus. You're
going to have a hard -- you're going to have to turn quite a bit and you have got the
other traffic comirig down Taco Bell and I assure you I have been out to KFC and Taco
Bell at all times of the day and their hours are basically I think about the same as yours.
And it is congested out there. I have never been able to just drive right up and get to the
window and get my food and get out of there. But it's going to be tight.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: And Mr. Jones can certainly comment if he wants, but, you know, I guess to me
the issue on this portion is the fact that although the standard is 25 feet and this is 42
feet?
Jones: All the way to the building.
Nary: From the edge of the building. But 12 feet of that is taken up by a lane here
where you have got traffic going west to east and, then, we are still -- I mean that is
almost a two lane road. This is not one lane. This is people can turn left and right at
the same -- one right after the other, they can come this direction and drive through this
(
'i
(
I,
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 52 of 60
lot -- I mean there is no control here and if you have read the minutes the last time,
that's one of the things we talked about that you haven't solved is forcing all the traffic
one direction here and you can't -- you probably can't do that because when this was
designed it was not designed with all of these businesses in mind. This is piece-
mealing this in there, but there is not control here from this being three lanes of traffic,
one for Taco Bell and two going this way and it's now 42 feet. It's not wide enough.
Jones: Madam President, Mr. Nary, is the -- are you thinking that the primary concern is
going to be the potential U-turn out of that or if I were to stipulate that there would be a
left turn only coming out of the drive-thru, might that aid in your -- in the problems where
we are avoiding the U-turn. Because there is enough room to --
Nary: But I guess, Mr. Jones, the problem I'm having is if you make this a left turn only,
then you have got to cross traffic here going against each other trying to get out.
Bird: And you got to cross traffic --
Nary: And, then, you have got this lane coming up here. If you funneled all the traffic
this direction with a right in, right out, it certainly is better, but -- I mean I don't think you
have solved all the problems, but I mean this -- this narrow lane here, with it being
potentially three different lanes of traffic, if you have got a car here that decides to pull
out -- here is the window, so they decide to pull out to come this way, you have got
traffic going this way, you have got traffic in this lane here -- I mean it -- I mean it is a
nightmare as is being presented by the other property owners. But this site has never
been designed to deal with this and I guess I disagree with your one statement that you
said Mr. Gibbs has said every time he's been here that held work it out with Bolo's.
Well, we have been here six times and I don't see it. So I don't really have to buy that
yet. I don't see any working out anything. All I see is a lot of parking that's being used
up and not a lot of space for all these cars.
Jones: Madam President, Mr. Nary, Members of the Council. Mr. Gibbs has always
indicated that he -- that once we were determined what was going on with this location,
he would pursue results with Bolo's, whether it be off-site parking or something and he
hasn't done that as of yet, because he hasn't needed to or -- I guess I can address your
traffic concerns in this way is that -- is that at the very most we are going to put one car
at that -- at that right or left turn at the drive-thru exit at the most one a minute, which is
-- which is not a lot of traffic. We can -- we can put a stop sign in any location to
mitigate that if it were -- if it were required, but -- but there is not -- like I said, I wish I
could put through 400 cars, but that won't happen, and I don't know that Taco Bell is at
this point either, but one car a minute is not going to create a huge congestion traffic
problem at that point. It's like a three way -- a three way stop or a three way
intersection.
De Weerd: I have a question. They said that -- is this where the window is for the Taco
Bell?
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 53 of 60
Jones: Yes.
De Weerd: And so you have someone coming out here, let's say it's an SUV, a big one,
and they are making that turning radius and you have traffic flows going, you know, this
way and that way and you have a stack of cars sitting here, it just -- again -- and I guess
we keep coming back to that -- is what kind of situation are we setting up and that's
been the primary concerns, by adding that -- that traffic coming out of the drive-thru,
you're having two way traffic and then another drive-thru on the other side. It's just --
we see it as a disaster waiting to happen and even if it's one car a minute, you know,
there is one disaster a minute waiting to happen. And, you know, that's dramatic, but I
guess that's our concern -- or that's my concern.
Jones: Again, Madam President, I appreciate the concern arid I have literally -- I have
probably spent more time in that parking lot over the last course of the three months
than I have in my own restaurants, which is probably a bad thing. But I donlt see the
congestion, especially in that particular drive aisle going back and forth. I think if we
can remember that at least half the cars are going back to the KFC and, then, they are
flowing through their drive-thru, coming out to the east side of Carl's and making that
right turn. So, you don't have people going back and forth from 1 st -- excuse me, from
Meridian Road to Main Street. I appreciate the concerns and we will do everything that
we can, whether it's control the traffic with stop signs or left turn only or whatever we
might need to do, but the car one a minute I donlt believe is going to pose a problem. I
hope I can convince you of that.
Bird: Madam President?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Like I said, I have been out there quite a few times and I have seen -- I have seen
Kentucky Fried people come through, turn, come out this way and go down Meridian
Street. I have seen Taco Bell people come right around here. I'll tell you my favorite
way is to come out this way from Kentucky Fried, but I got like this and go around and --
and go out that way from Taco Bell, but -- so we just donlt have enough property there
to have three drive-thrus, I don't believe. I think you're just -- and one a minute I realize
isn't that bad, but you're shoving a lot of cars and we are not even taking into
consideration the guy that's went in and ate his dinner at one of the three places and
goes out and gets in his car and is backing out into the driveway or getting out himself.
So, we are not just looking at the drive-thru people, as far as I'm concerned, but I just
don't think -- I mean we are not talking about a 20 acre piece that we can put this on. I
don't know what the total acreage there is, but it's a long ways from 20 acres, I believe. I
just think -- I just think we are asking for some real congestion out there. And don't get
me wrong. I'd love to have a Carl's Junior in here. I'd love it. I just -- I just don't know
how we can justify another drive-thru on that property.
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 54 of 60
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Jones, another thing. I guess we have asked the question about the location
of our exit of your drive-thru and it sounds from what I'm hearing that it's directly across
from the window for Taco Bell, is that right?
Jones: I can't answer that exactly. Itls very close it looks like.
Nary: So, what were you going to do about the light spillage right into their window?
Jones: Hadn't anticipated that problem. You know, to -- you know, probably to help in
the delineation of the double access drive aisle from the -- from the Taco Bell drive
aisle, we can have some sort of a curbing and I would imagine that at the drive-thru
window or in front on -- no, I don't think I can do it, because it's -- it's on a different
parcel. I was going to suggest that we have some sort of a -- either a landscape
median or a little wall on top of the -- you know, some sort of a little pony wall kind of a
thing that might solve the problem.
Nary: Well, Mr. Jones, you're going to lose another foot or two in doing that and in trying
to have a curb with a fence to shield the lights, but I mean I guess I'm a little surprised
that your architect would design a drive-thru that spills light directly right into the face of
the people that are standing right here. I donlt know. I didn't hear the Taco Bell person
really emphasize that, but if I'm the person working at that window, I don't want those
headlights in my face all night long and there is no practical way to shield that in that
particular location, but that -- I mean that, to me, is -- I guess we haven't addressed it
very much and I appreciate you trying to, but I don't see how location-wise you can even
have that exit in that spot.
Jones: We could, actually, solve Mrs. de Weerd's problems with it perhaps and move
the drive-thru -- continue that and remove those two parking stalls and have it exit just a
bit -- a bit further back towards the west.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Jones, I mean this is a scale drawing, right? So, if you do that then you have
got to redraw the building because the building is going to be over here. There is no
way to -- I mean it's got to exit somewhere out here in these two spaces. There is no
building here.
Jones: That would be -- excuse me for interrupting you, but that would just be an
additional drive lane exit so we won't need to move the building.
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 55 of 60
Nary: I see. So, you're going to have your window here, but you're going to have the
exit -- the lane go all the way over to here?
Jones: Exactly. That may address your problem.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Thank you.
Jones: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff or anything further before we close
the Public Hearing? Okay. I would entertain a motion if you're so inclined.
Mr. Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close Public Hearing CUP 03-042, the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a new Carl's Junior Restaurant with drive-thru service window by Clayton
Jones.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue -- I'm sorry, to close the
Public Hearing CUP 03-042. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion
carnes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Discussion? Motion?
Mr. Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: As much as I'd like to see Carl's in there and they went back and redesigned the
building -- the message that I thought was -- we had sent was bring in something that
doesn't have a drive-thru. You're just asking for too much traffic flow and even if it's one
a minute out of each three places. That's three cars a minute, plus we don't know how
many people are going to be pulling in to go in to sit down in the three restaurants that
are right there, excluding Bolo's. I just -- I just don't know on that confined area how we
can get another drive-thru through there and, like I said, I'd love to have a Carl's Junior
down that close to town. But I just -- and if he's depending on 58 percent of his
business to be drive-thru, then, he's got to have a drive-thru. We had told Mr. Gibbs or
suggested to him that we -- you know, we had nothing wrong with a restaurant if it's a sit
down restaurant, where they come in, park, and went in and sat down. So, that's my
theory on it. I just think it's too congested to have a third drive-thru.
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 56 of 60
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. I seem to recall, too, Mr. Bird, in that discussion with Mr. Gibbs about that,
it wasn't a discussion about I'll try to make this compatible, like Council President de
Weerd said, I'll try to find a restaurant that's compatible with the uses, it's more if I can
get a bigger restaurant and more spaces in this than what you want, so approve my
drive-thru or it will be worse than what you thought. So, it wasn't an attempt to try to be
conciliatory or try to find some reasonable way to make this fit. This is project from day
one should have been done as one development with the designs being done all
together with Bolo's, with Taco Bell, with KFC, with Carl's Junior and this shows the lack
of that foresight as to why ifs a problem. They wouldn't be here six times if that had
been done and it wasn't and no matter how many times they try to redesign that building
and turn it in a different way, it's just not going to fit. It just isn't going to work with what
they'd like to use it for. I agree with you, I'd love to see a Carl's Junior somewhere in
this area, somewhere in the downtown area, somewhere -- there is lot of other places
around not far from here that probably could support this, but this lot -- that site should
be part of the parking lot. That's what it should be. That's when I was at Planning and
Zoning -- that's what we wanted it to be because that's why we moved the drive-thru off
of it, because it doesn't work. l1's already congested now with the parking. What they
need to do is instead of worrying about trying to arrange something with Bolo's is make
that into parking, so the people at Bolo's have a place to park. But this just isn't going
to work and I don't know -- I think the reason we have never said to the staff no more
drive-thru of any kind is because we really can't. If they can figure out a way to make it
work, fine. They can keep trying all the time, but I don't see this one any better than the
last, it's just different, it's better in some respects, but it just doesn't resolve things,
because of the way it's being presented is a piecemeal type of development. It doesn't
work.
De Weerd: I guess I would echo the comments already made. I do think it's better -- it is
much better in many ways, but that movement in between Carl's Junior and Taco Bell is
too much. There is turning movements, there is three different directions of traffic and
it's too much to put in that small piece -- small place, especially when the peak hours all
happen at the same time. You know, these are all similar type of businesses and it has
nothing to do with competition. That doesn't bear any weight in my concerns at all,
other than you're putting people at high densities at the same time. If this was a
different type of business, with different peak hours, it would be a lot more compatible in
the sense of the traffic generation and that's my concern. You have a turn movement,
you have -- and three other -- there is just too much movement going on between there.
I think that's a big safety issue for that area and to make a decision to add to that safety
issue is not something I -- I think is our responsibility to look at the safety factors on
these kind of applications and it would not be an asset to our community.
McCandless: Madam President?
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 57 of 60
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: It looks like we are pretty unanimous in our feelings. I agree with
everything that's been said. I would like to compliment them for their attempt to make it
better. I just don't think it can be better. It's too small of an area for three drive-ins.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, just a reminder that if you deny an
application or deny a permit like this one, you're generally obligated to tell the applicant
what, if anything -- and I emphasize the if anything they could do to get this approved. I
think one of the reasons the staff has done what they have done to try to work with the
applicant on the drive-thru is a belief that perhaps there is some configuration that
hadn't been seen before that might have solved the issues. I would ask that when you
address this application, if it's a motion to deny, that you address whether you think a
drive-thru could ever be approved here and -- so that at least that issue is -- and maybe
we are presuming too much, that there is some magic bullet, but this is the third try now
and the applicant has spent a fair amount of money with architects to design these
plans and so if you don't think that a drive-thru could be worked after having seen three
different iterations of it, I ask you to say so and -- based upon what's already in the
record.
De Weerd: Well, I can't make a motion, so --
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. McCandless.
McCandless: I move that we deny CUP 03-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a new Carl's Junior restaurant and drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones, north of
intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive, and South Main Street, and my
reason for making this motion is that I don't think there is room, no matter how they
design it, to put another drive-in in that space and I'll make that motion and ask that the
attorney draw up the proper papers.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
(
Meridian City Council
November 18, 2003
Page 58 of 60
Nary: I guess I would ask the maker of the motion if we could include, I think, some
language regarding congestion. I think that was done previously. I think that was the
intent. But also that pursuant to Mr. Nichols' suggestion as to what can be done, I
guess some specific language in the findings, based on both what Council President de
Weerd has said, as well as your motion of the fact that there is not adequate or the type
of facility that needs to be there has to be compatible and compatibility I think would be
measured by the type of service being provided, the compatibility with the hours of
operation and the types of service on this site versus the other companion sites on this
piece of property, so there is not an overlap of use at the same time and I think after
three attempts, I don't know what configuration may be compatible as a drive-thru, but I
guess.at this juncture in the findings rd ask Mr. Nichols to indicate from the Council that
we can't see -- foresee any other type of compatible -- in that location compatible drive-
thru configuration, unless it was radically different than the three that we have already
seen and that certainly leaves the door open. If someone can think of something else,
but I'd like the staff at least to have something to hang their hat on to say that's not
different, you know, turning the building another 90 degrees isn't going to make it
different. But if the maker of the motion was in agreement with that, I think that might
help Mr. Nichols in formulating the findings.
McCandless: I agree.
Nary: And I would concur.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion?
Nary: Madam President? Mr. Nichols, is that enough information do you think or do you
need --
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think that's adequate.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion -- ready for the question?
McCandless: Question.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been -- the motion on the table is to deny the request for a
Conditional Use Permit for CUP 03-042 and with the stated reasons for denial and ask
the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of
Order. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll?
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies:
(
I,
Meridian City Council Meetinq
December 9, 2003.
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:15 P.M.,
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cheri McCandless.
Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie.
Others Present: Bill Nichols, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, Kenny
Bowers, Bill Musser, and Dean Willis.
Item 1.
Roll-call Attendance:
x
X
Tammy de Weerd
Cherie McCandless
x
X
Robert Corrie
Bill Nary
Keith Bird
De Weerd: Okay. I'll open the regular meeting for City Council, Tuesday, December
9th, at 7: 15. I will extend the Mayor's apologies, his voice ran out, so I will be convening
this meeting and giving you his apologies. So, we will start with roll call attendance.
Item 2.
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item No.2, adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve the agenda with the addition of Item NO.5 being
brought over from the pre-Council meeting regarding the Stapleton Subdivision and I
can -- I guess I could pull -- that's Item 5. It's CPA 03-003. And, then, on the Consent
Agenda of the regular items, I'd like to pull Items A, B, and C and make them 5A, 58,
and 5C, so we can discuss them. And, other than that, I would move that we adopt the
revised agenda.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Attorney, I guess I have a question. Since we will want to hear
Stapleton in the order preceding the other applications, can we list it as five, even
though that was the motion in the special meeting, or can it be after the Sageland
Planned Development?
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9,2003
Pg. 2 of 55
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, what I would recommend that you
do is when you get down to Item 5, you just take that up last and, therefore, it would be
immediately ahead of the other hearings.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda
with the amendments of the addition to Item 5, the continued public hearings CPA 03-
003, and removing from the Consent Agenda 3A, Band C on Sageland Planned
Development. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3.
Consent Agenda:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing
home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for
caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point
Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory
Road:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 03-
009 Request for modification of condition to leave the Onweiler
Lateral open and construct a 1 0 foot wide paved multi-use pathway
and place a 5 foot chain link fence along the south bank of canal for
Silhouette Subdivision by Silhouette LLC - east of North Meridian
Road and south of East Ustick Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval 0 f 1 5 building lots 0 n
4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No.2 by
Properties West, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Fairview Avenue:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and 8
other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Glacier Sprinqs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -
north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 03-
010 Request for a Rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones
for proposed Woodside Creek b y Woodside Properties, LLC -
1115 North Ten Mile Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 3 of 55
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 5
other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC - 1115 North Ten
Mile Road:
J. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for School Site In
Bridgetower Crossing (Primeland Dev, LLP):
K. AQreement for Professional Services, Brown Environmental -
Operator Training Services:
L. Memorandum of Understandina with Ada County Hiqhway
District for Routine Maintenance Activities in the Public Right
of Way:
M. Approve Beer License for Pizza Hut - 1752 W. Cherry Lane:
De Weerd: Okay. Item NO.3 is the Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda with Items A, B, and C being moved
to 5A, 58 and 5C on the regular agenda and for the Council President to sign and the
Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to remove Items 3A, Band C to 5A, B
and C and City Council President to sign and Clerk attest. Mr. Clerk.
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, absent; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
De Weerd: Thank you. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4.
Department Reports:
A. Mayor's Office - Mayor
1. Re-appointment of Bruce MacCoy to Park's and
Recreation Commission - 10-03 to 10-06:
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 4 of 55
De Weerd: Okay. Item NO.4 is Department Reports. Item A from the Mayor's office.
The Mayor would like approval for the reappointment of Bruce McCoy to the Parks and
Recreation Commission to serve from October '03 to October 2006.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve the appointment of Bruce McCoy to the Parks and
Recreation Commission for a term of 10/03 to 10/06.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the reappointment of
Bruce McCoy to the Parks and Recreation Commission to serve until October '06. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5.
(Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
A. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed Saqeland Planned Development by Quasar
Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road
and East Victory Road:
B. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-020 Request for
revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots
on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sa~eland
Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast
corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
c. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-036 Request for
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private
neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed SaQeland Planned
Development by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South
Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
De Weerd: Okay. On 5A we will consider 5A, Band C on the Sageland Planned
Development and ask staff comments.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 5 of 55
Powell: Madam President, Members 0 f the Council, d id a sk you top ull this from the
Consent Agenda. As you know, we have been trying to work with the applicant to come
up with a redesign that met your approval of -- 11m not sure of the date, but the original --
the conditions of approval that Council put upon that plat and we have not yet come to
an agreement. I think they have provided you a memo tonight that has an alternative
design. They are still working within the 50 foot right of way. I asked last week that we
talk a bout this in a very specific way, t hat I d id n at think that t hey would b e able to
provide that landscape island in the 50 foot right of way and meet the traffic calming
needs that you had made in your original motion. So, I think we are still at the same
spot, as far as looking for a ten foot landscape island in an enlarged right of way that
would serve some traffic calming function. I did sketch up something, I ran it by ACHD,
and I thought it would be most minimal disturbance to increasing the right of way. I
haven't talked directly to the Sageland folks, but ACHD had said it was okay and I'm not
sure where we stand on that. That's just a little side information. But at this point I
would ask you to table it to a regular agenda in the future, rather than a Consent
Agenda, just so that we don't mistakenly approve it before we get this worked out.
De Weerd: Anna, h ow much time will you need? One week or do you want it next
month?
Powell: I haven't seen anything from them that indicates that they looked at something
that enlarges the right of way, so I don't think a week is going to be long enough, I think
two weeks at a minimal, and I don't think we have a hearing in two weeks, so I think we
would be looking at January 6; is that right?
De Weerd: Okay. This would be old business for January 6, so it would be preferred
that we did it next week. So, Council, let's continue it until next week. If Mr. Clerk and
Anna, you would try and get a hold of the applicant and explain --
Powell: They are here.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay. If you can get the information to staff by the end of the week, so
we donlt have to continue this into January, I think it would serve both of us well. Would
you -- do you have any comment? Okay. Please state your name and address.
Clayborne: Brent Clayborne, 1461 South Tier here in Meridian. Thank you for allowing
us to speak tonight. The reason we are here is this is a -- I think, according to our
count, about our seventh trip here before the body and we are prepared to show you the
design that we have worked out in detail with ACHD and your fire department and with
Planning and Zoning. We would be more than happy to discuss that with you. That
was the reason for our transmittal of the presentation to you this afternoon.
De Weerd: Well, I guess it sounds like staff is not ready to -- they donlt feel comfortable
at this point, so if we could continue it until next week as a regular agenda item, so that
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 6 of 55
those discussions will be publicly posted and staff has an opportunity to prepare
comments if they are not in agreement with you. Will that work with you?
Clayborne: That's all right. We just are trying to keep our project on track and our client,
of course, has time frames and schedules they are trying to meet. 11m not trying to
pressure you folks, but we are just concerned that we are falling behind and we are
trying to do our best to meet your schedule and meet your criteria also.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Whom did you meet with this afternoon from the city?
Clayborne: We did not meet today with anyone from the city. We met Friday morning
with ACHD folks.
Bird: Okay.
Clayborne: And that's what held us up.
Bird: I misunderstood you. I thought you said you met with the city today.
Clayborne: Not today. No, sir.
De Weerd: Okay. If we can continue this until next week, get you on our regular
agenda, so that we can have this conversation.
Clayborne: That's fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Clayborne: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you very much.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we continue Items AZ 03-015, request for annexation and zoning of
9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Sageland Planned Development by
Quasar Development, also PP 03-020, request revised preliminary plat approval of 41
building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed
Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC, and also CUP 03-036,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with a private
neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Sageland Planned Development by
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 7 of 55
Quasar Development, northeast corner South Locust Grove and East Victory Road, to
December 16, 2003, regular agenda.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for approval of AZ 03-015, PP 03-020, and CUP 03-036 on
Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development, to December 16, 2003. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 8.
Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CPA 03-003
Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow
new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for
proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West
Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: RZ 03-009
Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed
Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick
Road:
Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03-019
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots
on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CUP 03-034
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-
lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle
and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item NO.5 would be moved from our special meeting and that's on
CPA 03-003, request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, to allow
new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed
Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates and I'll open this Public Hearing with
staff comments.
Powell: No additional comments as to -- other than what transpired before the regular
agenda.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nichols.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 8 of 55
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think what -- the reason that I
asked you to continue this ahead of the hearings on Items 6, 7 and 8, is that you
received new information this evening from the applicant in the form of the information
from the Washington Department of Ecology, which staff has not had an opportunity to
review, nor have you, and that if you chose, you could continue all of the hearings,
including this one on the Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow you the opportunity
to review that information and have staff review it if you so chose.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Anna, I guess we would like to give you the time to
take a look a t what we received from the special meeting, b ut also tor estate to the
applicant that when we last visited this application we did want a game plan to address
the standards of this, not just the standards you're proposing, but how they would
coincide with the thoughts of our staff and the time frame if this cannot be addressed in
this particular exercise, what kind of game plan we have to consider the planning for this
particular area and the implications it would have to our Comprehensive Plan.
Powell: I will carry that forward with -- in my discussions with the applicant.
De Weerd: Okay.
Powell: That's what you were directing; correct?
De Weerd: Yes.
Powell: Okay.
De Weerd: Any further comments or direction for staff and the applicant on this
particular item? Council? No? Does that sound reasonable? Is that the information we
are looking for? Okay.
Bird: I think the applicant wanted to say something.
De Weerd: Mr. Centers? This is a continued Public Hearing. Is the testimony you
provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Centers: It is.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove. You know, this has just been a long
process and it gets somewhat frustrating for me at times and I just wanted to publicly
apologize. I made a comment about the staff recommendation that was inaccurate and
it was a misunderstanding on my part and I just want to publicly apologize to Anna and
staff and also I was going to apologize to the Mayor, that we kind of had a little bit of an
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg.90f55
exchange, but, anyway, he is not here, so if anybody sees him could relay my apology,
I'd appreciate that.
De Weerd: We will certainly pass that onto the Mayor.
Centers: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you, Jake. Okay.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue public hearings CPA 03-003 -- and these are all for
Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. RZ 03-009, which is the rezone of
6.39 acres for Stapleton Subdivision. PP 03-019, preliminary plat approval, and CUP
03-034, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, all for
Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates at 3680 West Ustick Road, to
December 16, 2003, regular agenda.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue all the items for Stapleton
Subdivision, CPA 03-003, RZ 03-009, PP 03-019, and CUP 03-034, for the proposed
Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates until December 16, 2003. Anna, does
that give you ample time?
Powell: I think it will give us enough time to clarify the issues and come up with a time
line. Obviously, it would nit give us enough time to come up with appropriate standards
or something like that, but I think we can come to an agreement on where we need to
go from here and present that to the Council at that time.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Are you ready for the question?
Bird: Question.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9.
Public Hearing: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Sprinqs Subdivision by
JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9,2003
Pg.10of55
Item 10.
Public Hearing: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59
building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Soda SprinQs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and
2384 East Victory Road:
Item 11.
Public Hearing: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a m ix of single-family detached residential lot
sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Sprinqs Subdivision by JLJ
Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
De Weerd: We never go through our agenda this quickly, so you are in luck. We will go
ahead and open the public hearings on Items No.9, 10 and 11, on AZ 03-023, request
for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Soda
Springs Subdivision; PP 03-027, request for preliminary plat approval of 59 building lots
and 8 other lots on 11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Soda Spring Subdivision and
CUP 03-043, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a mix
of single family detached residential lot sizes and amenities for Soda Springs
Subdivision and I will open with staff comments, but I will give an overview of the Public
Hearing process. W e start with public -- or staff comments, we ask the applicant to
come forward and they have ten minutes to give a presentation on the application in
addition to what our staff has already shared from the staff perspective and, then, we do
accept public testimony both for and against the project or even the ones that just want
to make comments. Those are three minutes in length. And then the applicant has a
chance to comment on any of the questions or comments that were raised in the public
testimony. So, Anna, we will open with staff comments.
Powell: Thank you, Ma'am President, Members of the Council. This project is on
Victory Road about mid mile. The street to the west is Locust Grove. There is a
neighborhood center planned on the Comprehensive Plan is located south of this
property, so this would be immediately north of that neighborhood center. There are a
couple of homes on the existing properties and it is surrounded by Sherbrooke Hollows
and Thousands Springs. There is one property to the east that still remains in a rural
estate development we will call it. The applicant is coming forward with a planned
development. These photos are the tot lot similar to what they are proposing in the
development. I need a faster laptop. Pardon me.
De Weerd: She's just trying to take up for the time that we should have --
Bird: She's trying to make sure we donlt get out too early.
Powell: Sorry about that. This is the first time I have had it slow down quite that much.
This is the proposed subdivision. They do have a number of detached single family
properties proposed along the Victory frontage, along the common border with
Sherbrooke Hollows. This is proposed as the open space lot. It does adjoin the open
space lot within Sherbrooke Hollows. There is a canal running at the north of the
property and I believe one of the amenities is still to provide a public pathway along that
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 11 of 55
canal and the tot lot would be located within this park area. There is also one drainage
lot here. There is a pedestrian connection out to Victory Road in this location here. As
you will note, this is an alley, so the homes in this interior of the subdivision are alley
loaded and they have asked for reduced frontages and reduced setbacks within these
areas. This road, basically, runs just a bout u P tot he property I ine for t his adjoining
property and the Planning and Zoning Commission did workout a suitable fencing
arrangement for that property until such time as that person is ready to develop. This is
the landscape plan for the northern portion of the property and you can see the park
again. This was an older version. Since this one was done they have removed this lot
to enlarge this park area. They do provide ten percent open space as one amenity and,
then, the park -- the tot lot was the second amenity. This is the landscaping proposed
out along Victory Road. We h ad asked in 0 ur original staff report to show how the
houses that the applicant was proposing, how they fit on some of the reduced lots. This
is an example of that. They are asking for a nine foot setback on the alley for the
garage. I did want to comment on that a little bit. Typically, we see a 20 foot setback,
the idea being that 20 feet is long enough to park a car outside, it would be, basically,
an off-street parking area. In this instance, you have an alley, so you have on-street
parking along the regular street, off-street parking is not as necessary in these cases,
and, then, you do want a reduced distance such as this, because the idea is you don't
want -- if you had 12 or 13 feet, people would be tempted to park their Suburban there
and, then, have two feet overhanging. I fyou have only got nine feet, then, there is
much less temptation to park and block that alleyway. So, staff was in support of the
reduced rear setbacks for the alley loaded properties. They have also asked for a
reduced front setback of 15 feet, which would be consistent with the zoning ordinance,
actually, right now, because we do allow the residential or the living areas to come
forward on any standard lot. These are some of the homes that are being proposed.
They are similar to ones that are out at Quenzer Commons or Heritage Commons.
There is two primary builders represented here. One is Roth Homes, the other is the
Todd Campbell Homes as seen here. Just to reiterate, they are coming forward with a
Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. They have provided those
amenities. They are also coming forward with a rezone to R-8 to accommodate the
development. The density is within the range proposed by the Comprehensive Plan.
They have asked for reduced setbacks on the interior of the project primarily and they
do come forward with a recommendation from the Planning a nd Zoning Commission
and with that I will answer any questions you may have, other than why my computer is
not working.
De Weerd: I don't have any at this time. Council?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Anna, you said Planning and Zoning passed these all on the recommendation --
Powell: Yes, sir.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 12 of 55
Bird: -- for approval. And what about staff?
Powell: Yes. Staff had always recommended approval.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Anna, the ten percent open space, is that -- does that include that drainage
lot or is it usable?
Powell: It says -- 11m being told it's usable, so that would mean that it's not going to be a
wet pond, so it would include that. 11m not sure how tight their calculation was. They did
add property up to the top to make that ten percent. I think there was some original
concerns when it went through Planning and Zoning, because the area to the north of
the canal really wasn't considered usable open space, because it wasn't accessible, so I
think they went back and they did add open space to achieve that ten percent minimum.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nary has arrived.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: And which is good timing, because we will just now hear from the applicant.
Is the applicant -- would you like to come forward?
Suggs: Good evening, Council. Oh. Excuse me.
De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Suggs: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Suggs: My name is Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street in Boise, and 11m here representing
JLJ Enterprises and the Soda Springs development.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Suggs: Go back to the cliche of pictures being worth a thousand words. I will be brief
and I will show you a lot of pictures.
De Weerd: Jane, are these pictures available, so the people here to testify can also see
them as well?
Suggs: Most of them have been. The only ones that you have that haven't been
available before are photographs from the Sherbrooke Hollows neighborhood. We have
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9,2003
Pg. 13 of 55
been showing you photographs and you were shown by the staff photos of the homes --
Roth Homes and Todd Campbell Homes and those are the homes you have pictures of.
I have also included some photographs from the Sherbrooke Hollows neighborhood, so
there are lots of neighbors here, so I thought maybe it would be appropriate to show
them.
De Weerd: So Anna will be showing it --
Powell: I can make those available.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Suggs: Thank you. I have also handed out the most recent copy of the landscape plan.
If you'd put that up for me, just so you will have a larger copy. This is the plan that was
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. As always, the staff, I think, has
done a great job' of outlining some of the project specifics and so I just wanted to go
over that just really briefly. We have, actually, reviewed the conditions of approval and
have no problems with the conditions, except for one, and I might ask Brad to clarify.
We did get this clarified by Bruce at the Planning and Zoning Commission and that is
one of the conditions that states that the sewer is 30 some hundred feet away and it's
my understanding, according to Bruce, that we will be able to use the sewer that goes
through the Sherbrooke Hollows neighborhood. Maybe he might address that, because
there was disagreement in the last staff report on that and he clarified that we would be
able to use. It's a backwards sewer, I think.
Watson: Madam President, do you want me to answer that right now?
De Weerd: Yes.
Watson: If that's what Bruce testified previously, 11m sure that we discussed that. There
is capacity in that trunk through Sherbrooke at this point. Ultimately, it will be connected
directly westward on Victory Road to the larger Ten Mile trunk and even beyond that
ultimately it will be diverted to the future Black Cat trunk.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad.
Suggs: Thanks for that clarification. I just saw that in the conditions that we just picked
up yesterday. I wanted to make sure that we had gotten that cleared up, because 3,400
feet of sewer is a lot different from the sewer that's just right out by our property. Just
going through this, Soda Springs Subdivision is n ow a subdivision 0 f 57 lots, not 5 9
single family lots. The lots range in size from 3,500 square feet to 6,500 square feet.
We, actually, have lost two of the larger lots, the 6,500 square feet, through our process
of meeting with the neighbors and also through the Planning and Zoning Commission
and it's these two lots right here. There were two lots here when we first came in with
au r a ppl ication, now w e have lost two 0 f t hose lots to increase au r 0 pen space. We
have a gross density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre, which certainly meets the
c
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 14 of 55
Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density residential. I just wanted to talk a
little bit about the process. When even -- didn't even have an idea of how we wanted to
arrange the site, we met with the staff to talk a little bit about housing needs in the city
and what we understood was one of the areas that Meridian really needed in this part of
Meridian south of the freeway was mid range housing and that would appeal to folks
that wanted to step up from entry level housing, but didn't really want the larger -- the
largest home and a large lot, and I kind of think that folks like me, sort of professionals --
I would call them young urban professionals, but I'm not so young anymore, but
professionals who live an active lifestyle, folks that don't really need a big yard, that are
very attracted to the alley-loaded lots. That's something that I was looking for when I
bought a house. Didn't find one in Boise that I could afford. We are hoping to do that
here. You have seen some of the pictures from two of the builders that we have been
talking to that want to represent themselves with this project, Todd Campbell Homes
and Roth Homes, and they specialize in quality homes in the range of 1,200 square feet
to 2,000 square feet. We also took a look at the size of the 11 acre site and those land
uses that were surrounding the site. To the north and the west of us is Sherbrooke
Hollows neighborhood and Thousand Springs Subdivision and these have nice larger
homes on 8,000 square foot lots. To the east is the undeveloped piece of property, a
four acre parcel with a single family home, and to the south is the Tuscany Village
Subdivision that you have heard about that's under construction right now and is a piece
of property that isn't yet developed, it's owned by the DeChambeau family and that is
the area that's shown on your Comprehensive Plan as a neighborhood center, kind of a
neighborhood commercial area. We think that the densities provided by this, actually,
will help make that type of neighborhood commercial happen. We definitely feel that
Soda Spring, with the mix of lot sizes and home styles is kind of the answer to the area
that already has a lot of 8,000 square foot homes -- I mean 8,000 square foot lots. We
really weren't interested in just putting more of the same out there, we wanted to do
something just a little bit different to provide some variety in that particular
neighborhood. Again, this is mid range level housing for professionals and maybe even
empty nesters and it's not an entry level subdivision. We have had quite a bit of
interest in this project from our neighbors in the Sherbrooke Hollows and Thousand
Springs neighborhoods and I'm sure they are here tonight to talk to you about those
concerns. We have had two meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the neighbors have testified at both of those hearings. The Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation of approval comes after hearing those concerns and we
did talk about those concerns during those meetings. I think you will probably hear from
the neighbors some concerns about depreciation of property values and I don't know
that there is anything I could really say here tonight that would convince the neighbors
that we are not going to depreciate their values, what I think is that when you add a
diversity of housing in a neighborhood you can only increase values. If we added more
of the same, I think it might have a different result. The density meets the
Comprehensive Plan for that area. It's designed as medium density residential and
even though we are asking for the density R-8, that's for the lot sizes, we will be
developing this at a density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre and since our original
submittal, as I mentioned, we have lost two of the 6,500 square foot lots, so we are now
at 57 lots. There was discussion at the neighborhood meeting and also at the Planning
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 15 of 55
and Zoning Commission by the neighbors about concerns with traffic. I believe since we
have this access to Victory Road that's where the traffic really should be. We were,
actually, a little bit concerned that we didn't have a stub street into the Sherbrooke
Hollows neighborhood, as you would typically see. We had no place to go but to
Victory Road and that works out I think for Sherbrooke Hollows, because there will be
no cut-through traffic from this neighborhood. We have, in fact, believing that this left
over piece of property that may not be developed soon and the property owners are
here tonight and maintain that they will be there, but we wanted to provide an
opportunity for that next parcel, if it did develop, that it wouldn't have to do the same
thing, take a strange access off of Victory, it could come through our neighborhood as
we have shown with this portion of street here. This is a lot of street for the developer to
build, but I think it's appropriate, since that last lot is only about four acres. We did have
a very well attended meeting with the neighbors on Thursday, October 25th, and there
were lots of different opinions about the project. Just a few of the things that we have
agreed to through that process. We will be constructing cedar fencing behind the 6,500
square foot lots. Those are along the north and the west side of the property, all along
here. There is chain link fence there now and so the property owner said they wanted
to have something to kind of provide some separation between the types of housing.
We will build only one story houses to back up to Sherbrooke Hollows if they are only
one story houses behind us, so if the Sherbrooke Hollows homes are one story, we will
build one story. And everybody agrees that a one story home does include a bonus
room over the garage, but if there is just a one story behind us, that bonus room will not
have a window facing the back. So, you won't have a window looking out over the rear.
That's all coming from the homeowners and agreements that we have made with them.
Now, on these lots we are agreeing to home sizes -- these are the larger lots right here.
We are agreeing to home sizes 1 ,500 square foot homes for one story and 1 ,750 for
two story homes. These are the same home sizes that are minimums. They are
minimums and they are the same sizes that are in the Sherbrooke Hollows
neighborhood. So, we are agreeing to the same home sizes as we back up to them.
Even though the Meridian code does call for some smaller homes starting at about
1 ,001 square feet, we want to commit to some -- a little bit larger home sizes and this is,
again, working with the neighborhood, 1 ,300 square foot homes, one story only, that
back up to Victory Road. That's a minimum. And in the neo-traditional homes here that
have the alleyways in the center of the project, the one story homes will be 1 ,300
square feet and the two story homes will be 1 ,600 square feet and those are all
commitments that we have made through the Planning and Zoning Commission as part
of the record and something we wanted to do. When we originally submitted we said we
would just meet the code for the City of Meridian, which has a range of sizes, but we
wanted to do something that would be a little bit larger for the neighbors. Just to
summarize, we are asking your approval of the Soda Springs planned development with
annexation with R-8 zone and this is with the plat that was approved, the latest plat. We
also agree to the conditions of the cedar fencing. Oh, I wanted to add we are going to
provide cedar fencing here to -- along this side of the property. We talked to the
property owners at the last public meeting and they agree to allow us to set it off onto
their property, so that we wouldn't have to put it in the ACHD right of way. They don't
really like that. But they said they did want a cedar fence there also. We do have ten
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg.16of55
percent open space. When you mentioned, Mayor -- President, that we were using the
drainage lot, this is included in our open space. This area up here that is part of the
canal we are not including in our open space, it's just space that's there, it's not included
in any of our calculations. This entire area will be improved. There is a ditch that runs
through here. This whole area will be improved, so it can be a park. We show the tot
lot and we also would like to see that the open space here in this Sherbrooke Hollows
neighborhood can also be combined to make a much nicer play area for both of the
neighborhoods. That will really be up to the Sherbrooke Hollows neighborhood to see if
they actually want that to happen. Right now it could remain fenced as two separate
open spaces. We will be installing -- we will be installing, as shown on this plan, part of
the pathway system that right now doesn't go anywhere, because there isn't a pathway
system through the Sherbrooke Hollows neighborhood, but in the case that it could be
constructed at some time, that's part of your Comprehensive Plan showing a regional
pathway system there. So, we are asking for your approval with the fencing as noted,
the landscaping as you see it. The lot sizes that I have talked about, that I have
mentioned that were a part of the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission and with the sewer issue cleared up that we can go through the
Sherbrooke Hollows sewer and not 3,400 feet down the road, so I can stand for some
questions and if you want to have any questions about some of the photographs.
De Weerd: Anna, I just think it's appropriate if you show what we have in front of us and
if you, Jane, want to make any comments as to, you know, why they are in front of us.
Suggs: I took some pictures of the Sherbrooke Hollows neighborhood and always felt
that was appropriate when we last had our public meeting we were talking about
different houses and the Sherbrooke Hollows neighbors were talking about their houses
and they are on larger lots, they are with three car garages, and so I just -- I took a few
-- they are very nice homes. So, we wanted to take some pictures from some very nice
homes and this is a street scape. I'm actually standing at the cul-de-sac looking south
on -- and the houses there on the left back up to us on our west side.
De Weerd: And I think the other packet of pictures were in your presentation, Anna?
Those were the house styles that you had talked about.
Powell: T hey a re similar. They a re n at identical tot he ones, b ut t hey a re the same
units, for the most part. Some of them are identical.
De Weerd: Okay. And if you can show this -- did you put this plat up? Oh. Okay. Thank
you. It's the same as the display. So, Jane, I guess just to clarify in your presentation, in
your ten percent open space you're not including the pathway, but you are including the
drainage lot?
Suggs: I am including the drainage lot, b-ut I'm not including the portion of the easement
that -- ifs an easement here for the canal. There is a large canal that runs here and it's
raised and there is a large -- I believe it's 50 feet of land there that is just unusable. The
(
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 17 of 55
canal is up high. We will put a fence down at the base of the canal and, then, we will
run the pathway on our side of the fence, so it's accessible.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, you couldn't count that, because it wouldn't be usable.
Suggs: Yes. That part is not usable, so we are not including it in any of our calculations.
De Weerd: But you are including the drainage lot as usable open space.
Suggs: Yes. It will be designed so that only -- all the nuisance water will flow
underground and go through it, it won't go -- stand there, it goes into a ditch that runs --
and you can see the tapa lines right here. Goes into this ditch. It will be graded, so that
it could be used as a play area.
De Weerd: So, what kind of drainage system do you have in there? Is it a retention or a
detention?
Suggs: It's a detention. The water will -- it doesn't stay forever, it will infiltrate into the
ground and I believe there is a pipe underneath through it.
De Weerd: So, it will not breed mosquitoes.
Suggs: No. It should be just a grassy lot most of the time. It won't have any standing
water in it, except in severe storms. That's why you want it there.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: How deep is that lot going to be?
Suggs: I believe it's two to three feet deep. I wish my engineer was here, but you
moved through your agenda a little bit faster, so I might have to ask -- three feet.
Nary: So, basically, it's a little slope and then three feet below the grade, all flat?
Suggs: Flat at the bottom, so -- yeah. It comes off the property line, it slopes -- I think
they do it now at three to one or maybe even four to one, just so you can maintain them,
and, then, there is a flat area at the bottom.
Nary: Have you ever seen people using that for something?
Suggs: Kids will go over there and just ride their bikes around in it, probably, but --
Nary: I said have you ever seen --
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg.18of55
Suggs: Have I ever seen them? 11m from Charlotte, North Carolina, and, yes, all the
time. We built them, because we got a lot of rain and we had big ones and they
became places where people would gather. Yeah, they do.
Nary: On that street, their main entranceway there off of -- is that Victory?
Suggs: Right here. This is Victory right here.
Nary: Right. Okay. How long is that entranceway to the rear street there? How far is
that?
Suggs: lid have to get a plat to see.
Powell: Councilmember Nary, it would be about 550, I think.
Bird: Yeah. 550.
Powell: To the far -- to the north end of the street.
Nary: Was there any thought about some way to break up that straight line? I mean we
are talking almost two football fields worth of driving surface, so --
Suggs: Originally, our application came in with our entrance here. ACHD made us
move that over, because we were too close to the Sherbrooke Hollows entrance and
this was the only place we could really come in without, again, impacting this side of the
project. We had to come in the middle. It wasn't our first choice, but --
Nary: That's not my question. My question is from Victory to that it's 550 feet, so have
you thought of anything to make sure that that traffic doesn't end up driving very quickly
through that space?
Suggs: Only that -- it would only be the traffic that would come -- it would only be this
traffic -- these homes here. I would imagine these homes would turn and go up the
alley, so these -- I'm trying to figure out how much exactly traffic that would be -- it would
be a limited amount of traffic. We are very limited on our -- as you can see by the little
plot plan that Anna put up, we are sort of limited on our lots themselves to put any kind
of roundabout 0 rather kind 0 f traffic c aiming. I mean it would b e a nice idea, b ut I
couldn't do that and build these lots, so --
Nary: How about at that first intersection?
Suggs: Once, again, it would reduce the lot sizes, so we would lose here. Again, 11m
just thinking about the number of cars. These cars here will go this way to go into their
front loaded drives. These will all probably -- there might be a few houses right here
that come straight up, but most of these houses will be accessed by -- their cars will be
accessed in the alleys, the regular traffic, so it would be a limited number of cars.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg.19of55
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Is there anything
further you had?
Suggs: One of the things I didn't point out, but I think I should, probably, is that -- just
the street scape. We are showing separated sidewalks with five foot planter strips, so
we are trying to do something a little different with the alley loaded lots with the kind of
different sizes of homes and a nice street scape. I think it's just a little different and I
think you'll really like it.
De Weerd: Jane, I guess I do have one last question and you mentioned that you had a
neighborhood meeting on October 25th and that some of the items of limiting one story
behind the one story, with the square footage minimums on those perimeter lots and
some of those, those were concessions from that meeting or had they already been part
of the planning and zoning process?
Suggs: Definitely part of the meeting. We had the meetings prior to the public hearings
with Planning and Zoning, so we did sit down and we did start talking about home sizes
at that meeting with the neighbors. It was very well attended and I would say we were
trying to maybe join the Sherbrooke Hollows homeowners association, but during the
Public Hearing process they had represented to us that it wouldn1t be possible to do
that, but we did want to match their home sizes along the perimeter. That was one of
the things we felt we should at least do, since home sizes was a concern of theirs, so
we wanted to do that. But, yes, it was through the public -- it was through the
neighborhood meeting that we started talking about wanting the fencing, wanting the
home sizes, something other than the minimum that we have applied for and when we
made our application before the Public Hearing process started, our first application we
just asked for the standard Meridian code sizes of homes.
De Weerd: Okay. And what were your net densities before that meeting?
Suggs: We had 59 lots, instead of 57 lots, so it was 5.3, I think, and now it's 5.2.
De Weerd: Okay.
Suggs: Those are the densities based on our entire site.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. I do have a sign-up list
and do we have a homeowner's association spokesperson? In those cases we give
you ten minutes to present your concerns and since you're speaking on behalf of a
majority of homeowners, would you like to start -- and just to clarify, because you speak
for more than just an individual, we do give more minutes for your testimony. If you will,
please, raise your right hand. D 0 you promise to tell the t ruth, the whole t ruth, a nd
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
/
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 20 of 55
Semaha: So help me God.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Semaha: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the City Council. My name
is Lucian Semaha and I live on 3036 South Grimes Creek Avenue in Sherbrooke
Hollows and I'm also presently the president of the board of Sherbrooke Hollows. So,
with that lid like, maybe, to yield some of my time to some of the folks that maybe would
like to state their 0 pinion, just in case we s kip ani dea 0 r two, sot hey w ill have t he
opportunity to speak their mind as well. First of all, let me say this also on behalf of the
neighborhood, that we are not opposed to a development adjacent to us. The true
concern that we have is density and, especially, because it's one of the last in-fill lots
that are going on that stretch of Victory and, of course, we are surrounded by Sageland
and now Soda Springs and other subdivisions, you know, behind us as well. Our
concern is the impact and we keep hearing that this is a community that they are going
to build and for the record also we only had one meeting and that was on September
the 25th, where us and the developer -- initially we got introduced to what is going into
that particular in-fill piece of land and since, then, we have not heard anything -- I mean
formally with the neighborhood. So, there were no other meetings, you know, after
September the 25th and, then, of course, we had two meetings with the Planning and
Zoning I believe in October and, then, in November, I believe, for the record. So, there
are a lot of questions up in the air as far as we are concerned, but we truly, as we speak
tonight, we donlt have a clear picture of what truly is going to transpire and take place.
We hear the big picture, but we don't hear the particulars and I will get to those points in
just a minute. So, density is one concern and one of our board members is going to
eloquently, you know, address that issue, so 11m going to leave that to the side. But
density is really a concern that we have. If you compare Sageland, which is the same
piece of property, one is ten acres, this one is 11, and, by the way, based one of the
comments that were made by the developer last meeting at the Planning and Zoning,
that Sageland has only close to six or thereabout acres usable for building. I just talked
to them tonight and they have nine. So, they are putting 39 to close to 40 homes on
nine acres versus 57 on ten acres. So, that's really the concern that we have. And the
other issues are traffic. Based on the study from the city, the Soda Springs will generate
600 trips a day, just this particular development. Sageland, based on the calculations,
will develop another 400 trips a day. Tuscany will develop, by the time it's all complete,
6,200 trips a day and Sherbrooke is already generating around 1 ,700 trips a day. So,
only on that stretch, before the south side is developed, we are facing already an
approximate 9,000 vehicle trips a day by the time these developments are in. That is
also, approximately, if I d id m y calculations by 3 0 days, if t hat's true, I mean simple
math, that's 270,000 trips a month. To me it sounded like unreal. It's like where are
these numbers coming from? But I just put the formula together based on a report that
I have, you know, in my possession, how many trips are generated a day and it's unreal.
I mean there is a deep concern -- I mean we are not opposed to development, in all due
honesty, it's just we have to live there. We already live there. This hasn't been
developed yet and we are reaching out to the City Council tonight for some reason to
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 21 of 55
maybe have a happy medium, maybe something that would make this whole thing
cohesive and more livable, not to say that this development today is not livable, of
course, it is, but what is the impact on the rest of the neighborhood. That's, really, what
we are talking about. The other thing that, you know, came to mind -- and I will quote
some of the comments that were made by the City Council people, you know, in this
chamber about the fire response. I mean you have alley loaded, you know, homes and
so t hey a re s 0 close -- I mean zero I ine IOt8, P er s e, I mean five feet a part a t best,
maybe, if that's the case, and if a fire is to happen, the City Council member -- I think
Mr. Zaremba, if I'm correct, addressed that issue, and he was truly -- am I correct?
Nary: Planning and Zoning.
Semaha: Planning and zoning. I'm sorry. Was truly concerned about that and I would --
I would quote just briefly 0 ne sentence 0 f what h e said that 8 ummarizes, you know,
many sentences that I could say and we -- here we go. And here are the comments. It
scares me to be approving anymore developments until I see ground being broken on a
fire station south of the interstate on Locust Grove over pass. I mean -- and 11m getting
to that point from other -- and, then, Mr. Borup: I would be interested in what the fire
department has to say and we don't have anything on the record, because we have the
general -- according to what we heard from the Planning and Zoning, is that they have
the general letter, but they don't have a f ire response letter. S 0, we are concerned
about that. What is the fire response in case of an emergency, because as you see this
particular, you know, subdivision has only one main entry and one main exit. It doesn't
have two, like Soda Springs where, you know, people could maneuver in and out from
two different places. They only have one side and that's on Victory. I mean we are not
connected, for t hat matter. S 0, these a re concerns that, you know, we a re trying to
address tonight. The other thing is -- is the irrigation issues, which I probably won't
touch on, but we heard tonight that also Sageland and Soda Springs would be tapping
into the existing irrigation system of Sherbrooke Hollows. So, we would like more
clarification as to how this is going to proceed, so, hopefully, that won't impact us as an
existing neighborhood in any negative way. So, we have a concern about that as well.
The other thing that -- in meetings it kept referring to we are going to do -- we are going
to use the CC&R's and the covenants and restrictions of Sherbrooke Hollows. In all due
respect, if you look at Sherbrooke Hollows and you look at Soda Springs, they are
apples and oranges. They are not the same neighborhood -- I mean developments. I
mean one is a mixed use development and the other one is just R-4 and one -- or R-2,
for that matter, and the other one is R-8. So, we -- and we were referred to Heritage
Commons, so we recommend tonight that the CC&R'S, that we haven't seen, you know,
because the Planning and Zoning asked them to provide their own CC&Rls, which we
haven't seen. We recommend that they be comparable to the Heritage Commons ones,
because I think Heritage Commons, if you have been there -- I donlt know if you have
been there, we have, because we were recommended to be there, it would fit right here
to have those covenants and restrictions, because they are comparable, even though
one is big and one is small, but it's the same idea. So, we recommend that. The other
thing that -- in the application of the developer, they had -- one thing we didn't
understand, one of the things that they are asking for is five feet or a zero setback on
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 22 of 55
the small lots of 4,000 square feet. I mean why zero? I mean is there a reason to why
it needs to be a zero with this density? I donlt know. So, we -- I mean maybe five is
good enough as a minimum, instead of a zero, so weld like you to address that as well.
The other thing, the developer mentioned the fence that he is willing to put alongside
Sherbrooke Hollows -- and I would use this at this moment and it would be, I think, from
here all the way to here -- to here, I believe, and, then, it was recommended that he
would leave it, you know, chain link here and I believe chain link there; is that correct?
After talking to the neighbors and there was mention that this open space could be open
to this open space, I am here to tell you -- thank you. I am here to tell that you according
to the neighborhood, it's not going to be open. So, that is not a discussion item for the
future to open it or not to open it. Sherbrooke Hollows, according to the residents of
Sherbrooke Hollows, they'd like to see it Sherbrooke is Sherbrooke, Soda Spring is
Soda Springs, because that's the way -- and so we would like the fence to be extended
this way and that way to provide the privacy for Sherbrooke Hollows, if possible, since
the developer per is kind enough and was courteous enough to go ahead and one last
thing on that particular fence, we are also requesting that the post would be galvanized
steel post and not the wooden ones, because, then, in the future who is going to take
care of it, if it's not a neighbor -- you know, a neighbor friendly, you know, fence, who is
going to take care of it --
De Weerd: Thank you.
Semaha: -- at this point. I had many other -- a few more points, but I guess my time is
up, so I will leave it right there.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You said that Sherbrooke is R-2Is.
Semaha: I'm sorry?
Bird: You said it was R-2 in Sherbrooke?
Semaha: I'm actually -- if I used the wrong term. I'm referring to regular residential.
Bird: R-4.
Semaha: R-4's. I apologize for that.
Bird: No problem.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 23 of 55
Semaha: Okay. And just for the record, the pictures you saw in Sherbrooke, there are
many homes that are 250 to 300 thousand dollar homes in that particular subdivision.
The ones you saw, they are the entry level homes at the entry of Sherbrooke, just for
the record.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We will go ahead and go down the list. We have three
minutes for each individual. Kathy Thompson, do you want to testify?
Thompson: I don't think I want to testify, but just to reiterate what Lucian has --
De Weerd: Or do we want to first just -- all those who agree with the spokesperson's
comments, if you will raise your hand. Thank you. So with that said, if there is anyone
else who would like to come forward and provide additional testimony, please, step
forward. Please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ferguson: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Ferguson: Douglas Ferguson, 2112 East Dwarshack.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Ferguson: Our -- my particular concern -- and I'm a member of the board -- is that this
location here fora retention pond presents a particular concern of ours. We, in our
subdivision, have several retention ponds and we are now being faced with having to do
some special landscaping, if you will, in those ponds putting in some large aggregate
and those type of things, because of mosquito issues. It's been a continuing problem.
We -- in one area along East Lake Creek we put in large five inch rock to the tune of
about 11 inches or so to eliminate a mosquito problem. We now have another retention
pond over on Bayou Bar, I believe it is. We are also being faced with having to put in
some kind of a medium to eliminate a breeding ground. So, the characterization that
this i s,n ot going toe reate a mosquito problem and that this is a wonderful p lace for
children to play is -- would be far from an accurate depiction of what that is, actually,
going to be. It is, in fact, going to be a breeding location for mosquitoes. Those are the
hard cold facts, unless they are prepared to do the aggregate and that type of thing.
The problem with once you do the aggregate, then, you lose your open space
declaration, if you will. It is not a place you would have children play, unless you want to
have lawsuits with broken toes and feet and arms and so forth, kids running through five
inch rock. What we would propose is that this location be placed over here and the
reason why is because we have residents that live right here and we understand that
you have to have a retention pond. Those are the rules. And so we are not necessarily
opposed a retention pond, but we are opposed to a breeding location of mosquitoes
backing up to residents here in the Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision. My second point is
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 24 of 55
that unless the map has been changed or modified, these lots here all along the front,
are 90 foot wide -- or 90 foot in length lots. These lots here are 90 feet in depth and J'm
in the real estate business, I do this for a living, and Jim and I know each other. I am
currently marketing a subdivision in Caldwell, it has lots that are 98 feet deep and some
of the homes that we are putting on there are 13 to 14 hundred square feet homes.
They only have 15 to 17 foot backyards. I can only imagine if these houses here are
going to end up backing up to this major thoroughfare here and they are probably going
to have I would guess an estimated average of a 10 to 12 foot setback, my solution to
this -- not just bringing up the problem --
De Weerd: If you can also summarize, please.
Ferguson: In summary, I would lengthen these lots to 100 feet and I would lose these
four lots right here to do that. And you might also be able to address Councilman Naryls
concern about this road system. If you lose those, you might be able to create some
kind of a deal there. Any questions?
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Okay, sir. . Is the
testimony you provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Hansen: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Hansen: Marvin Hansen, 2460 East Victory Road. I own the property that's east of
them. It would be this property over here. On the last meeting with the Planning and
Zoning, we agreed to let them put the fence on our property. What I didn't think of at the
time is they need to take this fence -- and I think it needs to be in the association --
neighborhood association, that if there is any damage to the fence, if ten years from
now it falls over, that they need to be responsible for this fence, fixing it financially and
physically. It will be on my property and I got thinking maybe I will be responsible for
that. I don't want to be responsible for that, because that's a lot of fence. They are the
ones putting in the subdivision, so that needs to be their responsibility. If they are going
to put street lights along right through here, I request that they be hooded on my side.
Both of my bedrooms are on that end of the house. I donlt want all those lights shining
right into my bedrooms and if they are going to change the retention pond and put it
over here, there is enough mosquitoes at my house. If they are going to put a retention
pond in, they need to put the gravel or the large rocks of whatever, because there is
already too many mosquitoes out there. And 11m concerned about the traffic. I'm not
going to go into all that, because it's been done. My wife goes to work at 8:00 o'clock,
she leaves between 7:30 and a quarter to 8 :00 sometimes, she can't get out 0 four
driveway now. We are approximately a half a mile from the intersection of Victory at
Eagle and not everyday, but quite often the traffic is backed up and stopped in front of
our driveway. S he c anlt 9 et 0 ut sometimes. S he h as tot urn right, g 0 u P to Locust
Grove and go clear around the block to get out of the driveway to go to work. So, the
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 25 of 55
traffic is a concern and I'm concerned about the density also, but that's been spoken, so
I'm not going to go into that. And I think that's all I have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Are there any questions, Council? Thank you.
Hansen: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Just find your
way forward. Is the testimony you provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Klinga: It is.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Klinga: My name is Jeffrey Klinga. I live at 2242 East Mackay Court.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Klinga: I have concerns about our pressurized irrigation system if the new -- if the Soda
Springs Subdivision were to tap into it. I have installed many sprinkler systems. I
understand the basic physics of water availability. It's commonly known as gallons per
minute and there is, basically, three factors that determine that. Water pressure, line
size, and the distance the water travels. It's simply -- the irrigation system simply will
not work with present equipment if another subdivision taps into it. It would -- to make
that work it would take major equipment renovations, there would have to be at least a
much larger pump or additional pumps. There would have to be a larger feeder line
installed to make this work. Our sprinkler irrigation system right now is simply tapped
out for the number of houses that are in Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision. If this
renovation work was done, the upgrades would disrupt our service and it would be my
guess that it would be during the time that the irrigation water is needed, spring and
summer. I feel that if this subdivision is to go in, they should be tasked with putting in
their own irrigation system, simply put. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Is the testimony you
provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Godby: It is.
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Godby: My name is Louise Godby. I live at 2238 East Mackay Court. My questions are
basically concerns regarding safety, particularly with the houses in the middle. You
have got, what, 35, 45 foot houses, you have got no setback to where there is no
parking at the back for the -- in the alleys, because they are too close to the garage. I
went through our subdivision the other night after the last Council meeting. We have
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 26 of 55
160 homes. There were 80 vehicles parked either on the street or in driveways. My
concerns are from a safety issue. If -- and that's, you know, basically, one every other
house. If there is no place for these center lots to park in a driveway and their garage is
used for other things like play toys and gym equipment, et cetera, et cetera, there is
going to be no room to walk around or to drive around their subdivision, because it's
going to be wall-to-wall cars all the way around the corner.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Is the testimony you
provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
N.Hansen: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
N.Hansen: My name is Nancy Hansen and I also live at 2460 East Victory Road, which
is the property to the east of the development.
De Weerd: Thank you.
N.Hansen: And I just wanted to clarify. We had brought up at the Planning and Zoning
meeting about the irrigation access, that it may have to be moved due to this
development. We just wanted to be sure that it was agreed upon that they would pay
for it -- if it cost any money for the irrigation access to be moved for our property, that
they would have to pay for that. And then another thing I wanted to bring up is the two
lots that they are using for the tot park, during previous developments for other
properties, they had done some bubble tests, I think they are called. they can1t build on
one of those lots. The other one maybe they can, but the water table is too high. So, it's
not really usable property for one of those lots. Anyway, that was in a previous
development that was being planned before this. So, I just wanted to bring that up,
because I think it's gotten lost. Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Is the testimony you provide
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Buckland: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Buckland: My name is Gene Buckland. I live on 3003 South Gold Bar. I have another
question. In the Planning and Zoning committee meeting, as Lucian mentioned, one of
the committee -- or the Council members had mentioned that it took almost eight
minutes to get from the fire department to this subdivision. He did it during a low traffic
period time of the day. If Lucian calculated that 9,000 more trips per day is going to
occur, how much longer is it going to take for an emergency response vehicle to make it
to this subdivisio.n? Also, in the three years that I have lived in Sherbrooke Hollows, I
can count on one hand how many times I have seen police officers in my subdivision
(
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 27 of 55
and I would still have digits left over. When you add more homes into an area, it stands
to reason that you're going to get a certain percentage rise in crime. You're going to
add more vehicles commuting to this area. How much longer is it going to take for our
police department to respond also? The lady that just spoke mentioned that these
people are going to have difficulty parking along side the road. We all know no .one is
going to have parties in their homes and when they do they are not going to have
guests -- where are those people going to park? They are going to park along side the
road. These roads are 29 feet wide. When we were at Planning and Zoning committee,
they -- or meeting, I noticed that another subdivision had a smaller density than this,
about the same land area, but Ada County -- or, no, it was the fire department, I'm sorry.
The fire department requested that they widen the roads to 33 feet to give them better
access, because there was only one entryway into the subdivision and they also had an
emergency thing just like this one right here. They had one on that one also. So, if it
was choked off by traffic or for whatever reason, or maybe thafs where the accident is,
they at least have another access. But they had to widen their roads. That's the only
comment I have.
De Weerd: Thank you. And we will ask the Fire Department to respond to the
questions, so you can hear their answer. Thank you.
Buckland: Thank you.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Is the testimony you provide the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Jewett: Yes, it is.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jewett: Jim Jewett, 3654 South Rustler in Meridian. My engineer isn't here yet, so 11m
going to stand in for him to answer the questions on irrigation and the drainage. We
told him we didn't think weld get to it until 9:00, so he had basketball. First of all, on the
irrigation system, it's Nampa-Meridianls desire that, you know, we upgrade the existing
pumping station that Nampa-Meridian owns out there and they have sent us a detailed
list of all the improvements that need to be made to service both this subdivision and
the Sageland Subdivision and we have agreed to be the lead on that if we get our
approval. We will make those improvements and we will make them prior to the
irrigation season, so we will not interrupt any of the irrigators in Sherbrooke Hollows. It
is quite an expensive upgrade that needs to be done. There is, actually, upgrades that
need to be done to currently service Sherbrooke. It is a little bit inadequate. So, we will
be not only making their improvements, but the improvements to service both ourselves
and Sageland. Our neighbor to the east, with us going into the irrigation system with
Nampa-Meridian, we will no longer share an irrigation head gate with them, so they
have that head gate all alone and we have agreed that any cost to make sure that's on
their property or piped to their property, that we will bear as the developer. The
drainage in the drainage pond, it's located in that -- in that location, because that's the
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 28 of 55
lowest part of the subdivi.sion. To locate over here would be going against grade. Grade
goes, generally, in this direction across the site. We had our geo reports done for the
area. It does have suitable drainage to accept storm water. What we plan on doing is
building a structure that would allow predevelopment and nuisance water to pass
directly through and into a ditch that's now currently piped through Sherbrooke Hollows.
We have found through some of the subdivisions that the problem of nuisance water is
generally caused by people irrigating their yards and it goes over onto the gutter and
runs down the gutter line. So, it is a problem. So, we have devised a method to allow it
to pass through on a predevelopment. So, the only time water reaches the pond is in a
storm event and either on a 25 or 100 year storm event, the pond is designed to drain
out in 24 hours. So, I don't -- I think with the way that we are designing ponds today, we
don't have the mosquito problem that they had when Sherbrooke did theirs and,
unfortunately, the problem of if there is any mosquitoes is self-imposed, because of the
water. I don't know how you fix it, but if you go into any subdivision in the summertime,
you will see water running down the gutter line and it's from irrigation. I think, unless
you have any questions, that's -- I did the best I could for my engineer.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jim, on -- let's go back to that retention pond there. You're going to grass it; right?
Jewett: That's correct.
Bird: I understand that Sherbrooke Hollows has had some problems, but they need to
go to Summerfield. Summerfield has got, basically, what you have got in there and the
kids - - it's a bigger a rea. I t's areal n ice open space playground for t he kids, except
when you do have an excessive storm, which, hopefully, the kids aren't out playing in it
anyway. I do not believe they have any mosquito treatment. But you have a drainage --
you're coming down you say three to one and then --
Jewett: I think we go three to one on the back and two sides and four to one on the
front, to have a little gradual approach from --
Bird: And it's flat at the bottom and all grass, but -- so that it can -- grass creet and stuff
like that, so it will soak through and on down.
Jewett: Yes. That's correct.
Bird: Thank you.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, I did want to do a follow-up note on
that. We have been trying to address this issue of wet ponds versus dry ponds heavily
up front. Sometimes the engineering comes back later and if it looks like they are going
to have more water in there than they were anticipating, then, we w ill bel ooking for
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9,2003
Pg. 29 of 55
some sort of scheme, such as what Sherbrooke Hollows was talking about. Also, that
no longer qualifies as use of the open space, so they will have to provide -- they will
have to compensate that open space elsewhere. So, I just wanted to make sure that
the neighbors were aware of that, as well as the applicant.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Can I ask one more?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: Okay. Your applicant stated, Jim, that you're willing to -- bonus rooms we
understanding are not second story. But along there if it was not appropriate, we would
have no windows going out the back of the bonus room. So, will that be on the plat --
right on -- a note on the plat, so that whoever buys that lot, if the realtor forgets to tell
them, or the builder forgets to tell them, we have got some protection?
Jewett: We can do it, I think, but maybe our staff could address plat notes. I think that's
been an issue. What we have done at Planning and Zoning, the board of Sherbrooke
Hollows homeowners association declined our offer to join their association, so we did
prepare our own CC&R's and within that -- those CC&R's, which I think we turned in
today, states that any home that backs up to Sherbrooke Hollows adjacent to a single
level home will -- can only have a single level home and no window off the back. If this
Council would like that to be -- and the staff is okay with a plat notes, I certainly have no
objection.
Bird: And this is one Councilperson that would love to see it on the plat, because a lot of
times the buyers don't see it or the builders donlt see it in the CC&R's until after it's
done. We know.
Jewett: I recognize that --
Bird: We know from experience. I want it on the plat, as a Councilman.
De Weerd: Now, there was other questions and testimony that talked about the street
lights on the east side and the request that they would be hooded, so that they didn't
shine into the existing homes.
Jewett: And if I understood the question, they would simply want -- instead of a light
maybe being on this side where the hood would be this way, they would want the light
on this side where the hood would be this way. And as long as staff -- I think the staff is
the only one that is directing where our street lights are. I'm okay with that. That's fine.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 30 of 55
I would like to address one other thing. I just don't want to forget it. We did agree to
replace the existing chain I ink fence that was h ere a nd here to a cedar fence. This
fence here I heard Lucian say that he would want this to be cedar as well. I am not in
favor of common areas being fenced off with cedar fence. That is, to me, a security
issue and my statement at P&Z is that this fence along here would be chain link as well.
We would put cedar along here. I just don't think that common areas should be
screened off with solid fences. So, that's just a personal issue and I really think that that
would be a mistake. There is -- the fence is open right here and you can utilize --
you can build a path coming right out here to here, so for them to close that off, all we
will be telling is these kids can't come over here and play with these kids in this common
area and I just don't think that's a reasonable thing to do.
Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, the police chief did ask me to tell
you that he would also prefer chain link. If there is to be a fence, it needs to be chain
link, so that they do have the ability to see from one to the other.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna.
Jewett: And did see my engineer just now pop in, so if you do have anymore technical
questions for him, he's a little more qualified than I am, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Also, in regards to the fence, they did ask that there be steel posts
and, then, the neighbor to the east also asked about maintenance and repair.
Jewett: And those are all very reasonable requests. We are more than agreeable to do
those.
De Weerd: So, those are all within your CC&R's?
Jewett: We can modify the CC&R1s. I think it's reasonable -- we are putting in the fence,
we are imposing on him -- that this homeowners association should maintenance that
fence, not to only repair, but the periodic maintenance, stain and upkeep. So, I agree
and I will add that to the CC&RIS.
De Weerd: Okay. In regards to your road widths and on-street parking and those sorts
of things, how are you planning on providing adequate widths to sustain the parking for
on street?
Jewett: What ACHD approved was 29 -- except for this street here, which is 36 feet,
with parking -- with parking only on one side and I can't remember what side it was
limited. I think it was no parking on this side and on this side. You know, what we
endeavored to do here was to create more of a neighborhood feel. Narrower streets,
separated sidewalks with tree lines, putting in the alleys, and we do have several other
plans that both the builders have had two car garages that will fit on these narrow lots
off the alleys. But, occasionally, they are going to have guests come and they are going
to park out front for however long the guest is going to be there, and we will have the
(
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 31 of 55
restricted parking on one side. In everywhere except along here. This is a standard
width street along here and so it will have parking on both sides, but -- excuse me.
De Weerd: So, they are all 29 width streets?
Jewett: It's my understanding that ACHD required us to make this street a 36 foot street,
but I could be wrong, but if somebody will grab the ACHD conditions approval before we
are done here, we will figure that out.
De Weerd: And so you have parking on just one side?
Jewett: Just one side.
De Weerd: Generally, in developments that have this kind of density and would have
just parking on one side, they offer other locations for parking, but I don't see that
consideration in this development.
Jewett: That's correct. And the subdivisions that I have toured with -- most memorably
Heritage Commons here in Meridian and Harris Ranch out in Southeast Boise, I don't
believe that either one of those, except for the rec area, had additional for parking.
They had it there, but they didn't have it everywhere else. We did a project in Eagle that
we just got finished that we did a very similar development as this and we did put a
small overflow of five or six parking at the park area and that could be accomplished
right along here, we could come in here and put a five or six or eight stall parking lot
right in there in front of the park. It will take away a little bit from green space, but it
might be well suited to provide a little overflow, plus maybe the ability for someone to
drive and utilize the park if they happen to be coming from another neighborhood and
meeting some kids that live in that neighborhood, they could possibly park there. So,
that could be accomplished here and I'm certainly not disagreeable to looking at that.
De Weerd: But I guess in some of those developments that you mentioned, the green
space is more located centrally.
Jewett: That's true in Heritage Commons and I don't recall off the top of my head what
the open space is like in Harris Ranch, but -- but at Heritage Commons they have that
centralized park. I don't believe there is any parking around it, other than on street, and I
don't know if it's more usable or more visual in Heritage Commons. I have always
wondered as I drive in there is it more of a visual than it is usable, because it is
surrounded by street, it's not surrounded by houses, other than front loading, looking at
it, where our open space is -- is not only functional for this subdivision, but functional
from the adjacent subdivision Sherbrooke Hollows through their pathway to access it.
Powell: Madam President, if I might add a comment, just because we are not used to
considering it. Please do remember that there are no driveway cuts all along this
frontage, all along this frontage, and along this one, and along this one. So, typically,
where you - - even though there is 0 nly parking 0 none s ide, that parking i snit being
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 32 of 55
broken up by driveway cuts, which, basically, become no parking places. So, it does
have a little more capacity than a normal half a street would, because there aren't
driveway cuts there and there will be -- because they are loaded from an alley in the
rear.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jewett: And I will make a correction. Jane had to refresh me. But all our streets are 29
foot, with the exception that this right of way through here is 50 foot, all the rest of the
right of ways are 42, and ACHD wanted the larger right of way h ere. I think for the
potential that it might have to widen this street, if this development had enough density
to warrant it. We have a large area from the right of way line to the street here, so it
could be constructed to a 36. It is only designed as a 29. ACHD just left the right of way
wide there, but I suppose if this developed ten years from now and it was at that point
considered to be higher density and they did not want another access off of Victory,
then, this would be their primary access, the use of that street might increase enough to
warrant taking it to a wider street. So, I think that was the reasoning there. So, I do
correct myself. They are all 29 foot streets, it's just the one right of way is wider in that
location for that potential.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, Mr. Jewett, if I understand you, at least on these -- on the streets that run
north and south, all three of those streets are going to be parking only on one side.
Jewett: That's correct.
Nary: So, that middle street, which is kind of your main entryway, right here, you only
have -- you have 16 houses that front this street, but you only, essentially, have parking
for about eight to ten, however many cars you can fit on one side of that street, is the
only parking you have for guests or anything else and you're only offering it to say you
take some of the green space away, put some extra parking, is that what I heard you
say?
Jewett: Well, I'm going to try to answer that. Going along the theme that Anna started
on, there is no curb cuts along this way, so, essentially, you have parking on one side
and on that one side, if you assume a parking stall let's say is 18 to 20 feet, you would
have approximately two parking spaces per -- whichever side it was, because you
would have approximately two parking spaces per lot, because the lots average about
40. So, essentially, you would have one for every household in here, all on one side.
Now, that's assuming that everybody would simply parallel park tight in, like you would
downtown. So -- so the only other option -- like I say, we just did it in a subdivision in
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 33 of 55
Eagle, we put a parking area right on front of our park and that became an overflow.
You know, I donlt know for sure, but I believe Heritage Commons out here has 29 foot
roads in front of those, the same project, and I believe they only have parking on one
side as well. We just don't have the housing on the other side, because the park's in the
center.
Bird: Right.
Jewett: Now, that's on the current pavement. The next phase is behind it, I believe they
have houses on both sides of the street. So, what they have in today's phase will not be
the same in the next phase. With several jurisdictions regarding parking, it becomes an
issue, because a lot of times -- and my garage looks like this, too, it's full of stuff and I
can't get my car in there and that becomes an issue and people park on the street and I
have gone to and from subdivisions. We have already -- we went into the CC&R's and
we restrict parking on the street to certain hours, because sometimes people overdo it. I
don't have all the answers.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. I mean I have seen a lot of -- let me look -- I guess more creative ways of
trying to find parking, you know, in other subdivisions here in town where they will, you
know, take these bump outs and make some parking in these types of areas and on
these corners and providing that. I guess if I was the folks that live in this cul-de-sac, I
guess I would have some concern of people parking here and, then, using this pathway
to access into here, too, if it's overcrowded, so -- I mean I guess, you know, I
understand, like you said, Mr. Jewett, I mean you don't have all the answers, I
understand that. I guess my concern is you want the higher density and the trade-off on
this is you have to have adequate space to put the people that you -- because you want
more people there, to be able to live there and I guess I'm l!ot sure that that's totally
been addressed.
Jewett: Okay. I think what Jane is whispering in my ear is that along this street here we
have room to put a 30 foot wide street and that would have at least addressed parking
on both sides. If that can be done, that's fine. We go with the feel and that, the streets,
bringing them closer together, bringing the houses closer together. If parking is an
issue, it could be widened to 36 feet, but one of your questions earlier in the evening
was, you know, what's going to keep people from diving quicker through this area?
Narrow is slower. You widen it up. You do increase that. I don't think we have enough
traffic here to really warrant an issue of whether or not they are going to speed through
there. As I told everybody in the neighborhood meeting -- we met with the staff, this
was kind of the direction that staff wanted to go and I'm always looking at innovative
ways to more forward in development, using diversity, and using different types of style
and I like what I see, both Harris Ranch and the project we have done in Eagle and
Heritage Commons. I like that product. I think there is a need for it and I think there is a
(
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 34 of 55
desire for, especially in an area of town we haven't addressed it in and that's south of
the freeway. That's why we went t his way. It's been mentioned that, you know, the
PUD, the main thing that was have done to meet the PUD is the open space and the tot
lot. That's only a required amenity. The separated sidewalks, the tree lined streets are
all extensive add-ons, but it's part of what this development is all about. It's part of this
deal, the look. The type of housing, albeit different than Sherbrooke Hollows will not be
any less than Sherbrooke Hollows. Its quality of construction will not be any less than
Sherbrooke Hollows and it will be a quality development with a different style of home
and these uniquely different portions of just a thought with the patio homes on the front,
the standard lots on the side and, then, the neo-traditional is in the center. If -- the way
you can fix the parking is you can go to a 36 foot and you can -- and I'll have my
builders screaming at me, but you don't permit the nine foot setbacks on the alleys, you
need to go 18 or 20, so there is additional parking behind the garage and that way you
can take -- you can tell your guests and you can direct your quests to park back there,
but all it's going to do, in my opinion, is it's going to contribute to people stuffing their
garage, so they'll just park out there again. If they know that they have to park in the
garage, I think they are more apt to clean it out, but maybe thafs just me and my
mentality. I also stated to the neighbors in the neighborhood meeting that this same
layout would work without the alley, we just enter 65 by 100 lots throughout the whole
plat, you cut out the alleys, you take out the separated walk, if you just make it a
standard R-8 plat and it works. I think this is what the city wants. I think that there is a
market for the type of people that want to have this type of project and that's how we
brought it forward. So, I hope that you can -- you know, and maybe this -- I think we got
it. Jane says we can do a 36 foot and I'm more agreeable to do the 36 foot, instead of
these -- these two right here, we can provide that additional parking. We can provide
some additional parking, actually, at the park, but, again, this has no housing in it, so
people can simple park -- I don't know that they mentioned on that, I would assume five
or six cars could park in a row there without any interference, because there is no
garages over here and so you would have nothing that would interfere with that use.
De Weerd: Any questions?
Nary: No.
De Weerd: Kenny, I guess I did have a question for you. There are a couple of people
that have testimony that ask about fire response times and I know there is some
concern about houses that close together and we would like to have you respond on the
record.
Powell: Kenny is -- excuse me. Chief Bowers has asked me to explain one thing before
he speaks and that was the comment made about Commissioner Zaremba's statement
at the Public Hearing. Fresh off the campaign trail he had heard a lot about fire safety
and police and so he expressed a general concern and it did come up in this hearing,
though, but it was a general concern about fire and police ability to serve all the
developments that were going on. He did later kind of retract the statement, based on
the fact that it wasn't supported by the fire department themselves in the case. There is
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 35 of 55
no findings that would lead him to that conclusion. So, he did later retract that and he
did go to -- with all others to approve the project, so I just wanted to clarify that before
Chief Bowers spoke.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Chief?
Bowers: Thank you, Anna. Madam President, City C ouneil m embers, I hadn't heard
that before until tonight so that kind of caught me off guard what was said. So, we do
agree right along with the rural commissioners and the City Council that this is a long
distance for us to travel out in this area, but we do have two things that are working
towards our -- the good part of this is as of last night we discussed about a fire station
being built, of course, on Eagle Road within the next two years, possibly, if the money is
available and also we would hope that Locust Grove overpass gets build, so that would
help us out tremendously not having to fight Eagle Road and -- or Meridian. The 29 foot
alleys -- Of, excuse me, the 25 -- 29 foot roads, of course, we love the wider roads, of
course, but we understand that with a narrow road they would have to cut it down to one
side of parking only. We have not experienced homes quite being built so close, so we
don't -- well, we really haven't had any experience of fires being within homes being
built five feet a part. N ow, of course, if a rural area we have barns and h ames and
structures and wells and everything else that are built real close. I can't say that we
have that quite right now in Meridian that we have any experience with any fires. They
are ten feet apart, as Anna told me. I'm not sure if that helps you at all. I wasn't quite
ready for this tonight.
De Weerd: Well, I appreciate you mentioning the conversation we had with the rural
commission last night and the commitment to a f ire station on the south side of the
freeway. What is the current response time to our southern area?
Bowers: That is real hard to state, President. We -- depending on the -- of course, the
traffic, the weather, the road construction on Franklin Road -- I mean it could be seven,
eight, nine minutes, so --
De Weerd: Okay. Are there any further questions? The rebuttal is by the applicants. I
had asked if there was any further testimony and didn't see -- okay. Yes. We can take
more testimony if you have some. Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
M. Buckland: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
M. Buckland: My name is Michelle Buckland and I live at 3003 South Gold Bar.
De Weerd: Thank you, Michelle.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9,2003
Pg. 36 of 55
M. Buckland: I just have a few concerns. One is a safety issue at the toddler park.
You're putting it back there, which is great, that's fine, but you have a maximum of only
four homes to be able tow atch their children play. These people d own at the end,
when they send their children up there to play -- and, you know, you're not going to go
up there with a ten year old and watch your ten year old play, you know, when you're
doing laundry and stuff like that. I'm a mom. I know. So, my concern is about who is
going to be watching those children by that canal and all that good stuff. The other
thing is if they do whatever they need to do for their roads going in, would that be taken
away from their sidewalks and their trees and, you know, your -- all that good stuff?
Anyway, my other concern is I know you're not supposed to say this and I donlt like a
taboo, but I think, you know, all of us what we are really concerned about is our property
value and they can say whatever they want, but when you put 1,300 square foot homes
up against 250,000 dollars homes -- because that's the majority of the homes that are in
Sherbrooke Hollows and it will depreciate and we are concerned about that. We are not
opposed to this and if he makes all this amendments that he says he makes, that's
great, but we are still concerned about our property values. That's the only thing that I
own that means anything to me and I spent a lot of money on it, so I would hope that it
would be a concern to you if it came up to your neighborhood and you were in the same
situation. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Sir. Is the testimony you
provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Wright: Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address.
Wright: My name is Norm Wright and I live at 3050 South Bayou Bar. I have to say this.
I see a real public safety hazard here in these alleyways. We -- if you examine this plot,
these plots, you will see that everyone has to come out of the garage under the alley to
exit; right? You drive in -- up the alley to go to the left or right into the garage; is that
correct? Now, these homes are for the middle, upper, or the -- don't you think a
professional class with small families, whoever. Yeah. Thirty-two homes and each --
let's say each family has 2.6 kids; right? So, you have 60 children with no front yards to
play in. There is basically no front yard. Mom says don't go in the street, you're going
to get hit. Go in the backyard and play with dad or go in the garage. So 50 percent of
the garage doors are open on the weekends, Dad's out there doing his thing and the
kids are out there on their little four wheel drives and the bikes and the stuff going in and
out of this alley. Every resident when he backs out of his garage as full opportunities to
injure or kill a child or a pedestrian. That's my final statement.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Is the testimony you provide the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Hansard: It is.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 37 of 55
De Weerd: Please state your name and address.
Hansard: My name is Donald Hansard, I live at 3035 South Gold Bar Avenue and we
are within the 300 foot range of the proposed development there. Some of the things
that I'm concerned about is the density. I mean there is just too many homes, safety of
the people, I would not want to be somebody living there, because of worry about if you
can get an ambulance to them, fire truck, whatever. It's not a perfect world, they are not
going to always have some -- one side of the street lined with traffic, there is going to be
some 16 year old that's going to park on the corner and the fire department can't get
through or whatever. So, there is a number of things. When he starts talking about
developing up in the p ark area for additional parking spaces for the neighborhood, I
mean the people that live there, where is this green area? There is nothing there for the
kids to go to. I mean he keeps taking away little spots, you know. The little pond, the
retention pond is -- you know, certain sp.ace and, you know, it's considered, I guess, an
area where kids are to be able to play around and that type of thing. There is just no
space for them and that's just some of the kind of concerns that I have beside the
density, besides the traffic. I mean it is -- fortunately, I'm lucky, I get to drive the other
way the first thing in the morning -- 6:30 in the morning, so I won't be stuck in that traffic,
but most 0 f these people will be, so it's pretty -- I just hope you guys take that into
consideration because there is going to be a lot people trying to get around in that
particular neighborhood and the proposed two year possibility of a Fire Department
being in that area and God only knows when they are going to widen Victory Lane, you
know, because of the way development is done in that -- in the, you know, streets, the
way they are developed, the way they pay for them. So, those are some concerns that I
have. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? Sir, we have already
heard for you. So --
Suggs: Rebuttal?
De Weerd: Well, you have already had rebuttal.
Suggs: Are there any other questions? Isn't there testimony afterwards?
Jewett: May I just rebut the lot value?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Jewett: Not the lot value, the home value. As well as Mr. Ferguson, I'm a real estate
agent and I have stated that before in front of this Council and I have yet to see a
subdivision in Meridian that's brought down the value of another subdivision. I have yet
to see that. The fact of the matter is that bringing in a diversified different product type
will probably, albeit not increase the value, it will make the product more salable,
because there might be a young family that might move into one of these 1 ,300 square
foot patio homes that would want to move up in two years, but stay in the neighborhood.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 38 of 55
They will move up and buy a home in Sherbrooke Hollows. If I was to go put 44 more
homes of the same kind in here that's in Sherbrooke Hollows, they are all going to be
newer. So you take your market share out there and you say, okay, what do you want
to buy. This new home right in front of the subdivision or do want to buy an existing
home. So, it may not drive their value down if they built the same product, but it's going
to make their house slower selling, which might force them to drop their price. So, I
stand here and say that I have never seen property values go down because of a
subdivision going in next door. I don't think it's going to happen here and I would bet my
career on it, that these values will stay constant, if not increase in value, just like every
other house increases in value over time, that this -- these buyers in the subdivision will
enhance the salability of the entire neighborhood as a whole.
De Weerd: In your experience you say you have built this type of development before in
Eagle?
Jewett: It's just getting started now. It just got paved, actually, about two weeks ago.
There is no actual product in it yet. But it is adjacent to a subdivision very similar to
Sherbrooke Hollows and we did not have opposition from that neighborhood. They
were pleased to see this type of product going in, as well as Eagle was pleased to see,
because they didn't have any of it yet. They hadn't seen this product. So, this is
something new for them. Our builder on that product is the same builder we have on
this product.
De Weerd: Now, they had asked and we don't review your CC&R's, but they had asked
in comparison to something like Heritage Commons. Are you maintaining the same
types of standards?
Jewett: What we did -- I believe in communities and I believe communities should meld
together, so we took Sherbrooke Hollows' CC&R's and we melded ours to theirs to try to
be as compatible to them, okay? We haven't looked at Heritage Commons. I'm more
than willing to look at it to see what they did and utilize some of that. Steve Roth is a
very prominent builder in Heritage Commons and since he will be the prominent builder
here, 11m assuming he will want to see the same sort of restrictions come through, too,
because he wants to protect his own product as well. So, I can -- I can certainly state
that we will take a look at it and we will incorporate it where ever ifs appropriate to meld
them together.
De Weerd: Well, yeah, because you have a different product than what they have in
Sherbrooke Hollows.
Jewett: Yes. But it doesn't take away from the requirement for upkeep and how you
conduct yourself, so on and so forth. So, that part of the CC&R's should be pretty
generalized. But as far as architectural guidelines, yes, there is going to be some
difference. They don't have alleys in the Sherbrooke Hollows, we do.
/
\
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 39 of 55
De Weerd: And how is your signage for the one side parking, will you be taking away
from the detached sidewalks if you do increase your width of the roadway? And I
guess, lastly, the alleyway comments and safety precautions.
Jewett: No. On the taking away from the separated sidewalks, the visual aspect of what
we are trying to create as you enter the subdivision is separated sidewalks, with tree
lined streets, is not going to go away with this product. This is essential to our product.
So, that will not go away, even if we go to a 36 foot wide road. The alleyways and the
safety issue of them. We often read in the paper where an accident occurs where a
young child is run over in a garage or in the driveway when a parent backs out and
doesn't know their child is there. That can happen whether it's a front load garage or a
back load garage. If dad is working in the garage and the child is playing around in the
front yard or along the driveway driving a little -- it can happen. Trust me, I'm terrified
about it every time I back up. But that's a social issue about how we look and how we
handle ourselves in our vehicles. I donlt think it's a planning issue. I don't know how to
plan for that, because it could happen whether ifs a front load garage or an alley loaded
garage. I don't know h ow to plan for it. I donlt like to see it happen. A nd if it ever
happened to me I would be devastated, so I don't know how to plan for it.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, Mr. Jewett, I guess since 11m the one that brought it up, I'm not totally certain
that that 29 foot roadway in between those is not the most appropriate, but if we do go
to 36 where is that seven feet coming from? It sounds like those lots are just going to
start getting smaller.
Jewett: No. What we --
Nary: And some of the concern already is that the lots are pretty small.
Jewett: What we would do is it would require taking our sidewalks and just sliding them
into an easement into the front yards, so -- it doesn't take away from the lot sizes, it just
brings the sidewalk a little closer to the front porches.
De Weerd: Okay. Please. I'm sorry.
Jewett: I believe in -- I believe in Heritage Commons that their front setbacks are ten.
We are asking only 15. So, we have, actually, a lot more room to play with to maximize
that, but there is some room to slide those sidewalks out.
Bird: Madam President?
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 40 of 55
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jim, what, then -- where is your property line? Is your property line starting at the
sidewalk on these lots? Is that what you're telling us?
Jewett: J'm going to do the math. If we had a -- okay. They currently overhang the lots
two feet. See, I did math really fast. Oh. I'm sorry. If we widened it they would
overhang into the lots two feet. Currently they are within the right of way.
Bird: They would be -- two foot of the sidewalk would be in the --
Jewett: On the lot.
Bird: -- the lot that you buy.
Jewett: Yes.
Bird: Okay. And maybe this would be another question for somebody from Sherbrooke
Hollows, but do they have in their CC&R's a minimum house? I mean they are R-4, so
they are basically an 80 by 100 lot.
Jewett: I can answer. We mirrored our -- these perimeter lots to be exactly as theirs.
It's 1,500 square foot for a single level, 1 ,750 for a two story.
Bird: And that's what their CC&R's is, too?
Jewett: That's what their CC&R's read and we mirrored ours to be exact.
Bird: Okay.
Jewett: Along our perimeter.
Bird: And you're backing up against 250 to 300 thousand dollar houses?
Jewett: I think that within the subdivision there is several homes -- there is a lot of
homes that are in that 250 range. I'm not going to make a guess on what the value is,
but, as Lucian said, towards the front as some of the smaller homes and they are not
that range.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Council, discussion?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 41 of 55
Bird: I'd like to make one statement and this is no way reflects the view or maybe the
way 11m going to vote, but developments like these, probably six, seven years ago I
would have laughed out of the courtroom -- or out of the room here. Then, I had a
chance to look at Harris Ranch. Very, very well done. I thought it was going to be a
joke, but it is very nice, and, then, we -- Brighton Corp brought Heritage Commons to us
and I think itls a very nice one and I have to say that I think this is a very nice planned
development. I think they have done their homework to a degree. I think there is some
things that maybe needs to be changed, but I, for one, don't want to just see a bunch of
R-4 subdivisions out there in Meridian and I lived through it for years and years and
years. 11m on an R-4. I live in an R-4. Same as I think everybody else here on the
Council does, because that's all we believed in at one time. Now, we are becoming a
community with a purpose, not just a bedroom community for Boise. So, I think you're
going to see more of these developments come in and I think -- I don't think -- I think it
helps the community to have developments like these come. Now, whether this is the
right place for it, I don't know. So, that's alii got to say.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess to follow up on Mr. Bird's comments, you know, I guess I have asked a lot
of questions, because there are some issues here. I do think there is -- there is a market
for all different kinds of housing and we can't all -- we can't build it all the same.
Everyone of us has sat up here and told developers don't bring us the same thing over
and over and over. We wanted creativity, we wanted something different. There are
some things about this one that give me some concern, but I think there is lots more
pluses here. This is very common of what I think we will see anywhere on the south
side of the freeway, because this type of in-fill, the reason these neighbors are here is
because you have neighbors and the reason we don't see it in the north is because
there aren't any' neighbors, because there isn't anybody else to say it's not -- doesn't fit
my neighborhood. I think we are -- I think this is fairly common that we will see and I
understand the neighbors' concerns and they have concerns about their homes and
making sure that there is compatibility and that is our responsibility to look at what's
compatible. But compatible isn't the same and that's what we have to try to judge is
what -- what's going to work to make it a II fit. Is the 0 ne down t he road, S ageland
Development, I think is the one that's just a little further east of that, and there is a little
less density, but not significantly less density, but there is a little less density. Is that the
key here? Is there some variety here that makes this workable and different? Is it all
going to get built tomorrow? I mean is this fire truck going to get here any faster than he
can get to Tuscany? Well, not really. I mean we recognize those are things we have to
get to and the problem with in-fill is we don't always it all there yet and that's what we
have, a responsibility, as the Council, to get there. That's why there is a discussion with
the rural about getting that station built on the south of the freeway. That's why the
(
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9,2003
Pg. 42 of 55
police department is always making sure we keep on the forefront for the police officers
in making sure we have adequate officers to address the traffic and those other needs.
The roads, as somebody else stated, canlt get built until we get some of these other
things. The density here will assist the neighborhood center concept that we'd like to
see in this area. So, I mean there is some trade-off here. It's not perfect. I mean there
is certainly not -- this is not the most perfect subdivision, but there is a lot more pluses
here than I think we have seen in other ones and we have tried to carve some of these
up and tried to make the streets smaller or the streets wider or the streets narrower or
less parking and more parking and, you know, that's -- you know, it's not a perfect
system, but, you know, I think, in general, there is a lot more pluses here. But I do want
to hear what the other Council members have to say.
Bird: Madam President, can I make one thing --
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: To go along with what Mr. Nary just said about the fire station and everything, we
are the first entity that went in and -- we pledged 1.8 million dollars for the Locust Grove
overpass because of this situation. Whether this goes in or not, we are not going to get
there faster to your Sherbrooke Hollows as we sit now, than this if this goes in. Sure,
we can build more traffic, but that's -- we pledged that to get it -- we thought we would
have it - - it was promised to u s by the time we started the s chaol. They got federal
money in it and got backed up three years. So, 2006 or 2007 is it's supposed to be
done now. But we -- you know, don't -- understand that we know there is some
problems over there, but we are doing everything possible to get it rectified. Thank you.
McCandless: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless.
McCandless: I, basically, agree with everything that Congressman -- or -- Congressman
-- Councilman Bird and Nary have said.
Bird: We get a pay raise.
McCandless: Well, you know, you -- but I'm still terribly concerned about the traffic out
there. I was disturbed when they started building all of these subdivisions on Victory
Road and it hasn't stopped and the road is still two lanes and it just scares me to death.
I don't know -- I was listening to people that can hardly get out of their subdivision in the
morning. Pretty soon we will be having people start at 5:30 in the morning, so they can
get to work by 8:00. It doesn't make any sense to me and I'm well aware of the fact that
you have to have development before you can have the roads fixed, but when does it
stop? That is my biggest concern is the traffic. I think it is a nice development. I think
that it could fit a Imost anywhere, but we have got to do something a bout the roads.
That's all have I to say on that subject.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 43 of 55
De Weerd: Any further comments? Were there issues that you wanted to address in
regards to parking or items that you wanted to see changed or --
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: If I could ask Mrs. Powell. On the road width and the parking, I guess the
concerns I have is just that the density here in trying to fit vehicles -- but I don't know
what standard to use and I understand, like you were saying, you're not talking about
driveways -- I don't know whether we have -- I recognize you're not going to be able to
park them -- people quite so tight as the width or the length of the roadway is, but is
there some standard in which to measure that by as to whether or not the parking here
is really adequate for the density and the type of housing design that they want to have?
Is there some way to measure that for us?
Powell: A lot of communities adopt -- well, no, I won't say a lot. I know Boise city has
adopted a standard of basically two off-street parking spaces in a garage, in an
enclosed space, as well as two spaces outside. So, they require a 20 foot apron on all
their developments. On these alley loaded ones, if there were a 20 foot apron on all the
garages on the perimeter, which I believe there is, and, then, not on the alley loaded
ones, then, you have probably got equivalent space on street there, if the center one
became a standard street section with parking on both sides. I would agree that with
only parking on one side in the center it might be a little tight and it depends a little bit
on how you feel about people actually parking on the streets where we have provided
on-street parking. Some communities just donlt want to see parking in those parking
areas and I have never felt the Meridian was necessarily that way, but there are
communities that kind of adopt that philosophy that there shouldn't be parking on the
streets. I think just based on kind of two per house, which you could get by parallel
parking on those, that that is probably adequate, assuming that the parking -- that the
no parking was on the other side of the street, of course, which I think they would agree
to.
Nary: So, that -- would that center street be at 36 feet, then?
Powell: Yes.
Nary: And not 29.
Powell: And that's assuming that all the homes build at the nine foot setback and I don't
know if all the models would you build at that anyway. I think you're probably going to
have a mix of people that do want that 20 foot apron in the back. So, you will have
parking abilities back there and -- but I think worst case scenario, if all of them built to
the nine feet, then, we probably do need parking on both sides in the center street.
Nary: Okay.
/
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 44 of 55
De Weerd: Chief Musser, do you have any comment on this application? I guess there
were some comments expressed about safety with alley loaded development.
Musser: Madam President, Members of the Council, initially, I always have concerns
when I see alleys. In here, however, with the way they have it set up and where it's
pretty much an enclosed subdivision area, most of the areas that I -- or the concerns I
look at on that aren't as prevalent as they are in larger subdivision areas where we may
have commercial adjacent to it or a public school or something like that, too, which
makes more of an attractive nuisance. However, in discussion with some of the traffic
issues, in particular, with the roadway structure in here, one of the alternatives that may
well offset some of this is to designate one way directional roads, including the alleys,
and especially in the center core, if it was a one way out portion where you used the
other sections on both sides to travel to those areas, the alleys or the center section,
one way roads have a tendency to give you more parking access on both sides,
because you got center flow, then, without opposing traffic coming in on each other and
this subdivision now could set itself up for that, as long as they leave the main entrance
area with the one road that travels east and west, that may tie in later to another
subdivision to the east, that one would easily accommodate the two way on it with that
type of a traffic flow setup. So, there are some alternatives, especially, if they ended up
looking at anywhere from probably 32 to a total of 36 on the width on the center
roadway area with a one-way setup. That would be one alternative I think that would
probably work with the traffic flow and also provide some calming access within it, too.
De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Any questions? Comment by the applicant?
Jewett: I would certainly defer to staff and to ACHD staff. I certainly don't have any
issues with that, but 1'm not the traffic. That would be some forward thinking and so -- I
have tried to go to ACHD on some forward thinking before and I get forwarded out the
door. So, I donlt know what they are quite ready for. Don't you guys want to change
the streets downtown here to one way and isn't it taking awhile?
De W eerd: If it were that easy.
Jewett: Yeah. But I appreciate his ideas and I think that they are warranted, I just don't
know how to go about it and I don't know how your own staff feels about it, but it
certainly can be accomplished. I mean you can put traffic diversions to force traffic all
one way. It can be done. And the fact of the matter is if you went to one way streets,
you could stay at 29 and you could still have parking on both sides, because you
wouldn't have two lanes of travel. I don't know how -- you know, like fire would comment
on it, because to get to one point they'd have to go all the way around, instead of getting
from one point and going straight.
De Weerd: Oh, they don't follow one way signs. They just go. That's one thing I
learned, Kenny, in the two years I have been your liaison. So, I don't know if staff has
comments to the idea that the chief has introduced or --
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 45 of 55
Powell: It would certainly seem to be something to consider. Again, if ACHD -- if it's
something that Council wanted to consider before you approved it, then, we need to
leave a little wiggle room to -- in case ACHD doesnlt like the idea at all, that's something
you want the applicant to come back with, then, we will get together with ACHD. I'm not
opposed it to, necessarily. I would be interested in what ACHD's comments would be.
De Weerd: Bruce, I won't put you on the spot, but would you like to comment? Is the
testimony you provide the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mills: It is.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Mills: Bruce Mills, backward thinking ACHD in Garden City.
De Weerd: You scored on that, Jim.
Mills: Actually, all I wanted to say, really, was it would -- we probably would want some
time to run it through our traffic people, the idea of the one way street. I would also
think if you d id t he 0 ne way street, yes, yau could p ark on both s ides, but t hat only
leaves you about 15 feet in the middle and, then, youlre in problems with your fire
people. So, you'd still have to have a wider street, the 36 foot, if you were going to go
that way with parking on both sides. But, again, I canlt answer the question tonight, but
we certainly could get an answer to you very quickly.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bruce. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Powell: Madam President, I just need to -- I donlt know if you're going to make motions
tonight 0 r which way you Ire headed, sol just wanted tot hrow this 0 ut. There were
some -- in answer to the initial staff report, they were discussed and corrected at the
Planning and Zoning Commission, but they don't show up on a corrected staff report, so
I just -- if you are making a motion for approval, you might want to note the corrections
as noted in the facts from Jane Suggs, dated 10/2/03. But they just -- they just reflect
accurate depictions of what -- the setbacks that were being proposed and I have
portrayed those to you, but they just weren't accurately noted in the initial staff report, so
I just wanted to make sure there was some reference to them.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Okay. Council, what's your pleasure here?
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 46 of 55
Bird: I would be interested to see what ACHD has to say. I don't -- you're not going to
gain any parking because there is no way, shape or form you're going to be able to park
on both sides of the street, even if they are one way. I think it's a very good
recommendation. I wish we could recommend it and have it done. So, I don't know
whether we need to continue it for a week and find out if that's the way to go or if the
other Council wants to go ahead and get it taken care of tonight. I can go either way. I
have no problem.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess I am intrigued by that. I don't know if a week's an adequate and if we set
it over a week -- if we don't set it more than a week, we have to set it said for three.
Bird: Yeah.
Nary: But I don't think -- I don't know that a week is an adequate time for ACHD to even
have time to evaluate it and I think Mr. Jewett, to be fair, has to really -- I mean he's kind
of on the spot, too, but --
Bird: Yes, I know.
Nary: I think -- I think it will improve some of the things internally. I don't think it
changes, necessarily, the issues that the other neighbors have brought tonight. I mean
their concerns aren't going to be necessarily addressed just by traffic flow. I think there
is something to be gained there on some of this, but I guess 11m kind of like you, Mr.
Bird, I don't -- I don't have a problem in trying to see if we can get a better project here
and I appreciate Mr. Jewett wanting to be amenable to try that, but I donlt know -- I don't
have a problem if we want to go forward tonight either, so --
De Weerd: Well, I would entertain a motion to continue or close. I didn't ask for your
comments. Please sit down.
Bird: No, we can't. I will throw this out, Madam President, if it's okay. I would move that
we close the public hearings on AZ 03-032, request for annexation and zoning of 11
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by the JLJ
Enterprises, Incorporated, 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road and also Public Hearing
PP 03-027, the request for a preliminary plat approval of 57 building lots and eight other
lots on eleven acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Soda Springs Subdivision
by JLJ Enterprises, Incorporated, 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road. Also Public
Hearing CUP-03-043, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development
for a mix of single family detached residential lot sizes and amenities for the proposed
Soda Spring Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Incorporated, 2310 and 2384 East Victory
Road.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 47 of 55
McCandless: I will second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items
9, 10 and 11, the public hearings for AZ 03-023, PP 03-027, and CUP 03-043. Is there
any discussion? Okay. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay? Nay. Okay.
Motion carried:
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Okay. Discussion?
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess, Mr. Bird, I'm kind of curious. I guess we both somewhat agreed
previously that we could probably make a decision on this tonight, but you were also
intrigued by the chiefs suggestion and exploration of some of the traffic flow things and
although I -- as I said, I don't think it resolves the issues that the neighbors have brought
forward, did you want to get more information?
Bird: Well, I think we can enact upon these and still do that.
Nary: Okay.
Bird: That's something that you could come in with the final plat and have it -- have the
one way streets at that point. Don't you?
Nary: I think so.
Bird: I mean we have always got that deal. I just -- it's such a short deal and we are
kicking some stuff over -- I mean there is some of this stuff like this we need to have
completed by January 6th. So, I have no problem with it, moving on it one way or
another.
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: I guess for a point of discussion and the reason I voted nay is I like to see a
complete project and if there is a question about anything, flow, design, anything else,
we should have that all in the findings, in particular if you're looking at annexation and
preliminary plat, it should be part of those findings, so that I guess would be in
disagreement.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 48 of 55
Bird: I believe it has nothing to do with annexation and zoning, one way streets.
Preliminary plat, yeah, probably, but I would say it's more with the CUP, the 03-043, the
planned development. The preliminary plat don't -- you donlt have to show which way
the roads go or how they go or -- you got to have the locations of it, where on the
planned development, the CUP --
De Weerd: I guess I just believe they all have to go together. But any further
discussion? Okay. We'd entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we approve AZ 03-023, the request for annexation and zoning
of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ
Enterprises, Incorporated, 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road, incorporate staff, Planning
and Zoning, applicant and public testimony regarding this annexation and zoning into
the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order, to be drawn by the
attorney.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-023, with all staff
comments, public testimony and applicant's responses. Mr. Berg.
Nary: Madam President.
De Weerd: Yes. Bill.
Nary: Discussion.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. Mr. Nary. Yes. Discussion.
Nary: I think I know Councilman Bird well enough, but I want to make sure for the
record. I mean Mr. Jewett's made a lot of concessions to the different things and I
assume, Mr. Bird, that's what you mean when you're talking about all the comments,
house sizing, the locations, the -- pretty much all of the record that's before us tonight,
those commitments, the fencing, all of that stuff is all part of these commitments. I know
some of it's going to relate to the other ones more than the annexation, but they all go
together and I just wanted to make sure that was clear for the record.
Bird: Thank you, Bill.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols is that clear for the record?
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 49 of 55
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think -- I believe so. And, then,
the check on that, though, is that you get a chance to review the Findings before you
approve them. I believe the record is clear enough on the issues with regard to house
sizes, limitation to single stories, the bonus rooms and being on the plat and those
issues, that it will be one of those where we will carefully go back over the minutes in
preparation for the Findings, because it won't just be a cookie cutter from the Planning
and Zoning recommendations.
Nary: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further discussion? I guess I would just make my comment that, again,
I voted nay to closing the Public Hearing, because I feel if we are going to make any
changes, this is the opportunity. I do agree with the comments that have been made as
far as the design. I like the transition of the houses and lot sizes that match the
surrounding subdivisions. I do believe there is still some concerns about circulation, the
alleyways, and the open spaces, so I will go ahead and ask Mr. Berg to call roll.
Roll-Call: McCandless, nay; Nary, yea; de Weerd, nay; Bird, yea.
MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS.
Bird: I knew this was going to happen.
Nary: Well, Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I'd move that we open the public -- reopen the Public Hearing on Items 9, 10, and
11 .
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Bird: I'll second it.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to open the Public Hearing on Items 9,
10, and 11 for Soda Springs Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes.
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Obviously, since we have impasse, we need to have more information before we
can go forward on this. It probably doesn't make much sense to wait for the Mayor, but I
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 50 of 55
don't think we can set this beyond January 6th to get information back as to the
circulation and I don't think a week is very fair, because I think that puts it in a bind.
Bird: We're going to need a meeting the 30th.
Nary: I'm sorry I can't even hear what you're saying. I think January 6th is fine. We can
hear it on January 6th. So, I would move that we continue these three items until our
January 6th, 2004, meeting -- you're not done until we are all done. So, I would move
that we continue these to our January 6, 2004, meeting to get more information on the
traffic flow, the alleyways, the circulation for -- to give Mr. Jewett the opportunity to have
that discussion with the Ada County Highway District, for them to have adequate time to
make comment before our January 6th meeting and I don't know if there was other
information we were seeking for this. Did I forget something?
De Weerd: I guess the traffic flows a nd the proposal by Chief Musser does address
some of the parking and safety concerns and that is why I would like to hear from ACHO
and the developer, to fully hear the rest of this.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, then, you don't have to open all the public hearings because this is -- what
you're asking -- the specific information you're asking for is under the CUP. It has
nothing to do with annexation or zoning, it has nothing to do with the preliminary plat,
because the preliminary plat don't tell you which way the roads are going or whether it's
east, west, north, or south. So, the only Public Hearing -- and I agree with this __
reopening this Public Hearing for this part of it. But if you open all three of them on
January 6th, you might as well plan the swearing in for the new people the next month
or we will be here until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning.
Nary: But that's the only thing we have left them open for.
Bird: That's -- Bill, you missed the first part of our meeting tonight at the pre- thing and
that's what we opened up a planning -- or a Public Hearing for tonight and we heard
everything we heard before and, then, some. I would just open it -- if it was me, we can
continue the -- we can table nine and ten until that -- and not reopen the Public Hearing.
We open the Public Hearing on the CUP and the planned and that's -- that would cover
that.
Oe Weerd: Well, you have already reopened the Public Hearing on all of __
Bird: We haven't voted on it.
Nary: Yeah, we did.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 51 of 55
Bird: We had a motion and we had a second.
De Weerd: Yeah, we did.
Nary: Yeah. We did.
Bird: To reopen the public hearings?
McCandless: You just made the motion.
Bird: You just made the motion and I seconded it. We didn't vote on it.
Nary: Yeah, we did.
Bird: Man, I'm getting feeble.
Nichols: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, if you so choose, you can limit the
topics to be discussed in the continued Public Hearing and limit the amount of testimony
that you're going to take on those issues. So, if the issue is just simply traffic circulation,
the one way street idea as raised by Chief Musser, then, for the purpose of receiving
input from ACHD and from the applicant you can so limit it if you choose.
De Weerd: And that's what he was considering in his motion to continue.
Nary: Madam President. The only people, Mr. Bird, that need to comment IS the
applicant, the highway district, and the Police Department.
Bird: That was not what your -- that was not what the motion we just passed said,
though.
De Weerd: No. We just opened --
Bird: We opened up all three public hearings --
Nary: For just that comment.
Bird: For just -- but it didn't say that. It didn't say that the public couldn't come and
testify, which they should be allowed to, if it's a Public Hearing. Unless we specifically
say it's from the applicant, ACHD.
Nary: That's what I'm saying.
Meridian City Council Meeting
Decem ber 9, 2003
Pg. 52 of 55
Bird: Yeah, but we didn't say that in the motion.
De Weerd: Okay. Can I get control of this? Will you wait to be recognized? Is there a
motion -- I didn't get a second. Would you like to restate -_
Nary: Sure. The motion was we have opened the Public Hearing on these. All we are
going to seek public input as -- from the applicant and the highway district on the issue
of the traffic f low, the alleyways, and the Police Department in regards to t he public
safety. That's all the comment that we are asking for and that's all. At the January 6,
2004, meeting.
Bird: And that's what -- a new motion -- excuse me. Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now, is this a new motion? Because it wasn't the one that was stated before, if we
have to play it back.
Nary: I didn't get a second.
Bird: You got a second on the first one that we voted on.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird, I guess what his motion is, is to continue this Public Hearing
for testimony only on the public safety, one way street circulation topic, but it died
because he did not get a second.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: 0 kayo Hem ade amotion first tor eopen t he public hearings for t he purpose 0 f
getting these, but it did not state that it was only going to be for the applicant and the
deal. Am I not -- and he got a second on that, because I seconded it.
De W eerd: That's correct.
Bird: And we voted and we had four ayes, I understand.
De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, can you, please, explain to Mr. Bird what's going on right now.
Nichols: Madam President, I would construe Councilmember Nary's motion as a motion
to limit the testimony to be taken at the continued public hearings. In other words,
Councilman Bird, if the Council so chooses after having opened the public hearings
back up, the Council can pass another motion, not having done it in the reopening
motion, can pass a motion to limit the topics to be discussed and the information to be
received and by whom it is to be received.
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 53 of 55
De Weerd: And, I guess, Council, as well, we can consider not -- we can consider either
the 23rd or 30th if you want to call a meeting for those times. So, it doesn't have to be
on the 6th, you know, but I would agree, Mr. Bird, that it might be unfair to the incoming
Council to have this as a topic on that agenda. So, we can look at the 23rd or the 30th
if you would so propose.
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now, if M r. Nary wants tom ake t hat motion again, I will second it, but I et's be
specific and in your motion let's make a motion that limits it to five minutes apiece, that's
15 minutes and we will be out of here.
Nary: Well --
De Weerd: Boy, are you guaranteeing that?
Nary: I'm not going to -- that's the Chair's decision on how long people get to talk. All
I'm saying is -- all I have asked is that we continue this matter for further information on
the 6th of January in regards to the traffic flow, the one way street and the public safety
concerns. The only people that need comment is the applicant, the highway district,
and the Police Department. I'm not going to tell them they have five minutes because I
donlt know that it will take five minutes.
Bird: But just those three, right?
Nary: Yes.
Bird: Okay. I will second that, then.
De Weerd: Boy, I don't know if I can repeat it now. It's been moved and seconded to
continue the public hearings on Item 9, 10 and 11, AZ 03-023, PP 03-027, and CUP 03-
043, on Soda Springs Subdivision, limited testimony on circulation, the one way
proposal and safety issues to the applicant, ACHD, and staff. All those in favor -- or __
and that's to January 6, 2003. All those in --
Bird: '4.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. 2004. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(b):
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9, 2003
Pg. 54 of 55
Bird: Madam President?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session under Idaho State Code 67-2345(1 )(b).
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn into Executive Session per
state code 2345(1 )(b). Or 67-2345(1 )(b). All those in -- oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Berg, roll call.
Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
(Go into Executive Session)
(Return from Executive Session)
De Weerd: We have come out of Executive Session and it is 10:30. I would entertain a
motion to come out of Executive Session.
Nary: So moved.
McCandless: Second.
De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded and also stated that we came out of
Executive Session. All those in favor say aye. All ayes motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Before we adjourn Mr. Clerk has something he would like to bring up.
Berg: Thank you Madam President. Just some paper work of scheduling some
meetings for next January. ACHD Commissioners and ourselves have the Joint
Meeting on the 1st Monday of the month. Being that it's the 5th and it's right after the
holiday and it's before the swearing in of the new City Council and Mayor we thought
maybe we could move that to another day. The options are Thursday the 8th, Tuesday
the 20th or Monday the 26th.
Nary: I would rather stay with the Monday's myself just because those are usually the
times I"ve already blocked out but I don't -
Bird: I doesn't matter to me Will.
De Weerd: So the 26th,
(
Meridian City Council Meeting
December 9,2003
Pg. 55 of 55
Nary: Since it's a quarterly meeting not a monthly meeting it's not going to - I don't
think it will matter.
Bird: The 26th will be fine with me.
Nary: Let me write that down before I don't mark it in.
Berg: Okay Illllet them know. Thank you.
McCandless: It looks like we've got the 23rd and 30th off is that what we've decided?
Bird: So far unless we get stacked up. We have one more meeting to move on.
De Weerd: Almost clear sailing. Okay-
Bird: Madam President.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we adjourn.
Nary: Second.
De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to adjourn this meeting. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes motion carried. Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
~--<- ~
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
! / G / &4--
DATE
ATTESTED: ~
\\\\\\11 IJ 1111/1
,\ \\ F Me:- 1II1
,,\\ _I 0 t::.1iI^~ /1//
" ~, 'low)'.J1 ~
.:::.....' a _OP{)D....... -,~ 'l..;,.
2 ..{jU' U -, VCf,~ ~
::- ~ 0 ~
3 ~
-
(
I.
December 4, 2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT RF Construction
CUP 03-047
December 9, 2003
ITEM NO.
~.p
REQUEST Findings -- Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and rebuild
one single family residential dwelling for caretakers quarters on Lot 2 Block 2 of Observation
Subdivision in an R-4 zone -- 500 East Victory Road:
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
See aHached Findings
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:
OTH ER:
Contacted: ~, S7~bate: /2 ~g~07
Emailed: Staff Initials:
01
Phone: :3;2 ;1-SfyCD L/ rJ\
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
(
RECEIVED
iJEC 0 it 2003
interoffi ce
MEMORANDUM
Citv Of 11eridial1
City (~ler~k Office
To:
William G. Berg, Jr.
From:
WillialTI F. Nichols
Subject:
BY: RF CONSTRUCTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME AND REBUILD ONE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING FOR A CARETAKERS QUARTERS ON LOT 2
BLOCK 2 FOR OBSERVATION POINT SUBDNISION IN AN R-4 ZONE
File No.:
CUP-03-047
Date:
Noven1ber 26, 2003
Will:
Please fil1d attac11ed the original FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF
LA W AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT
TO CONDITIONS and ORDER for tl1e above n1atter. Please place this 1l1atter upon the Consent
Agel1da for Council discussion a11d decisiol1.
If you s11ol1ld llave allY qllestions please give lne a call.
z:\ W'ork\rvl\rvteridian\tvl erid ian I 5360ivl\Observalion Point Sub CUP-03-04 7\ClkLtrCU PtTcls&Order,doc
(
(
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING HOME AND REBUILD
ONE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING FOR A
CARETAKERS QUARTERS ON
LOT 2 BLOCK 2 FOR
OBSERVATION POINT
SUBDIVISION IN AN R-4 ZONE,
LOCATED AT 500 EAST VICTORY
ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
RF CONSTRUCTION,
APPLICANT
C/C 11/25/03
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CUP-03-047
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
The above entitled conditional use pe11llit applicatiollllaving CODle before the City
Council on Novenlber 12, 2003 and contillued lllltil Novenlber 18, 2003 and Novenlber 25, 2003,
at the llour of 7:00 p.ll1., at Meridiall City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and Anna
Powell Plallnillg Director, alld Brad Hawkins-Clark, botll for the Plallning and Zoning
Department, alld Elliott Sheffield, Lori Klell1, alld Gary Saclcett, appeared and testified, and the
City COllncil having duly considered tIle evidence alld the record ill tIlis l11atter alld tile
ReC0l1lnlel1dations to City COllncil issued by tlle Planning and ZOlling Con1111issioll who
conducted a public llearing and the COUllcilllavillg 11eard and takell oral alld written testinlo11Y,
and having duly considered the nlatter, tIle City COUllcilllereby Inakes tIle followillg FilldillgS of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 1 OF 16
(
Fact, COllclusions of Law and Decision and Order to-wit:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A 110tice of a public hearillg on the conditional use pernlit was publislled for two
(2) consecutive weeks prior to tIle said public llearillg sclleduled for Novelllber 12,2003, and
COlltil1ued until Novell1ber 18, 2003 alld Novenlber 25, 2003, before tIle City COllllCil, tlle first
publication appearil1g alld writtell110tice 11avillg beell111ailed to property OWllers or pllrcllasers of
record withill tllree hundred feet (300') of the extel11al boundaries of tile property under
consideration 1110re than fi [teen (15) days prior to said heari ng and \vi th the notice of pub I ic
hearing 11aving been posted upon tile property under consideration 1110re than one 'vveek before
said hearil1g and tIle copies of all notices were 111ade available to l1ewspaper, radio and television
stations as public service annollllcelnents; and the l1latter l1aving been duly considered by the City
Council at the Novelllber 12, 2003, and continued until Novenlber 18,2003 and Novenlber 25,
2003, public Ilearings; alld tIle applicant, affected property OWllers, and goverlilllent subdivisions
providillg services within tIle plannillgjllrisdiction of tIle City of Meridian, 11aving been givell
full opportllllity to express COlll1TIellts and sllbmit evidellce.
2. There has been c0111pliance with all notice a11d 11eari11g requirenlellts set forth in
Idaho Code 967-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code SS 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as evidellced by
the Affidavit of Mailing, a11d the Affidavit of Publication and Proof ofPostillg filed with the staff
repoli.
3. T11is proposed developlnent reqllest is in all R-4 zone alld by reason oftl1e
provisiollS of tIle Meridian City Code S 11-17-4, a public hearing was required before the City
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 2 OF 16
r
(
\
Council on tIlis applicatiol1.
4. TIle propeliy is located 011 tIle nOli11 side of Victory Road, approxilnately 1,000
feet east of Meridian Road, Meridian, Idallo, and the parcel is contiguous to existing city 1in1its.
5. The owner of record of the subject property is Jel14Y L. Caven, 6874 Fairview
Avenue, Boise, Idallo 83704.
6. Applicant is RF COllstructioll, 6874 Fairview Avenlle, Boise, Ida110 83704.
7. TIle subj ect property is clllTelltIy ZOlled R -4. TIle zonillg district of R -4 is defilled
within the City of Meridiall Zonillg and Developlllent Ordillal1ce, Sectioll 11-7 -2.
8. Tile proposed application reqllests a COllditional use perll1it for approval to
denlolish an existing h0111e and to rebuild Olle sillg1e-fanlily residential dwelling ill tlle R-4 ZOlle.
Meridian City Code 11- 7 -2.C requires cOl1nectioll to the Municipal water and sewer syste111S of
the City of Meridian in the R-4 zone. Meridian City Code 11-10-4 requires all new single-fanli1y
detached houses in the R-4 District to contain at least 1,400 square-feet of living space. fv[eridian
City Code 11-5-5.A states: no existillg structllre (devoted to a use not pernlitted by the Title in
the district in WIlicll it is located) 11lay be enlarged, extel1ded, cOllstructed, reconstructed, 1110ved
or structurally altered except by COl1ditiol1al use alld except vvIlere the use of tIle structure challges
to a use pell1litted ill the district ill whicll it is located.
9. The proposed application is in cOlTIpli311Ce with tIle Meridiall Conlprellensive
Plall, \vllicll desigllates tIle subject propeliy as Low Dellsity Residential.
10. The proposed residence, which is tIle subject oftllis application, will in fact
constitute a conditional use as deternlilled by City Ordillallce.
11. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Zonillg, Subdivision and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 3 OF 16
Developmellt Ordinances codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridiall City Code alld all Cl111~ent zonillg
Inaps thereof and the COlnprellensive Plall of the City of Melidiall, alld Maps alld tlle Ordinallce
establishillg the l1l1pact Area Boundary.
12. Gi ving due cOl1sideratioll to tlle COlTIll1ent received frolTI the gove111lTIelltaI
subdivisions providing services ill tIle City of Meridian plamlillgjurisdiction public facilities alld
services reg uired by tile proposed developlllent willll0t ill1pose expellse UpOll the public if tlle
following conditiollS of developnlent are ill1posed and the follovving is also fOllnd to be required
to nlitigate tIle effects of tIle proposed use and developnlent upon services delivered by political
subdivisions providing services to tIle subject real propeliy witllill tIle plallllillg j urisdictiol1 of the
City of Meridiall, sLlbject to the following:
A. Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning alld Zonillg COlnnlissioll, as follows:
1. AllY new honle on Lot 2, Block 2, Observatioll Point Sllbdivisioll sIlall be a nlinilTIUm
1 ,400 sq Llare feet.
2. The Applicallt slla11 i11sta11 lalldscaping alld bufferillg along Victory Road per tIle
Subdivisiol1 Ordillallce alld ill a lnanller similar to tIle existing lalldscapillg adjacellt to
the ilTIproved portioll of Observatioll POillt Subdivision.
3. Tile Applicant shall greell-up the rel11ailling acreage of the property. (See Council's
Novenlber 25,2003 clarification on green-up ill C.l. hereill below.)
4. Prior to the issuance of a building pernlit, subnlit a site plan to be approved by the
Plall11ing & Zonillg Departnlellt Sllowillg how tIle side entry of tile proposed garage vvill
layout 011 tIle Plat.) (Per COUllCil's actioll at tlleir Novell1ber 25,2003 l11eeting.)
5. The Applicant is reqllired to hook up to City sewer alld water services at tllis tinle,
Ilowever, no building pelmit sllall be issued 011 this site Llntil tIle sallitary restrictiollS
placed 011 this lot are resolved witll tIle Celltral District Healtll DepartIl1ent.
B. Adopt tIle ReCOll11TIelldations of tile Nalllpa & Meridialll1Tigatioll District as follovvs:
1. Allll1Ullicipal sllrface drainage Inust be retained 011 site. If allY sllrface drainage leaves
the site, tIle Nanlpa & Meridian lrrigatioll District llll1st revievv drainage plal1s.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 4 OF 16
2. TIle developer 11l11St COlllply witll Idallo Code 31-3805.
C. Adopt the actioll oftlle City Council takell at their Novel11ber 25,2003 l1leeting as follo'vvs:
For clarificatioll:
1. To tIle defillition of "greening-up", whicll pertains to tlle rell1aillil1g portion of the
sllbject lot, (whicll would be tIle lot area outside of the reqllired 20-foot wide
lalldscapillg buffer alollg Victory Road, tIle bllilding(s) 3l1d driveway 011 tile lot.), it
shalllllean to 1nake tlle remailling.lllldeveloped. portion of the subj ect lot to look
like tile otller buildable lots within tIle Observatioll Point Sllbdivision developlnellt.
In addition to tlle lalldscaping along Victory Road, it is also recolnlllended that the
applicant sllall either sod or seed, alld maintail1 (lnow al1d relnove weeds) tIle
undeveloped portion of the subj ect lot. If tIle applicant cllooses to install trees,
slu-ubs or otller lalldscapil1g this shall be allowed as l011g as tIle proposed
la1ldscaping does 110t violate Meridian City Code.
2. Lot 2, Block 2, of Observation Point Subdivisio1l, accordillg to City records, has
always been included within tIle boul1daries oftl1is subdivisioll (fornlerly Tin1ber
View Sllbdivision - PP-OO-OIO), and the associated annexation and zoning request
(AZ-OO-O 10), althougll11ot al'vvays in the sanle configuration on the plat.
Whell Till1ber View Sllbdivision was origillally sllbnlitted to tile City for review in
March of 2000, tIlere were 3 buildable lots proposed 011 tIle SOlltll side of the
Kelllledy Lateral. After receiving conmlellts froln ACHD, Wll0 wallted all illtelllal
vehicular connection across the lateral to the 3 lots, alld the recolll111endatioll fro111
the City for lnaking tIle 3 lots a park, becallse the lots were olltside of tlle sewer
service area for the Tell Mile Trunk, tIle applicant revised the plat to llave jllSt 011e
lot SOUtll of tlle lateral. Tllis lot, which is the Sllbj ect of tllis application, was platted
to aCCOnl1110date the existing residence 011 the lot lUltil SUCll tinle as the propeliy re-
develops. The City did 110t require the illClllsion of this lot; as it has been a part of
Observation Point/Tilnber View Subdivisiol1 since the original sublnittal i1) 2000.)
3. TIle applicant and allY sllbseqllent OWller shall 110t be allowed to fllrtller subdivide
Lot 2, Block 2.
13. It is fOlind that the site is large enougll to aCCOnl1110date the proposed use and all
otller features required by Meridiall City Code (MCC). Lot 2, Block 2, contai11s approxinlately
1.88-acres.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 5 OF 16
,r--
The Applicant is proposi11g to COl1struct a front-entry (facil1g Victory Road) garage
approxin1ately 30-feet froIn tI1e existiI1g right-of-way for Victory Road. Victory Road is
designated as a collector on the 2025 Functional Street Classification Map. The rvIeridian
C0111prehensive Plan requires a 20-foot wide landscape buffer aloI1g collector roadways. Except
for the subject lot, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer was provided along Victory Road \vith
Observatio11 POil1t Subdivision. Whe11 a 20-foot landscape buffer is c011strLlcted abutting tl1e site
011 Victory Road, the face of the proposed garage would be approxin1ately 10-feet froI11 the back
oftl1e buffer. Meridian City Code reqllires a 30-foot fr011t setback along collector roadways in the
R-4 zone. In order to be C011siste11t witl1 reqllired setbacks 011 Victory Road, any strllctllre(s)
constructed on Lot 2, Block 2, sl1all be located a 111inilTIUln of 40-feet back (for stnlctures takil1g
direct access to Victory Road) from the CUl1-ent Victory Road right-of-way li11e. TI1is
reC0111111enctation accounts for the future 20- foot wide landscape buffer and required frol1t setback
in the R-4 zone as well as aCcouIltiIlg for tIle off-street parking to be located outside of the future
landscape buffer on Victory Road.
NOTE: In order to lilnit direct lot access to Victory Road in the future, the Applicant
shall oriellt tIle garage so access ca11 be takell frOlTI a futllre interllal street alld Il0t Victory Road
when tllis lot redevelops. Should tIle Applicant provide staffwith a diagran1 Sllowil1g 110w access
will be taken intell1ally ill tlle futllre, the setback from Victory Road lTIay be redllced to the less-
restri cti ve side or rear setbacks, depending on oriel1tatioll.
14. The COll1prehensive Plall Land Use Map designates tlle propeliy as "Low-DeIlsity
Residential". 111 Cllapter 7, Futllre COllditiollS, Lalld Use, of the Meridian COlllprehensive PlaI1
(Mep), it is stated tllat the purpose of Low Density Residel1tiaI is "to all01ft; for the clevelop/11ent of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 6 OF 16
single-fa111ily h0111eS on large lots where urban services are providecl."
In Chapter 6 of the MCP, it is stated that "new developJnent should protect street ancl roacl
corrielors so that they can nlesh with the existing street S)lsten1 to aCC01111110date filture transportation
clenzancls. " Also ill Cllapter 6 of the MCP, it is stated tllat "the capacit)l of arterial and collector
roaelways can be greatl)l cli111inishecl by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City
sholllcl cooperate 1/vith A CHD to J1'linilnize access points on arterial and collector roa(lvva~vs as
(!evelopnlent CljJplicCltions are revie1vecl. "
It is found that ifurban services are not provided al1d the Victory Road COll-idor/buffer is not
protected, tIle1l tile proposed non-confonlling si11gle-family use is 110t harnl01lious with the Meridian
COll1prellellsive Plan or Meridian City Code.
15. It is fOllnd that the single- fall1ily residential use is cOlnpatible with the other ex isting
a11d i1ltended cl1aracter/llses in tIle gelleral vicinity. However, tile design, operatioll, and 111aillte11ance
of the septic use is not COllsistellt witll tIle intellded cllaracter of the vicinity. WIlen Observation POillt
Subdivisiol1 was processed, tIle City a11d tIle Central District Health Departlnent (CDHD) illte1lded
for any new residential structure(s) COllstrLlcted on Lot 2, BIocl( 2, to be serviced witll sewer and
\vater fr0111 the City. A reC0111111endation for denial has been received for the proposed conditional
use pel111it fronl the Central District Health Departlnent (see refell~al dated 9-10-03 [ronl CDHD).
The refelTal froll1 Mike Reno at the CDHD, states that because this developnlent (Observation Point)
was approved a11d sa11itary restrictiol1S were released for central sewer alld \vater, he canllot approve
this CUP (applicati011) llnless tIle lot were to have city water and sewer services.
16. It is not allticipated that the proposed development willllave all adverse ill1pact on
the surrounding property.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 7 OF 16
(
17. It is fOlllld tllat the proposed developnlent can be adeqllately served by all of tIle above
lis t e d pub lie fa c i lit i e s an d pub Ii c s e rv ice s .
18. Peliaining to activities, processes, l11aterials, equipnlent, alld conditions of
operatioll that would be detlimental to any persons, property, or gelleral welfare by reason of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, hlllles, glare or odors, it is 110t anticipated tIlat tllis
should be a problelll for the sluTounding area.
19. The sllbject site 11as one existing driveway to/from Victory Road. Victory Road is the
only public street frontage that tllis site has. Therefore, direct lot access to Victory Road is needed at
tllis tinle. It is fOlllld tIlat tIle location of the existing vehicle approacIl should not interfere with
traffic on the surroullding public streets.
NOTE: In order to ellsure that vehicular approaches to the property do not interfere 'vvith
traffic ill the fllture, it is recoll1111ended that any garage 011 Lot 2, Block 2, be desiglled so vehicular
access can be taken internally, and 110t from Victory Road, when tIle lot redevelops.
20. No llatllral or sce11ic feature(s) will be lost, damaged or destroyed by issuance ofthi5
conditiollal use.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. TIle City of Meridian sllall exercise tIle powers conferred UpOll it by tIle "Local
Lalld Use Plaru1illg Act of 1975" hereinafter refen4ed to for convenience as the "Act" codified at
Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. ~67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council l11ay exercise all the powers required and authorized
under the "Act" except the power to adopt ordinallces by the establish111ent of a Plallning and
ZOlling COlnlTIissioll by ordinllilce pursllallt to Idallo Code Section 67-6504 wl1ic11 the City
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 8 OF 16
r --
(
!
r
I
(,
Council oft]le City of Meridian has established by tlle passage of tIle "City of Meridian Zoning
and Developnlent Ordillance" at Titles XI alld XII, Cl1apter I, Meridiall City Code.
3. As pali of a zonillg ordil1allce the City COUllCil call, subj ect to 11earillg al1d notice
provision required, provide for the process of special alld/or COl1ditiollal use pel111its whicll a
proposed use is other\vise prohibited by the telll1S of the ordinance but allo'vved \vith conditions
under the specific provisiollS of tIle ordillallce Wllicll the City of Meridian has done in the
adoption of its zoning ordinances.
4. The City Councilllas the duty and respollsibility to review tIle facts alld
circumstances of eacll application for specialllse pennit to detennille prior to granting tile saIne
that the evidential showing supports the findillg tllat the followillg stalldards are illet alld tl1at the
proposed developnlellt: (Meridiall City Code S; 11-17 -3)
a. That the site is large enollgh to accolllmodate tIle proposed llse and all yards,
open spaces, parlcillg, lal1ctscapillg alld otller featllres as 111ay be required by tllis Ordinallce;
b. Tllat tIle proposed use alld developnlent plall will be hallTIOllious wit]l tIle
Meridian C0111prehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirenlents o[t]lis Ordinal1ce;
c. That the design, construction, operation and nlaintenance will be c0111patible \\lith
other uses in the gelleral neighborhood and witll tlle existing or intended cl1aracter of the general
vicinity and tllat SlICh use will not adversely cllange the essential cllaracter of the sanle area;
d. That the proposed use, if it cOlnplies with all COllditions of tlle approval i111posed,
will110t adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
e. Tllat the proposed use will be served adeqllately by essential Pllblic facilities al1d
services such as highways, streets, scllools, parks, police alld fire protectioll, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer; or tl1at tIle persoll responsible for tIle establishlllellt of the proposed
conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
f. That tIle proposed use willllot create excessive additional cost for public
faci lities alld services and wiIlllot be detrinlental to tIle economic welfare of tIle community;
g. Tllat tIle proposed use will not involve activities or processes, Inaterials,
equipnlellt alld COllditions of operation tllat will be detrin1ental to any perSOllS, property or the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA W AND DECISION AND ORDEI{
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERlVIIT
PAGE 9 OF 16
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, Iloise, sllloke, [lulles, glare or odors;
h. Tllat the proposed llse will have vellicular approaclles to the propeliy wllich shall
be so desigtled as not to create interference witll traffic on sun-olllldillg public streets; and
i. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or dalllage of a
natural, scellic or historic feature considered to be of major ilnportance.
5. Prior to gralltiIlg a conditiollalllse perInit ill tIle Low Dellsity Residelltial District
(R-4), a public heariIlg shall be COlldllcted witll notice to be pllblislled aIld provided to property
owners or purchasers of record withill tllree hundred feet (300') of tlle exteI11al boundaries of the
land under consideration for the conditional use pellllit all in accordallce with tIle provisions of
MeridiaIl City Code 9 11-17-5 City of Meridian Zonillg and Developnlent Ordinance, which
provides as follows:
"Prior to approvillg a COllditiollal Use Pennit, tIle applicallt aIld tIle COll1111ission and
COUI1Cil sllall follow notice alld llearing procedllres provided ill Cllapter 15 of tllis Title.
Provided, however, tllat conditionalllse applicatiolls for lalld ill Old TOWIl alld in
iIldustrial alld COlll111ercial districts shall only be required to 11ave Olle pllblic llearillg
whicIl shall be Ileld before tIle Plannillg alld ZOlling COlnlnissiol1; aIld after the
reconllnendation of the COlllmissioll is lllade, tile applicatioll sllall go before tIle City
Council 'vvitll0l1t a public llearing alld the COUllCil nlay approve, deny, or Inodify tile
reconl111endation of tIle Conllnission."
6. Following the pllblic llearing aIld witllil1 45 days after the conclusiol1 oftlle
public Ilearing tIle COlnnlission shall, transl1lit its recon111lel1dations to the Meridial1 City COlll1cil
with supportive reasons. The Conlnlission shall reC0111111end tIlat the application be approved,
approved with conditions or denied. The Conl111ission shall ensure that any approval or approval
with conditiollS of all application sllall be in accordance with Meridian COl1lprehensive Plan, City
of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, and Idaho State law. (Meridiall City Code 9
11-17-6)
7. Wllell the City COllllCil approves a COllditiollal use pernlit it lnay illlpose
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 10 OF 16
conditions of that approval that reasonably:
A. Mini111ize adverse inlpact on other developnlent;
B. Control tl1e seqllence and tilnillg of developlnellt;
c. Control tIle dllration of development;
D. ASSllre that the developlnellt is maintailled property;
E. Desigllate the exact locatioll alld llatllre of tIle developll1ellt;
F. Require the provision for on-site public facilities or services; and
G. Reqllire nlore restlictive standards tllan those generally required, in this
Ordinallce.
8. TIle City of Meridiall has, by ordillance, establislled tIle Iinpact Area alld the
A111ended C0111prehensi ve Plan of tile City of Meridian, 'vvhich was adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382 alld Maps.
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS 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 that:
1. That tIle above nalned applicant is granted a COllditiollal use permit to dell10lisll
the existing h0111e and rebuild a one single fanlily residelltiaI d'vvelling for a caretakers quarters on
Lot 2, Block 2 of Observatioll POillt Subdivision in all R-4 ZOlle, located at 500 East Victory
Road, Meridian, Idaho, subject to the followillg conditions of use and developnlent, subject to the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 11 OF 16
(
follo\ving:
A. Adopt the Recoillll1endations of the Planning alld Zoning Connnissioll, as follows:
1. AllY new home on Lot 2, Block 2, Observation Point Sllbdivision shall be a 111inimulll
1,400 square feet.
2. The Applicant shall install landscaping and buffering along Victory Road per the
Subdivision Ordinallce and in a l11anner sinlilar to the existing landscaping adjacent
to the ill1proved portion of Observation Point Subdivision.
3. Tile Applicant sllall greell-llp tIle relnaining acreage of the property. (See Council's
Novelnber 25,2003 clarification 011 greell-Up ill C.l. llereill below.)
4. Prior to the issuallce of a building pel111it, sllblnit a site plall to be approved by the
Plaluling & Zonillg Departnlellt Sllowillg how tIle side elltry of the proposed garage
will lay out on tlle Plat.) (Per COUI1Cil's actioll at tlleir Novenlber 25,2003 111eeting.)
5. TIle Applicant is reqllired to llook IIp to City sewer and water services at tllis till1e,
llowever, 110 building pennit sllall be issued 011 tllis site llntil tile sallitary restrictions
placed on this lot are resolved with tlle Central District Health Departll1ent.
B. Adopt the ReCOlTIlnendatiolls of the Nampa & Meridian IITigatioll Distlict as follows:
1. All 111unicipal surface drainage nlust be retained on site. If any sllrface drainage
leaves the site, the Nanlpa & Meridian Irrigation District nlust review drainage plans.
2. TIle developer 111USt c0111ply witIl Idallo Code 31-3805.
C. Adopt tIle actioll of the City COUI1CiI taken at their Novelllber 25,2003 111eeting as follows:
For clarificatioll:
1. To tIle defillition of "greening-up", whicIl pertains to tIle renlailling portion of the
subject lot, (Wllicll would be tile lot area outside of the required 20- foot wide
landscaping buffer along Victory Road, tIle building(s) 31ld driveway on the lat.), it
shalllnean to nlake tIle remailling, ulldeveloped, portioll of tile sllbject lot to look
like the otller buildable lots within the Observatioll Point Sllbdivisioll developnlent.
In addition to the landscaping along Victory Road, it is also recomnlended that tIle
applicallt shall either sod or seed, and maintaill (lnow and remove weeds) the
ulldeveloped pOliion of tIle subject lot. If tIle applicant cllooses to illstall trees,
shrubs or otller lalldscaping tIlis shall be allowed as 1011g as tIle proposed
landscapillg does not violate Meridiall City Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 12 OF 16
2. Lot 2, Block 2, of Observation Point Subdivision, according to City records, has
always been included within the boundaries of this subdivision (for11lerly Tinlber
Vie\v Subdivision - PP-OO-OIO), and the associated annexation and zoning request
(AZ-OO-O 10), althougIl not always in tIle sanle cOllfigllration on the plat.
When Tilllber View Subdivision was origillally sllblnitted to the City for review in
Marcll of 2000, there were 3 buildable lots proposed on the south side of tIle
Kenlledy Lateral. After receiving C0111111ellts froll1 ACHD, who vvallted an internal
vehiclllar cOllllecti011 across tlle lateral to the 3 lots, alld the reconl1uendation frO]11
tile City for 11lakillg tIle 3 lots a park, because the lots were outside of the se\ver
service area for tlle Tell Mile Trunk, tile applicallt revised the plat to 11ave just one
lot SOUtll of tIle lateral. This lot, whicll is tIle subj ect of tIlis appIicatioll, was platted
to accolllll1odate tIle existillg residence on tIle lot Ulltil SUCIl time as the propeliy re-
develops. The City did not reqllire the illclusion of this lot; as it Ilas been a pali of
Observation Point/Timber View Sllbdivisio1l sillce tIle original Sllblllittal ill 2000.)
3. The applicant and any subsequent owner sllall not be allowed to fllrtller sllbdivide
Lot 2, Block 2.
2. The conditions sllall be revievvable by tIle COUllCil pursuallt to Meridian City Code
9 11-1 7 -9.
3. The above C011ditiollS are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall 111eet
such requirenlents as a conditio11 of approval of the application for a conditio]lal use pernlit.
4. TIlat tIle City Attonley draft all Order Grallting COllditiollal Use Pelluit
111 accordallce with this Decision, whicI1 sllall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk alld the1l a
copy served by the Clerk upon tIle applicant, the Plalming and Zonillg Departnlellt, the Public
Works Departll1ent and allY affected party reqllesting notice.
NOTICE OF EIGHTEEN (18) MONTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DURATION
Please take notice tllat tile conditiol1al llse pellllit sllall be valid for a InaxilTIlllll period of
eighteen (18) l110nths llnless other'vvise approved by the council. During this tinle, the pe1111it
holder lllllst conl1uellce tIle use as pellllitted in accorda11ce 'vvith the conditions of approval,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 13 OF 16
(
(
satisfy tIle requireluents set forth in the conditions of approval, acqllire building penllits and
C0111111ellce construction of pemlanent footings or structures 011 or ill tIle grolllld. 111 tIlis context
"structures" sIlall illclllde sewer and water lilles, streets or bllildillg cOllstrllction. The applicallt
has specified in the applicatiol1 al1d to tlle COllUllissiol1 al1d C01IllCil a constluction schedllle alld
c0l11pletion date for the project. If the c0111pletion date specified for the project is exceeded, the
conditional use application shall beC0l11e null aJld void. Ho\vever, the applicant ll1ay subn1it an
application for a tinle extension 011 the project for city council review. The application for tinle
extensioll sIlall be submitted at least tllirty (30) days prior to tIle deadIi11e for C0111pletion of tIle
project. For projects reqlliring plattillg, tIle fil1al plat IUlISt be recorded witllin tl1is eighteen (18)
lTIontl1 period. For projects witll1TIultiple pllases, the eighteen (18) 111011th deadline shall apply to
the first pllase. 111 the evellt that tlle development is l1lade ill Sllccessive COlltiguous segl11ellts or
ll1ultiple phases, suell phases shall be cOllstructed withill sllccessive intervals of aIle year froil1 tIle
original date of approval by the eOlIneil. If tIle successive pl1ases are 110t sllbnlitted witl1ill Olle
year intervals, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null a11d void. (MCC 11-17-
4.8.)
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS
Tile Applica1lt is hereby notified tllat pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003., the OV\fner 111ay
request a regulatory taking allalysis. SllCl1 request 111Ust be in vvriting, and ll1Ust be filed with the
City Clerk 110t more tllan twenty-eigl1t (28) days after tlle fillal decisio11 c011cel11ing tile 111atter at
isslle. A reqllest for a regulatory takil1gs al1alysis will toll the time period within which a Petition
for Judicial Review 111ay be filed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 14 OF 16
(
Please take notice that tllis is a final action of the govellling body of the City of
Meridian, pllrsllallt to Idallo Code S 67 -6521 an affected person being a person Wll0 has an
interest ill real property which may be adversely affected by the issuallce or dellial of tlle
conditiollalllse penllit approval111ay withill twenty-eight (28) days after the date of t11is decisiol1
alld order seelc a judicial review as provided by Cllapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
By action of the City COUI1Cil at its regular nleeting lleld 011 tile
7)eC.eI11,-~, 2003.
/J rA.
'""/ day of
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD
VOTED$0
COUNCILWOMAN TAMMY deWEERD
VOTED~
COUNCILWOMAN CHERIE Mc CANDLESS
VOTED -$-a-
COUNCILMAN WILLIAM L.M. NARY
VOTED /Jb~
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
DATED: 12- -- q~tl3
VOTED
MOTION: V
APPROVED:--4-
DISAPPROVED:
'i\\~;.ill!"I/. ~ \
\\\\ 'I, =---""
" ' \ r-~. t; r:- ... '\ /
~<\'~ i 0\ l'~~ '::";O"l:~ /1'
'" '. ~ ~ 1I{.,o..,J: ..........
. . ' ~ .... "\ '\ /---';'".---. ---......... iA. //..... ~ -
~':' ,'" f' /r ,O\\;,POR..tl)... or V --;..
. '-." / C 1...1 ' ~ f ~ -::..
Attest: / ~~~J 0 iff/hYn J a e W~d- '-
( fI~GAL f') ~h-J/dh~-i u{J e~~
7(.; ,,~g
~ (/ .f> ~
Willial11 G. Berg, Jr., City ler ~.;?O Sr 1Si ~ ,,- $"
....~>. ':<1 ^~ ,.....
,~./ - '1 r~ \V "
/.: , ""- n; 1'\ ~-;--'{. ,\,....
'///Iji!~-;;"fl-~-: ~,:,..\-.\\\'\
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 15 OF 16
(
(
Copy served UpOll Applicant, Plal1l1illg and ZOlling Departlllellt, Pllblic Works
. \ \ "HilI (1/ II
Departnlent and the CIty Attoll1ey. \.\\\\\ c ~.~,=,......III/II
,,\' ....J 0\ ~ ,1:.j'rl^ ///
..':'- ~, vJ4 /,;'
:,.." 0'> o"PORA)"; /~ /~
- / ,.0 ~o ~
By: ~~k~(~' (~SEAifulted: hZ- 9-t73
CIty Clerk. ~~ B_
. Cl 0(; "C!i ,0 2
"i/ ~ 8r 15\ ~ ~ ~
"..J~., ... X' ,~
.rj A ~ ,,-'
Z:\ Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Observation Point Sub C'U~~9~-:~47~ti5s{fUP,9\~~'&"47.dOC
"~tjt:;:: :~~~\\~
FINDINGS OF FACT Al\TD CONCLUSIONS OF LA \tV AND DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 16 OF 16
("--
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING HOIVIE AND REBUILD
ONE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENIT AL DWELLING FOR A
CARETAKERS QUARTERS ON
LOT 2 BLOCK 2 FOR
OBSERVATION POINT
SUBDIVISION IN AN R-4 ZONE,
LOCATED AT 500 EAST VICTORY
ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
RF CONSTRUCTION,
APPLICANT
C/C 11/25/03
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CUP-03-047
ORDER GRANTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. Tllis l1latter C0111illg before tlle City COl111Cil on Novell1ber 12, 2003 alld cOlltinued
until Novenlber 18,2003 and Novelllber 25,2003, uIlder the provisiollS ofMeridiall City Code 9
11-17-4 for final acti011 011 conditionalllse pelmit application and tIle COlIllCil havillg received
and approving tIle Recolnmelldation of the Planning and Z011illg C01111nissioll tIle C01IllCil takes
the following action:
2. That the above nall1ed applicant is granted a conditional use pernlit to denlolish
the existillg hOlne aIld rebuild a one sillg1e fanlily residential d\velling for a caretakers quarters on
Lot 2, Block 2 of Observation Point Subdivisio11 in an R-4 zone, located at 500 East Victory
Road, Meridian, Idaho, sllbject to tIle following COllditiollS ofllse and developll1ent:
ORDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP-03-047)
PAGE 1 OF 5
A. Adopt tIle Recolll111endatiolls of tile Plamlillg and ZOllillg Commission, as follows:
1. Any new honle on Lot 2, Block 2, Observation POillt Subdivision sllall be a l11inimu111
1 ,400 sq uare feet.
2. The Applicant shall install landscaping and buffering along Victory Road per the
Subdivision Ordillal1ce and ill a lllallner silnilar to the existing landscapil1g adjacellt to
tIle ilnproved portion of Observatioll POillt Subdivisioll.
3. The Applicant shall green-up tIle remainillg acreage of tlle property. (See COUllCil's
November 25, 2003 clarificatioll 011 greell-l1p ill C.l. llereill below.)
4. Prior to tIle issllance of a bllildillg pelmit, sublnit a site plan to be approved by the
Plannillg & Zoning Departlnent showillg 110W tIle side elltry of tIle proposed garage will
lay Ollt 011 tIle Plat.) (Per COllllcil's action at tlleir November 25,2003 Ineeting.)
5. The Applicant is required to hook IIp to City sewer and water services at tIlis tilne,
however, no blIildillg pe1111it sllall be isslIed 011 tllis site Ulltil tIle sanitary restrictiol1S
placed 011 this lot are resolved with tIle Celltral District Health Depalilnent.
B. Adopt the Recol11111el1dations of the Nanlpa & Meridian Irrigation District as follovvs:
1. All nlunicipal sllrface drainage 111uSt be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves
tIle site, the Nalllpa & Meridial1 I11-igation District lllust review drainage plans.
2. The developer lllUst c0111ply with Idaho Code 31-3805.
C. Adopt tlle actioll of the City COUllCil taken at their Novell1ber 25,2003 111eeting as follows:
For clarificatioll:
1. To tIle defillition of "greellillg-up", wIlich pertaills to tIle relnaillillg portioll of the
sllbject lot, (wIlich WOllld be tlle lot area outside of the reqllired 20-foot wide
lalldscaping buffer alollg Victory Road, the bllildillg(S) alld driveway 011 tIle lot.), it
shall ll1eall to lnake the rell1ailling, ulldeveloped, POrtiOll of the Sllbj ect lot to 1001<
like the other buildable lots witllin tIle Observatioll Point Sllbdivision developlnellt.
III additioll to tIle lalldscapillg alollg Victory Road, it is also recoll1l1lellded that tlle
applicant shall either sod or seed, alld 111aintaill (11l0W alld rell10ve weeds) the
ulldeveloped portion of the Sllbj ect lot. If the applicant cllooses to install trees,
sllrubs or other lalldscapillg tllis sllal1 be allowed as 1011g as tIle proposed
landscapillg does not violate Meridiall City Code.
ORDER CONDITIONAL USE PERl\1IT
(ClTP-03-047)
PAGE 2 OF 5
2. Lot 2, Block 2, of Observation Point Sllbdivisioll, according to City records, has
always beell included witllill tIle bOllndaries of this sllbdivision (folmerly Tiluber
View Sllbdivision - PP-OO-O 10), alld the associated annexatioll alld ZOllillg request
(AZ-OO-O 10), althollgh not always in the saIne COllfiguration on the plat.
When Tilllber View Subdivisioll was origillally Sllbll1itted to tlle City for review ill
March of 2000, tIlere were 3 bllildable lots proposed on the south side of the
Kelmedy Lateral. After receiving commellts frOl11 ACHD, WI10 wanted an inte111al
vellicular connection across tlle lateral to the 3 lots, and the recommendation from
the City for lnakillg tIle 3 lots a park, because the lots were olltside of the sewer
service area for the Ten Mile Trur1k:, tlle applicant revised the plat to llave jllst one
lot south of the lateral. This lot, whicll is tlle subject oftllis applicatioll, was platted
to aCCOlll1TIodate the existing residellce 011 tIle lot ltntil such ti111e as the property re-
develops. The City did not require the inclusion ofth1S lot; as it has been a part of
Observation Point/Tilnber View Subdivision since the original subnlittal in 2000.)
3. The applicallt and allY subsequent OWller sllall not be allo\ved to further subdivide
Lot 2, Block 2.
3. TIle above conditiollS are COl1cluded to be reaSOllable alld the applicant sllall nleet
such requirelnents as a COlldition of approval of the application for a COllditiollal use pe111lit.
4. Notice to PerInit Holder, tllis COllditionalllse pe11llit is 110t trallsferable without
COll1pIyillg witll tIle provisiollS of Meridian City Code S 11-17-8, a copy of which is attached to
this p el111i 1.
NOTICE OF EIGHTEEN (18) MONTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DURATION
Please take notice tllat the cOllditional use perInit shall be valid for a lllaxinlUl1l period of
eig11teell (18) montIls llllIess otllerwise approved by tile COUI1Cil. During this tilne, tIle pern1it
holder must COll1111ence tile llse as permitted ill accordance with tlle conditiol1S of approval,
satisfy tile reqlliren1ents set fortIl ill tIle COllditiollS of approval, acqllire building pennits alld
COlll111ellce cOllstructioll of pennanent footings or structllres on or ill tIle groulld. III tllis cOlltext
ORDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP-03-047)
PAGE 3 OF 5
,-
I,
"structures" shall include sewer and water lines, streets or building cOllstruction. TIle applicant
has specified in the application and to the C0111111ission and council a construction schedule and
c0111pletion date for tile project. If the conlpletion date specified for the project is exceeded, the
COllditiollalllse application shall become llllll alld void. However, tIle applicallt nlay subnlit an
applicatioll for a time extension on the project for city cOllncil review. Tlle applicatioll for tinle
extellsiol1 sllall be sllbmitted at least tlliliy (30) days prior to the deadlil1e for conlpletioll of the
project. For projects requiril1g platting, the final plat l11Ust be recorded within this eighteen (18)
1110nth period. For projects witll 11lultiple pllases, tile eigllteen (18) lllonth deadlille sllall apply to
the first pllase. In tIle evellt tllat the developmellt is made in successive COlltigllOllS segments or
lTIultiple phases, SUCll phases shall be constructed withill sllccessive intervals of Olle year froll1 the
original date of approval by the council. lfthe successive phases are 110t subnlitted within one
year intervals, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. (MCC 11-17-
4.B.)
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS
The Applicallt is llereby llotified that plIrsuallt to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner 111ay
reqllest a regulatory taking analysis. Such reqlIest lllllSt be ill writillg, al1d lll1ISt be filed with the
City Clerk 110t 1110re than twenty-eigllt (28) days after the final decisiol1 concenling the matter at
issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petitioll
for llldicial Review may be filed.
By action of the City Council at its regular meetillg held on the
9~
day of
k-eYrv6-ev
,2003.
ORDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP-03-047)
PAGE 4 OF 5
(
Attest:
~/M'Yh--tJ C{.e .
~\ t \ \ [I fl. f 11/ II "-
\' ~~;!I!k" kA /' --
"",\ ~ P/~~'lp..... u; 7 l-O~~
" ~ ~.A ~ ....,...
~'CJ o~poFt4~ "V ~
:: ~G ~o ~
~ ~ ~
SEAL
7. &
..~ </Q ,OJ 0 2
~. ~^ USr 15\ · ~ ~
, v....n ~ "
<,,> -., 0. ~ ,-,.....
~''//. '..,OJ! ff\fT'l 1 ....','
, " I j ;. f l.' ~ ;' ,~: ; ~ II " , i \ \ \ \
Copy served UpOl1 Applicallt, tIle Planni11g and Zoning Departn1e11t, Public Works Departlllent
and City Attorney.
By: c:II~~~ R
City Clerk ?
Dated:
/z~ 1---tJ3
"Ye: &::
~ ~ <";\0 ,Qi 0 2
~.... () '8, 1S"\ · ,-;:. $'
.. /....., ~ ,....,. ~ ~ -...,'-
.J>",/ """0, I~JT'{" \\\"
1///:, 0/ ,,\\\\
.....;, j;; ;t'H\"
Z:\ \Vork\M\rvlericlian\Meridian 15360M\Observation Point Sub CUP-03-047\OrderCUP .doc
ORDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP-03-047)
PAGE 5 OF 5
(
December 4, 2003
M [ 03-009
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT Silhouette, LLC
December 9,2003
ITEM NO. 6.. E
REQUEST Findings -- Request for Modification of a condition to leave the Onweiler Lateral open and
construct ala foot wide paved multi-use pathway and place a 5 foot chain link fence along south bank
of canal for Silhouette Subdivision -- E of N. Meridian Rd, S of E. Ustick Rd
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLlCE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
See attached Findings
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:
vV
(//~
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
Date: ()r ~/O -; Phone: ,/ ~ l ·
etings shall become property of the City of Meridia1d)K 21 ~..t)7>{)
Contacted:
f-"~'." ----'.,'.....'.'...
,J~ ~J1
. ,~. ~/ ~l,~. ,7
n if .!)r.o. 3
U t iJJu
t:ilY ()f l\ier;ciitl:n
(_:ity C~lerk~ ()ffjce
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR REQUEST FOR
MODIFICATION OF A
CONDITION TO LEA VE THE
ONWEILER LATERAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A 10 FOOT WIDE
PA VED MULTI-USE
PATIWWAYANDPLACEA5FOOT
CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE
SOUTH BANK OF THE CANAL
FOR SILHOUETTE SUBDIVISION,
LOCATED EAST OF NORm
MERIDIAN ROAD, soum OF
EAST USTICK ROAD
BY: SILHOUETTE, LLC,
APPLICANT
C/C 11/25/03
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. MI-03-009
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING REQUEST FOR
MODIFICATION OF A
CONDmON TO LEA VE THE
ONWEILER LATERAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A 10 FOOT WIDE
PA VED MULTI-USE PATIWWAY
AND PLACE A 5 FOOT CHAIN
LINK FENCE ALONG THE soum
BANK OF THE CANAL FOR
SILHOUETTE SUBDIVISION
The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council
on October 14, 2003 and continued until November 25, 2003, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the
Meridian City Hall located at 33 East Idaho, and Anna Powell Planning Director for the Planning
and Zoning Department, and Ron Sargent, appeared and testified, and the City Council having
received a report from Steve Siddoway Associate Planner for the Planning and Zoning
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A
CONDITION TO LEA VE THE ONWEILER LATERAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A lO-FOOT WIDE PAVED MULTI-USE PATHWAY
AND PLACE A 5-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE SOUlH
BANK OF CANAL FOR SILHOUETTE SUBDIVISION - FOR :MI-03-009
PAGE 1 OF 7
Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician ill, and the City Council having
received testimony as part of the record of this matter, and the applicant having submitted his
application for a request for modification of a condition to leave the Onweiler Lateral open and
construct a 10 foot wide paved multi-use pathway and place a 5 foot chain link fence along the
south bank of the canal for Silhouette Subdivision, and which application is herein received and
adjudged by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code ~ 8-2-5, and being fully advised in
the premises does hereby make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order
of Decision, as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is generally located east of North Meridian Road, south of East
Ustick Road, Meridian, Idaho.
2. The applicant of the subject property is Silhouette, LLC whose address is 4915 W.
Camas St., Boise, Idaho 83705.
3. The owner of the subject property is Silhouette, LLC whose address is 4915 W.
Camas St., Boise, Idaho 83705.
4. The location of the subject property is presently located in an R-8 zone, and is
located on the east side of Meridian Road, approximately ~ of a mile south of Us tick Road.
5. The legal description of the property is on file in the City Clerk's office which is
located at 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho.
6. The subject property is surrounded on the north by rural residential and pasture
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A
CONDITION TO LEA VE THE ONWEILER LATERAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A IO-FOOTWIDEPAVEDMULTI-USEPATHWAY
AND PLACE A 5-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH
BANK OF CANAL FOR SILHOUETTE SUBDIVISION - FOR :tvrr-03-009
PAGE 2 OF7
zoned RUT (Ada County), to the south and east by Highgate Subdivision recently approved and
zoned R-8, and to the west by Salisbury Subdivision zoned R-4.
7. The applicant, Silhouette, LLC, has requested modification of a condition to leave
the Onweiler Lateral open and construct a 1 0 foot wide paved multi-use pathway and place a 5
foot chain link fence along the south bank of the canal for Silhouette Subdivision.
8. The annexation, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit for Silhouette
Subdivision were approved on February 19, 2002. The final plat was approved on October 22,
2002 and construction is currently underway. General requirement #1 of the final plat states that
"all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural watetWays, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13."
The same ordinance referenced above states that "the City may waive the requirement for
covering such ditch, lateral or canal, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be
served in the in the individual case" (MCC 12-4-13.A.2). The applicant proposes to have such a
case and is petitioning the Council to waive the requirement to tile the Onweiler Lateral.
In return for the waiver from the ditch tiling requirement, the applicant is proposing to
widen the current 5-foot wide path requirement to be a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway and grant
a public access easement across it. The proposed pathway alignment has been identified by the
Parks Dept. as a potential alternate route for the pathway currently depicted along the South
Slough. The applicant is also proposing to landscape the lot and use the open ditch as a water
amenity for the pathway.
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A
CONDITION TO LEA VE THE ONWEILER LATERAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A 10-FOOTWIDEPAVEDMULTI-USEPATHWAY
AND PLACE A 5-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH
BANK OF CANAL FOR SILHOUETTE SUBDIVISION - FOR 1\.11-03-009
PAGE 3 OF?
(
There is no objection to the idea of the Onweiler as a water amenity for a multi-use
pathway with public access. Last month, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID)
expressed their disapproval of having a pathway adjacent to an open irrigation lateral. In response
to NMID's objection to the proposed ditch tiling waiver and pathway, the applicant requested to
have their hearing continued to 11/25 to give them a chance to meet with NMID to discuss their
options.
The applicant submitted a detailed site/landscape plan as requested by staff for review and
comment. Staffhas verified on 11/19 in a phone conversation with Bill Henson ofNMID that
they have given verbal approval of the site plan as submitted by the applicant, provided that a 6-
foot chain link fence is placed between the pathway and the lateral. This miscellaneous
application is only to modify the condition to leave the Onweiler Lateral open and construct a 1 0
foot wide paved multi-use pathway and place a 5 foot chain link fence along the south bank of the
canal for Silhouette Subdivision.
9. Giving due consideration to the comment received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, public facilities and
setvices required by the proposed application for approval to modify conditions, it will not impose
expense upon the public if the following conditions of approval are imposed:
a. Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Department as follows:
1. The applicant shall construct a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway, per the Parks
Department construction standards, in place of the previously required 5 foot
path.
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A
CONDITION TO LEA VB THE ONWEILER LATERAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A IO-FOOT WIDE PAVED MULTI-USE PATHWAY
AND PLACE A 5-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH
BANK OF CANAL FOR SILHOUETTE SUBDIVISION - FOR lvf[..03-009
PAGE40F7
2. The two trees and park bench shown on the north side of the pathway within
the Onweiler Lateral easement shall be moved to the south side, outside of the
easement unless approved by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District ~).
The 10 Columnar Hornbeam trees shown along the pathway are required
unless prohibited by NMID; if prohibited they shall be replaced with shrubs.
All other landscaping is required as depicted on the submitted plan.
3. A public easement shall be recorded for the pathway lot prior to occupancy of
any structures in the subdivision. Submit a copy of the recorded easement to
the Planning and Zoning and Parks Departments.
b. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows:
1. All access roads within the project shall have clear driving surface with a
minimum width of 10' to be able to access grass fires.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Approval of this request for modification of a condition to leave the Onweiler
Lateral open and construct a 10 foot wide paved multi-use pathway and place a 6 foot chain link
fence (per NMID) along the south bank of the canal for Silhouette Subdivision, located east of
North Meridian Road, south of East Ustick Road, Meridian, Idaho, is based upon the information
provided by the applicant, staff comments, and testimony at the public hearing. The applicant is
required to comply with the conditions as stated in Findings of Fact No.9.
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code 9 12-
3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted:
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A
CONDITION TO LEA VE THE ONWEILER LATERAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A IO-FOOTWIDEPAVEDMULTI-USEPATHWAY
AND PLACE A 5-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH
BANK OF CANAL FOR SllROUETTE SUBDIVISION - FOR MI-03-009
PAGE 5 OF?
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND TIDS DOES ORDER
1. That the applicant is granted approval to their request for modification of a
condition to leave the Onweiler Lateral open and construct a 10 foot wide paved
multi-use pathway and place a 6 foot chain link fence along the south bank of the
canal for Silhouette Subdivision, located east of North Meridian Road, south of
East Ustick Road, Meridian, Idaho; and that the applicant shall be required to
comply with all the above conditions and requirements in Findings of Fact NO.9 of
staff and/or governmental entities.
aM
^ A ~ion of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the '7 '- day of
~~ ,2003.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN BIRD
VOTED -$-a.-
COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD
VOTED*tL
VOTED ~
COUNcaWOMAN McCANDLESS
COUNCILMAN NARY
VOTED /fh~
MAYORROBERTD. CORRIE
(TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
j;tm~J Cte W~ ..
/re/i~-t; U~ CPtVrt-cd
FINDINGS OF F ACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A
CONDITION TO LEA VE THE ONWEILER LATERAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A lO-FOOT WIDE PAVED MULTI-USE PATHWAY
AND PLACE A 5-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG TIffi SOUTH
BANK OF CANAL FOR SILHOUETTE SUBDIVISION - FOR 1v1I-03-009
PAGE 6 OF7
-y~ &.2
~ Q "Qi 0 ~
%;to uSr 15\ · ~!
........ ~ ~~ "
William G. Berg, Jr., City lerk 11111/1 OUNn · ~\\\'\\.~
IJ/JUtn n\t\"\
\\\1\\lllflfl//J/
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Work~DePamrlientrID;111111
" ~"\ ~~ //
and City Attorney. ~" a o~POR.4~ ~ ~
~ ~G ~o ~
:::: "'" :::
- -
- -
SEAL
Attest:
By: ~;a~~~, a
City Clerk r7 J'
Dated:
2- - f-tJ!1~
SEAL
Z:\ W ork\M\Meridian\1vIeridian 15360:M\Silhouette Subdivision MI-03-009\FfClsOrdMI-03-009.doc
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR MODWICATION OF A
CONDITION TO LEA VE THE ONWEILER LAffiRAL OPEN AND
CONSTRUCT A IO-FOOTWIDEPAVEDMULTI-USEPATHWAY
AND PLACE A 5-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH
BANK OF CANAL FOR SILHOUETTE SUBDIVISION - FOR 111-03-009
PAGE 7 OF?
(
December 4, 2003
PP 03-026
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT Properties West, Inc.
December 9,2003
ITEM NO. 3. E
REQU EST Findings -- Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in
an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No.2 -- west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Fairview Avenue:
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:
See aHached Findings
: /l7fJfO ~
1)(/ r VV
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
Contacted: J~ l\jiA(%
Phone: ~~~~7C;?) L/A
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Date):) 1; ~O)
(/
- . -
~
d
n .;~
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
t -~ 1 L \' iJ f f, 1 e I y i eli a ~-;
- ~i t\r { ~lerlz () 1-rlce
To:
William G. Berg, Jr.
From:
WID. F. Nichols
Subject:
Stokesberry Subdivision No.2
File:
PP-03-026
Date:
December 1, 2003
Will :
Please find attached the original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to action of the Council at their November 25, 2003 meeting.
The Findings will be on an upcoming Council agenda.
Please serve conformed copies of the Findings upon the Applicant and the
Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works and the City Attorney office, if Council approves
the Findings.
If you have any questions arise please advise.
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\M:eridian 15360M\Stokesberry Subdivision No.2 PP-03-026\BergPrePlatMEMO 1201 03.doc
I"
{
l-"~ 1~'Tt-'.~~
)i:\1 j~j
r'" {""".. C ~.J f} '1 n rt ')
iJt " t /~ LUUJ
c~i tv {J!' 1\1 erj d i arl
t;1 i~./ (; ierk ("lffi ce
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
IN THE MA TIER OF THE
REQUEST FOR PRE LThflNA RY
PLATFORSTOKESBERRY
SUBDIVISION NO.2 FOR 15
BUILDING LOTS ON 4.15 ACRES
LOCATED WEST OF NORTH
EAGLE ROAD AND NORm OF
EAST FAIRVIEW AVENUE,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
BY: PROPERTIES WEST, INC.,
APPLICANT
C/C 11/05/03
C/C 11/12/03
C/C 11/25/03
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. PP-03-026
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELThflNARY
PLAT
The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council
on November 5, 2003, and continued until November 12, 2003 and November 25, 2003, and
Anna Powell Planning Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Daren Fluke,
appeared and testified, and the City Council having received a report from Steve Siddoway
Planner II for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Engineering
Technician ill, and the City Council having received as part of the record of this matter the
recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant having
submitted the "BlJaDING SITE PLAN, SUPPLE11ENTAL DRAWING TO PRELTh1lNARY
PLAT, STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISION NO.2, A RE-PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISION NO.2 / (pP-03-026)
PAGE 1 OF 12
BLOCK 1 STOKESBERRY SUBDMSION, BOOK 82, PAGES 8898 & 8899 A PORTION OF
THE SE ~ OF THE NE Y4, SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE
MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2003, STOKESBERRY SUBDMSION
NO.2, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BUILDING SITE PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL
DRAWING TO PRELTh1INARY PLAT, CAD FILE: 1 1 927 SUPPLEMENTAL, PROJ.#:
GAL\11927, DRAWN BY: EL, DESIGN BY: JEe, CHECKED BY: JEe, LAST UPDATED:
07/23/03, SHEET 1 OF 1, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 7-23-3, J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. -
ENGINEERS - SURVERYORS - PLANNERS", Properties West, Inc. - Developer, submitted
for preliminary plat approval and which preliminary plat for approval application is herein received
and adjudged by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code 9 12-3-3. Therefore the City
Council makes the following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Amended
Comprehensive Plan by reason of the fact that it lies within the existing Urban Area as
defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map, Infrastructure
Planning Analysis Amended Comprehensive Plan Map, adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382, and the property is presently zoned L-O, and requires connection
to the Municipal Water and Sewer System. [Meridian City Code 9 11-7-2 G]
2. The preliminary plat is in conformance with the Amended Comprehensive
Plan City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382. The proposed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISON NO.2 / (PP-03-026)
PAGE 2 OF 12
office lots are in compliance with the future land use classification, Office, as noted on
the Future Land Use Map.
3. Sewer is already provided to the site via an existing 8" main in N.
Stokesberry Place and an additional sewer main will be required internally within the
proposed drive aisle locations. Water is also available in Stokesberry Place. The primary
public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and
services. It is found that there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost
and that the project will not be detrimental to the community's welfare.
4. It is found that the subdivision will not conflict with the capital
improvement plan. Because the developer has previously installed sewer, water, local
street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation, the subdivision will not require the
expenditure of capital improvement funds. All extensions of such services required by
this re-plat will also be funded by the developer.
5. It is found that the development will not require major expenditures for
providing supporting services. Referring back to numbers 3 and 4 above will also
provide additional information.
6. It is found that there should not be any other health, safety or
environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to
attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis; no hazardous natural
features have been identified on the site.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISON NO.2 / (PP-03-026)
PAGE 3 OF 12
7. It is found that the Recommendation To City Council of the Planning and
Zoning Commission is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions of approval of the
preliminary plat as hereinafter set forth.
8. The applicant has submitted for consideration of this approval drawing of
the preliminary plat herein designated as: "BUILDING SITE PLAN, SUPPLErvIENTAL
DRAWING TO PRELIMINARY PLAT, STOKESBERRY SUBDMSION NO.2, A
RE-PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK 1 STOKESBERRY SUBDMSION,
BOOK 82, PAGES 8898 & 8899 A PORTION OF THE SE 'l4 OF THE NE Y4,
SECTION 5 TOWNSIllP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE rvIERIDIAN,
rvIERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2003, STOKESBERRY SUBDMSION NO.2,
rvIERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BUILDING SITE PLAN SUPPLErvIENTAL
DRAWING TO PRELIMINARY PLAT, CAD FILE: 11927SUPPLErvIENTAL,
PROJ.#: GAL\11927, DRAWN BY: EL, DESIGN BY: JEC, CHECKED BY: JEC,
LAST UPDATED: 07/23/03, SHEET 1 OF 1, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 7-23-3, J-U-B
ENGINEERS, INC. - ENGINEERS - SURVERYORS .- PLANNERS."
9. The City Council recognizes the concerns of Maureen Boyle and Louis
Serino expressed in their letter dated September 26, 2003.
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code 9 12-3-5 and
based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISON NO.2 / (PP.03-026)
PAGE 4 OF 12
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER
1. The Preliminary- Plat of the applicant as evidenced by "BUILDING SITE PLAN,
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWING TO PRELIMINARY PLAT, STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISION
NO.2, A RE-PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK 1 STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISION,
BOOK 82, PAGES 8898 & 8899 A PORTION OF THE SE ~ OF THE NE Y4, SECTION 5
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO 2003, STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISION NO.2, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO, BUILDING SITE PLAN SUPPLEMENT AL DRAWING TO PRELIMINARY PLAT,
CAD FaE: 11927SUPPLEMENTAL, PROJ.#: GAL\11927, DRAWN BY: EL, DESIGN BY:
JEC, CHECKED BY: JEC, LAST UPDATED: 07/23/03, SHEET 1 OF 1, HANDWRITTEN
DATE: 7-23-3, J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. - ENGINEERS - SURVERYORS - PLANNERS",
Properties West, Inc., Developer is hereby conditionally approved; and
2. The conditions of approval are as follows to-wit:
A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as
follows:
1. The applicant shall be allowed to construct the common landscape buffer as an
easement on the lot, rather than on a lot to itself (per action of the City Council
taken at their November 25, 2003 meeting.)
B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering stafl: as
follows:
1. The project is subject to all conditions of approval of the Development
Agreement/Annexation (AZ-OO-007), and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-OO-020).
2. Any 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDMSON NO.2 / (pP-03-026)
PAGE 5 OF 12
all storms up to and including a 100-year storm event. Side slopes within drainage
areas shall not exceed 3: 1. The project engineer should pay close attention to the
results offield studies determining the groundwater, soil type & and characteristics
during the design and construction phases. The engineer shall be required to certify
that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest
established normal groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces is at least I-foot above groundwater.
3. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via main line extensions from mains
installed adjacent to the property.
4. Domestic water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from mains
installed adjacent to the property.
5. The applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this
development is to be owned and operated by the Stokesbeny business. Underground
year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this
development. 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. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
7. Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision pursuant to MCC 12-13-10-8.
8. Submit with the final plat application a copy of the Ada County Street Name
Committee's approval letter for the subdivision name, and the lot and block
numbering. Make any corrections necessary to conform.
9. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works
Department.
10~ One-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will be required at locations
designated by the Public Warks 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. The street light contractor shall obtain
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDMSON NO.2 / (PP-03-026)
PAGE 6 OF 12
design and permit from the Public Works Department prior commencing
installations.
11. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
. installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that
were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement
trees for those trees that have to be mitigated.
12. 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.
13. The final plat must be recorded prior to issuance ofbuilding permits on the new lots
in Stokesberry Subdivision.
C. Adopt the Recommendations of ACHD as follows:
1. All of the site-specific conditions of approval of Stokesberry Subdivision (Carol
Professional Center) apply to Stokesberry Subdivision Number 2.
2. Eagle Road is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).
Application materials shall be submitted to ITD for review and requirements of
that Department and the applicant shall submit to the District a letter from ITD
regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance
of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The
applicant may contact District ill Traffic Engineer at 334-8341.
3. No access points to Eagle Road have been proposed and none are approved with
this application.
4. No access points to East River Valley Street have been proposed and none are
approved with this application.
5. East River Valley Street was identified in the Eagle Road Access Control Study
as a temporary full-access intersection. This intersection will be restricted to
right-in/right-out operation as traffic volumes on Eagle Road increase.
The Idaho Transportation Department (lID) is currently in the process of
conducting a study of State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) from the 1-84 Interchange
to the intersection of the State Highway 44 Bypass in the city of Eagle. The
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISON NO.2 / (PP-03-026)
PAGE 7 OF 12
study will cover the operational characteristics of the roadway, which includes
signal operation and spacing, and changes in access controls. The findings and
conclusion of the study could have potential impacts on current and future access
points to the Highway.
6. 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.
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 Construction Services at 387-6280
(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 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDMSON NO_ 2 / (pP-03-026)
PAGE 8 OF 12
9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the
right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the
applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE
(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 planned use of the property which is the
subject of this 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 Meridian Fire Department Recommendations as follows:
1. Provide a fire-flow per the International Fire Code Appendix D to service the project.
Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix ill-A
2. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water
Department.
3. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside.
4. All access roads within the project shall have a clear driving surface with a minimum
width of20' available at all times. All entrances to the subdivision shall be posted "No
Parking Fire Lane" .
5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISON NO.2 / (pP-03-026)
PAGE 9 OF 12
E. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as
follows:
1. This proposal can be approved for central sewage & central water after written
approval from appropriate entities is submitted.
2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and
approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of
Environmental Quality.
3. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
4. Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the
subsutface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality.
5. The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall
obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a
stormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface water
degradation.
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 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISON NO.2 / (pP.03-026)
PAGE 10 OF 12
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 !:n of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
day of ~ce;n~ ~2003.
a~A
7-
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN BIRD
VOTED~a-
COUNcaWOMAN deWEERD
VOTED~
COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS
VOTED~
COUNCILMAN NARY
VOTED /fb~
MAYORROBERTD. CORRIE
(TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
Attest:
\\\\\,'\I1.H%J. r?1r7~rd. de w~.
",\\ of M'f!1$l I~/~_ '~} . ~
", ~~ ~!~~ Cvk ~
}' c} O~f'Oft17; '1' -,..~~ - / 'v
.:;:. ~0 ~O ~
<:- '" ~
-- -
- -
- -
~EAL
j? &:
~ </0 "Q) 0 ~
--:;.- '-"9;.1\ Us r 1 s"\ 1 ~ $"
// '-/.LJ ^ ~ "
// - J W '""
/~/III CouNT'l' \\,.........'
/'1 \\\
1J1I1l1 fl n\\\'
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDMSONNO. 2 / (PP-03-026)
PAGE 11 OF 12
Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning and Zoning Department, Public Work~\\\\\\\\~\l~~~;:IIJIIII
Department and City Attorney. "",~.J.. 0 . l/.!)1.1 /////
~::::' (j ot\POFl.,q ~ ~ ~
-:: ~G ('0
::: "
By:J~~~~/~
City Clerk (/
Dated:
/ /"] ~ /):::/ Olf l\ I
.?- - Cj -- v i> D .cu: ,,",.!U <"J
~ .. Cbo
~ ~ QUn-. __" 0
~ ~() \..) I 15\ · 't-...:
'-:.. :.d ~ ~ "
"// ~ 1 1\ \'v ".............
/11 ......OJ If\1T'< 't \'
III' ........ \\,'\
{Ihuun iiH\\\\
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Stokesberry Subdivision No.2 PP-03-026\FfClsOrdPP.doc
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
STOKESBERRY SUBDIVISON NO.2 / (PP-03-026)
PAGE 12 OF 12
December 4, 2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT Woodside Properties, LLC
December 9, 2003
RZ03-010
ITEM NO. ~
REQUEST Findings -- Request for a Rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for the
proposed Woodside Creek Subdivision -- 1115 North Ten Mile Road:
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
See attached Findings
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
~vJ-
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER: fi
Contacted: +) \G~{Nf l COO t~
Date: (}r g,O)
Phone: 310 ' q7DD
v(~
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
WHITE PETERSON
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
KEvIN DINIUS
JULIE KLEIN FISCHER
CHRISTOPHERD. GABBERT
WM. F. GIGRAY, In
T. GUY HALLAM --
JILL S. HOLINKA
JOHNR KORMANIK ·
Wn.LIAM A MORROW
Wn..LIAM F. NICHOLS *.
CANYON PARK AT THE IDAHO CENTER
5700 E. FRANKLIN RD., SUIlE 200
NMvfPA, IDAHO 83687-7901
TEL (208) 466-9272
FAX (208) 466-4405
CHRlSTOPHER S. NYE
PHILIP A PETERsoN
TODD A ROSSMAN
TERRENCE R. WIDTE ...
* Also admitted in CA
.. Also admitted in OR
... Also admitted in W A
December 2, 2003
--"Q ~~~~
cc.L \t.;t..}
-f\7J~ f'
William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk
rvtERIDIAN CITY HALL
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
. ;}nO~
...-.. +....,.. ...:.-~-----
(>i tv i,) f ;\.~ i,~. ~. ' -.~~1
Cj.it~{ (11(-='1"}:,
Re: WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / REZONE FINDINGS /
REZONE ORDINANCE & CERTIFICATION OF CLERK /
SUMMARY ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY COVER LETTER - RZ-
03-010
Dear Will:
Please find enclosed the original of the FINDINGS OF F ACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING
APPLICATION FOR REZONE prepared as per instructions from the Council meeting of
November 25, 2003, and which are on an upcoming agenda.
Also, please find enclosed the above Rezone Ordinance and the
Certification of the Clerk for the rezone for 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 oassed until the Findio!!s of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order Grantio2 AODlication for Rezone are
adoDted. 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
zoning ordinance is presented to Council for approval.
If you have any questions arise, please advise.
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 153601f\Woodside Creek RZ-03-010 PP-03-025\FFcl RZ Ord Berg Ltr 1202 03.doc
T.-J l{1.''t P ~. . ;, -
rl,L:J tJ -Bii I VE D
fife 0 4 2003
C~,i L,\' Of l\1eridia11
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIA~~jty C~Jerk Office
IN THE MATTER OF THE
REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 4.47
ACRES FOR WOODSIDE CREEK
FROM R-4 TO R-8, LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH TEN
MILE, APPROXIMATELY HALF A
MILE SOUTH OF CHERRY LANE
(1115 NORTH TEN MILE ROAD),
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC,
Applicant.
C/C 11/25/03
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No: RZ-03-010
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING APPLICATION FOR
REZONE
The above entitled matter on the rezoning application of 4.47 acres having come
on for public hearing on November 25,2003, at the hour of7:00 o'clock p.m., and Council
having received the report of Wendy Kirkpatrick Planner II for the Planning and Zoning
Department, and Bruce Freckleton Engineering Technician III, and Anna Powell Planning
Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, Richard Cook, Ken Reeves, and William
Homan, appeared and testified, and the Council having received the record of this matter made
before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and having received their Recommendation to the
City Council, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this
matter therefore makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Decision and
Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 1 OF 20
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The notice of public hearing on the application for rezoning was published
for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearing scheduled for November 25, 2003,
before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to
property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external
boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing
and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration
more than one week before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to
newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having
been duly considered by the City Council at the November 25,2003, public hearing; and the
applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the
planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence.
2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set
forth in Idaho Code 9967-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code 9911-15-5 and 11-16-1.
3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and
development ordinances codified at Meridian City Code Title 11 and Title 12, and all CUlTent
zoning maps thereof, 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.
4. The property is approximately 4.47 acres in size and is located on the west
side of Ten Mile Road, approximately half a mile south of Cherry Lane, Meridian, Idaho, and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 2 OF 20
said legal description is on file with the Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho,
Meridian, Idaho.
5. The owners of record of the subject property are Jeffrey A. Wood and
Christina M. Wood, and they have provided notarized consent for submission of the rezone and
preliminary plat applications.
6. The Applicant is Woodside Properties, LLC.
7. The property is presently zoned as R-4, and consists of a single-family
residence.
8. The Applicant requests the property be rezoned to R-8.
9. The proposed site is bordered to the north by R-4, to the south by RUT, to
the east by R-4, and to the west by RUT.
10. The subject property is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
11. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban
Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
12. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following
manner: as a residential subdivision.
13. The Applicant's requested rezoning 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.
14. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect
the consideration of this application.
15. In review of the application for rezone it is provided at Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 3 OF 20
City Code S 11-15-11 for the General Standards that the Commission and Council review this
proposed zoning amendment and pursuant to the criteria of said section finds that:
15.1 The new zoning will be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan;
15.2 The area included in the zoning amendment is not intended to be rezoned
in the future;
15.3 The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained
to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change
the essential character of the same area, subject to the conditions of the
conditional use process;
15.4 The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses, subject to the conditions of the conditional use process;
15.5 The area will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for
the establislunent of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any of such services;
15.6 The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community;
15.7 The use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,
property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
15.8 The area will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
15.9 The use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or
scenic feature of major importance; and
15.10 The proposed zoning will be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 4 OF 20
15.2 Staff conditions provide as follows:
A. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as
follows:
1. The proposed development meets the list of standards found in MCC 11-15-
11.
B. Adopt the Recommendations of the ACHD as follows:
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Ten Mile Road is listed as a project in the District's currently adopted Five
Year Wark Program and in the currently adopted ClP. As such, the applicant may
receive reimbursement for dedicated right-of-way from available impact fees. The
applicant shall dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline ofTen Mile
Road, if funds are available.
2. Provide a road trust deposit in the amount of $7,280.00 to be used for future
sidewalk construction along the applicant's frontage. **Due to the existing
mature trees along Ten Mile Road, the applicant may opt to construct a
meandering sidewalk on Ten Mile Road in lieu of a road trust deposit. The face
of sidewalk should not be located any closer than 41- feet from centerline, and an
easement should be provided for any sidewalk located outside of the right-of-way.
At the property lines the sidewalk should be constructed to match future sidewalk
improvements.
3. Extend Cliff Creek Street into the site at the south property line as proposed.
Construct Cliff Creek Street as a 29- foot street section within 42-feet of right-of-
way with curb, gutter and 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk. Sign one side of the
street for "NO PARKING". Provide written approval from the Meridian Fire
Department. At the applicant's discretion, sidewalk may be eliminated from the
street section around the island/drainage lot.
4. Direct lot or parcel access to Ten Mile Road is prohibited and shall be noted
on the final plat.
5. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 5 OF 20
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 Construction Services at 387-
6280 (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 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. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by
the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call
DIGLINE (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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 6 OF 20
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 planned use of the property which is
the subject of this 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.
C. Adopt the Recommendations of Meridian Fire Department as follows:
1. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside.
2. Provide a fire flow per the International Fire Code, Appendix D, to service
the project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart.
3. The entire portion of Block 2 will have to be signed "No Parking Fire
Lane" .
D. Adopt the Recommendations of Joint School District No.2 as follows:
1. The proposed pathway connecting to Chaparral Elementary School is
acceptable. Continue to coordinate any efforts with the District. All costs
of the pathway, including remodeling of the school's fence or unforeseen
conditions, shall be the responsibility of the Woodside Creek developer.
E. Adopt the Recommendations ofNampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows:
1. Applicant shall apply for a land use change/site application.
2. All storm drainage appears to be retained on site. This meets the District's
irrigation requirements.
3. All laterals and waste ways must be protected.
4. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 7 OF 20
(
F. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as
follows:
1. This proposal can be approved for central sewage and central water after
wri~en approval from appropriate entities is submitted.
2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted
to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division
of Enviromnental Quality.
3. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
4. The Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to
discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface
water quality.
5. The engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject
project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater
disposal and design a storm water management system that prevents
groundwater and surface water degradation.
G. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their November 25, 2003 meeting as
follows:
For clarification:
1. The applicant shall provide a 25' wide landscape buffer along the Ten
Mile Road frontage as required by MCC. However, pertaining to the area
of the existing home, the existing home shall be accessed from the interior
of the subdivision, and the applicant shall provide a 25' landscape buffer
around the home to comply with MCC.
2. The developer stated on the record at the November 25, 2003 meeting, that
he shall extend the pressurized irrigation line to the adjacent neighbor,
William Homan, living at 3265 West Park Creek Drive, to provide his
residence with pressurized irrigation, and that this pressurized irrigation
shall be at no charge to Mr. Homan, but shall be at the sole expense of the
developer. Additionally, Mr. Homan shall be responsible for costs of the
operation and maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system just the
same as if he were a homeowner within the Woodside Creek Subdivision.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 8 OF 20
16. It is found that the requested zoning designation ofR-8 is harmonious with
and in accordance with the effective Comprehensive Plan (02') and Future Land Use Map which
designates the subject property as Medium Density Residential (3 to 8 dwelling units per acre).
The project has a gross density of3.25 dwelling units per acre.
17. It is not anticipated that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property
again in the future.
18. It is found that the proposed single-family residential development will be a
permitted use within the requested R-8 zone.
19. It is found that the land to the east and north has already been developed in a
manner similar to the proposed subdivision. The surrounding residential subdivisions are zoned
R-4. The applicant is proposing density of3.5 units per acre, building lots will range in size from
6,500 square feet to 10,724 square feet.
20. It is found that the proposed use (single-family residential) is designed
appropriately to match with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity. The
proposed changes to the existing character of the area are in harmony with the intended future
land use envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan.
21. It is not anticipated that the proposed residential use will not be hazardous or
disturbing to existing or future neighbors, as long as the recommended conditions of approval are
complied with.
22. It is found that the property to annexed can be served adequately by all
essential public services and facilities. The subject property is served by an existing public road
(Wave Street) which stubs to the subject property from Berkeley Square Subdivision. The
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 9 OF 20
subdivision is intill development and will not take direct access from Ten Mile Road. City sewer
and water will be extended by the developer to the subject property. Review of ACHD and the
Fire Department's comments will provide further information regarding public services.
23. 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. Review of number 22 directly above will provide additional information on this matter.
24. 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. It is
recognized that 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.
25. It is found that the subdivision's vehicular approach located within the
previously approved Berkeley Square Subdivision will not create interference with traffic on
surrounding roads. Review of the ACHD report will provide comments concerning vehicular
approaches and traffic generation.
26. It is not found that any natural or scenic feature will be lost, damaged or
destroyed by approval of this rezone. The existing home on the subject property will be
maintained. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per
the Landscape Ordinance.
27. It is also found that the zoning amendment would be in the best interest of the
City. The proposed residential subdivision meets the intent of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan
and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPER'fIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 10 OF 20
(
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Council may take judicial notice of govermnent ordinances, and
policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State.
2. 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.
3. The requested zoning of Medium Density Residential District, (R-8) is defined in
the Zoning Ordinance at 11-7-2 D as follows:
(R-8) Medium Densitv Residential District: The purpose of the R-8 District is to permit
the establishment of single- and two-family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8)
dwelling units per acre. This District delineates those areas where such development has
or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also
designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two-family dwellings in well-
established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal water
and sewer systems of the City is required.
4. Idaho Code S 67-6511 provides and requires that the City shall establish by
ordinance one or more zones or zoning districts in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and the ordinance establishing zoning districts can be amended with particular consideration
given to the effects of any proposed zone change upon the delivery of services by any political
subdivision providing public services, including school districts, within the City's planning
jurisdiction and that it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Idaho Code S 67-6511A provides:
Each governing board may, by ordinance adopted or amended in accordance with the
notice and hearing provisions provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, require or
permit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or developer make a written commitment
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 11 OF 20
concerning the use or development of the subject parcel. The governing board shall adopt
ordinance provisions governing the creation, form, recording, modification, enforcement
and termination of conditional commitments.
6. The City of Meridian by the adoption of Meridian City Code S11-15-12 has
exercised its authority to require or permit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or developer
make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject property.
7. S 11-6-1 ZONING DISTRICT MAP provides in part as follows:
The districts established in this Ordinance as shown on the Official Zoning Map, together
with all explanatory matter thereon, are hereby adopted as part of this Ordinance. Where
uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of any of the zoning districts as shown
on the Official Zoning Map, the following shall apply:
7.1 Where district boundaries are indicated as approximately
following the centerline of street lines, highway right-of-way lines, streams, lakes
or other bodies of water, the centerline shall be construed to be such boundary;
7.2 Where district boundaries are so indicated that they approximately follow the lot
lines, such lot lines shall be construed to be said boundaries;
7.3 Where district boundaries are so indicated that they are approximately parallel to
the centerlines or street lines of streets, or the centerlines or right-of-way lines of
highways, such district boundaries shall be construed as being parallel thereto and
at such distance therefrom as indicated on the Official Zoning Map. If no distance
is given, such dimensions shall be determined by the use of the scale shown on the
Official Zoning Map; and
7.4 Where the boundary of a district follows a railroad line, such boundary shall be
deemed to be located in the middle of the main tracks of said railroad line.
8. S 11-15-1Iofthe Meridian City Code GENERAL STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO ZONING AMENDMENTS provides in part as follows:
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 12 OF 20
8.1 The new zoning will be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
8.2 The area is not intended to be rezoned in the future.
8.3 The area is intended to be developed in the fashion that is allowed under the new
zonIng.
8.4 There has been no change in the area or adjacent areas which would dictate the
area should be rezoned.
8.5 The proposed uses will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of
the same area;
8.6 The proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
8.7 The area will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such
as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such
serVIces;
8.8 The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community;
8.9 The proposed uses will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,
property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
8.1 0 The area will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
8.11 The use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
8.12 The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 13 OF 20
DECISION AND ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHICH ARE HEREIN ADOPTED, the City
Council does hereby Order and this does Order:
1. The Applicant's request for rezone of approximately 4.47 acres as a single-family
residential subdivision, subject to the terms and conditions of this Order hereinafter stated; and
2. The following special terms and conditions of use and development relate to this
application to-wit:
A. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Department as
follows:
1. The proposed development meets the list of standards found in MCC Il-
lS-II.
B. Adopt the Recommendations of the ACHD as follows:
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Ten Mile Road is listed as a project in the District's currently adopted Five
y ear Work Program and in the currently adopted elP. As such, the applicant may
receive reimbursement for dedicated right-of-way from available impact fees. The
applicant shall dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline ofTen Mile
Road, if funds are available.
2. Provide a road trust deposit in the amount of $7,280.00 to be used for
future sidewalk construction along the applicant's frontage. **Due to the
existing mature trees along Ten Mile Road, the applicant may opt to construct a
meandering sidewalk on Ten Mile Road in lieu of a road trust deposit. The face
of sidewalk should not be located any closer than 41- feet from centerline, and an
easement should be provided for any sidewalk located outside of the right-of-way.
At the property lines the sidewalk should be constructed to match future sidewalk
improvements.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 14 OF 20
3. Extend Cliff Creek Street into the site at the south property line as
proposed. Construct Cliff Creek Street as a 29-foot street section within 42-feet
of right-of-way with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. Sign one
side of the street for "NO PARKING". Provide written approval from the
Meridian Fire Department. At the applicant's discretion, sidewalk may be
eliminated from the street section around the island/drainage lot.
4. Direct lot or parcel access to Ten Mile Road is prohibited and shall be
noted on the final plat.
5. 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.
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 Construction Services at 387-
6280 (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 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 15 OF 20
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. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by
the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call
DIGLINE (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 planned use of the property which is
the subject of this 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.
C. Adopt the Recommendations of Meridian Fire Department as follows:
1. All roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside.
2. Provide a fire flow per the International Fire Code, Appendix D, to service
the project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 400' apart.
3. The entire portion of Block 2 will have to be signed "No Parking Fire
Lane".
D. Adopt the Recommendations of Joint School District No.2 as follows:
1. The proposed pathway connecting to Chaparral Elementary School is
acceptable. Continue to coordinate any efforts with the District. All costs
of the pathway, including remodeling of the school's fence or unforeseen
conditions, shall be the responsibility of the Woodside Creek developer.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 16 OF 20
(
\
E. Adopt the Recommendations ofNampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows:
1. Applicant shall apply for a land use change/site application.
2. All storm drainage appears to be retained on site. This meets the District's
irrigation requirements.
3. All laterals and waste ways must be protected.
4. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805.
F. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as
follows:
1. This proposal can be approved for central sewage and central water after
written approval from appropriate entities is submitted.
2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted
to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division
of Environmental Quality.
3. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
4. The Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to
discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface
water quality.
5. The engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject
project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater
disposal and design a stormwater management system that prevents
groundwater and surface water degradation.
G. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their November 25, 2003 meeting as
follows:
For clarification:
1. The applicant shall provide a 25' wide landscape buffer along the Ten
Mile Road frontage as required by MCC. However, pertaining to the area
of the existing home, the existing home shall be accessed from the interior
of the subdivision, and the applicant shall provide a 25' landscape buffer
around the home to comply with MCC.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 17 OF 20
2. The developer stated on the record at the November 25, 2003 meeting, that
he shall extend the pressurized irrigation line to the adjacent neighbor,
William Homan, living at 3265 West Park Creek Drive, to provide his
residence with pressurized irrigation, and that this pressurized irrigation
shall be at no charge to Mr. Homan, but shall be at the sole expense of the
developer. Additionally, Mr. Homan shall be responsible for costs of the
operation and maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system just the
same as ifhe were a homeowner within the Woodside Creek Subdivision.
3. The City Attorney shall prepare for consideration by the City Council the
appropriate ordinance for the re-designation of the zoning for the real property which is the
subject of the application to (R-8) Medium Density Residential District (Meridian City Code S
11-7-2 D) which ordinance shall be considered for passage.
4. Subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance, provided for in Section 2 oftrus
Order, the engineering staff of the Public Works Department shall prepare the appropriate
mapping changes of the official Zoning Maps as provided in Meridian City Code S 11-21-1 in
accordance with the provisions of the rezoning ordinance.
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 request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition
for Judicial Review may be filed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 18 OF 20
Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code 9 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 !Je{".eln~ q~ 2003.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD
VOTED~
COUNCILWOMAN TAMMY deWEERD
VOTED~
VOTED~
COUNCILWOMAN CHERIE McCANDLESS
COUNCILMAN WILLIAM L.M. NARY
VOTED ./Jb~
MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
DATED: /'2-- 9--&3
VOTED
MOTION:
APPROVED:--X-
DISAPPROVED:
Attest:
William G. Berg, Jr., Ci Clerk 0J
"Y 0
--; &A "Q) 0:::
~ ~ ~us i ~ .:E $
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIQN~ ~ ,,~
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPRavAQOflftrri' . ~\"""
t.LJ \\\
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO Ki&/linn n".\\\\
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 19 OF 20
('-
By: ~~~-~~ fA-
City Clerk '
\\\\\,\\ II II tt/J1111
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Qe~eJfEI\t~;IIIII/
and the City Attorney. ~...." c} o~POR4 7; '/;~ ~\
::: _.....0 ~() ~
::: ~ ~
- -
- -
- =
Dated: I Z - f ---tJ ~
- & ~
;. CQ ,CD ~
~ "10 U~r 1S\ ' .p j
~ ~ ~~ ,
//.1/ CO, ......, '\$) ,..........'
/11; UNT l" \<\\.
Jill \ \ \
linn~ 0\\\\\
SEJiL
z:\ W ork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\W oodside Creek RZ-03-O 1 0 PP-03 -025 \Ffs CIs OrderREZ. doc
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF
REZONING OF 4.47 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC FOR WOODSIDE CREEK / (RZ-03-010)
PAGE 20 OF 20
December 4, 2003
P P 03-025
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT Woodside Properties, LLC
December 9,2003
ITEM NO. 3 -,
REQUEST Findings -- Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 5 other
lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Woodside Creek Subdivision -- 1115 North
Ten Mile Road:
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See aHached Findings
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:
OTH ER:
contacted:~\cN\Oj' ~ ~oo\L
\ V.......
~~
Date: J1'~ /O~~
Phone:~UD ~k
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~R-- .._~ E: --c/ FIVFD"~
_ - ~..J t1 L..:A
DEe 0 3 2003
Interoffice
MEMORANDUM
(;ity Of IVleridian
(~if~{ Clerk Office
To:
William G. Berg, Jr.
From:
W111. F. Nichols
Subject:
Woodside Creek Subdivision
File:
PP-03-025
Date:
Decen1ber 3, 2003
Will:
Please filld attacIled tIle original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to actioll of the COlIllCil at tIleir Novelnber 25,2003 ll1eeting.
TIle Findings will be on an Upcollling COll1lcil agenda.
Please serve COllfolTIled copies of tIle Findillgs llpan the Applicant and tIle
Plallning and Zoning Departlnent, Pllblic Warks and the City Attorlley office, if COllncil
approves the Fi11di11gS.
If youllave a11Y questiollS arise please advise.
z:\ \Vork\rvl\rvlericJian\rvlericJiun I 5360rvl\ V/oodsidc Creek RZ-OJ-O 10 PP-03-025\BergPrePlatrvl ErvlO 12 03 03.Joc
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR )
PRELIlVIINARY PLAT FOR WOODSIDE )
CREEK SUBDIVISION FOR 15 BUILDING )
LOTS AND 5 OTHER LOTS ON 4.47 ACRES )
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEN )
l\/IILE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY HALF A )
IVIILE SOUTH OF CHERRY LANE, (1115 )
NORTH TEN lVIILE ROAD), MERIDIAN, )
IDAHO )
)
)
)
)
BY: WOODSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC,
APPLICANT
C/C 11/25/03
CASE NO. PP-03-025
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER OF
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
TI1e above elltitled luatter COlllillg 011 regtllarly for public llearil1g before the City Council
011 Noven1ber 25, 2003, and AlUla Powell Plamling Director for tIle Plamlillg and ZOlling
Departnlent, Richard Cook, Kell Reeves, al1d Williall1 HOll1all, appeared and testified, alld tIle
City Council having received a repoli fro111 Wendy Kirlcpatrick Plaluler II for Plalmillg alld
Zoning, and Bruce Freclcleton, Engilleering Teclulicia11 III, and t11e City COUllCil havi11g received
as part of the record of this Inatter the reC0111111endatio11 to City COUllciI of tIle Planllillg and
Zoning COll1111ission and the applicallt having SUbll1itted the "PRELIMINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION, LYING IN NE Y4 OF THE SE l~ OF NE ~ OF
SECTION 10, T.3N., R.1 W., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, DWG DATE:
06/26/03 JTA, DWG NO. 30415, STAMPED DATE: SEP 24 2003, STAMPED: RECEIVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION/ (PP-03-025)
PAGE 1 OF 12
(
SEP 25 2003 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE, REVISION: 7/9/03 BY: JTA,
7/28/03 BY: KDH, 9/24/03 BY: BPI, SHEET: 1 OF 2 PRE-I, \30415-PRE.DWG, LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: A PORTION OF THE NE % OF THE SE ~ OF THE NE ~ OF SECTION 10
TOWNSlliP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO,
WOODSIDE PROPERTIES LLC - DEVELOPER, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. -
PLANNER", Woodside Propeliies, LLC, Developer, SUb111itted for preli111illary plat approval and
vvhicI1 preIimillary plat for approval applicatioll is herei11 received and adjudged by tIle City
COLlncil pursuant to Meridiall City Code S 12-3-3. Therefore tIle City COllllcil111akes t11e
following filldillgS:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . That the proposed developn1ellt is in COl1foll1lal1ce witIl tIle A1nellded
Conlprehensive Plan by reason of the fact that it lies within the existing Urba11 Area as defined in
the Meridian Conlprellensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map, Infrastructure Planning Analysis
All1ended COlnprehensive Plan Map, adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the
property is preselltly zoned R-4 (Low Density Residential), however, all application for
anllexation and zoning to R-8 is before the COl111cil, and requires cOllnection to the Municipal
Water and Sewer Syste111. [Meridia11 City Code S 11-7-2 D]
2. The prelilninary plat is in confolmallce witll the A1ne11ded Comprehensive Plall
City of Meridian adopted August 6,2002, Resolutio11 No. 02-382.
3. It is dete11nined that Urba11 Services call be 111ade available to acco11ln10date the
proposed develop111ent if the plat c0111plies with tile reqllirenle11ts a11d conditions Ilerei11after set
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 2 OF 12
forth as conditions of preliminary plat approval. Additionally, tIle developer sllall extelld sewer
and water to tIle sllbject property.
4. The proposed development is a continuity oftlle proposed development withill the
City's CapitallIllprovenlellt Program aJld if the COllditiollS, whicll are requested by the Plannillg
alld Zoning Adll1illistrator and the Engineering Technician III, and as proposed by the developer
as stated on the prelilninary plat, there will be Pllblic finallcial capability of sllpportillg services
for the proposed developn1ent. Additionally, the developer shall extend sevver alld water to the
subject property.
5. TIle developmellt ifbllilt ill accordallce witll tIle conditiollS alld as proposed, will
not create health, safety or environmental problems alld there 11ave beell110 specifics of any such
concell1s brought to tIle COlIllCil' s attelltioll.
6. It is fOl111d that tIle Recollllnendatioll To City COl111Cil of the Plall1lillg alld ZOlling
COlnlnissioll is reasonable and appropriate for tIle COllditions of approval of the prelilninary plat
as hereillafter set fOl1l1.
7. The applicallt 11as sllbnlitted for consideratioll of tllis approval drawing of tIle
prelinlinary plat herein desigllated as: '~PRELIMINARY PLAT WOODSIDE CREEK
SUBDIVISION, LYING IN NE Y4 OF THE SE ~ OF NE lit OF SECTION 10, T.3N., R.1 W.,
B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, DWG DATE: 06/26/03 JTA, DWG NO. 30415,
STAMPED DATE: SEP 24 2003, STAMPED: RECEIVED SEP 25 2003 CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE, REVISION: 7/9/03 BY: JTA, 7/28/03 BY: KDH, 9/24/03 BY: BPI,
SHEET: 1 OF 2 PRE-I, \304I5-PRE.DWG, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A PORTION OF THE NE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 3 OF 12
% OF THE SE % OF THE NE % OF SECTION 10 TOWNSIHP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,
B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, WOODSIDE PROPERTIES LLC-
DEVELOPER, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. - PLANNER".
DECISION AND OR_DER
PurSllallt to the City COUllCil's allthority as provided ill Meridiall City Code 9 12-3-5 and
based llpOll the above alld foregoing Filldings of Fact whicll are 11erein adopted:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER
1. The Prelin1illary Plat of tIle applicant as evidenced by "PRELIMINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION, L YINO IN NE ~ OF THE SE ~ OF NE % OF
SECTION 10, T.3N., R.IW., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, DWG DATE:
06/26/03 JTA, DWG NO. 30415, STAMPED DATE: SEP 24 2003, STAMPED: RECEIVED
SEP 25 2003 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE, REVISION: 7/9/03 BY: .TT A,
7/28/03 BY: I<DH, 9/24/03 BY: BPT, SHEET: 1 OF 2 PRE-I, \3041S-PRE.DWG, LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: A PORTION OF THE NE ~ OF THE SE ~ OF THE NE ~ OF SECTION 10
TOWNSillP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO,
WOODSIDE PROPERTIES LLC - DEVELOPER, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. -
PLANNER", Woodside Properties, LLC - Developer is llereby COllditiollally approved; and
2. The conditions of approval are as follows to-wit:
A. Adopt tIle Special Recoil1lllelldatiolls of the Plannil1g alld ZOlling COllll11ission as
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL AFPROY AL OF PRELIIvIINAR Y PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 4 OF 12
· Add to page six, item Olle: Ull1ess sewer access c11al1ges, thell above paragraph
will not be applicable.
· Add an item 10 to page seven stating tllat all streets are to be a l11illilnuln width
of 33 feet.
· Add an iteln 11 to page seven stating tllat two accesses are reqllired for tIle
subject property ullIess the Fire DepartI11ellt agrees to SigI1 off and waive the
req Uire111ent.
B. Adopt the ReC0l11l11elldatiol1s of tIle Plalming alld Zonillg and Engi11eeril1g staff
as follows:
1. Sanitary sewer service to this site s11al1 be via l1lai11line extel1sions froI11 an existing
111ain in Tell Mile Road. Please revise the preli111inary plat 111ap to show a twenty-
foot wide con11110n area lot centered on the sanitary se'vver 111ain exiting the
developn1ent into Ten Mile Road. Make adjustnlents to the adjacent lots to provide
tIle Ininilllum lot fro11tage required by Ordillance.
2. D0111estic water service to tl1is site shall be via a 111aiI1 hIle extension froll1 the
existing nlaill illstalled in tIle Berkeley Square Subdivision.
3. The applicallt 11as illdicated tllat the pressurized irrigati 011 systenl wi t1lin th is
developmellt is to be an extel1sion of the systenl t113t is OWlled al1d operated by the
Nalnpa Meridian Irrigatiol1 Distlict. Ul1dergrolllld year-round pressllrized irrigation
111ust be provided to all lots withill tllis developl1lellt. The City of Meridian requires
that pressurized i11~igatioll systell1S be supplied by a year-roul1d SOllrce of water.
Applicant s11all be required to utilize allY existing Sllrface or well water for the
prill1ary source. If a surface or well SOllrce is not available, a sillgle-poil1t
c0111lectio11 to the cuIil1ary water systell1 sllall be reqllired. If a sillg1e-poil1t
C0l1l1ection is utilized, tIle developer shall be respoIlsible for the pa)'l11ellt of
asseSS111ents for tIle c0l1l1110n areas prior to signature 011 tl1e fil1al plat by the
Meridian City Engineer.
4. Obtai11 approval [rol11 Meridian School District for the proposed pathvvay connected
to Chapa11-al Elenlentary School.
5. A 110te restrictillg access to N. Tel1 Mile Road sllall be added to the plat.
6. A fencillg plan sllall be Sllb111itted witll tIle fillal plat indicating ll1icropath and
perilneter fel1cing, ill cOlnpliallce wit11 the MCC.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELTh1INARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 5 OF 12
(
("
\.
7. A revised landscaping plan, in accordance vvith tlle Lalldscapillg Ordinallce shall be
SUblllitted with tIle final plat applicatioll. The plan shall i11clude a revised drainage
swale design in accordance with tIle Lalldscape Ordinance.
8. As part of tIle developlnent of tIle Berkeley Square Sllbdivisioll, drainage facilities
were piped tllat calTY drainage water off oftllis site. Please revise tIle prelinlinary
plat to show tllese piped facilities, and Sl10W how tlley are to be continlled tlu-ough
this proposed sllbdivision.
9. If tIle 11laintenance of any commOl1 lots witllill the subdivision is to be the
responsibility of al1YOlle other thal1 tIle HOA, a note shall be added to the face of tl1e
plat illdicatillg who the responsible party shall be. Written docunlentatioll of
acceptance of tIle Inaintenance of the common lot(s) from the responsible party (if
other tllan tIle HOA), sllall be sllblnitted to tIle City with the final plat applicatiol1.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Please subn1it a copy of the Ada County Street Na11le COlTIlnittee's approval letter
for tIle subdi vision nallle, a11d tIle lot a11d block lll1111bering. Mal(e allY cOl14ections
necessary to canfoflll.
2. Coordinate fire hydrant placelllellt witll the City of Meridian Public Worl(s
Departn1ent.
3. A letter of credit or casll surety ill the all10unt of 1100;0 will be required for all
fellcing, landscapillg, play equiplnent, pressurized ill~igatioll, sani tary sevver, \vater,
etc., prior to signature 011 the fillal plat.
4. Sidewalks witlull the proposed sllbdivisioll shall be built in accordance with
MCC12-13-10-8.
5. 011e-hllndred-watt, higl1-pressure sodium streetlights will be reqllired at locations
desig11ated by tl1e Pllb lie Works Depaliment. All streetlig11ts s11al1 be i11stalled at
subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersectiollS and/or fire
hydrants. Fillal desigI110catio11s and quantity are deter111il1ed after power desigI1S are
c0111pleted by Idaho Power COlnpallY. T11e street ligl1t COlltractor s11all obtain design
and pellnit froln tIle Pllblic Works Depalimellt prior c011llilencing installatiolls.
6. All in-igation ditclles, laterals or callaIs, exclllsive ofnatural watervvays, intersectillg,
crossing or lying adjace11t and contiguolls to t11e area being subdivided shall be tiled
per City Ordinallce 12-4-13. Plans wi] 1 l1eed to be approved by tIle appropriate
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELlMlNAR Y PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 6 OF 12
irrigation! drainage district, or lateral users association ( di tch owner's), wi th wli tten
approval or non-approval slIbn1itted to tIle PlIblic Works Depart111ent. If lateral
users association approval call't be obtailled, plans will be reviewed alld approved
by tIle meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
7. Any drail1age areas ( detelltioTlIretelltioll basins) mllst be designed to ensure that
water is retained only during 1 DO-year stonn events, alld for a period oftinle not to
exceed 24 110urs. Side slopes witllin draillage areas shallllot exceed 3: 1.
8. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is ren10ved froll1 the property shall be replaced by
installing additiol1al trees, being the equivalent nun1ber of caliper illc11es of trees
t11at were renloved. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as
rep1acell1ent trees for those trees that have to be renloved.
9. Developer sllall coordinate 111ailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
10. Any existing domestic wells alld/or septic systelTIS witllill tllis project will have to be
removed from tlleir domestic service per City Ordinance Sectioll 9-1-4 and 9-4-8.
Wells l11ay be used for non-dolllestic pllrposes SllCh as landscape irrigation.
11. COll1pactioll test results lnllst be sllblnitted to the Meridiall Bllilding Depalilnellt for
all building pads receiving engineered backfill, wllere footing WOllld sit atop fill
material.
12. Applicant's engilleer will be reqllired to submit a signed, stamped statement
certifyillg tllat all street fi11ish cellterline elevations are set a minilTIUlll of tllree feet
above the 11ighest establisl1ed 11011nal groundwater elevatioll.
C. Adopt the ReC0l1l1nelldations of ACHD as follows:
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Ten Mile Road is listed as a project il1 the District's currently adopted Five Year
W orl( Prograln and in tIle cllrrelltly adopted eIP. As SUCll, the applicant 111ay
receive reilnbursenlellt for dedicated right-of-way fro111 available in1pact fees.
The applicallt sllall dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way fraDl tIle ce11terline ofTen
Mile Road, if fUllds are available.
2. Provide a road tnlst deposit in the amOllllt of $7,280.00 to be llsed for futllre
side\valk construction along the applicant's frontage. **Due to tIle existillg
Inature trees along Ten Mile Road, tIle applicallt may opt to cOllstruct a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 7 OF 12
(
Ineandering sidewalk on Ten Mile Road in lieu of a road trust deposit. The face
of sidewall( should not be located any closer than 41-feet fro111 centerline, and an
easen1el1t should be provided for any side\valk located outside of the right-of-
way. At tIle property lilles tIle sidewalk should be constructed to 111atch fltture
sidewalk ilTIprOVenlents.
3. Extend Cliff Creek Street il1to tIle site at the SOllth propeliy line as proposed.
Construct Cliff Creek Street as a 29-foot street section witllin 42-feet of right- of-
way witll Cllrb, glItter and 5- foot wide COl1crete sidevvalk. Sigl1 OIle side of tIle
street for "NO PARKING". Provide written approval fronl tIle Meridian Fire
Depalilnent. At tIle applical1t's discretiol1, sidewalk 111ay be elil11illated frOlTI the
street section around tIle islal1d/draillage lot.
4. Direct lot or parcel access to Tell Mile Road is prollibited and sIlall be 110ted on
the final plat.
5. COlllply with all Stal1dard Conditio11s of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. AllY existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the rig11t-of-vvay.
2. All utili ty relocatiol1 costs associated with inlproving street frontages abutting the
site shall be borne by tlle developer.
3. Replace al1Y existil1g dalllaged clIrb, glltter and sidewalk and allY that nlay be
damaged dllring the cOllstructiol1 of tIle proposed developlnellt. COl1tact
COllstrllction Services at 387 -6280 (witll file llulnber) for details.
4. Utility street Cllts in paven1ent less tllall five years old are not allowed unless
approved in writing by the District. Contact COllstructioll Services at 387 -6280
(with file nllll1bers) for details.
5. All desig11 and constrLlctioll shall be ill accordance witll the Ada COllnty HigIlway
District Policy Mallllal, ISPWC Stalldards alld approved supplenlents,
Construction Services procedllres and all applicable ACHD Ordinallces ull1ess
specifically waived herein. An ellgilleer registered ill tIle State of Idaho sllall
prepare and celiify all inlprove111ellt plans.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 8 OF 12
6. The applicant shall sublnit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issllallce of
buildillg pernlit (or other reqllired pennits), whic11 illcorporates any required
desigll changes.
7. Construction, use alld property developnlent s1la11 be ill cOllformance with all
applicable requirelnellts of tIle Ada COllllty Highway District prior to District
approval for occupallcy.
8. Paytl1ellt of applicable road in1pact fees are reqllired prior to bllildillg
construction in accorda11ce with Ordinance # 197, also kno'vvl1 as Ada County
Highway District Road Inlpact Fee Ordinance.
9. It is tIle responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the
right-of-way. Existing utilities danlaged by tlle applicallt shall be repaired by the
applicant at 110 cost to ACHD. The applica1lt s11a11 be reqllired to call DIGLINE
(1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breakillg groulld within
ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic OperatiollS 387-
6190 in tIle event allY ACHD condllits (spare or filled) are cOll1prolnised during
any phase of constnlction.
10. No cllange in t11e te11ns and conditions of tl1is approval s11all be valid ullless they
are in writil1g and SigIled by tIle applicallt or tIle applicallt's autl10rized
representative alld an allt1l01ized representative of tIle Ada COUllty Higllway
District. TIle bllrdell shall be UpOll the applicant to obtail1 written cOllfinnatioll of
any change froln tl1e Ada COllnty Highway District.
11. AllY challge by the applica11t i11 the plalllled use of tIle propeliy which is tIle
subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules,
regulations, ordinances, plal1s, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force
at the tinle the app I icant or its successors in interest advi ses the High\vay District
of its intent to cllange tlle planned use of the subject property unless a
waiver/variallce of said requirellle11ts or other legal relief is granted pursuant to
the law in effect at the ti111e tIle change in use is sought.
D. Adopt tIle Meridian Fire Depalimel1t Recolnmendations as follows:
1. All roads sllal111ave a tlllllillg radills of 28' illside a11d 48' outside.
2. Provide a fire-flow per the Intelllational Fire Code Appe11dix D to service tIle project.
Fire hydrants sllall be placed lli1 average of 400' apali.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELllv1INARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 9 OF 12
(
3. TIle elltire portioll of Block 2 willllave to be signed "No Parkillg Fire Lane".
E. Adopt tIle Recon1melldation of Nalnpa & Meridiall Irrigatioll District as follovvs:
1. Applicallt shall apply for a lalld use cllallge/site applicatioll.
2. All stonll drainage appears to be retailled 011 site. This meets tIle
District's irrigation reqllirements.
3. All laterals and waste ways mllst be protected.
4. The developer 111USt comply with Idaho Code 31-3805.
F. Adopt tIle Recoll1111elldatiolls of tIle Central District HealtIl Departll1ellt as
follows:
1. This proposal can be approved for central sewage & celltral water after
written approval froll1 appropriate entities is Subll1itted.
2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans nlust be
sublnitted to and approved by the Idaho Departnlent of Health & Welfare,
Division of EllvirolUl1ental Quality.
3. RUll-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
4. Stormwater shall be pretreated tlrrollgh a grassy swale prior to discllarge
to the subsurface to prevent ilnpact to groundwater and sllrface water
quality.
5. TIle Engi11eers and arcllitects illvolved witll tIle design of tile subject
project sllall obtain Clln~ellt best Inallagement practices for stonnwater
disposal and desigI1 a stonnwater 11lallageme11t system that prevellts
grollndwater alld sllrface water degradation.
G. Adopt the Recon1lnelldations of Joint School District No.2 as follows:
1. The proposed pathway cOllnecti11g to Chaparral Elenlelltary SCllool is
acceptable. Continue to coordinate any effo11s with the District. All
costs of the pathway, including renlodeling of the school's fence or
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELllvlINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 10 OF 12
Ullforeseen conditiollS, shall be the responsibility of the Woodside Creek
developer.
H. Adopt t11e actioll of the City Council taken at their Novenlber 25,2003 meeting
as follows:
For c lari fi cati on:
1. TIle applicant shall provide a 25' \vide landscape buffer along the Ten
Mile Road frolltage as required by MCC. Ho\vever, pertailling to the area
of tIle existing Iloll1e, the existil1g h0111e shall be accessed [ron1 the
illterior of tIle subdivisioll, alld tIle app lica11t shall provide a 25' landscape
bllffer arolllld tIle hOllle to comply witll MCC.
2. TIle developer stated 011 tl1e record at tIle Novel11ber 25, 2003 l1leeting,
tl1at lle sllall extend tIle pressurized irrigatioll1ille to the adjacellt
neighbor, William HOlTIall, livillg at 3265 West Park Creek Drive, to
provide I1is residellce with pressllrized irrigation, alld that tllis pressurized
irrigatiol1 sllall be at 110 cllarge to Mr. HOll1all, bllt sllall be at tile sole
expellse oftlle developer. Additionally, Mr. HOlTIan shall be responsible
for costs of the operation and mail1tenance of the pressllrized inigation
systelll jllst tIle saIne as ifhe were a llo111eowller witI1ill the Woodside
Creek Subdivisiol1.
3. Tl1e developer is ]10t required to have a secolldary access into tIle
Woodside Creek Subdivisiol1 a11d tllis was approved by the Meridian Fire
Departnlent.
4. TIle sewer easemellt that would have run tllrollgh Lot 11 is 1l0\V
elinlinated, and cOllllectioll of the sewer sllall be at the stub located in
NOlil1 Cliff Creek Avenue, as sllown 011 the subnlitted Prelinlinary Plat.
5. The developer has elilninated the sidewalk gOillg arou11d tIle open area,
al1d I1as widelled the street section out to a fllll 33 feet ill widtll with a 42-
foot right-of-way.
By actioll of the City Council at its regular n1eetil1g lleld 011 the
day of ,2003.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 11 OF 12
(
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN BIRD
VOTED -$-6L.
COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD
VOTED~
COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS
VOTED
~
COUNCILMAN NARY
VOTED
)/b~
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE
(TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
Copy served UpOll Applicallt, The Planllillg and Zoning DepartIl1ent, Public Works
DepartInellt and City AttoDley.
Attest:
\\\\\\ lllf 11
\\\\ C
,'\\....f Or ..-.
" ~,
~' (} ~o
.::;. 00
~':: ~
C;(~~ u 1- (.~~ \\\'111111//111/11
_ T J \\\ r: Me:- 11/
:: "\,\\ ~ O~ . c.ly/() 1//;
-.::.- & 2 "" ~ '4. /'i
. ,---, .\.{") ~ ~Q5 0 2 ~ (j ot\POItq )--. ~ ~
illiam G. Berg, Jr., City erk. , Y':'.;>,'-. ~SJ 181:, :i-'t? f ~c; ~o ~
By: J~~~,;/~'};"'~:!~\~~~~~' Z-- 9-tJ3 SEAL
City Clerk :::. 7&Q~ ,,\>,)& 0 ~
~/ i'<) 'S, 1S\ t ~ f
-/// ~a ^~ .,,'
// O'U -rV ~ ,-,'
11/ . - t . f<tJ i \ l' \ '\ -..
II} I . \\\\
-iiillit tll\\\\
z:\ Vvork\fVl\fVleridian\Meridian 15360M\ \"/oodside Creek RZ-03-0 I 0 PP-03-025\FfClsOrdPP .doc
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELllvIINARY PLAT
WOODSIDE CREEK SUBDIVISION / (PP-03-025)
PAGE 12 OF 12
December 4,2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
Decem ber 9, 2003
ITEM NO.
-5 -.I:
REQUEST Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for School Site in Bridgetower Crossing
(Primeland Dev, LLP)
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:
SETILERS IRRIGATION:
See attached
v-vvJ
Vv7tf
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.
F-
,-
i
RECEIVED
DEe - 3 2003
.Me
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
o
To: Mayor Corrie & City Council-
From: Brad Watson, P.E.
CC: Fife, Gary Smith, PE, City Clerk
Date: 12/3/2003
Re: Proposed Agenda Items for December 9th City CounC?iI Meeting
The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be ptaced on the
December 9th City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration:
1) Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for School Site In Bridoetower
Crossina (Primeland Dev~ LLP).
Typical sewer and water main easement.
Recommended Council Action: Approve the Sanitary Sewer and Water Main
Easement for School Site in Bridgetower Crossing (Primeland Dav, LLP)
and authorize the Mayor to sign and City' Clerk to attest~
Thank you for your consideration.
. Page 1
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT
~~ .
TillS INDENTURE, made this ~ day of~~e~ 20 ()~ betweenPU H.~Nt> oelle I Lt-f
,
the parties Qf the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; ,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of-way
across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and
WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground
pipelines to be constructed by others; and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by
the Grantee;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and
other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto
the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary
sewer and water mains over and across the following described property:
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B)
. The easement ,hereby granted is for ~he purpose of construction and operation of sanitary
sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and
replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, With the free right of access to such_facilities
at any and all t.imes.
TO HA VB AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's
successors and assigns forever.
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto,
that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of
the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and
maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring
anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of
this easement. '
3 o 25-Sanitary Sewer and Wat:f,Main Easement
EASMT.S& W.doc
THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed
any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area
describ~d for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the
purposes stated herein.
THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the
right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part ot: or lie within the boundaries
of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way -and easement hereby granted
which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereot: shall cease and become
null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and
possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, anp. that they have a good and
lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title
and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscnbed their
signatures the day and year first herein above written.
~:
1.J().N>: ~ O-r
Managing Partner . ~
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss
County of Ada )
. On this lli..flY day of OM7J~ ,2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said State, personally appeared Frank: S. Varriale-,-
known or identified to me to be the Managing Partner of the Limited Liability Company,
L.L.P that executed .the Within instnnp.ent, and acknowledged to me that said Company
executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here
and year fist above written. .
~~~~t~tE~~etE<?~r.
'\:,"" C f., T ;:;~
,'fy. ~ i;. C .M. --. fig ~..; (.'
~~v.; -<A <;,~ t.:~cGeo~z:~.-=tc..t-........ ~09b
$ r,...'Y fJGe Ce ~-.I:'<'"C' '~
-.. ~ C &6 V' . e'o
~ "Y ,JD ~ 0 T A .0 l".#-. 0 ~ ':a
: : ~ . -<\'.r ~ ':
: : c:Doe~ ~ :
_ e e ~
- g ^ C e ~
-: G~ .("(JB 1 l' ~ =
~ "<P. o~ .:..,.I Q~ ::
~ ~ 0" Gee 4 0 ~
~~ ~ l" eGCGeGe!0 "'~ 't:;~~
~#~b., li OF lU ~ ~~~~
3025 S. S ~Al!L:;~-M"'''~TZ!~~''_. E
- amtary ewer- mIU-.ti~~.aL~{ MaIn asement
EASMT.S& W.doc
GRANTEE: CITY OF rvlliRIDIAN
Robert D. Corrie, Mayor
Attest by William G. Berg, City Clerk
Approved By City Council On:
STATE OF IDAHO, )
ss.
County of Ada )
On this day of , 2003, befo.re me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
:in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE 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 ackno-yvledged 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)
3025-Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO
Residing at:
Commission Expires:
EASMT.S&W.doc
".~____ ";:'" I' .
(
IDAHO
SURVEY
GROUP
1450 East Watertower St.
Suite 150
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone (208) 846-8570
Fax (208) 884-5399
EXHIBIT A
October 15, 2003
DESCRIPTION FOR OFFSITE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
PROPOSED BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SCHOOL SITE
An easement for operation and maintenance .of domestic water and
sanitary sewer lines, located in the N % of Section 35, T.4N., R.1W., S.M.,
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 35, from which the 1/4
corner common to Section 26, T.4N., R.1W., and the said Section 35, bears
North 89028'07" West, 2625.56 feet; thence along the north line of said Section
35, North 89028107" West, 1833.74 feet; thence South 00031153" West, 930.73
feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence South 27000100" East, 70.01 feet;
thence South 63000'00" West, 31.86 feet to a point of curvature;
thence 346.81 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
725.00 feet, a central angle of 27024'27" and a long chord bearing South
76042114" West, 343.51 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
thence 280.34 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of
275.00 feet, a central angle of 58024'27" and a long chord bearing South
61012114" West, 268.35 feet to a point of tangency;
thence South 32000'00" West, 417.51 feet to a point of curvature;
thence 128.28 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
525.00 feet, a central angle of 14000'00" and a long chord bearing South
. 39000'00" West, 127.96 feet to a point of tangency;
thence South 46000'OO~' West, 120.06 feet to a point of curvature;
thence 50.32 feet along the. arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of
93:00 feet, a central angle of 31000'00" and a long chord bearing South
30030'00" West,' 49.71 feet to a point of tangency;
Pro f e S S ;.':0 n a.f Lan d Sur v e y 0 r s
thence South 15000'00" West, 112.15 feet to a point on the northerly right-
of-way of W. Belltower Drive;
thence along said right-of-way North 75000'0.0" West, 68.00 feet;
thence leaving said right-af-way -North 15000100" East, 64.44 feet to a
point of curvature;
thence 112.00 feet along the ~rc of a curve to the right, having a radius of.
207.00 feet, a central angle of 31 000'00" and a long chord bearing North
30030100'~ East, 110.64 feet to a point of tangenqy;
thence North 46000'00" East, 137.26 feet to a point of curvature;
thence 116.06 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of
475.00 feet, a central angle of 14000'00" and a long chord bearing North
39000'00" East, 115.78 feet to a point of tangency;
thence North 32000'00" East, 417.51 feet to a point of curvature;
thence 331.31 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
325.00 feet, a central angle of 58024'27" and a long chord bearing North
.61012'14" East, 317.15 feet to a point of reverse curvature;
thence 286.73 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of
675.00 feet, a central angle of 24020119" ~nd a long chord bearing North
78014'18" East, 284.58 feet to a point;
thence North 27000'00" West, 19.04 feet;
thence North 63000'00" East, 68.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said
easement containing 79,073 SF, more or less.
Prepared by Idaho Survey Group, P.C.
D. Terry Peugh, PLS
_ . _ A ~. .M~LA~ AOA!=, _ .
EXHI BIT ~__--- N 89'28'07"W 1833.74'-____ 26 25
- - - - -r- - - L' -. -. -. --v^-=~~
SCHOOL: . l.. - \ III i
I SITE I '" .
~: ~ I
~I '0
gl I~
ml .~
~: I~
,!OI .:J
'9"'"'1
bl
01
(1)1
I
1
I
I
I
I
12
I
I
-I
CURVE TABLE
CURVE RADIUS DaTA ARC TANGENT CHORD CHORD BRG
C1 93.00 3roo'oo. 50.32 25.79 49.71 S ,3cr30'OO"W
C2 675.00 24-20'19. 286.73 145.56 284.58 N 7a-14'18"E
C3 725.00 2724127" 346.81 176.79 343.51 S 7f>42'14"W
C4 325.00 ~2.f27. 331.31 181.66 317.15 N 61-12'141
---i C5 475.00 14'00'00" 116.06 58.32 115.78 N 3~0010O"E
C6 207.00 3 roo'oo. 112.00 57.41 110.64 N 3cr30'00.E
-r C7 275.00 Sa-24127" 280.34 153.72 268.35 S srl2'14"W
C8 525.00 14-00'00. 128.28 64.46 127.96 S 39-00'OO"W
SCALE 1 .=300' BRIDGETOWER CROSSING ENGINEERING
DWG.DATE 10/15/03 bkb SCHOOL SITE
PROJ. NO. 3025 PROPOSED WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SOLUTIONSw
SHEET EASEMENTS .
1 OF 1 LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 35, 150 E. AIKENS STREET, SUITE B
T.4N., R. 1 W., 8.M. EAGLE. IDAHO 83616
3025- EASE. DWG MERIDIAN. ADA COUNTY. IDAHO Phone (208) 938-0980 Fax (208) 938-094-1
December 4, 2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
December 9,2003
ITEM NO. ~.,,-
REQUEST Agreement for Professional Serives, Brown Environmental - Operator Troning Services
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
~
J1pfJ
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
{J ~1
~_:J tH hlL'l'ltt1aJl
t~ I erl( ()flice
To: Mayor Corrie & City Council
From: Brad Watson, P.E. ~~ Ie-!
CC: File, Gary Smith, PE, City Clerk
Date: 12/4/03
Re: December 9 City Council Meeting - Agreement for Professional Services,
CH2MHill- NPDES Permit Applications
k 1)
Aareement for Professional Services, Brown Environmental - Operator
Trainina Services.
We are asking for City Council's approval of an agreement for professional services with
Brown Environmental, a local wastewater training consulting firm, to provide wastewater
operator training in "mathematics concepts." This training will provide the necessary
continuing education credits (CEU's) for the operators to retain their certification.
Attached is a copy of the proposed agreement with Brown & Caldwell describes the
proposed scope of services. The contract will be on a time and materials basis not-ta-exceed
amount of $1,000_
Recommended Council Action: Approve the agreement for professional
services with Brown & Caldwell for operator training, on a time & materials
not to exceed amount of $1,000, and authorize the Mayor to sign and City
Clerk to attest.
2) Memorandum of Understandina with Ada County Hiahwav District for Routine
Maintenance Activities in the Public Right-af-Wav.
Public Works Department staff, with the assistance of Bill Nichols, has worked with ACHD to
draft an MOU regarding the pel1llitting of our departmenfs routine maintenance activities in
the public right-at-way under ACHD's jurisdiction. Attached is a final proposed copy ot that
MOU for City Council's approval. It is almost identical to the MOU purportedly executed
between Boise City and ACHD several months ago.
. Page 1
If the City did not enter into an MOU, it would, according to Section 6000 of the ACHD policy
manual, be treated as any other contractor doing work in the public tight-af-way in that we
would be required to obtain permits from ACHD for each instance of maintenance. This
would include development of traffic control plans and permit fees for something as simple as
hydro-cleaning a sewer line or exercising a water valve.
As part of this agreement, the City will pay a $150 annual fee. We also intend to send
approximately fifteen employees to ACHD's uinfonnation exchange" this month at which
typical procedures and problems are discussed~ We may also schedule additional traffic
control training for appropriate personnel in the very near future.
Recommended Council Action: Approve the Memorandum of Understanding
with Ada County Highway District and authorize the Mayor to sign and City
Clerk to attest.
Thank you for your consideration.
~
. Page 2
I!_ ROWN
NVIRONMENTAL, INC.
~ Solutions and Training
25 Wall Street · Nampa, Idaho · 83651 · (208) 465-5725
December 1, 2003
Mr. John Shawcroft
Wastewater Superintendent
City of Meridian
Wastewater Treatment Plant
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: One-Day On-site Operator Training
Dear John:
Thank: you for the opportunity to propose training for the City of Meridian wastewater
operators. As requested, BE, Inc. proposes a math class entitled "Mathematics Concepts".
Patricia Brown will deliver this workshop on Wednesday, December 17, 2003. The class
will be six hours in length and will begin at the time you request. Continuing Education
Units (CEUs) will be requested.
Cost of delivery of the training and materials will not exceed $1,000. This price includes
labor, printing, and out-of-pocket expenses. Should you require assistance with tasks
beyond those proposed here~ the budget can be adjusted by mutual agreement.
I appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to working with you.
Should you have questions, please feel free to call me at (208) 465-5725.
Please print, sign and return one copy to me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Ghiiw7r~
President
Brown Environmental, Inc.
Patricia Brown, President
Signature
Printed name
Title
Date
City of Meridian
December 4, 2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
December 9,2003
ITEM NO. ~
REQUEST Memorandum of Understanding with Ada County Highway District for Routine
Maintenance Activities in the Public Right of Way
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
o~~
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
RECEIVED
OCr' tJ ~ ?fHl~
L. Lr U J z..<",;J~"J
City Of I\leric1Jan
(]ity Clerk Office
To: Mayor Corrie & City Council
From: Brad Watson, P.E. ~U
CC: File, Gary Smith, PE, City Clerk
Date: 12/4/03
Re: December 9 City Council Meeting - Agreement for Professional Services,
CH2MHill - NPDES Permit Applications
1) Aareement for Professional Services. Brown Environmental - Operator
Trainina Services.
We are asking for City Council's approval of an agreement for professional services with
Brown Environmentat a local wastewater training consulting firm, to provide wastewater
operator training in "mathematics concepts_" This training will provide the necessary
continuing education credits (CEU's) for the operators to retain their certification.
Attached is a copy of the proposed agreement with Brown & Caldwell describes the
proposed scope of services. The contract will be on a time and materials basis not-ta-exceed
amount of $1,OOO~
Recommended Council Action: Approve the agreement for professional
services with Brown & Caldwell for operator training, on a time & materials
not to exceed amount of $1,000, and authorize the Mayor to sign and City
Clerk to attest
~ 2)
Memorandum of Understandina with Ada County Hiahwav District for Routine
Maintenance Activities in the Public Riaht-of-Wav.
Public Works Department staff, with the assistance of Bill Nichols, has worked with ACHD to
draft an MOU regarding the permitting of our departmenfs routine maintenance activities in
the public right-af-way under ACHD's jurisdiction_ Attached is a final proposed copy of that
MOU for City Council's approval. It is aJmost identical to the MOU purportedly executed
between Boise City and ACHD several months ago.
. Page 1
If the City did not enter into an MOU, it would, according to Section 6000 of the ACHD policy
manual, be treated as any other contractor doing work in the public right-af-way in that we
would be required to obtain permits from ACHD for each instance of maintenance. This
would include development of traffic control plans and pennit fees for something as simple as
hydro-cleaning a sewer line or exercising a water valve.
As part of this agreement, the City will pay a $150 annual fee. We also intend to send
approximately fifteen employees to ACHD's "information exchange" this month at which
typical procedures and problems are discussed. We may also schedule additional traffic
control training for appropriate personnel in the very near future.
Recommended Council Action: Approve the Memorandum of Understanding
with Ada County Highway District and authorize the Mayor to sign and City
Clerk to attest.
Thank you for your consideration.
~
. Page 2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ADA COUNTY
This Memorandum of Understanding, made and entered into this _day of _, 2003, by
and between Ada County Highway District (hereafter "ACHD" or "Highway District") and the
following municipal corporation, the City of Meridian, (hereinafter "Municipality" or
"Municipal Party"), all parties being political subdivisions and bodies politic and corporate of the
State of Idaho.
RECITALS
A. ACHD adopted revisions to Section 6000 of the ACHD Policy Manual by approval of
Resolution No. 647 on June 26, 2002.
B. Section 67-2328 of the Idaho Code provides that any power, privilege or authority,
authorized by the Idaho Constitution, statute or charter, held by the state of Idaho or a public
agency of said state, may be exercised and enjoyed jointly with the state of Idaho or any other
public agency of this state having the same powers, privilege or authority, but never beyond the
limitation of such powers, privilege or authority. This section further provides that state or any
public agency thereof when acting jointly with another public agency of this state may exercise
and enjoy the power, privilege and authority conferred by this act, but nothing in this act shall be
construed to extend the jurisdiction, power, privilege or authority of the state or public agency
thereof, beyond the power, privilege or authority said state or public agency might have if acting
alone. Both ACHD and Municipal Party contend it has certain powers, privileges and authority
pertaining to public rights-of-way.
C. ACHD seeks to require municipalities to obtain an Annual Permit or Temporary Use
Permit from ACHD for the routine inspection, repair, replacement or maintenance of facilities,
utilities or trees occurring in the public rights-of-way, but not involving damage to an improved
highway (herein "routine maintenance"), unless the municipality and ACHD enter into a separate
agreement addressing the routine maintenance of facilities, utilities and trees within the public
rights-of-way.
D. The parties desire to enter into such a separate agreement, pursuant to ACHD Manual
Section 6008.2.2.5, for the purpose of minimizing the disruption and hazard to vehicular and
pedestrian traffic resulting from routine maintenance activities by improving cooperation and
communication among the parties.
E. EJccept os other\'vise pro"'/ided in Section 5.0, the 1funicipal Party shall be treated us a
single entit)r "',,'lith respect to all other terms and conditions set forth in this ,L^Jo.greement. ',llith
respect to Section 5.0 and its subsections relating to tiotice of Violation, l'ron Compliance
Correction and ,L\ppeal and tloD Compliance Fee for Violation, the Boise City Public ',llorks
Department (hereinafter "BCP\ll") and the Boise Cit~l ParIes and Recreation Department
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 1
C:\DOCUME.....1 \watsonb\LOCALS.....} \Temo\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\eontraets agreements codes\utilities\~1unicipalitie$\P~fOU ~4eridian.doc
(hereinafter "BCPR), '\T/hich are departments of the Municipal Party, shall be treated as if they
are tv/a separate entities.
E.F-: This Agreement will govern the activities of the Municipal Party in conducting non-
destructive work, i.e., no excavation, in the public rights-of-way in Ada County, Idaho. Any
work that necessitates digging of any sort (by hand or machine) in the public rights-of-way is not
covered under this Agreement, and is regulated by sections 6000 and 8300 of ACHD policy
manual.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.0 Annual Meeting - ACHD and the Municipal Party agree to meet annually during the
month of November to discuss work zone traffic controls and the operation of this Agreement.
2.0 Annual Fee. The Municipal Party shall pay to ACHD the sum of $150.00 to be paid on
an annual basis. Said sum to be paid by January 1, of each calendar year. Failure to pay the
annual fee will result in ACHD terminating this Agreement.
3.0 Work Hours - Arterials and Collectors.
3.1 Peak Hours and Emergency Work. Except during emergencies, or with specific
approval of ACHD, routine maintenance will not be conducted on Arterial and Collector streets
on Monday through Friday during: (a) 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.ill.; (b) 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; and (c)
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. In the event of Peak Hour Emergency Work where an Arterial or
Collector street is expected to be occupied at a particular location for more than 15 minutes,
personal or telephonic notice will be given to ACHD at the time of the commencement of work
or as soon as practicable following commencement. Telephonic notice shall be directed to
ACHD's Construction Desk, telephone number (208) 387-6280. During non-working hours,
notice of Emergency Work shall be directed to ACHD's Construction Desk, at the telephone
number provided, which will refer the caller to the appropriate on-call personnel.
3.2 Non-Peak Hours. When a particular location on an Arterial or Collector street is
expected to be occupied for more than one hour during: 9:00 a.m. to 11 :30 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, advance notice shall be given to ACHD before routine
maintenance work begins. Notice shall be given as provided in Section 3.1 of this Agreement.
3.3 Priority of Work. Non-emergency routine maintenance shall not interfere with
activity in the same vicinity being conducted under a specific ACHD Temporary Highway Use
Permit.
4.0 Traffic Control and ACHD Policy Provisions
4.1 Traffic Control Standards. The parties agree that the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Millelll1ium Edition, Revision 1 December
28, 2001, Errata No.1, Dated June 14, 2001 (hereinafter "MUTeD"), and any revisions thereto,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 2
C:\DOCUME---- 1 \watsonb\LOCALS..... 1 \Temo\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\cofltracts agreements codes\utilities\~.4unieipalities\~40U ~4eridian.d0e
shall be the standard governing the Municipal Party's traffic control measures while conducting
routine maintenance activities. During the course of routine maintenance, the Municipal Party
shall be responsible to provide, erect, maintain and remove all traffic control devices, including
but, not limited to signs, temporary striping, barricades, arrow boards, and lighting, in
conformance with the MUTeD. ACHD has provided additional guidance for traffic control
measures that is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" entitled, "Maintenance Traffic Control
Applications". ACHD may modify these guidelines from time to time. In the event of such
changes, ACHD will provide the revised guidelines to the Municipal Party. The parties agree
that the Maintenance Traffic Control Application and any revisions thereto, provides only
guidelines and shall not be construed by the Municipal Party to create any additional standards or
warrants under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the traffic control matrix attached hereto, the
Municipal Party shall at all times comply with the standards set forth in the MUTeD for traffic
control during its routine maintenance activities. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed
to prevent the Municipal Party from instituting traffic control measures that are more
comprehensive than required by this Agreement.
4.2 Compliance with Policy Manual.
4.2.1. This agreement is entered into pursuant to ACHD Policy Manual section
6008.2.2.5. The following provisions from section 6000 of the latest adopted edition of the
ACHD Policy Manual are hereby incorporated and made part of this Agreement. Except as
modified by this Agreement, the Municipal Party shall comply with section 6001 entitled
"Definitions"; section 6003 entitled "Standards and Specifications"; section 6008.2.3 entitled
"Emergencies"; section 6008.8.2 entitled "Right Conferred"; section 6008.9 entitled "Liability
Insurance; section 6008.12 entitled "Compliance with Law; Hazardous Materials"; section
6008.13.2 entitled "Qualifications for Work Permit"; section 6008.13.5 entitled "Traffic Control
Requirements for Permitted Work"; section 6008.13.7 entitled "Highway Closures"; section
6008.13.9 entitled "Clean Up and Restoration"; section 6008.13.10 entitled "Avoidance of
Nuisance"; section 6008.13.12 entitled "Drainage Requirements"; section 6008.13.13 entitled
"Other Requirements"; section 6008.16 entitled "Protection of Adjoining Property"; section
6008.17 entitled "Preservation of Monuments and Property Markers"; section 6008.18 entitled
"Repair of Damage to Highway"; and section 6008.20.4 entitled "Stoppage for Temporary
Highway Use Permit" The Municipal Party shall also comply with section 8300 entitled
"Construction Site Discharge Control Program of the latest adopted edition of the ACHD Policy
Manual.
4.2.2. Amendments.
a. The provisions of the ACHD Policy Manual listed in section 4.2.1 of this
Agreement, except for section 6008.2.3 entitled, "Emergencies"; section 6008.12 entitled
"Compliance with Law; Hazardous Materials"; section 6008.13.7 entitled "Highway
Closures"; section 6008.13.12 entitled "Drainage" and section 6008.18 entitled "Repair
of Damage by District", shall be amended as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 3
C:\DOCUME-l \watsonb\LOCALS-l \Temo\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\contraets agreements eodes\utilities\~funicipa1ities\~10U ~feridian.doc
1. Delete the following terms: "permit", "annual permit", "work permit",
"temporary highway use permit", and replace with the term
"memorandum of understanding".
11. Delete the terms: "permittee" and "applicant", and replace with the term
"Municipal Party".
111. Delete the terms: "permitted work" and "permitted activity", and replace
with the term "routine maintenance work".
b. Amend section 6008.12 entitled "Compliance with Law; Hazardous Materials", in
the first sentence, delete the term "Activity" and replace it with "routine maintenance
activity", and delete the term "Permittee" and replace the term with "Municipal Party."
c. Amend section 6008.13.7 entitled "Highway Closures" delete the term
"Permittee" and replace with "Municipal Party", and delete the term "permitted Activity"
and replace with "routine maintenance activity". Delete the second sentence and replace
it with the following sentences: "The Municipal Party shall give notice of the closure to
the District Engineer. Such notice shall be given at least two (2) working days prior to
the proposed closure."
d. Amend section 6008.13.12 entitled "Drainage Requirements", delete the terms:
"excavation" or "excavations activities", and replace with the term "non-destructive
dewatering activity". Delete the reference to "or resulting from sluicing" from the first
sentence in section 6008.13.12.
e. Amend section 6008.18 entitled "Repair of Damage to Highway", delete the term
"permittee" and replace with term "municipal party". Amend section 6008.18.2 by
deleting the last sentence of the section that states "The cost of any such repair or
remedial work may be recovered by the District by making claim against the Permittee's
Performance Bond posted in accordance with the provisions of section 6008.10".
4.2.3. Except for the amendments set forth in section 4.2.2 of this Agreement, and any
other modifications made by this Agreement, all other terms and conditions of the provisions of
the ACHD Policy Manual which are listed in section 4.2.1 of this Agreement are hereby ratified
and confirmed and shall be and remain in full force and effect.
4.2.4 The Municipal Party shall comply with any future revisions to the provisions of
the ACHD Policy Manual listed in section 4.2.1 of this Agreement. ACHD shall notify the
Municipal Party of any proposed changes to the aforementioned sections in ACHD's Policy
Manual to allow the Municipal Party to provide input to such changes.
4.2.5 The Municipal Party shall comply with sections 6000 and 8300 of the ACHD
Policy Manual on any work involving destructive work, i.e. excavation or digging in the public
rights-of-way.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 4
C:\DOCUME", 1 \watsonb\LOCALS......l \Temo\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\contracts agreements eodes\utilities\~funicipalities\~fOU l\4eridian.doo
1.3 Tree Remo"/ul. The ~1unicipal Part)' shall pro"/ide .l\CHD Tyvith a list of trees that
the Municipal Party has removed from the public right of "'llay. Such list shall be submitted to
f~CHD on a monthly basis. The list shall include the follo\'ving information: The date of tree
removal, the location of the tree, and an:y damage sustained to .L^~CHD's facilities caused by the
tree's remo"'{aL If any damage is sustained to .L'\CHD faoilities, the ~1unicipal Party shall repair
such damage as pro"/ided in this .L^~greement. The list should be mailed to the Construction
Desk'Permit Desk:, .L^~da County High\T/uy District, 318 East 37th Street, Garden Cit~{, ill 83711.
5.0 Non-Compliance Procedures.
5.1 Notice of Violation.
5.1.1 Upon ACHD personnel's observation of an apparent failure of the
Municipal Party BCP'N or BCPR to comply with this Agreement, ACHD personnel shall
immediately verbally notify the onsite crew leader or other employee of the Municipal Party.
BCP\ll or BCPR.
5.1.2 If the onsite crew leader takes the appropriate action with regard to the
verbal notification, ACHD will document the infraction, and no further proceedings will be had
with respect to the individual infraction. A written copy of the infraction will be forwarded to
the designated agent of the Municipal Party. BeF"l! or BCPR. Multiple infractions by the same
crew leader or crew may result iIJ. ACHD issuing a Notice of Violation. The proceedings set
forth in Sections 5.1.3,5.2 and 5.3 of this Agreement shall apply with respect to the Notice of
Violation.
5.1.3 If the onsite crew leader fails to take appropriate action with regard to the
verbal notification, ACHD will issue a Notice of Violation to the designated agent(s) of the
Municipal Party BCP',ll or BCPR within five (5) working days of the incident. The Notice shall
contain the following information: The time, date, location and a description of the alleged
violation, including, if available, the name of at least one involved maintenance worker and
identifying vehicle marking.
5.1.4 The Municipal Party ReF"l and BCPR shall designate in writing to
ACHD's Construction Department, the name, title, mailing address, fax and telephone number of
the agent(s) designated to receive all notices including Notice of Violation and/or infractions
under this Agreement. The Municipal Party BCP\V or BCPR may change its designated agent,
address, fax and telephone number by notifying ACHD in writing of these changes. The
Municipal Party BCPVl or BCPR may request ACHD to include additional designees to receive
notice under varying specified circumstances. The information shall be mailed to the Permit
Coordinator Construction Department, Ada County Highway District, 318 East 37th Street,
Garden City, Idaho 83714.
5.2 Non-Compliance Correction and Appeal.
5.2.1 Upon receipt of a Notice of Violation, the Municipal Party BCP\l/ or
BCPR shall provide ACHD, within five (5) working days, either: (a) a written response
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 5
C:\DOCUME.....l \watsonb\LOCALS-l \Temo\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\eofltraets agreements codes\utilitic$\P\1unieipalities\}'40U ~4eridiafl.doe
describing steps, procedures and/or disciplinary measures ("corrective measures") that will be
implemented to minimize or eliminate future similar violations; or (b) a notice of appeal; or (c)
both (a) and (b).
5.2.2 The Notice of Appeal shall specify the Municipal party's BCP'll or
BCPR's grounds for appeal, including the reasons why the party contends the incident should not
be considered a violation. Upon receipt of the Notice of Appeal, ACHD will schedule an appeal
hearing between the parties to be held at ACHD offices as soon as reasonably possible following
the Notice of Appeal. Notice of the time and date of the hearing will be mailed to the Municipal
Party's BCPVl or BCPR 's designated agent. ACHD's District Engineer (hereinafter "District
Engineer") shall preside at the appeal hearing. After the hearing, the District Engineer will
render a written decision, either affirming, or dismissing the violation.
5.2.3 If the District Engineer affirms the violation, the Municipal Party BCP"l
or BCPR may appeal such decision to the ACHD Director by filing written notice with the
Director within twenty one (21) days following the date of the mailing of the District Engineer's
decision. The Director's consideration and decision shall be based upon the information
provided in the record on appeal, which includes any written argument submitted by ACHD staff
or the Municipal Party. BCP\\T or BCPR. There shall be no right to appear in person or present
oral argument before the Director, unless expressly granted by the Director. The Director's
decision shall be final.
5.3 Non-Compliance Fee for Violation
5.3.1 First Notice of Violation. If ACHD notifies the Municipal Party BCP\!/ or
BCPR that ACHD finds the proposed corrective measures specified under Section 5.2.1 to be
inadequate and the Municipal Party BCP\l! or BCPR fails to appeal, or if the Municipal Party
BCP\x/ or BCPR fails to appeal the alleged violation, or if upon appeal the decision maker rules
against the Municipal PartyBCP,.xl or BCPR, the Municipal Party RCP'!! or BCPR shall pay a
non-compliance fee of $75.00 to ACHD. The non-compliance fee may be waived by action of
the ACHD Director.
5.3.2. Second Notice of Violation. The non-compliance fee for the second
Notice of Violation for which ACHD has made the appropriate findings against the same
offending party, within a one calendar year period (January through December), shall be a fee of
$150.00. The non-compliance fee may be waived by action of the ACHD Director.
5.3.3. Third Notice of Violation. In the instance of the issuance of a Third
Notice of Violation for which ACHD has made the appropriate findings against the same
offending party, the directors of the Municipal Party and ACHD shall meet to discuss the issues
related to the Notices of Violation. The parties shall work towards a resolution of the cause of
these violations.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDlNG, P. 6
C:\DOCUME.-.. 1 \watsonb\LOCALS---- 1 \Temo\MOU Meridian 1.doc8:\eontraets agreements eodcs\utilitics\~1:unicipalities\~10U ~1etidiafl.doe
5.4 Emergency Suspension. The District Engineer may immediately suspend a
routine maintenance activity when the Municipal Party BCP\V or BCPR commits an egregious
act, such as to create a hazardous situation that poses an immediate danger to public safety. A
hazardous situation exists where there is a great likelihood of serious injury or death. The Non-
Compliance procedures set forth in section 5.0 shall apply in addressing such egregious act
6.0 Indenmitication. The Municipal Party shall indenmify, defend and hold ACHD harmless
against any and all claims, demands, actions, judgments, costs, expenses and liabilities of any
kind arising from the fault or negligent acts of the Municipal Party while conducting routine
maintenance activities in or on the Right-of-Way. Such fault or negligent acts includes, but is
not limited to the failure of the Municipal Party to institute proper traffic control measures while
conducting routine maintenance activities. Such indemnification shall include, but shall not be
limited to the following claims and demands: (a) damage to property; (b) injury to person(s); (c)
death; (d) worker's compensation; and ( e) nuisance. Such indenmitication shall include the costs
and reasonable attorney fees of ACHD in defending against any and all claims, which may arise,
directly or indirectly, from the operations of the Municipal Party. This indenmification provision
is intended to cover the affirmative acts or omissions of the Municipal Party in the conduct of
Routine Maintenance Activities. Such indemnification shall not include any breach of a general
statutory duty imposed upon the Municipal Party by operation of law.
ACHD shall indenmify, defend and hold the Municipal Party harmless against any and all
claims, demands, actions, judgments, costs, expenses and liabilities of any kind arising from the
negligent acts of ACHD in its inspection of the Municipal Party's traffic control measures taken
during the Municipal Party's performance of routine maintenance activity. This indemnification
provision is intended to cover the negligent acts of ACHD in inspecting a particular routine
maintenance activity of the Municipal Party in the field. Such indenmitication shall not include
any breach of a general statutory duty imposed upon ACHD by operation of law arising from
ACHD's exclusive general supervision and jurisdiction over all highways and public rights-of-
way. Such indenmification shall include the costs and reasonable attorney fees of the Municipal
Party in defending against any and all claims, which may arise, directly or indirectly, from the
negligent inspection activities of ACHD .
7.0 Term. This Memorandum of Understanding will commence on the date of the parties'
execution of this Agreement and continue in effect until terminated by either party as set forth
below.
7.1 Termination with or without Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or
without cause, which termination shall be effective following thirty (30) days advance written
notice of termination given the other party. Rights and obligations accrued prior to termination
shall not be affected by such termination.
8.0 Definitions.
"Agreement" shall mean this Memorandum of Understanding unless the context clearly
requires otherwise.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 7
C:\DOCUME-l \\vatsonb\LOCALS", 1 \Temo\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\eontraets agreements codcs\1:ltilities\~funicipalitics\..\10U Meridian.doe
"Arterials or collectors" mean the functional classification of the highway system within
the jurisdiction of ACHD.
"Emergency" shall mean an unexpected, unanticipated situation or circumstance
requiring immediate attention to avoid damage or injury to person, property or environment.
"Facility" or facilities" means any structure placed in, on or under a Highway, including,
but not limited to, water pipelines, geothermal pipelines, natural gas pipelines, petroleum product
pipelines, street lights, sanitary sewer lift stations, monitoring stations, sanitary sewer pipelines;
manholes; telephone, telegraph, electric, cable television or other telecommunications lines and
cables; pressure irrigation, gravity flow irrigation or storm drainage structures and systems; and
publicly owned trees and signs.
"Highways" or "highway" shall have the meaning set forth in Idaho Code Section 40-
1 09( 5), and shall include all public rights-of-way as defined in Idaho Code Section 40-117 (6), as
those code sections may be amended from time to time, which highways and public rights-of-
way are under the jurisdiction of ACHD, as they presently exist and as the same may be laid out,
widened, relocated, acquired and vacated or othetwise transferred in the future.
"Party" shall mean a signatory to this agreement or its authorized representative.
"Peak hours" shall mean in general the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 11 :30 a.ill. to
1 :00 p.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, on Arterial or Collector streets.
Peak hours may also be extended as a result of civic events, seasonal activities or similar
activities that substantially impede the flow of vehicular traffic on Arterial or Collector streets or
specified on an Agreement.
"Routine maintenance" shall mean typical, non-destructive maintenance actIVItIes,
including, but not limited to, the following: facility and power locations, pole painting, street
light bulb replacement, wire replacement not involving excavation, dewatering, flushing fire
hydrants, inspection and operation of valves and facilities, smoke testing, wastewater sampling,
setting flow meters, flushing, cleaning, televising and/or dye testing sewer lines, working in or
on a manhole, collection of effluent samples (including H2S gas sampling), groundwater
monitoring, surveying, inspection, tree trimming, tree planting, tree spra)lng, tree removal and
other tree maintenance '"vork, _and other similar non-destructive activities.
"Violation" shall mean the failure of a maintenance worker or maintenance crew to
immediately correct, when verbally notified by an authorized representative of ACHD, a
situation in which there is non-compliance with this agreement.
9.0 Miscellaneous.
9.1 The rights and terms of this Agreement shall not apply to any private contractors
contracting with the Municipal Party. Private contractors of the Municipal Party shall procure a
Temporary Highway Use Working Permit for routine maintenance work in the public rights-of-
way.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 8
C:\DOCUME..... 1 \watsonb\LOCALS..... 1 \Temo\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\contraets agreements codcs\utilities\.\1I:1flieipalities\~10U i\1cridian.doc
c-
(
9.2 This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with
respect to the subject matter hereoft~
9.3 This Agreement may not be modified or amended, except in writing signed by
ACHD and the Municipal Party~t
9.4 All signatories represent and warrant that they have the power to execute this
Agreement and to bind the entity they represent to the terms of this Agreement~t
9.5 Should any party be required to commence legal action against another party to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in said action~-;-
9.6 Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this
Agreement shall be instituted only in the court of the State of Idaho, County of Ada~t-a:f*l
9.7 The rights and obligations set forth in this Agreement shall not be assigned or
assumed in any respect.
9.8 By entering this Agreement, the parties do not waive any powers, privileges and
authority that each has with regard to the public rights-of-way.
9.9 Binding Effect. This Agreement may be executed in several identical
counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original as against any party whose signature
appears thereon and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute but one instrument. This
agreement shall be deemed fully executed and binding as to ACHD and to the Municipal Party
when one or more counterparts hereof shall bear the signature of ACHD and the Municipal
Party.
ADA COUNTY IDGHW A Y DISTRICT
By:
Sherry R. Huber, President Date
THE CITY OF BOISE CITY
By:
Carolyn Terteling Pu)neRobert D. Corrie, I
Mayor Date
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 9
C:\DOCUME.....1 \watsonb\LOCALS--- 1 \Temp\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\contracts agreements eodes\utilitics\~i1:lnieipalities\~iOU ~fcridian.doc
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, P. 10
C:\DOCUME-l \watsonb\LOCALS.....l \Temp\MOU Meridian 1.docS:\contraets agreements codcs\l:ltilities\~fuAicipalities\}'10U ~feridian.doc
l
(
Ada County, State of Idaho
Maintenance Traffic Control Applications for Routine Maintenance
1. The parties acknowledge the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways - Millennium Edition, Revision 1 December 28, 2001, Errata No.1 dated June 14,
2001 (MUTeD), and any revisions thereto, is the national standard for traffic control devices on
all public roads open to public travel in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 402(a).
Notwithstanding the traffic control matrix attached hereto, the Municipal Party shall at all times
comply with the standards set forth in the MUTCD for traffic control during its routine
maintenance activities.
2. The primary function of temporary traffic control is to provide for the safe and efficient
movement of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through or around temporary traffic control
zones while reasonably protecting workers and equipment. The guidelines described in the
tables below are designed for normal weather daylight traffic conditions. While these principles
provide general guidelines for good temporary traffic control, they should not be construed to
establish standards and warrants under this Agreement. Formulating specific plans for incident
management temporary traffic control is difficult because of the variety of situations that can
arise. The following typical applications include the use of various temporary traffic control
methods, but do not include a layout for every conceivable work situation. Each temporary
traffic control zone is different. Many variables, such as location of work, road type, geometries,
vertical and horizontal alignment, intersections, interchanges, road user volumes, road vehicle
mix (buses, trucks, and cars), and road user speeds affect the needs of each zone. ACHD and the
Municipal Party to this Agreement may agree on more specific plans applicable to such party
and its particular locations and circumstances upon the execution of a written addendum to this
Agreement.
3. The tables below are designed for typical two-way streets. For one-way streets, use one
category higher level of traffic controL For example, an un-striped one-way, one-lane street
requires the appropriate application for 2 or 3 lane (two-way) roadway; and a one-way street
with 2 or more lanes requires the application for a 4 or more lane (two-way) roadway.
4. The Stationary work guidelines are designed for work at a single location where the
location is intended to be occupied for more than one (1) hour.
EXHIBIT "A"
12/4/2003
3:-e
o cu
'- 0
~m
'-
OJ
en
C)
cu
u:
Q)
u
-e;s'
M >'-
"Om
<(
Q.)
(J
-cfijs,
~~cn
<(
UJ
C
o
;:;
ca
(.)
C-
o.
<(
e
......
e
o
o
(.)
E
f!
l-
e
o
;
U
:J
s..
......
f1>
e
o
o
Q)
g c
as ,21
~(I)
<(
-e
ca '-
"t.1 CD
C Q.
a:s (is
....1-
en
"0
Q)
s....
::s
0-
CD
0:=
'"C
~
::s
C"
Q)
n::
"0
e~
:::s
0-
CD
cr=:
"0
~
~5
0"
(l)
0::
"C
Q)
s....
:::J.
cr
Q)
n::
1:J
~
:J
C'"
<l>
n:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mU
~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ID~ ~ffi -~
8 0 Co u o:E ~ 0 ~ (.) -2 :E ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~s
u ~ N co ........ Q) e~......... <1l . ~ -.-- Q) .. ~...... Q) .............., (l) ............... CD 0"
~ >~ >~ >~ >~ >~ >~
'- C/)
io8.~
......cuo
I-u
C)G>
c~
"= .c
~ G>
1->
c Q.)
8~
C'CS.c
Q) (I,)
m>
....~~
'0 ~ , i 'Ci) co
Q.) .:::: E "5 --I
Q,) ~._ 0 .2
'- cu -0 en ~
~'=8.~~
C Eol-
$'0
.....
0-0
~ cu
c..O
>.0::
I-
.....
o
c..:.::
o ....
;: 0
eS:
::s
C
(ii Q)('W)Q)
uOc..s-c;:
o Z.C 0 co
-l'-"(;5C'\1-I
.-.
c
c:E
00
~U)
1:ca.
o '-
.c::sU)
(f.)c:!:.
0,) (J,)
:2c:
(/) ca
S....J
o c.;
mE
.- co
~~
01-
s'O
"C
~
::J
0"
(J.)
Ct':
Q) Q)
"'C c:
'(i) m
+-' -l
5 0
"~ E
~ e!
s....1-
O,+-
SO
Q)
s.... rJ)
o Q)
2c
s.... ca
0--1
...q-
'"0
~
:::J
0'"
CD
0::
(/)
~ ~
:J ct1
0" -J
Q)u
n:: Q)
~~
o:C
sO)
ca
(,)
o
--I
"0
Q)
1-
:J
C'"
Q)
n::
"C
.~
::s
t:r
Q)
~
U)
CD (I)
s.... c:
:::J as
0" -1
2-0
Ll-Q)
.::.::.~
o:C
s-w
('i)CJ)
t- <1)
o tij
N-I
"C
Q)
s....
'oS
0"
Q)
0::
tJ)
~ ~
::::J '"
0"--1
Q)-o
n::Q)
.::.::.~
o:C
s(J)
~
o rJ)
~~
'- '"
0--1
V
"0
~
"5
cr
Q.)
0::
"C
Q)
s....
es
0'"
Q)
0;:
"'C
.g;
:J
0'"
<J.)
a::
co co 5-c
(J)Q)~Q):e~
"~ e.:: ~-g ~
::s Q) ::J Q)
g2 g:2 8 ~
~~O::~Q;~
-t:co~cagQ)
O...JO-lcoc
S $: [LO
CD
(t)t/'Jo(/)-
s....~~~~
o (tj So- co 0
N-'O-J.....J
~
Q)"C
- Q)
0......
.- c
..c: ::s
Q) 0
>~
"0
~
::s
a-
Q)
0:::
"C
CD
s....
::J
C"
Q)
0:::
"'0
CD
s....
:::J
c-
O)
n::
"'C
0>
s....
"'C
~
:::s
r:::r
Q)
Ct::
:::s
0-
Q)
~
"'0
~
:J
CT
Q,)
a:::
c: Q) "C
Q) (3 .~
t) 0 .- ='
ctS ...... ..c r:r
:rr 0>(1)
<( >cr:
en
c:
co .Q
00 16
&g
en 2:
<(
"0
~
:J
c-
O)
0:::
"'C
Q)
s....
:J
0-
eD
0::
"'0
~
.S
0"
Q)
a::
"0
~
"5
0"
CD
0::
"0
.~
:J
CT
(l)
0::
C/)
c
-0
ca --
*0 ai
&g
(1)2:
<(
"0
~
-5-
0"
Q)
0:::
c:
0"C
:;:;ctS
..- 0
-go::
o Q)
Oc
s...... cu
Q)-1
0>(1)
Ol=
~o
U,...-
('t)rJ)
~ CJ.)
o c:
ca
N --I
Q)
s....
o
E
s....
o
C\J
<5;;
s.... "-
C 3:
0""'"
(,) Q)
u~
:Em
~ ~
+-,ctS
\i- ~
o cb
~ 6
~<(
s....
~~
C)CO
.- ?:
..c:"C
~co
o e
C) ..-.
Q) ~
+-'C'O
~ ::
Q) 6
c 3=
o~
Q) Q)
(/J C
::J~
~('I)
Q) ~
0> 0
s....
1i5~
~o
co'+-
3 c:
I 0
~ :;:: ~
o co a:s
s....g~
o a. "'C
LL a. ctS
co e
u)Q)..-..
....... oofoooooI ~
~ .~ co
s.... a.. ::
wee
~c..~
co c.. e.-
~ co 0>
6 Q) C
~s~
(ij~~
(,) s.... 0
'0.."5 E
~crs....
:::~o
O(/JV
'+-+-'(tJ
a.~s....
::J s.... 0
CErn'+-
(/) Q) g
en c: .-
.- ~ 1;;
6chg
~52:
g ~ ro
c..coQ.)
Q.?;..c:
co I -;;;
.~ ~ Q)
.;: 0 .:
co "C :J
:2a>C'"
a.~
.. 'C II)
S1i5Q.)
o c: c:
Z::J~
December 4,2003
Department Reports
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 9,2003
APPLICANT Mayor's Office -- Mayor Corrie ITEM NO. ~
REQUEST Re-appointment of Bruce MacCoy to Park's and Recreation Commission -- 10-03
to 10-06
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:
~
u/(r
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
(
December 4, 2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
December 9,2003
ITEM NO.
5
REQUEST
Engineers
Discussion concerning cell towers in R zones by Dave McKinnon from Pinnacle
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:
Be ~ 0- t\ Q QYu-cC
r
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Tara Green
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sharon Smith
Friday, November 21, 2003 3:27 PM
Tara Green
RE: Pre-council
perhaps keep an agenda folder for these pending items, k? :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Wi II Berg
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:15 PM
To: Tammy de Weerd (E-mail); Sharon Smith
Subject: FW: Pre-council
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McKinnon [mailto:davem@pinnacle-engineers.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Wi II Berg (E-mai I)
Subject: Pre-counci I
Wi II,
I would like to be placed on the pre-council agenda to talk to the Council
about allowing a wireless communication antenna that can be easily
camoflauged to look like a light pole in a residential zone. Current
ordinances have been interpreted to exclude stealth towers from being
constructed in the R-4 and R-8 zones. The idea of stealth towers, if
apporved via CUPs in the residential zones is not fully addressed int he
Code, it only states that towers are prohibited, in said zones, and that the
Zoning Adimistrator can determine if steath towers can be apporved as CUPS.
We just want the council's view on stealth towers in R zones. Let me know if
the counci I wi II be wi lIing to give us 10 min. thanks.
dove
1
December 4,2003
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPLICANT
December 9,2003
LI
ITEM NO.
REQUEST
Executive Session
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:
NAMP A MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
OTHER:
,.-
'7 ~
~ClrJ'
{to
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
ra.o~ ~ VJ. ~
Will Berg
From: Tara Green
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:26 AM
To: Bill Nichols (E-maiO
Cc: Jessica Johnson (E-mail); Will Berg (E-mail); Marlene St. George (E-
Subject: Locust Grove Place Subdivision
Hi Bi II,
I got Q fax from Clint Boyle requesting that we place Q clarification request on the Council Agenda for
December 9, 2003 regarding fencing details. I talked with Will and he suggested I talk to you about it for
further direction.
Thank you,
Tara
T ora Green
City Clerk I s Office
208-888-4433 Ext. 217
12/5/2003
-=- - --.,: ~ \
- - - - \ ,-.
- --
~ ~ .;:'=- . ~~\
~ I
.. \
~""
...:::: \
. \ ~
i
\ I
j
~-~~.~.:;tl~~Y\~\~
, 1 \ ~\ I · \
\\ .'q"l
In\ -
\ . ' t \ \
, ~
'\- ' f '
\ 1 I, .
" It '~ ~ .
, i" ' \ '
I
\ \. \. \ \."
i
\ ' ~ ' \
\1
t
....
~
· 1 ,
...._-4'-.,. I \
I \ ~~ ~- ..;
\' I
j :
\ \.
1-
\ :
1;, ; \
\
\
'\
\
i
'\
\
\ ~
I 1
I \ .
I \
I 1,
\:i\:I:;I\\\\\\\\\\\\~_\
(
Interoffice
MEMORANDUM
To:
William G. Berg, Jr.
RECEIVED
DEe 0 5 2003
From:
Wm. F. Nichols
Subject:
Glacier Springs Subdivision
(~ity Of Meridian
C~itv Clerk Office
.J
File: PP-03-028
Date: December 2, 2003
Will:
Please find attached the original of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to action of the Council at their November 25, 2003 meeting.
The Findings will be on an upcoming Council agenda.
Please serve conformed copies of the Findings upon the Applicant and the
Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works and the City Attorney office, if Council
approves the Findings.
If you have any questions arise please advise.
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Glacier Springs Sub AZ-03-024 PP-03-028\BergPrePlatMEMO 12 0203.doc
(
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
CIC 11/12/03
C/C 11/25/03
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY )
PLAT FOR GLACIER SPRINGS )
SUBDIVISION FOR 51 BUILDING )
LOTS AND 8 OTHER LOTS ON 17.5 )
ACRES IN A PROPOSED R-4 )
ZONE, LOCATED NORTH OF )
EAST VICTORY ROAD AND EAST )
OF SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD, )
MERIDIAN, IDAHO )
)
BY: TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT, )
INC., )
APPLICANT )
)
Case No. PP-03-028
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY
PLAT
The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council
on November 12, 2003, and continued until November 25,2003, and Anna Powell Planning
Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, Matt Schultz, and Gary Sackett, appeared and
testified, and the City Council having received a report from Wendy Kirkpatrick Planner II for
the Planning and Zoning Department, and Bruce Freckleton, Engineering Technician III, and the
City Council having received as part of the record of this matter the recommendation to City
Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant having submitted the
"GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE SE )4 OF SECTION 19 T. 3N., R.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIM:INARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 1 OF 14
IE., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY IDAHO, DWG DATE: 08/14/03, DWG NO. 30705-
PRE, SHEET: 1 OF 1 PRE-I, 30705-PRE. DLP 7/29/03, STAMPED: RECEIVED DEC 04
2003 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE, REVISION: 08/11/03 BY: kdh, 10/24/03
BY: kdh, 11/03/03 BY: kdh, 11/13/03 BY: mbs, 11/17/03 BY: sra, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A
PORTION OF THE SE ~ OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, B.M.,
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT INC. - OWNER,
BRIGGS ENGINEERING INC. - PLANNER", Tuscany Development, Inc. - Developer,
submitted for preliminary plat approval and which preliminary plat for approval application is
herein received and adjudged by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code S 12-3-3.
Therefore the City Council makes the following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Amended
Comprehensive Plan by reason of the fact that it lies within the existing Urban Area as
defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map, Infrastructure
Planning Analysis Amended Comprehensive Plan Map, adopted August 6,2002,
Resolution No. 02-382, and the property is presently zoned RUT, however, there is an
application for annexation and zoning to R-4 before the Council, and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System. [Meridian City Code S 11-7-2 C]
2. The preliminary plat is in conformance with the Amended
Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Medium Density
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELTh1INARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 2 OF 14
Residential. The proposed zoning designation ofR-4 complies with the Comprehensive
Plan designatione
3 e It is found that public services are available to accommodate the proposed
developmente It is found that the property to be annexed will be served adequately by all
essential public facilities and servicese An existing sewer trunk line runs through the
subject property. Sanitary sewer and water shall be provided via existing and new main
line extensionse Applicant shall be required to pay for the extension of water and
sanitary sewer mains to and through the proposed developmente Public road access to
the proposed subdivision is available off of Victory Road and Loggers Pass Street (a stub
provided by Observation Point Subdivision)e All internal streets will be constructed by
the developer of the proposed subdivisione Review of the ACHD, School District,
Police and Fire Department's comments will provide further information regarding
public services.
4e It is found that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds. See paragraph 3 abovee
5. It is found that the development will not require major expenditures for
providing supporting services. See paragraph 3 a1?ove.
6e It is found that there should not be any other health, safety or
environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to
attentione
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIM1NARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 3 OF 14
7 It is found that the Recommendation To City Council of the Plarming and
Zoning Commission is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions of approval of the
preliminary plat as hereinafter set forth.
8. The applicant has submitted for consideration of this approval drawing of
the preliminary plat herein designated as: "GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION,
LOCATED IN THE SE ~ OF SECTION 19 T. 3N., R. IE., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY IDAHO, DWG DATE: 08/14/03, DWG NO. 30705-PRE, SHEET: 1 OF 1
PRE-l,30705-PRE. DLP 7/29/03, STAMPED: RECEIVED DEC 042003 CITY OF
MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE, REVISION: 08/11/03 BY: kdh, 10/24/03 BY: kdh,
11/03/03 BY: kdh, 11/13/03 BY: mbs, 11/17/03 BY: sra, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A
PORTION OF THE SE ~ OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT INC.-
OWNER, BRIGGS ENGINEERING INC. - PLANNER."
9. The City Council recognizes the concerns of John and Marlene Shay and
Matt and Aneke Binford expressed in their letter dated 10/9/03, and the concerns of Jerry
L. Caven expressed in his letter dated October 8, 2003.
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code S 12-3-5 and
based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELllvlINARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 4 OF 14
(
1. The Preliminary Plat of the applicant as evidenced by "GLACIER SPRINGS
SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE SE ~ OF SECTION 19 T. 3N., R. IE., B.M.,
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY IDAHO, DWG DATE: 08/14/03, DWG NO. 30705-PRE,
SHEET: 1 OF 1 PRE-I, 30705-PRE. DLP 7/29/03, STAMPED: RECEIVED DEC 04 2003
CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE, REVISION: 08/11/03 BY: kdh, 10/24/03 BY:
kdh, 11/03/03 BY: kdh, 11/13/03 BY: mbs, 11/17/03 BY: sra, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A
PORTION OF THE SE )4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, B.M.,
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT INC. - OWNER,
BRIGGS ENGINEERING INC. - PLANNER", Tuscany Development, Inc., Developer is
hereby conditionally approved; and
2. The conditions of approval are as follows to-wit:
A. Adopt the Special Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as
follows:
· Applicant is required to provide a stub street at the eastern edge of the property.
· No lots may have less than 74' offrontage.
· No lots on cuI de sacs may have less than 40' of frontage.
· No lots may be less than 8,000 square feet in size.
B. Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff
as follows:
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS / PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via the existing Ten Mile Trunk which
passes through the subject property.
2. Domestic water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from mains
installed adjacent to the property.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELTh1INARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 5 OF 14
3. Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and
through this proposed development, thereby making them available to adjacent
properties. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the
Public Works Department.
4. The applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this
development is to be owned and operated by The N amp a & Meridian Irrigation
District. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots
within this development. 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.
5. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat.
Permanent perimeter fencing shall be required around the subdivision unless the
City agrees in writing that such a fence is not required.
6. All fencing adjacent to the pathway along the north boundary of the subdivision
shall be restricted to 4-foot maximum height for solid fencing or 6-foot maximum
for see-through fencing. Fences along micropaths have the same restriction per
Ordinance 12-13-15-9.
7. In accordance with Ordinance 12-13-10-8, Applicant shall provide detached
sidewalks adjacent to Victory Road.
8. Create a twenty-foot (20') wide common area centered over the existing sanitary
sewer trunk between Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, or per the ACHD requirement, relocate
S. Trinidad Drive to cover the trunk line.
,: ~ "~
9. The groundwater report submitted with the application was for the Observation
Point project to the west. Please submit test results from land within this projects
boundaries, or a signed statement from a certified soils scientist that establishes the
depth to the highest normal groundwater on the site. If depth to groundwater
becomes an issue in this subdivision and DEQ, or other regulatory agency, requires
impermeable surfacing in the storm water detention areas, such areas shall not be
counted toward the required open space calculation.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 6 OF 14
t'
I
l
10. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the south end of the development due to the
amount of grading that will be necessary to construct the subdivision.
11. Unless a waiver is granted by Council, the applicant shall be responsible to tile all
irrigation ditches, laterals, and canals per MCC 12-4-13.1.
12. Ten (10) copies of the revised plat has been submitted to the City Clerk's Office
for this application.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Submit a copy of the Ada County Street Name Committee's approval letter for the
subdivision name, and the lot and block numbering. Make any corrections
necessary to conform.
2. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works
Department.
3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 11 0% will be required for all
fencing, landscaping, play equipment, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water,
etc., prior to signature on the final plat.
4. All pathways within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in accordance with
MCC 12-13-15 "Micropath Landscaping".
5. A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, shall be
submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application.
6. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with
MCCI2-I3-IO-8.
7. 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. Typic':ll 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. The street
light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department
prior commencing installations.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELTh1INARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 7 OF 14
8. 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 (ditcp. owner's), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Warks 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.
9. Submit all updated groundwater/soils reports to the Public Works Department for
review. Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure
that water is retained only during 1 DO-year storm events, and for a period of time not
to exceed 24 hours. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3: 1.
10. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by
installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees
that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as
replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed.
11. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
12. 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.
13. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for
all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill
material.
C. Adopt the Recommendations of ACHD as follows:
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 of 28-feet from the
centerline of the right-of-way, in an easement provided to the District.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 8 OF 14
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 110- 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.
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 9 OF 14
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 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 oftrus approval shall be valid unless they
are in writing and signed by the applicant or the appl~cant's authorized
repres~ntative 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 planned use of the property which is the
subject of this 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 plalU1ed use of the subject property unless a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELWINARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDNISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 10 OF 14
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 Meridian Fire Department Recommendations as follows:
The following will be the requirements and/or concerns to provide minimum levels of fITe
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.
5. "NO PARKING" of vehicles, trailers or equipment shall be allowed in the cul-
de-sacs.
E. Adopt the Recommendation ofNampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows:
1. Applicant shall apply for a land use change/site application be filed for review
prior to final platting.
2. All laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage
must be retained on site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must
review drainage plans.
3. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805.
4. Should the development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will
be owned, operated and maintained by the District, then the developer shall
coordinate with the District concerning the installation of the pressure system.
5. Fill out a questioilllaire and return it in order to initiate the process of contractual
agreements between the owner or developer and the District for ownership,
operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 11 OF 14
;
r
F. Adopt the Recormnendations of the Central District Health Department as
follows:
1. This proposal can be approved for central sewage & central water after written
approval from appropriate entities is submitted.
2. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and
approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of
Environmental Quality.
3. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
4. Stormwater shall be pretreated tlrrough a grassy swale prior to discharge to the
subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality.
5. The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall
obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a
stormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface water
degradation.
G. Adopt the Recormnendations of the Parks Department as follows:
1. Detail where the pathway will be located and connected through the
property.
H. Adopt the action of the City Council taken at their November 25, 2003 meeting
as follows:
1. The applicant has submitted a revised the Plat that meets the R-4 zoning
requirements, and therefore, the Plat dated 11/17/03 is hereby approved.
2. The minimum square footage for house sizes within the subdivision shall
be 2,000 sq. ft.
3. Loggers Pass shall be barricaded to prevent construction vehicles to pass
through Observation Point while they are doing work and/or moving dirt
on the_project.
4. The applicant shall submit a revised Landscape Plan to reflect the
park/open useable space on the Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL AFPROV AL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 12 OF 14
5. The applicant shall provide a five-foot vinyl fence on the two to three foot
berm along the eastern boundary for those adjacent neighbors, as agreed
to by the applicant on the record.
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 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.
r:;-/A
'\ ~y action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 7 - day of
jjeC [:!/YJ/ ~ , 2003.
ROLL CALL
.. ~ ~..
COUNCILMAN BIRD
VOTED ~L--
COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD
VOTED~
VOTED~
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELllv1INARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 13 OF 14
COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS
(
COUNCILMAN NARY
VOTED IJlJd~
MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE
(TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
Attest:
SEAL
y. B
~ &0 ,C5 0 ~
-:;-~.""0 USr 1S~ · if i'
'>// "<1 ~ ,--....,....
// CO:J ""'C'oV "
/11 , UN ~ \ .. \\'
1,// . \\\
JillllJ it H\\\\
Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works \\\\\\"1111111///11
" f MED III
Department and City Attorney. ",\~~ 0 Il'lt)~ /~
~ ", c} o~pof14 h ~1'
g ~G ~o
By: ~~.P~ ~
City Clerk
Dated:
1:2 -r-t?3~
SEAL
Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360MGlacier Springs Sub AZ-03-024 PP-03-028\FfClsOrdPP.doc
7. B
'-/ ~ </Q ,,~(
~'> ~~ U8r 1S\ · ~
'/// ~ C ~~
/r>//; OUNT'! 1 \\'~
/1 . \\\
J/{fJlltl11\\\\\
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT
GLACIER SPRINGS SUBDIVISON / (pP-03-028)
PAGE 14 OF 14
( I PAGE. 01
** TX a <MAT I ON REPORT ** AS OF DEe 10 '03 e.. .5
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtt STATUS
03 12/09 23:25 3810160 EC-S 02' 10" 004 083 OK
04 12/09 23:27 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01'17" 004 083 OK
05 12/09 23:29 12084664405 EC--S 01 ' 19" 004 083 OK
06 12/09 23:31 8841159 EC-S 01' 18" 004 083 OK
07 12/09 23:33 2088840744 EC-S 01' 17" 004 083 OK
08 12/09 23:34 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01'17" 004 083 OK
09 12/09 23:36 8985501 EC-S 01' 16" 01214 12183 OK
10 12/09 23:38 LIBRARY EC-S 1211'42" 004 083 OK
11 12/09 23:40 92083776449 EC--S 01'17" 004 083 OK
12 12/09 23:42 208 388 6924 EC-S 01 ' 42" 004 083 OK
13 12/09 23:44 2088886854 EC-S 01 ' 16" 004 083 OK
14 12/09 23:46 208 895 0390 EC--S 01' 16" 004 083 OK
15 12/09 23:48 208 387 6393 EC--S 01'16" 004 083 OK
16 12/09 23:49 ADA CTY DEVELMT G3--S 02' 16" 004 083 OK
17 12/09 23:53 8885052 EC-S 131 ' 17 n 0134 083 OK
18 12/09 23: 54 CHERRY LANE EC--S 01' 43" 004 083 OK
19 12/09 23:57 POST OFFICE EC-S 02'11" 004 083 OK
20 12/09 23:59 IDAHO ATHlETIC C EC-S 01 ' 17" 004 083 OK
21 12/10 00:01 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01'18" 004 083 OK
22 12/10 00:03 20888B6701 EC--S 01'17" 004 083 OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
TueSday, December 9,2003, at 7:00 Perno
City Council Chambers
1. Rolloocall Attendance:
~ Tammy de Weerd ~ Bill Nary
---X- Cherie McCandless ---X- Keith Bird
~ Mayor Robert Corrie
21 Adoption of the Agenda: all)'10(/<' a..r aM ~d...,.;
3. Consent Agenda: ~Vl-C a.J' &{..I,n. hJXep(.,.
5" - AI
!?- B.
5" - C.
De
Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ. 03-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed SaQeland Planned DeveloDment by Quasar
Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road
and East Victory Road: t3&.rvfrh'-""</ fo /2-t6-CJ3 r.eJ~ ;,...?
Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 0300020 Request for
revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots
on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland
Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast
corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
(~C'?\ 7S h-t-<.< ~ I.z. -/6 - t7 ~ r<: :J uLM- ~
TabJed from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of law for Approval: CUP 0300036 Request for
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private
neighborhood park in an R-B zone for proposed Saaeland Planned
DeveJopment by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South
locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
~~ Ie /2.-(6-03 ,t"\e~Ih?
Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
0300047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing
home and rebuiJd one single family residential dweIJing for
caretakers quarters on Jot 2, block 2 of Observation Point
Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory
Road: tZt'rN'Vle.-
Maidian City Council Agenda -December 9, 2um ~ge 1 of3
All mulcri3t.. prcse:nled Jt public: mo:ting.'l msll b<<ome property of the City of Meridian,
Anyone desiring a.::comTTlCKbtion for dis.1bilitits rdutc:d to documents 3Dd/or hearing
please COnbcllhc: City ClcTk's Office at 8&84433 ut lca5t 48 hours prior to the puhlie rn-ccting.
** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT **
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DATE TIME TO/FROM
12/05 14:10 3810160
12/05 14:13 PUBLIC WORKS
12/05 14:14 2084664405
12/05 14:16 8841159
12/05 14:18 2088840744
12/05 14:19 POLICE DEPT
12/05 14:21 8985501
12/05 14:23 LIBRARY
12/05 14:25 92083776449
12/05 14:26 208 388 6924
12/05 14:28 2088886854
12/05 14:30 ALL AMERICAN INS
12/05 14:32 208 895 0390
12/05 14:34 Laurel
12/05 14:35 208 387 6393
12/05 14:37 ADA CTY DEUELMT
12/05 14:40 8885052
12/05 14:42 CHERRY LANE
12/05 14:44 POST OFFICE
12/05 14:47 IDAHO ATHLETIC C
12/05 14:48 887 0816
AS OF DEC 05 '03 14:51 PAGE. 01
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
EC--S
EC--S
G3--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
EC--S
G3--S
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MIN/SEC PGS
01'58" 004
01'11" 004
01'11" 004
01'11" 004
01' 10" 004
01 ' 10" 004
01 ' 10" 004
01'32" 004
01' 10" 004
01'30" 004
01'09" 004
01' 10" 004
01' 10" 004
01'12" 004
01'09" 004
02'15" 004
01'11" 004
01'32" 004
01'58" 004
01'11" 004
02'29" 004
CMD~
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
063
STATUS
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f~cL~ VO>t fay VllbUc.. ~otil.{.,-_rl1th1If.S ~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
Tammy de Weerd
Cherie McCandless
Mayor Robert Corrie
2. Adoption of the Agenda;
3. Consent Agenda:
Bill Nary
Keith Bird
A. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed SaQeJand Planned nAv~lnnr'non+ h" "'..-......-.__
(
\
** TX CONFIRMh'lON REPORT **
r
AS OF DEe 05 '03 14:55 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
01
02
DATE TIME TO/FROM
12/05 14:51 ID PRESS TRIBUNE
12/05 14:53 2088886701
MODE
EC--S
EC--S
MIN/SEC PGS
01' 14" 004
01'11" 004
CMDt:t STATUS
063 OK
063 OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f&Ov~ VO>t ~ ~l1bUc.. ~ot;LL-1l1avtk:$!
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCil REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
_ Tammy de Weerd
Cherie McCandless
_ Mayo,r Robert Corrie
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Bill Nary
Keith Bird
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed SaQeJand Planned Development by Quasar
Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road
and East Victory Road:
B. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of law for Approval; PP 03.020 Request for
revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other fats
on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saqeland
Planned DeveJopment by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast
corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
C. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-036 Request for
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private
neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed SaQeland Planned
Development by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South
Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval; CUP
03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing
home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for
caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point
Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory
Road:
MerIdian City COUI)cil Agelldn -UCCcmbcr 1).1003 Pug~ I or j
All lTI;llcn:Lls prc~cntcd 3.t puhlic mo:tings $h~1! br:come: pl'oveny of rhe CI ty oJ' MCI'idj~1\
i\Jlyolle' d\:Sirlllg w.a,:unllTkx.Jtlliun for tHsubllirJes rcliHt."d to documents and/or hearing
please conlllcl the City Clerk's (Hlicc at 8R~.4433 3t lC3s1 48 hours prklr ro th~ public ml':cring.
?1J-Ov~ ~ o>t ~ ~ ubHG t1otfLL,,,lVtavd1.S ~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Roll-call Attendance:
Tammy de Weerd
Cherie McCandless
Mayor Robert Corrie
Bill Nary
Keith Bird
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed Saqeland Planned Development by Quasar
Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road
and East Victory Road:
B. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-020 Request for
revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots
on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saqeland
Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast
corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
C. Tabled from November 25, 2003: Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-036 Request for
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private
neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Saqeland Planned
Development by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South
Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing
home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for
caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point
Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory
Road:
Meridian City Council Agenda -December 9, 2003 Page 1 of 3
All nlaterials presented at public nleetings shall beconle property of the City of lvleridian.
Anyone desiring acconllllodation for disabilities related to docunlents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public tneeting.
(
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 03-
009 Request for modification of condition to leave the Onweiler
Lateral open and construct a 1 0 foot wide paved multi-use pathway
and place a 5 foot chain link fence along the south bank of canal for
Silhouette Subdivision by Silhouette LLC - east of North Meridian
Road and south of East Ustick Road:
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval 0 f 1 5 building lots 0 n
4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberrv Subdivision No.2 by
Properties West, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Fairview Avenue:
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and 8
other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Glacier Sprin~s Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. -
north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road:
H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 03-
010 Request for a Rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones
for proposed Woodside Creek b y Woodside Properties, LLC -
1115 North Ten Mile Road:
I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03-
025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and 5
other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC - 1115 North Ten
Mile'Road:
J. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement for School Site In
Bridgetower Crossing (Primeland Dev, LLP):
K. AQreement for Professional Services, Brown Environmental -
Operator Training Services:
L. Memorandum of UnderstandinQ with Ada County Hiqhway
District for Routine Maintenance Activities in the Public Right
of Way:
M. Approve Beer License for Pizza Hut - 1752 W. Cherry Lane:
4. Department Reports:
A. Mayor's Office - Mayor
Meridian City Council Agenda -Decenlber 9, 2003 Page 2 of 3
A llm:.lterials presented at public 111eetings shall become property of the City of rvleridian.
Anyone desiring accoll1nlodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's OITice at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
('-
1. Re-appointment of Bruce MacCoy to Park's and
Recreation Commission - 10-03 to 10-06:
5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda)
6. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request
for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton
Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
7. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03-019 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
8. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-lot
subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in
a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and
Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road:
9. Public Hearing: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Sprin~s Subdivision by
JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
10. Public Hearing: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59
building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Soda SprinQs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and
2384 East Victory Road:
11. Public Hearing: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a m ix of single-family detached residential lot
sizes and amenities for proposed Soda SprinQs Subdivision by JLJ
Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
Meridian City Council Agenda -Decenlber 9, 2003 Page 3 of 3
All nlaterials presented at public Ineetings shall beconle property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accOlnnlodation for disabilities related to dOCUt11ents and/or hearing
please contact the City Clerk's 0f11ce at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public 111eeting.