HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 12-16
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY DECEMBER 16, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROLL CALL:
X WALT MORROW
X GLENN BENTLEY
X MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 2, 1997:
(APPROVED)
X CHARLIE ROUNTREE
X RON TOLSMA
1. TABLED NOVEMBER 18, 1997: FINAL PLAT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE
ESTATES, 46 LOTS BY MAX BOESIGER - SOUTH OF USTICK AND % MILE
WEST OF TEN MILE: (APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS)
2. TABLED DECEMBER 2,1997: FlNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (TABLE UNTIL JANUARY 6,1998)
3. TABLED DECEMBER 2,1997: ORDINANCE #779 - TREE ORDINANCE:
(REMOVE FROM AGENDA)
4. AMENDED ORDINANCE #733 - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 6,1998)
5. AMENDED ORDINANCE #760 - COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 6,1998)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-8
FOR ELVIRA SUBDIVISION BY RON CROW - 650 FEET SOUTH OF
FAIRVIEW AVENUE, WEST OF DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.4:
(APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT; APPROVE DECISION; CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE)
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELVIRA
SUBDIVISION BY RON CROW - 650 FEET SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE,
WEST OF DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO~ 4: (APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS)
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ELVIRA SUBDIVISION FOR 33
(
STANDARD R-8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS PLUS 8 TOWNHOUSE LOTS BY RON
CROW - 650 FEET SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE, WEST OF DANBURY
FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.4: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT; APPROVE
DECISION)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL
VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO.6 SUBDIVISION BY RAFANELLI & NAHAS
- MERIDIAN ROAD AND CENTRAL VALLEY DRIVE: (APPROVED)
10. HOME DEPOTIWAREMART SITE PLAN REVIEW:
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 62.06
ACRES TO L-Q FOR A CITY PARK AND PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES BY
CITY OF MERIDIAN - WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD, NORTH OF USTICK
ROAD: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT; APPROVE DECISION; CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 47.58
ACRES TO I-L FOR A WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND RELATED
FACILITIES BY CITY OF MERIDIAN - WEST OF TEN MILE ROAD, NORTH OF
USTICK ROAD: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT; APPROVE DECISION;
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE)
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR BEDFORD PLACE
SUBDIVISION NO.4 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION - N. OF BEDFORD
PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.3: CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
14. FINAL PLAT - BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.4, 39 LOTS BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION - N. OF BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.3:
(APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
15. FINAL PLAT - ECONO LUBE SUBDIVISION, 4 LOTS BY ECONO LUBE
N'TUNE - EAST OF LOCUST GROVE, S. SIDE OF FAIRVIEW: (APPROVED
WITH CONDITIONS)
16. FINAL PLAT - PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2, 27 LOTS BY EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION/PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC - N. OF PACKARD
SUBDIVISION NO.1: (APPROVED)
17. FINAL PLAT - TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO.2, 59 LOTS BY
STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION - SW CORNER OF USTICK AND LINDER
ROAD: (APPROVED)
18. FINAL PLAT - TURNBERRY SUBDIVISION, 68 LOTS BY BENCHMARK LAND
CO. - W. OF BLACK CAT ROAD, S. OF USTICK: (APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS)
19. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR TURNBERRY
SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 6,1998)
20. REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR A WAREHOUSE
BUILDING BY MCCALL PROPERTIES: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 6, 1998)
21. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION ON BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT: (APPROVED)
22. REQUEST FOR LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 1997 FOR THE 19TH HOLE INC.:
(APPROVED)
23. TRANSFER OF BEERlWINE LICENSE FROM THE 127 CLUB TO THE 19TH
HOLE INC. (APPROVED)
24. BEERlWINE/LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS FOR 1998: (APPROVED)
25. CONTRACTS FOR INSPECTORS: (VOID PREVIOUS CONTRACTS;
APPROVE NEW CONTRACTS)
26. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. FIRE DEPARTMENT - ALAN HERZFELD FOR FIRE UNION:
B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. GOODWILL TRAILER AT ALBERTSON STORE ON TEN MILE AND
CHERRY LANE: (DENIED)
2. TABLED DECEMBER 2,1997: DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED
FILING FEES:
3. DITCH ORDINANCE DRAFT:
C. POLICE CHIEF GORDON:
1. CONTRACT WITH EMS FOR BLOOD DRAW FOR BLOOD ALCOHOL
LEVEL: (APPROVED)
2. TEMPORARY OFFICE BUILDING:
D. MAYOR CORRIE:
1. HISTORICAL PRESERVATION SOCIETY APPOINTMENTS:
(ALICE GOULD TO REPLACE ROBERT HOBBS, FRANK
THOMASON TO SEAT 1 AND BILL ROCKHOLD TO SEAT 2)
2. PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR APPOINTMENT:
(APPROVE TOM KUNTZ AT $3550 A MONTH)
3. LEASE AT OLD SCHOOL: (APPROVED)
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 16. 1997
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert
D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Watt Morrow, Ron Tolsma, Charlie Rountree, Glenn Bentley:
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Will Berg, Gary Smith, Dean Elhart, Chief
Gordon, Alan Herzfeld, Ron Crow, Stuart Robinetta, John Werth, Becky Bowcutt, David
Turnbull, Gary Lee, Steven Jordan, Lonnie Fox, Bob Nahas, Patrick McKeegan, Pat
Tealey, Van Elg, John Stubblefield, Larry Hanson:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 2, 1997:
Corrie: Are there any alterations or corrections to those minutes? I will entertain a
motion they be accepted as written.
Bentley: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded the minutes be accepted as written, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, if I may before we get into tonight's business I have a special
presentation I would like to make. Chief are you ready over there. We received we have
some flyers we need to pass around the office tonight we have received our new track
system and we have some pictures we wanted to show you. Some of these pictures
were extracted from the newspaper print and what this equipment will do is the police
department is now getting these through Hewlett Packard. It enables us to connect with
anybody we want as far as banks, credit unions to help apprehend criminals whatever
they are doing. This machine has the capability we take a picture off a Driver's license
or anything blow it up and create these posters. At the press of one button we can fax
this out to every bank instantaneously. We can also just do it all over to different police
departments and it is really a big aid for everyone. Like I said we press a button and it
goes out to hundreds of people at the same time. So they are passing them around you
can see it we put some cute captions on it. That is all I have, thank you.
ITEM #1: TABLED NOVEMBER 18, 1997: FINAL PLAT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE
ESTATES, 46 LOTS BY MAX BOESIGER - SOUTH OF USTICK AND % MILE WEST
OF TEN MILE:
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering representing the applicant in this matter.
We are bringing before you this evening phase 1 of Dakota Ridge Subdivision located
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 2
f
off of Ustick just west of Ten Mile. We have reviewed staff's comments, I think there is
only just a couple of things I need to mention and get in the public record. Site specific
comment number five referencing sanitary sewer service. There is a reference to "to
and through" with the sewer. If you recall correctly (inaudible) will not provide any
additional service because of the depth of that sewer that was discussed in length
during the preliminary plat hearing. I just want to make sure that there is no confusion
on that Water will be extended down Ustick Road to and through to the properties west
boundary. Secondly under item 10, site specific referring to notes, Item 10, 12 staff has
asked that the word "homeowners" be omitted from our note when referencing a
pedestrian access corridor. If we don't reference that as the Dakota Ridge homeowners
pedestrian access corridor then at the time of recording of this plat is assumed that it is
public under Idaho Code and that pedestrian lot will be dedicated automatically to the
City of Meridian. I am not sure if the City is accepting those, the other cities do not So
we do have to reference it pertaining to the homeowners of this development. Item 1 0
13 staff asked us to visually show a ten foot easement along the rear lot lines of the lots
or excuse me they asked me to specify in a note a blanket easement for ten foot along
the rear of the lot lines. We just want to put that visually on the plat, the Ada County
Engineer will not accept anything referencing the rear of a lot because there are some
abnormally shaped lots where one may be misinterpret which is the rear. So they
would not be aware of where that easement is. So I would like to graphically show that
on the plat versus just a standard blanket not. Item 1 0 14 there is a reference to lot 1,
block 6, there is no lot 1, block 6 on this plat I think it was just an error. Other than that
my client has reviewed the City's comments and does agree with these listed
modifications.
Corrie: Thank you Becky
Morrow: Mr. Smith, your comments with respect to Ms. Bowcutt's observations?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members I guess I don't have a problem with her request on
item 10 (12), 10 (13) I guess we are going to sow that ten foot easement is across what
is being termed the back of the lot then. Do we need to show a house orientation arrow
on each one of those lots that says the front of the house is the other direction form this
easement. Otherwise if it is 80 foot on both sides then we have a possibility of the
house fronting either direction on these corner lots. Only two lots are designated
frontages because of the less than 80 foot dimension on the other side or an access
problem as lot 2, block 1. If I am understanding what the County Engineer is concerned
about Our reference to lot 1, block 6, obviously there is no block 6. We don't have the
development plans but I would ask Becky if that could be Lot 1, block 3 is there any kind
of a drainage facility on that lot?
(Inaudible)
Smith: Then I would suspect that would be the reference. Rather than block 6 it should
be block 3.
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 3
(Inaudible)
Smith: There is no drainage on lot 1, block 3 then? I think those are the only comments I
would have. J guess J would ask Mr& Mayor that whatever your motion is whatever the
Council's motion is that it includes specifically what items are amended and what items
aren't so that we have that of record in the minutes~ Thank you
Corrie: Ms~ Bovvcutt you were frowning a couple of times there, is it okay now.
(Inaudible)
Morrow: Mr. Mayor~ jf there are no further questions by the Council I am prepared to
offer a motion on the final plat~ That being the case I would like to move that we
approve the final plat for Dakota Ridge Estates 46 lots by Max Boesiger, subject to the
following conditions. That under site specific comments number 5 that the City Engineer
will coordinate the sewer design with the development staff with respect to the sewer
issue that Ms. Bowcutt raised. Item 10 (12) that the word uhomeoVvTlers" be left in as a
requirement by the Ada County Engineer so that it not become a lot in the City of
meridian since we have a policy against accepting things less than 5 acres in size. I
item 10 (13) that it visually be sho'Nn the easement, the backyard easement within the
plat and that item 1 0 (14) references lot 1, block 4 I would believe.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that 'He accept the final plat for Dakota Ridge
Estates subject to the conditions as stated, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: TABLED DECEMBER 2, 1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, that has been an ongoing project pending the ditch ordinance. I
have been the one doing the continuations. But tonight David Tumbull is here and
maybe he can enlighten us as to \tVhere he wants to head with this. We are very close to
having that ordinance compJeted but it is not done as of yet I don't believe.
Turnbull: I am in concurrence with Councilman Morrow I think this whole thing
precipitated I think in part the review of the ditch Ordinance $0 I am satisfied to wait until
that is completed if that is the direction Council wants to take. I had a call from Shari
regarding the variance request that Gotf View Estates had on the Safford lateral. I am
not sure what the final disposition of that matter was, it is kind of the same issue that we
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 4
had at least on one of the irrigation facilities. Has there been a final disposition on that
matter?
Rountree: We approved a variance.
Turnbull: So that would I assume be the same issue on the Safford lateral for us then.
The other issue was the Eight Mile lateral and from what I understand the new
ordinance the Eight Mile lateral is one of those that is specificatly spoken to. Whatever
the Council wishes to do on it, I can come back again.
Corrie: Any questions for David? Thank you David.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, if I could I would like to invite each one of you to when you are out
and about to travel out to Los AJamitos No. 3 subdivision and take a look at the effects
of piping and fencing an irrigation ditch. I don1t know that I need to say much more, a
picture is worth a thousand words.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on item 2.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, that being the case I think we should table item 2 untit our first
meeting in January which I believe is the 6th ~
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table item #2 until the January 6 meeting,
any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED DECEMBER 2,1997: TREE ORDINANCE:
Corrie: I believed they have pulled that one for a time to be a Tree City USA next year.
So we need to address that ordinance some time later in the year.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I met with the tree committee last week, they were going to take a
look at the mocked up ordinance as we had it and as I have given it to Wayne. As a
committee to look at a couple of issues they thought they would like an audience before
the Council to discuss. I did not get a date from them at that point in time, .my guess is
that we are probably looking at some time in February. I would recommend that we
table this untit our first meeting in February which would be, either that or by way Of
discussion just take if off the agenda until such time as it is ready to be before us again_
That might be the easiest way to do it, that way we don't keep tabling it.
Morrow: That would make a certain amount of sense because then if you wanted to
discuss the topic in a strategic planning session and bring it to its final conclusion and
{
[
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 5
then just have it on the agenda just one time to adopt and press forward or not press
forvvard with the program.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor 1 would move then that we take item 3 the tree ordinance off the
agenda until such time as the ordinance can be reviewed with the City Council by the
Tree Committee.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we take item 3 the
Ordinance #779 off the agenda until we talk to the tree committee about the ordinance.
Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: AMENDED ORDINANCE #733 - PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION:
Morrow: Mr. Mayor could we have City Attorney Crookston review the changes that
were made in that ordinance?
Crookston: I don't have a copy of that particular ordinance. There was some changes
in the designation as to who was going to be on the Commission from the Western Ada
Recreation District, from the School District and those types of things. So I changed
those out so that there is one from besides the actual Park Commissioner who will be a
City Councilman there are 4 people in addition to him and then there are three people I
believe without reading it but as I remember who are to be nominated from the public at
large. I just straightened how all that should be done. And that is the basic changes in
the whole thing.
Berg: There were a couple of other changes with the amendment of this ordinance one
was to change the Chapter number which conflicted with the General committees,
boards and commissions that we passed just last month. The other one was to change
the title or the description of the tax levy that we are trying to propose.
Crookston: We did change the six one-hundredths of one percent that was apparently
questioned by David Navarro from the County. He requested that be changed and I
talked to him today and I had faxed him a copy of the ordinance and he said that the
changes met with his desires.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, as I recall also that in our present ordinance the head of the Parks
and Recreation Department is also a member of this Commission, a non-voting member
is that correct Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: That is correct.
(
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 6
Morrow: And I don't see any reference to that under paragraph C here as being a
member of the Commission. In our ordinance as it stands now that is referenced in the
ordinance. I think the other thing that we talked about to bring this ordinance in
compliance with what we have done with the Traffic Safety Commission was to have a
trustee of the joint school district Ada and Canyon counties or its designee for each of
the dedicated seats. We did that in the Traffic Safety Commission primarily because it is
not reasonable to expect in some cases an Ada County Highway Commissioner
(inaudible). I don't see that verbiage in what I believe is the latest proposal for that
ordinance. I don't want to see the head of the Parks and Recreation dropped off this
Commission. Because that will be a full standing department and that department head
obviously needs to be a part of that Commission.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I agree with the point that we probably need the head of the Parks
and Recreation there. But I am going to disagree with Hor its designee" especially when
it comes to Meridian Athletic Association or Cherry Lane Golf Course "or it's designee".
The Hor its designee" in those two instances can give them the right to appoint
somebody that doesn't belong to those two entities. The reason this was set up was to
have representation from those groups. If they are picking somebody outside the groups
then it defeats the whole purpose of the original ordinance.
Rountree: Well by the same token if you take it that way then the school district can do
the same thing. As a matter of fact that is the situation. The current School Board
representative has resigned from the School Board and they have asked him to
continue on in that capacity with the City.
Bentley: If that is the case then why do we designate where these people are coming
from, why don't we just take people at large like we have with the other three seats.
Morrow: If I may Mr. Mayor, we do that specifically so that those people can be
representative of and answer to those entities. Very similar to what we currently have
with respect to Ada County Highway District Commission and the Citizens advisory
committee where each member represents a City and a specific trade. In our case
Meridian happens to have the City of Meridian representative and the builders
representative. There is a City of Boise representative and an engineer so that both
those constituencies can be represented. In this particular case if the Meridian School
District ops to have Mr. Keller as their representative even though he no longer sits on
the school board or if they opted to have Mr. Carbury in the practice of how that runs is
that those people would report directly to those entities and be their representative
because of perhaps time constraints or other reasons that the school board or Western
Ada Recreation or Cherry Lane Recreation or whoever may opt to have maybe not the
president of their board but one of their appointees or one of their members or
somebody that reports directly to them to represent their interest. I see it as a case if
you have a situation where you have a school board trustee attending way too many
meetings then they need to designate that to somebody that will represent them and
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 7
then report to them. That should be fine by us because then their interests then are
represented.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, the point that I am getting at though is we have to change some
language here because it states one member shall be from and if a member
representing isn't from there then I can ask the Counselor this is it incorrect if they are
picking somebody that isn't from that activity?
Crookston: If there is language in there that says one member shall be from and then it
goes on to state or his designee it doesn't member that he is not on because there is
additional language that designate an additional person.
Bentley: So it doesn't create a conflict.
Crookston: No, if there was no language about an additional person as the designee
then it would create a problem, but with that language in there then you can have a
person that is not on that board.
Bentley: That is alii had thank you.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be important to add to this that the Parks and
Recreation Director serve as the executive secretary of the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
Morrow: Was that not how it was structured in our original something similar to that?
Rountree: Similar but not that specific. I believe there was an individual from the Parks
Department identified as the secretary.
Crookston: You want the Parks and Recreation Director to be what?
Rountree: The executive secretary.
Tolsma: It is, it is right here with no vote.
Corrie: Superintendent not director.
Rountree: That would take care of the main~enance activities, but we will have a
director. So that should be changed to Parks and Recreation Director.
Crookston: Do you want him to vote or not?
Rountree: No vote, just change the word superintendent to director, page 2, under
organization and duties.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 8
(
/
\
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think what I would like to do is I would like to see this in its written
form before we adopt because originally it was supposed to be this some adjustments
that Mr. Berg spelled out, the wording "or designee". Clearly there are two different
versions now of what the original Parks and Recreation Commission ordinance is. It
seems to me I would like to see it in its final form to make sure we haven't eliminated
any seats that were there and the intent is still there and we go back to making sure that
just the verbiage that we discussed tonight as being in the final ordinance.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion that we table this to the January 6 meeting and get it put
together right
Morrow: So moved
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to table item #4 until
January 6 on Ordinance #733.
Crookston: I assume that you would like to have this for the planning session.
Morrow: That is correct, that would be good.
Corrie: When is that planning session?
Morrow: The 23rd
Corrie: A motion has been made and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: AMENDED ORDINANCE #760 - COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND
COMMITTEES:
Bentley: I have a question, is the December 5th draft the one that we are working off of?
Corrie: You are correct Mr. Bentley.
Morrow: A recap of what the changes were here and why Mr~ Berg or attorney.
Berg: I will just say I had a memo dated December 5 that had what Wayne changed I
can go through this on that ordinance. I guess I would say that he made it more
consistent with what the language was he omitted a sentence concerning the Council
must confirm the nomination by the Mayor by majority vote which he kind of said again
redundantly in another paragraph. He added in a sentence that referred to that section
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 9
4-104 which was in the ordinance and I believe that was the only two changes that he
made~
Corrie: Blue Ribbon committee was added.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, page 3, paragraph B there are some changes in there also, the
word totally was stricken and be comprised of and the 1/3 was changed to %.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would like to discuss that particular, the one third to the % it seems
to me that is particularly dangerous. If you have a 6 person commission basically it is
saying that half of the people on that Commission can be from outside the city limits. I
can't think of any circumstances where you would want a committee, commission or
board with one half of the membership not within the City of Meridian. It seems to me
that it should be left as 1/3 so that the impact area and there is no bigger proponent of
the impact area than myself but I think a third or two seats is sufficient. That is currently
what we have within the Planning and Zoning Commission. I don't see any reason here
to change from 1/3 to % it seems to me that is dangerous.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, Wayne do you,' what was the reason it was changed, I don't recall
it?
Crookston: The reason that I thought there was some difference here was because the
Planning and Zoning members there are more than one third of that Commission that
do not live within the City. So I just wanted to make it so they were consistent. Right
now there are two Planning and Zoning members who are not residents of the City.
There are only five members. I didn't want to have it outlawed in the Commission right
now.
Morrow: It seems to me the solution to that is that perhaps we stick with the one third
and move the Planning and zoning to 6 members and in that particular case you would
have a chairman who doesn't vote and wouldn't have to vote unless there was a tie.
And with five voting members you would rarely have a tie if all are present.
Crookston: Well if you have 6 members though you could have a tie that was
unbreakable.
Morrow: How so?
Crookston: Because you have six members.
Morrow: No I said that the Chairman is a non-voting in case of a tie. That would leave
you five voting members unless one was absent in that case there would be four. If it is
tied two to two then the chairman votes to break the tie. The same as with this body.
Corrie: How does the rest of the Council feel, Charlie?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 10
Rountree: Weill agree with the concept that a 1/3 is probably the right number. I am not
sure that we add to Planning and Zoning that we make that a fact Maybe we need to
look at the membership of Planning and Zoning. And that may change relatively soon
anyway.
Morrow: The other thing is Planning and Zoning is set within a specific ordinance. So
part of the thing there is I can ask the Council what is 'Nrong with having in that position
with five members and having this ordinance address the 1/3.
Crookston: I think that would be fine but we need to reference in this ordinance that the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be bound by this ordinance.
Morrow With respect to its membership.
Rountree: I would prefer that approach.
Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I think that it is appropriate to table this until
January 6 with a presentation of that prototype at our December 23rd workshop
meeting.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second that we table to January 6 meeting item #5, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-8
FOR ELVIRA SUBDIVISJON BY RON CROW - 650 FEET SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW
AVENUE, WEST OF DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.4:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing.
Gary Lee, 250 S. Beech\^lOOd, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: This particular project there are three public hearings this evenings and they are
all related. There is an annexation rezone request, there is a preliminary for Elvira
Subdivision and there is a conditional use permit request for aHowing some tovmhouse
projects within the development. What I 'NOuld like to do is make my presentation brief
and include the three items and possibly I could reaffirm on each public hearing if that
would be suitable to the Council. This parcel is approximately 11 acres, it is situated
just west of Danbury Subdivision, it sits south of Fairview about 600 feet below the
commercial designated areas where Rountree West sits now. It is adjacent to some
apartment units on the west side. It is currently in the county it is kind of an in fill project
/r-
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 11
if you will, it is zoned RT right now. It is bordered by commercial general on the north,
R-15 zoning on the west and R-8 zoning on the south. It is surrounded by high density
and commercial areas. The proposal we have presented and prepared is for a single
family residential development. We intend to include 33 standard single family lots that
would comply with the City's R-8 zone. There will be an additional 8 townhouse unit lots
down along the SW corner of the property for a total of 41 living units in that 11 acres.
The density is relatively low it is about 3.8 units per acre. Part of that is because the
Five Mile Creek that traverses through the party from the south side to the north side.
The property is serviceable by the City, there is a sewer trunk main that bisects the
property in a north south access along what we call Cathy Street. There is also a large
trunk line that bisects the property west east in the hammerhead culdesac on Inez
Place. The water is available on Washington and on Cathy Lane. Right now Cathy Lane
is a private street within a development on the south side. I noticed in the latest packet
that I received from the City I believe it was in the annexation package there are draft
comments from ACHD. I don't know if you have had a chance to review those~ There
has been an issue that has come up since that draft copy was published. Right now I
have been in discussion with Karen Gallagher at ACHD about the status of an existing
public right of way. It is known as E. Washington Avenue, if you look on my site plan
there it is on the south side of the development where Washington Avenue would be
extended. In our proposal to the City we were going to leave that public right of way
there for future pedestrian access to gain access to the Five Mile Creek pathway that is
called there. Apparently, I don't know if the City Clerk had distributed the letter I sent
over to Shari Stiles concerning their concerns. In a nut shell they don't want to leave
public right of way unless there is going to be road improvements. IN this particular
case it would just be a pedestrian access and they don't feel comfortable with owning
that property without having roadways on it. So she suggested to us that we do one of
two things, either vacate the right of way in which case it would go back to the owner of
Catherine subdivision or they could deed it to the City of Meridian for public beneficial
use. I guess that is a way they are looking at working with them and the Idaho Code
with regard to vacation of public right of way. They couldn't directly deed the property to
a homeowners association or any particular individual other than the previous owner of
Catherine Place Subdivision. So for us to keep that as a public pedestrian access we
would have to go through the City to do it. So that raises some questions in our mind
whether or not that access point is something the City would really like to see for that
future Five Mile Creek. As you see on our preliminary, there is a crossing where Badley
Avenue will cross Five Mile Creek that could provide pedestrian access to the pathway.
Of course Fairview crosses Five Mile which gives another point of access, Pine Street
crosses Five Mile Creek. So within a % mile you have 3 points of access. Do you really
need the fourth one. I guess that would be the question we would pose to the City
Council when they make their final decision if we want to proceed along those lines. We
have reviewed City staff and from the most part concur with what they have said. There
are a few issues in the design elements that we will need to discuss with them to come
to terms with. We will be providing pressure irrigation on the subdivision. I spoke to
John Anderson at Nampa Meridian and he is agreeable to us looking at the possibility of
tying to the Danbury pressure irrigation system. We will probably have to do some
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 12
upgrades on the pumping facility to make that happen. If Council has any questions I
would be glad to answer those now or after public input whichever is your pleasure.
Corrie: Staff any questions at this point? Thank you Gary. Is there anyone else from the
public that would like to issue testimony at this time?
Steven Jordan, 1033 Crossbill Court, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Jordan: I just wanted to express my concern on the Elvira Subdivision particularly as it
applies to the town homes. A large number of my neighbors and myself are concerned
(End of Tape)
(Discussion Inaudible)
Lee: (Inaudible) sanitary sewer, that would be designated pedestrian pathway not
vehicular pathway. The other point of access that I am aware of is there is a common lot
you can't really see it on the drawings but there is a common lot adjacent to Danbury
and Elvira right in the neighborhood of where they had a storm drainage easement lot.
There is a potential for pedestrian access there as well but not vehicular. ACHD in their
review the street systems that will be providing vehicular access which is Washington
Avenue and would eventually be Badley Avenue in the future they had no concern with
the traffic overload in the immediate neighborhood. As far as values, I really can't
speak to that other than to say that both of these developments Elvira and Danbury are
zoned or would be zoned R-8 and similar size lots.
Corrie: Any further comments or questions?
Rountree: I have a question for Dean or Gary, are the comments received from JUS on
this consistent and responsive to the comments that you provided?
Smith: Yes Councilman they are.
Bentley: Question for Gary, our sewer capacity in the area is great enough to handle
Smith: Yes
Corrie: Counselor, any substantial change in the testimony?
Crookston: No
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared for us by P & z.
Tolsma: Second
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 13
Corrie: Motion made and second that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, roll call vote
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow- Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea,
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Motion for the decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City Council of the City of Meridian approve the
annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Including that the applicant or its successors and interests, assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives enter into a development agreement. If the
applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions of law and is not
agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be
annexed.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion is made and second on the decision and recommendation as read, any
further discussion, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
annexation ordinance.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion is made and second that we have the City Attorney prepare an
annexation ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ELVIRA
SUBDIVISION BY RON CROW - 650 FEET SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE, WEST
OF DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.4:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing.
Gary Lee, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: I would just like to state and reaffirm the testimony I had given in the previous item
on the agenda. And again would entertain any questions the Council may have
concerning the preliminary plat
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 14
Morrow: I have no questions of Gary, but I do of Gary Smith.
Rountree: You indicated on the preliminary plat an 8 foot planting strip between you and
Danbury or the Catherine Park Subdivision. Is that a buffer or landscaping strip what are
you proposing to do there?
Lee: It is just there for a separation for vehicle traffic more than anything else with the
exception of a strip on the south end that the Fire Department thought would be
necessary for emergency vehicle access.
Rountree: So are we talking evergreen trees?
Lee: Probably evergreen low growing shrubs, low maintenance.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on the preliminary
plat
Morrow: Question of Gary, your feelings about the proposal by Mr. Lee where the
access to Five Mile is dropped?
Smith: I guess I don't have any strong feelings that this should be required along East
Washington with the access at Badley and at Pine Avenue.
Corrie: At this time I will close the public hearing, Council discussion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor as a point of discussion I am in favor of dropping the access
requirement. It is clearly something that we as a City of Meridian don't want to own. If I
understood Mr. Lee right that means you can apply for a vacation and it becomes
private property in which case I think that makes the most sense.
Rountree: I concur
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Elvira
Subdivision including the deletion of the requirement for the public access along
Washington Avenue.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we accept the preliminary plat with the
conditions as set forth in the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 15
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ELVIRA SUBDIVrSION FOR 33 STANDARD
R-8 SINGLE FAMilY LOTS PLUS 8 TOWNHOUSE LOTS BY RON CROW 650 FEET
SOUTH OF FAIRVfEW AVENUE, WEST OF DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO~ 4:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the engineer up one more
time.
Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: Again I would like to reaffirm my previous testimony on item #6 annexation and
rezone. I would also like to point out that the purpose for the conditional use permit was
for a planned unit development. Which allows some flexibility in the lot sizes to
accommodate the town house facilities. That reatly applies to those 8 lots down at the
southwest corner of the property. If you have any further questions I would be willing to
entertain those.
Corrie: Any questions of Mr. Lee? Thank you Gary. Anyone else from the public who
would like to issue testimony on this conditional use permit?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with the conditional use permit and would
be prepared to offer a motion to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as
prepared for us by P & z.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the approval of the
findings of fact and conc~usions of law on the conditional use permit, any further
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow-Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the decision.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the City Council of the City of Meridian approves the conditional
use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with
the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions
as found justified and appropriate by the City Council. That the property be required to
meet the water and sewer requirements, the life safety code, the uniform fire code,
parking requirements and paving and landscaping requirements and all ordinances of
the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the
applicant by the city of Meridian.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 16
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and ,seconded that we accept the decision and recommendation as
written, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO. 6 BY RAFANELLI & NAHAS -
MERIDIAN ROAD AND CENTRAL VALLEY DRIVE.
Corrie: I will open the public hearing.
Lonnie Fox, Hubble Engineering 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Fox: Not much here to add, you have a copy of my letter answering the P & Z
questions. I think it solved or answered all of the items there. t would answer any
questions that you had.
Corrie: Any questions? Is there anyone else from the public that would like to testify on
this? I will close the public hearing at this time. Council any questions you might have.
Bentley: Gary or Dean have all of the conditions been answered to your satisfaction?
Smith: Yes they have responded.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion for the preliminary plat
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Central Valley
Corporate Park No.6 subdivision.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we accept the request
for preliminary plat, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: HOME DEPOTIWAREMART SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Corrie: Is there a representative from Waremart here tonight?
Lacuma: My name is Mike Lacuma, I am with (Inaudible) we are the architects of the
Home Depot, we are vvorking in conjunction with Waremart to provide these two
Meridian City CounciJ
December 16, 1997
Page 17
additions to the Central Valley Corporate Park. This project basically is going to be a
phased project whereby we are proposing to put in the Home Depot We are looking to
start construction approximately early summer of 1998 with an opening of Spring 1999.
Under Phase one we propose basically to have the Nahas Group is (Inaudible). Second
phase Waremart will come in shortly after and they are looking for anticipated opening
of early winter 1999. Basically for the Home Depot we are proposing to build a 115,572
square foot building with the Waremart eventually coming in at approximately 81,250
square foot. This addition should fit nicely into the existing corporate park. We are
looking to match the sustained architecture and also in terms of the landscaping
setbacks and site design to match what is out there right now. Currently we are
proposing (inaudible) berming along Progress Avenue, three points of access for the
customers and also a berming and extensive screening in the rear where the loading
were to occur. Basically what we are proposing is with the landscaping and wall
treatment that the loading area will be screened and protected and will be out of view of
the customers or any place of the center outside of the center. Site circulation for the
most part, let me get back to the landscaping. We are proposing (Inaudible)
approximately a 25 foot deep landscape berm along the perimeter extensive
landscaping and trees in the center to provide shade as well as to soften the (inaudible).
Site circulation for the most part we anticipate a lot of the customers will be coming off
Interstate 84 coming onto Central Valley Drive and then making their way on progress
to these three points of access. Customer access will be protected (inaudible) For the
Home Depot itself what we are proposing in keeping with the Home Depot's that we
have done in the past in circulation we will have a customer pick up lane in the front with
(inaudible) the design layout is basically in keeping with what has worked in the past
with the Home Depot and works quite well for this particular use. We are proposing that
(inaudible) outdoor garden center along the freeway site which would also be
landscaped and will have (inaudible). Currently we are working with Waremart's
architects and the Nahas group in coming up with Building design and elevation in
keeping with the concept of a corporate park. We have been working with them for
awhile on this. We don't have a design as of yet we are still in the process of doing that
If there are any other questions?
Bentley: What is your plan for signage?
Lacuma: We are proposing to put (Inaudible) will be part of the pile on sign that is in
Corporate Park. Waremart has a sign at the front (inaudible) Corporate Park Drive.
Bentley: I would like to see you coordinate that through Shari Stiles (Inaudible) if you
would.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess is the question here that you want some feedback from us
in terms of what you are proposing Mr. Nahas is that the general idea, there is not a
formal presentation or a formal action required.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 18
Nahas: I am Bob Nahas, I am not sure what the reason was for having this
presentation I am a little uncertain about that I would be -happy to answer any questions
that I can.
Morrow: J guess that from my perspective the concept is fine. The timing is a little slow.
Nahas: Really 25 years is slow?
Morrow: Way too slow, my preference would be a little sooner.
Nahas: But at least we are going to have a good finish.
Morrow: I think that to support my fellow councilman Glenn Bentley I think that we are
interested in monument type signs and so the work that we would like to see take place
with Ms. Stiles would be something along those lines that enhances the City and
obviously enhances your development so that we can get more of these kinds of things
within all of that dirt that is just weeds. So press ahead from my perspective.
Bentley: I would also like to say I think it is going to be a great addition, I have no
problem with your layout, it looks good.
Rountree: I think it is a good concept and certainly noise is not going to be an issue
especially in that location.
Crookston: I just have one question for Mr. Nahas, how much space is between the two
buildings?
(Inaudible)
Crookston: For what purpose is that going to be used?
(Inaudible)
Corrie: Thank you
Bentley: Gary do you have any comments on it?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen I guess I don't have any specific comments, I
assume the Highway District there isn't a problem with them as far as the intersection
control, traffic control and that sort of thing or is there, I haven't heard anything.
Corrie: I think it is a little premature for that but they can work that one out tOOe
Morrow: I think the purpose here is to give us a broad overview of what the project is
and see if there is any outstanding objections. In this case I think the message you take
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 19
back is that we are very supportive and would like to see you press forward as quickly
as possible and we'll help in any way that we can. Because it is something that we
desperately need both of for our citizens here in Meridian. Thank you
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
62.06 ACRES TO L-Q FOR A CITY PARK AND PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES BY
CITY OF MERIDIAN - WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD, NORTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Corrie: At this time I will open the publiC hearing and the Planning and Zoning I guess
will have a presentation.
Dean Elhert, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Elhert: Mr. Mayor and Council this annexation request was at the direction of City
Council for future park. The L-O design.ation was chosen because it is basically our
most restrictive as far as what is permitted in the L-Q district.
Morrow: I have no questions.
Corrie: Thank you Dean, is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue
testimony at this time on the annexation? Hearing none I will close the public hearing,
Council, questions or discussion?
Bentley: This would apply to both this one and the waste water plant, what is the
procedure going to be if the guy next door wants to annex?
Morrow: You mean if the adjacent person wants to annex, it would be just like any other
annexation he simply makes his application (Inaudible). It is very candidly one of those
like anyone else (inaudible) any property adjacent to has the option to request
annexation and zoning~ Then we do the public hearing process and annex or not annex
(inaudible)
Bentley: We don't run into a problem legally (inaudible).
Morrow: I don't know why you would.
Rountree: I rearty don't' have a comment to respond to that I would defer that to Council
in terms of the specificity for this the specificity of (inaudible). I think for this action in my
mind it is for this particular piece of property if in fact somebody comes along and wants
annexation because they happen to be adjacent. Just because they ask does not
necessarily say it is right on our part. We don't have to annex if we don't feel it is in the
City's best interest. I think we can control it that way as well.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 20
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as
prepared for us by P & z.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the findings and conclusions of law
prepared by the Planning and Zoning, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow-Yea, Bentley-Yea, Rountree-Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: City Council of the City of Meridian approves the annexation and zoning as
stated above in the conclusions for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in the preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law. And the
applicant be specifically required to meet all of the ordinances of the city of Meridian
specifically including the development time requirements and the conditions of these
findings of fact and conctusions. That if the conditions are not met that the property be
de-annexed.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded on the conclusions of the recommendations as
read, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare the
annexation ordinance.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that the City Attorney prepare the annexation
ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: AfI Yea
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
47.58 ACRES TO I-L FOR A WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLAN AND RELATED
FACILITIES BY CITY OF MERIDIAN - WEST OF TEN MILE ROAD, NORTH OF
USTICK ROAD:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite Dean for that
Dean Elhert, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 21
Elhert: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, again this request was at the direction of City
Council for an I-L zoning district for the Waste Water Treatment Plant and J think the
main issue here was some of the building permit fees for some of the expansion out at
the Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Corrie: Any questions of Council? Thank you Dean. Is there anyone else from the
public that would like to enter testimony at this time? Hearing none I will close the public
hearing. CouncU discussion? I will entertain a motion.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as
prepared by P & z.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as prepared by the Planning and Zoning, role call vote~
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the City Council of the City of Meridian approves the annexation
and zoning as stated above in the conditions for the property described in the
application. The conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that
the applicant be specifically required to meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian
specifically including the development time requirements, conditions of these findings of
fact and conclusions. That if the conditions are not met the property will be de-annexed.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision and recommendation, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the annexation ordinance.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare the
annexation ordinance.
Tolsma: Second
(-
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 22
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to have the attorney prepare the annexation
ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR BEDFORD
PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.4 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION - N. OF BEDFORD
PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.3:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite David or his representative
to come forward.
David Turnbull, 12426 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I sure I hope don't do anything to
disrupt the good speed with which you are moving through the agenda tonight. I just
ran into former Councilman Bert Meyer he was in my office building as I was leaving for
this meeting as a matter of fact. He said to remind them that he always moved to
adjourn at 10:00. The variance we have before you tonight stems from a situation
regarding Mrs. Davis from whom we purchased the property and who still lives in her
house out there. She has a life estate in the property as long as she chooses to live
there she may do so. After we had the preliminary plat for the project approved Mrs.
Davis there is an detached garage and it is a cinder block structure with a corrugated
metal roof one which we had always anticipated relocating closer to her home and
building a garage structure that was more in harmony with her home and the other
housing out in the area. Between the time when we had the preliminary plat approved
and well after we had the preliminary plat approved Mrs. Davis built an addition onto her
house to attach her house to her existing garage. I am going to hand out a little
schematic that shows that situation. You will note that the existing garage is in what is
planned for the right of way for the street section going through, it is on Edgar Street
We had vvorked out the details with Mrs. Davis what we were planning to do is relocate
that garage back to the east side of her home. You can see that the garage set back
from the proposed right of way is actually 54 feet. The problem is that the sunrooms
that she constructed to attach to her current garage would encroach in the front setback
required of 20 feet it would be about a 1 0 foot setback. What we are here tonight for is
to ask for a variance from that setback requirement for her sunroom~
Corrie: Any questions from Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Turnbull if the variance is not granted basically what you are
asking is for a ten foot encroachment into the existing front yard setback. If the variance
is not granted how does Mrs. Davis handle that?
Turnbull: How does Mrs. Davis handle that? She would probably be upset or we would
be in trouble with Mrs. Davis. She is 85 or 87 years old somewhere in that
l
!
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 23
neighborhood. She recently had a stroke this winter you can see on this plan we are
proposing to build some ramps up to her home to her front door and some of those
things to accommodate her. I think the addition she made to her home is actually a
lovely addition, it provides her a nice sun room and obviously I think something she
would like to have maintained.
Morrow: If I may step back here, the property is annexed into the City it is a City lot.
Was there a building permit obtained?
Turnbull: This is not a platted lot yet, it is a part of \^/hat is the proposed Bedford Place
Subdivision No.4 \^/hich is the next item on the agenda. It was not in the City \^/hen she
built her home it is an older home.
Morrow And \^/hen the sunroom was built it was not in the City?
Turnbull: I believe, I don't know if the annexation ordinance was final at that time.
Morrow I guess the point that I am after here is \^/hat process did this go through that
allowed the setback to be violated?
Turnbull: Well there was no lot there at the time so there was no violation of any
setbacks since there wasn't a lot.
Morrow: So there was no building permit required either.
Turnbull: I couldn't tell you \^/hether she obtained a building permit or not.
Morrow: s6 Mrs. Davis handled all of this affair on her own and you are left trying to
clean this up is that \^/hat we are really doing here?
Turnbull: Yes, I don't think Mrs. Davis, I assume she went ahead and got her permits
and everything and did everything according to the rules. It is just a conflict between
the final plat that is proposed \^/hich is in accordance with the preliminary plat, but after
the preliminary plat was approved I think she had a little extra money after we bought
the land so she built herself a nice sunroom.
Morrow: I can certainly understand that and that at 85 years old you write your own
rules~ Having said that, that doesn't help us a lot with not very far in the distant future
\^/hen this particular property is. Let me ask the question in this matter, Mrs. Davis has a
life estate, at that point in time \^/hen she is deceased \^/here does the property go?
Turnbull: Brighton Corporation currently owns the property and then Brighton
Corporation would take control of the property.
('
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 24
Morrow: Would you be agreeable at that point in time to correct the variance to the
setback if your variance is approved conditionally that at the point in time that Brighton
takes control of the property or sells the property that a condition be that the sunroom
be removed and the 20 foot setback be honored?
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow we could certainly do that if it was
required, I would have to say that given the fact that the garage is setback, there is
actually more than sufficient area for off site parking with that garage and given the fact
that the sunroom is a valuable improvement and doesn't otherwise create a negative, in
my mind it is not a negative to the subdivision. It would not be my preference to remove
that room. It is a bit counter productive is what I am saying.
Morrow: And I understand your concern, but my perspective is that we are trying very
hard to maintain certain setbacks so there is a consistency and certainly present owners
in Bedford Place and future owners in Bedford No. 4 have some reasonable expectation
of everybody having the 20 foot front yard setback. So it seems to me to make a certain
amount of sense to keep that. Coupled with the fact from a selfish standpoint if the City
grants a variance such as this then all of a sudden everybody needs a sunroom. So
that makes a tremendous amount of work for our staff already and future Council's and
Mayor's. So that is my concern about (inaudible)
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow I can understand your point and we are
not trying to set some kind of a particular precedent that the City will have trouble
dealing with in the future. But I think everyone would have to admit this is an odd set of
circumstances.
Morrow: I agree
Tolsma: I have a question, is the access to Ustick Road off this property going to be
(inaudible) access both directions?
Turnbull: It will access off of Edgar Street
Tolsma: So they will close the access that goes back out to Ustick?
Turnbull: Yes, that was an ACHD requirement.
Morrow: I have no further questions Mr. Mayor.
Rountree: I tend to agree I think we need to be consistent with the setback.
Corrie: Any further questions of David? David is that Lot 5, Block 6 or Lot 4?
Turnbull: Lot 5, block 6 Mr~ Mayor, it is the wider lot 79 feet wide.
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 25
Morrow: I think Mr. Smith has a point he would like to make.
Smith: Mr. Mayor I just had a question, if you proceed along the lines of allowing the
variance for an indeterminate period of time while a life estate is still in existence how
we will keep track of when it is not in existence? Somebody is going to have to look out
for when it is no longer a life estate and it belongs to Brighton Corporation.
Morrow: If I might respond to that, I think if we opted to leave it in position while Mrse
Davis is exercising the life estate, certainly upon her death then the life estate
terminates and either the City would have to be aware of when that event occurred or
Brighton would have to inform the City of when that event occurred. Then is when it
would activate the other issuese
Smith: I understand that but I really don't know how that happens.
Morrow: What you could do to ensure it happens is you could have a deed restriction so
that it can't transfer until those things those conditions would be met.
Corrie: You own the house David?
Turnbull: Yes we own the house (End of Tape) it is not as old as Mrs. Davis but I would
guess it is probably 40 years old.
Tolsma: I would say 50 years old, because I was just a little tad when I went into that
house for the first time.
Corrie: Thank you David is there anyone else from the public that would like to enter
testimony at this time? Hearing none I will close the public hearing for a variancee
Discussion by Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have discussed my points, the thing of it is if we are going
to grant the variance I would like to see it be conditional where it is tied to a life estate at
the point that the tife estate is no longer in effect and that the setback be honored. I
think that it makes good sense to do it in that manner.
Rountree: I think as opposed to monitoring it and tracking that, that it be done as a dee'd
restriction.
Corrie: Who wants to take a crack at it then?
Morrow: Well Mr. Mayor I think the appropriate motion then would be to instruct the City
Attomey to prepare findings of fact and conclusions for the variance reflecting the
comments of the Council with respect to the conditional variance and the deed
restrictions.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 26
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to have the attorney draw
up the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the deed restriction, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: FINAL PLAT - BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.4, 39 LOTS BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION - N. OF BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.3:
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I have gone over the packet that we
received today from the City. The general and site specific comments from Bruce
Freckleton and Shari Stiles, I don't think there was anything we had to take issue with
there I think we are in concurrence. I would just point out that this is the is last phase of
the project so you won't see me again on this one.
Corrie: Council questions? I will entertain a motion then.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat for Bedford Place
Subdivision No.4 by Brighton Corporation.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded we approve the final plat of Bedford Place
Subdivision No. 4 by Brighton Corporation, any further discussion? AU those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we take a break.
FIVE MINUTE BREAK
ITEM #15: ECONO LUBE SUBDIVISION, 4 LOTS BY ECONO LUBE N'TUNE INC. -
EAST OF LOCUST GROVE, S. SIDE OF FAIRVIEW:
Corrie: Council what is your wish on this one, is there anyone here from Econo Lube?
McKeegan: Patrick McKeegan, I am the architect for Econo Lube, Basically I was just
going to respond to a couple of the specific comments in the Clerk's report concerning
the conditions of approval unless you wanted an overview of the project. I think we
have talked about it a lot. We have received the report issued on December 1 0 and as
indicated in Mr. Joe Canning's reply who is here tonight the engineer on the property to
the City that we are in agreement with the conditions of approval accept as I am going
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 27
to comment. On item #1 0 J would just like come clarification on who the person in the
City I assume it is Shari Stiles that will be giving approval to the landscaping prior to
signature I am assuming that would be at a staff level that would require us to come
back to the Councif for that approval of the landscaping. I would like just to maybe have
that stated as part of your motion for approval if you so decide to approve the project
Item #21 we met yesterday with the City Fire Chief, representatives of the City
Engineer's office to discuss the requirement that all road base street lights, pressurized
irrigation system and domestic water system specifically active fire hydrants be installed
prior to obtaining building permits and at that meeting we came to an agreement with all
of the parties. Before J go into that I would just like to give a little bit of background on
why we have to do this. Mr. Tuckness and Mrs. Tuckness are going to retain ownership
of the property through the subdivision process and until the building permits are ready
to be issued. The reason for that is both Econo Lube and Schucks have corporate
policy that states they will not close escrow on a piece of property until a building permit
is ready to be issued. In order for them, we also have a requirement of the deal and the
project that the Tuckness's are going to occupy the house until close of escrow and
then vacate the premises within J think they have 30 days to vacate the premises but
they will actually be moving within 5 days afterwards. Another condition of the
agreement between the Tuckness's and Econo Lube is that no construction or
modifications to the property will take place prior to close of escrow. So we have kind of
a catch 22 Ylhere the City is asking for certain significant improvements to be made to a
property and we have an agreement and a property owner that does not wish to have
any improvements made on the property. With that said at our meeting with the Fire
Marshall and the City Engineer we came to the agreement that there is an existing fire
hydrant at the southwest corner of our property Ylhich is at the southeast comer of D &
B Supply on Wilson Lane. The agreement was that we will prior to start of construction
provide a temporary access road to HS 20 standards which will support fire fighting
equipment not to exceed 300 feet in length to approximately the center of the property
and then our access road 'Nhich is going to follow the path of the permanent driveways
from Fairview Avenue will connect with that so there wiJl be a loop through the site that
could be used for fire fighting purposes and the 300 foot requirement is based on
spacing of fire hydrants and their ability to fight the fires. Mr. Voss felt that if that was in
prior to the start of construction then we would be protected and then of course one of
the first thing we are going to be done are the underground improvements, the fire water
line and the irrigation and we intend to get those up and live as soon as possible. The
City Engineer agreed that we could bond for the street lights and the pressurized
irrigation system recognizing that those are not necessary during construction because
we are probably going to be removing during construction most of the vegetation from
the property and so it won't really need to be irrigated and the street lights will probably
be installed later on at the end of construction as requested by the City Engineera So
what I would like to request is that item #1 be modified to conform to the proposed
agreement with the Fire Department and the City Engineer~ As f stated the remainder of
the conditions are satisfactory as noted in Mr. Canning's memorandum. There were
some minor housekeeping changes that needed to be made. At this time I would just
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 28
make myself available for any questions and Mra Canning is also available if you have
any questions on his technical aspects of the final pfat_
Morrow: Mr. McKeegan I am a little confused we were talking about item #21 but in your
fast comment you said item #1?
McKeegan: Excuse me I meant #21
Bentley: Just a point of clarification for me, you were talking about putting in a
temporary loop road for the fire department to use, emergency vehicles to be done,
when was that going to be done?
McKeegan: Prior to start of construction. Our intent is to have a building permit ready to
be issued at that time then Econo Lube will be able to close escrow and take
possession of the property a Then theoretically they can pick up the building permit the
next day but our agreement would be that they could not actually start physical
construction on the building. The concern is combustibiJitya
Bentley: Right I understand, I am trying to get the time line straight. You are going to
build this road after escrow closes?
McKeegan: Correct
Corrie: Any further questions?
Bentley: Have you been discussing with Shari the signage issue?
McKeegan: It is my understanding that Schucks submitted a letter indicating agreement
with the 72 square foot maximum which was a condition of annexation and approval of
the conditional use permit was that Schuck's agreed to that. If Schucks had not agreed
to that then we would have been here at the last City Council meeting because you
guys were going to re-open the hearing on the conditional use. Schucks submitted that
letter agreeing with the 72 square foot maximum. Their only comment one of their
concerns that they expressed to Shari is that subsequent developments be held to the
same standards.
Corrie: Mr. Voss that meets with your approval, the fire department? Let the record
show that he said yes. Gary any comments? You said item #21 and #10, okay.
Discussion?
Morrow: The only discussion that I would have is that I am supportive of \Nhat the
proposals are here very candidly in the real world in terms of building and development
this is not an unusual set of circumstances that Mr. McKeegan describes with respect to
property ownership changes and ownership conditions by existing owners for new
purchasers with proposed construction and so on and so forth_ It seems to me that it
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 29
makes a lot of sense for them City standpoint to develop some flexibility to recognize
the safeguards that each are trying to protect themselves. In this case the applicant and
the existing property owner. It should be up to the City to facilitate and make sure those
transitions occur in a timely manner and that we don't create a stalemate where nothing
happens which can easily happen. I don't have a problem at all with the concept of
allowing the P & Z Administrator to have the discussion under item #10 with respect to
having that discourse. If there is then a conflict that it come back to the City CounciL I
think clearly the Council doesn't need to be involved in that. Item #21 the points made
are pretty well made it doesn't make sense on sites that are that tight to have street
lights and pressurized irrigation system in prior to construction of the building and the
curbing and asphalt and all the other types of things. In our industry there is something
that is going to get run over and that is with our better drivers. So the thing is that is
seems to me that also can be handled at the staff level and the staff needs to recognize
that there is some flexibility built into these things so we can all accomplish the goals we
are after.
Rountree: I agree that these are the kind of issues that I would encourage staff to be
involved in and take action on and we don't really need to see them again unless there
is a conflict.
Gorrie: Any discussion? I will entertain a motion for the final plat~
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Econo Lube
Subdivision subject to staff conditions recognizing the flexibility in items #10 and #21
that Mr. McKeegan has described and that if there is an unresolvable conflict between
staff and the applicant that at that time it be brought to the City Council for resolution.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: FINAL PLAT: PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2, 27 LOTS BY EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION/PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC N~ OF PACKARD
SUBDIVISION NO.1:
Tealey: Pat Tealey, I have reviewed by the general and the site specific comments
provided by the Planning Staff. We responded in a letter on December 11th, in it I only
have a concern for item #17, which refers to some utility easements. I can understand
the first portion of it where we want to show the 1 0 foot wide public utility easements
between the appropriate Jots and blocks as noted in that first sentencew However when it
goes on to also show ten foot wide easements along these other blocks in here I don't
quite understand that. There is, the intent I believe is to have a ten foot easement total
on rear lot lines. There already is a five foot easement on the adjacent easement which
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 30
is Packard No. 1 and by granting another five feet we would have a total of ten. I just
need some clarification there. Is it really the intent to have a fifteen foot easement or
just the ten. I called staff last week but we haven't connected yet. It is probably
something that we can work out maybe not here at the meeting we can work out with
Gary or the Planning staff but that was the only concern we had on the comments.
Corrie: I would like to hear Gary on that.
Smith: I haven't been involved on this, but I can read vvhat the code says on easements.
"Unobstructed utilities shall be provided along front lot lines, rear lot lines and side lot
lines vvhen deemed necessary. Total easement width shall not be less than ten feet
Unobstructed drainage way easement shall be provided as required by the Council. So
typically ten foot easements are required along the exterior boundaries of the
subdivisions along lot lines.
Corrie: Are we talking about two subdivisions here or one?
Tealey: We are talking about some lots that adjoin another subdivision that are
adjacent. I think that was the intent and I can understand that and (inaudible).
Morrow Question Mr. Mayor, this is clearly in Packard No. 2 not Packard No. 1 this
would be phase 1 of Packard No.2?
T ealey: We have always worried about the numbering and the phases. This is Phase 2
of Packard No.1 adjacent to the one that is already built.
Morrow: So phase 2 of Packard No.1.
Tealey: That is correct, but the County engineer won't allow us to call them phases so
we have to in fact call it Packard No.2.
Morrow: And we are trying to get caught up, to us Packard No. 2 is the one adjacent to
Wingate Lane and all those areas.
Tealey: Yes
Morrow: This is actually phase 2 of Packard No. 1 unbeknownst to the County Engineer.
Corrie: Any further comments or questions?
Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat of
Packard Subdivision phase 2.
Rountree: Second
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 31
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: FINAL PLAT: TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO.2, 59 LOTS BY
STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION - SW CORNER OF USTICK AND LINDER ROAD:
Corrie: Would Mr. Stubblefield like to step forward please.
Stubblefield: Mr. Mayor and Council my name is John Stubblefield, We have reviewed
staff comments and we are in concurrence with those and plan to comply and we would
request that you grant final plat approval on phase 2 of Tumble Creek.
Corrie: Comments or questions of Councilor staff?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Tumble Creek
Subdivision No.2.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the final plat of Tumble Creek
Subdivision No.2, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #18: FINAL PLAT: TURNBERRY SUBDIVISION, 68 LOTS BY BENCHMARK
LAND CO. - W. OF BLACK CAT ROAD, S. OF USTICK:
Corrie: Is there a representative of Turnberry Subdivision.
Elg: Van Elg with Briggs Engineering, we have reviewed all of the staff comments and
we have a couple of items, if you have a copy of my letter. We have discussed them
with staff also and would ask that you act on these this evening also. In site specific
comments item #2 we have underlined some suggested changes. Staff asked that we
put in a delineating fence around the common areas within the development. Here is a
copy of the plat here, we have a common drainage and a pathway area right here.
There was another one over here and there were some landscape areas along here.
The applicant fully intended to put the fence around the perimeter as required but didn't
anticipate putting in a fence here because they felt that the individual lot owners were
prefer to put in fence that met the needs or design of the house or that they might even
what to preserve that open space with plants and vegetation there and take advantage
of that view. As I talked to Shari about it she didn't have any great concern about it but
what she was concerned with is she didn't want somebody to build a house there and
come in and put a storage building or something and cross over that line. So what we
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 32
suggest is that prior to the issuance of a building permit that the individual lot owner
provide some sort of documentation regarding potential fencing or vegetation plan
showing some sort of demarcation along that I ine if necessary or at least discuss it with
staff so that they clearly understand that there is a line there so they can't build a
storage building or a house over the top of that. I don't know if that causes any, if that is
any different then building a house being the first one to build on one of these lots to.
There is still a property line there are still pins on this lot that they can use to identify
where they can and can't build the fence doesn't necessarily do anything different for
them then if they were building in any of these lots here. So we would ask that you
adjust that and allow us to not put a delineating fence around that just require the
individual lot owners to work that out with staff for clarification. We don't see any real
benefit at this point. The other thing is we don't have an irrigation ditch that runs along
the ~oundary of this property. The ordinance states that we have to put some sort of a
non-combustible fence or at least the staff's comments states we have to put a non-
combustible fence up. The applicant would like the ability to put in a six foot high cedar
fence along this northern boundary if City Council would allow that option. Under
general comments, item #6 it says that note that some of the CC&R's may require
additional changes prior to recordation of the final plat We suggest the following that
Council present the CC&R's as presented dated July of 1997 and authorize the City
staff to review and to approve revisions to the CC&R's to ensure compliance with items
specifically related to City Ordinances, requirements and conditions of approval. Written
approval of CC&R's must be obtained from the City Attorney or Planning Director prior
to recordation of the final plat and/or you can add this condition that Council may
address the CC&R's if finalized when action is taken upon the development agreement
for this project. Wayne I don't know if you are prepared, you have reviewed the
development agreement.
Crookston: I have not reviewed the development agreement, I have reviewed the
CC&R's.
Elg: We will be back with the development agreement and hopefully we will have the
CC&R's addressed at that point also. If you don't want to approve them tonight, but
recognize that there will be some minor changes that the applicant would like to make to
those CC&R's. Nothing that is going to violate any of your ordinances, just some
clarifications that they didn't understand perhaps being from out of town and as the
project is developed~ One other item, item 14 on the last page of our notes~ This is
more for clarification, Gary and I discussed it very briefly just a moment ago and we
discussed it last week and I have discussed it with Shari and I have also discussed it
with the Ada County Engineer. In the variance application we were allowed for obvious
reasons the ability to front these units for example on this lot here lot 1, block 4 in
multiple directions. The way that the staff or the way that the normal statement reads in
the notes on the plat is that there has to be a 1 0 foot public utility easement I think it is
Gary on the rear lot line. If we face the house this way then this is the rear lot line. If we
face the house this way this is the rear lot line. That works fine in theory by having the
note like that but when it comes down to the Ada County Engineer he Jooks at it and he
(
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 33
says that is fine the note works fine for me but you have got to identify \^/here the rear lot
line is so you have to put an arrow. So then we have come full circle back around to our
variance problem again and wanting flexibility with those tots~ He said you can't have a
floating rear lot line. So \^/hat we have done is we have simply put the easements
recognizing we weren't going to win the battle with the Ada County Engineer, we came
up with some options, one of which was we could record two easements. We could
record a ten foot easement on this side and a ten foot easement on this side. Put the
instrument number on the plat for both of them_ Then \^/hen the lot owner decided to
build face the house direction we would vacate the easement that we weren't going to
use. But that sounds much more complicated then it needs to be. We told the client we
said I don't think we want to get into that it is going to be more costly. Let's just identify
an easement as per staff's instructions. You may end up forfeiting if you decide to face
a house one direction and we have the easement the opposite direction and you choose
to rotate the house another direction. Then \^/hat we have identified as the rear lot
because you are allovved to do that by your variance that was approved you are going
to forfeit perhaps if it is a single story home you may forfeit 5 feet of buildable area.
Because you may only have a 5 foot setback if that actually tums out being a sideyard.
In reality you have a ten foot utility easement that you have to abide by you have to
recognize. So you end up forfeiting five feet of buildable area. There didn't seem to be a
who1e lot of options that were simple. So this is going to be a problem, the Ada County
Engineer recognized it is a problem on corner lots. I don't know \^/hat the solution is but
we bring that up just a discussion item for you. We have put the easements in as
required by your staff. So I don't know if there is any particular action required of you
tonight (inaudible) for clarification. Anyway those two other items if we could have you
act on those item 6 in general comments and item #2 of site specific I would appreciate
that.
Bentley: I have a question for you, on those two areas where you would like to omit the
fences the common lot areas you are not going to come back you are going to assure
us that you are not going to come back here and say gee our building screwed up and
put the foundation in and got the house up and we need a variance because we didn't
know the lot lines.
Etg: Those are owned by the homeowners associations and if they build on the wrong
lot or build that foundation wrong I would fully expect that they would be required to
move them.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, I guess just over the years comment on the delineating fence I will
guarantee it that they will be back here with a variance request. Second thing on the
easements, the utility easements are there for the utilities not for the City of Meridian,
have they delineated where they want their easements to be, the utilities?
Elg: No, we have put them in \^/here staff requested.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 34
Smith: We don't set the location of the easements other than by ordinance. The
easements are there for the utilities, the ten foot easements~ If the telephone company
or the cable TV company needs a ten foot easement down one side of the lot or the
other side then that is where the easement needs to be. According to the easement
which I just read a few minutes ago, on those side Jot lines according to the ordinance
ten foot total can be used. Now if the utilities are agreeable to that they are the people
that we are trying to satisfy. City of Meridian doesn't have any utilities running dOVVTl
those easements4 So as long as the easements conform with the ordinance
requirements, as tong as the easements are in agreement with the requirements of the
utility companies I think that is all the City needs to be concerned with.
EIg: So we may be able to eliminate those ones that are in question if we can get some
sort of agreement with the utility companies.
Smith: Well what you are showing is a ten foot wide easement, somewhere on your
notes aren1t you also stating that there is a five foot easement on each side of the side
lot lines.
Elg: Right number 2 I think it is.
Smith: If there is a five foot easement on each side of the side lot lines and the utility
companies say that is fine then that satisfies the ordinance requirements 'Nhich says a
total easement width shall not be less than ten feet. Of course it doesn't say that the
property fine runs down the middle of that easement but it is a total ten foot easement.
If that means the telephone if they need to be back there can be on one side of the
fence and the cable TV can be on the other side of the fence and five feet and those
utility companies are satisfied and they have enough easement then that is fine and you
don't need to show a ten foot easement on here specifically and that eliminates the
problem. The point I am making is the utility companies are the people that need to be
concerned about the easements that are shown on the plat~
Elg: We simply responded to a comment.
Smith: J understand, the ten foot easement along the front lot lines that is also covered
by a note correct? And that is where the major utilities are located.
Elg: Right that is note #1 on the plat.
Smith: I really don't think this is a. problem, but they will be back for variances.
Elg: like I said Mr. Mayor we can certainly require put a note on there that on those lots
they have to come back for discussion with staff to identify or delineate where that lot
line is but there will be pins there it is like any other Jot there will be pins there.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 35
Smith: The pins are put in once and then they are taken out once and maybe put back
by the guy that took them out with the front end loader but they are not put back in the
right spot Yesterday we had a situation where a foundation was installed, the front of
the house was supposed to be west and it is pointing south and what do you dow It was
on the plat and it said on the plat point the house west and it was pointing south. We
didn't catch it and the foundation is in and the house is going to point southw That is just
an example of things that go on the plat that get missed, they don't get picked upw If you
go out there in the field and you build something and there is a fence on the property
line or there is something on the property line that says this is the property line then that
is it. We have seen a lot of instances where property oV\ll1ers have just gradually taken
over common areas. Most homeo'Nner associations aren't strong enough to say get off
of there. They are taking care of it so what harm is there.
Tolsma: Probably according to Gary's comments here what you would have here was a
fence being built right down through the middle of this common area (inaudible) argue
over who was going to maintain it and who is going to own it and I want a private fence.
Elg: Right or the reverse may happen that they don1t want the privacy fence they want
to take advantage of that open area with the view. Perhaps a rail fence or something
down there would be something they would prefer.
Tolsma: I think either way there really needs to be a fence there, like Gary says they will
be back, that is a given.
Elg: If we can work out the type of fence it is, whether it is some sort of a small rail
fence a two foot high fence or something. If you need something to delineate that area
we can devise something and work that out with staff.
Morrow: Mra Mayor very candidly in terms of the projects I have been involved in if I am
understanding this correctly is that you have a buildable lot and then you have an
adjacent common area and we are talking about requiring a fence between the
buildable lot and the adjacent common area. That is unique to this City. Basically the
projects that I have been involved whether what type of fence or if there is a fence or
not a fence is left up to the CC&R's or the development in its own righta I can certainly
understand fencing the perimeters and subdivisions but in many cases within
subdivisions where there are common areas many people do not want fences for virtue
of or by way of view. The amenity in the common area could be a walking path it could
be a water amenity it could be a landscape amenity of some sort. Many subdivisions
require that if you are going to fence the property line that it be a rod iron see through
fence no higher than two or three feet. Very candidly I don't I am not exactly sure why
we are venturing into this in terms of common area boundaries and common property
lines with adjacent lots. The issue with corner lots is there are several house
presentations with corner lots that make sense. I don't know why we delineate one
particular way a house has to face, you can do a diagonal, you can do a reverse L or
reverse Uw There are examples of that here in Meridian over on Carlton where Jack
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 36
Niemann lived or the (inaudible) are two examples of those type of houses on corner
lots. I understand also that we are changing with respect to utility easements with
Digline's new program where all four utilities are in the same trench. It seems to me in
the future that would have some impact on utility easement widths. But Gary am I
understanding right we are talking about having a fence be built at subdivision time
between common area and property line for individual lots?
Smith: That is what the comment says on our staff comments. Right, just to delineate
the property line between the private property and the common lot. I don't know
whether that came out of Shari's office, I assume it did but I don't know for certain. Or
whether it came out of Public Work's office. But it is just a matter of delineating the
property line so the common area stays as common area and it doesn't become part of
a property owner or a private property lot.
Morrow: Very candidly of the projects that I have been involved in in the last two or
three years never has there been a requirement such as that. Basically the common
areas are up to the homeo'M1ers association to administer. Very candidly (inaudible) by
footing and foundation by the inspector is that you show the property lines and the
setbacks by virtue of string lines or settings of the footings and government hasn't been
involved in mandating fences between common areas and adjoining properties.
Smith: Well we have been putting up quite a few, there have been quite a few fences
put up in the City of Meridian on our projects delineating common areas~
Morrow We have something wrong with the process then~
Smith: I guess this is a situation that can cause problems, has caused problems with
the property lines and the builders not recognizing .where the property lines are and not
taking the time to find out the property lines area until after the fact.
Tolsma: We had that problem out at Elk Run when they built on the easements of the
irrigation canal (inaudible) just moved them out a ways because that easement was
there. Would ACHD put up a fence being as it is their drainage area? Would they have
been the ones to require it. All of these lots are ACHD drainage area according to this
map here.
Smith: No the irrigation district wouldn't excuse me ACHD wouldn't. We just barely have
been able to get them to maintain the drainage ponds for heavy maintenance. So they
wouldn't have done that no.
Tolsma: They are the ones that are going to regulate what is built on it according to this
design on the map.
Smith: I guess ultimately they would but initially they wouldn't care they wouldn't get
involved in it. The plan for the house comes in and they don't see that they don't
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 37
approve or disapprove. It is up to us to keep track of this and to make sure that one isn't
infringing upon the other.
Tolsma: What you are trying to say is a lot of smoke and no fire.
Smith: Well they just don't get involved in the small picture and it is only after the fact if
there is a problem if a problem occurs that they are involved.
Tolsma: it seems like every time there is an easement somebody has a variance for it.
Smith: I couldn't say every time but it seems like it happens a lot, easements get lost,
common areas get lost over a period of time. Easements are a real problem, especially
if it is a sewer line. But common areas I guess on what it is and who is taking care of it
and what the purpose of the common area is, what purpose is it serving for the
subdivision. Is it indeed a common area that is accessible to all the people that live
within the subdivision. Or is it a common area only for a drainage lot that is to be
maintained by the homeowners association on the surface and the highway district
takes care of the heavy maintenance on it. In effect that sort of lot is still enjoyed by all
of the homeowners because it is taking the drainage off the streets and disposing of the
drainage so it needs to be there. I don't think and I will have to have the Planning and
Zoning Department speak for themselves but I don't think the intent was to erect a six
foot cedar fence along those lot lines. I would assume that any kind of a fence that
would delineate a lot line would be acceptable, it would just need to be something to
delineate it. That would be the only issue and I can understand Van's proposal to have
this all happen at the time building permit takes place as long as we catch it and make
sure it does happen. We try hard but it doesn't always happen. I just cited an example
a few minutes ago qf what we didn't catch. As far as the easements are concerned
maybe I can just address that for a minute. There is a common trench easement
Councilman Morrow along the front of the lots and that is what we are working with right
now. The easement that I am talking about that I am speaking of in the ordinance is a
direct quote from the ordinance, I am trying to resolve that question not create a
problem for this developer or for Packard Subdivision. I don't know that there is anybody
that runs down side lots any more, I really don't, is there Van?
Elg: Not very often, I can't think of any.
Smith: When you go into serve a house with gas or electricity is there any easement
required to get to the house?
Elg: No, Mr. Mayor one thing I might point out is any kind of fence we put up if we
figured it was three to five dollars a foot with the amount of fencing we have got around
common areas on this project alone we are probably looking somewhere in the
neighborhood of $5000 to $15000 (End of Tape)
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 38
(
(
\,
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I still have a major problem with this concept. I don't think the City
needs to be in that business. I don't think that the City at the point of building permit
ought to take the responsibility. I think that when you begin to take the responsibility for
something is when you have some potential liability. Very clearly in our industry if we
build on the \^/rong Jot we do something that encroaches within the easements it is up to
us to resolve the problem. I have to tell you I have never been through this issue in the
projects that I have worked on in the area. I don't think the City needs to be involved. I
think the thing is when our inspectors are making the inspections of the footings and
foundations and verifying setbacks and clearly every community in Treasure Valley
requires setback verification at that point in time there are a set of plans on the project
and the builder and the inspector verify the property pins and if the City is going to
require anything it would be the requirement of property pins be exposed so that the
inspector and the builder can verify location and setback. But in terms of us requiring
fencing to delineate that it doesn't make good sense.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, we can certainly require property pins to be exposed and certified
that those are the property corners there is no problem with that. When our inspector
goes out there to look at it, he tries to his best of his ability to determine where the
property pins are. He asks the builder if the builder knows where the property pins are.
It is not the responsibility of the inspector to verify that the property pins that the builder
is using for reference are the correct pins. In other words there are pins in the ground
out there it is the builder's responsibility to know that those pins are the property pins as
surveyed according to the plat that has been recorded. A lot of times pins are moved,
but we are not surveyors.
Rountree: I have a question, the intent of the comment on the City's part it seems to me
it reads that we are trying to protect the pedestrian ways, not all common areas. Is that
correct or am I reading it wrong?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this comment we have required this delineating fence on
several projects. Some of the problems we have are sheds that are built either no on
their property or not meeting setback requirements. We have had gardens that have
been built out into common areas, dog runs put into common areas. The intent is not to
make it a fortress or anything. I understand Gary's comment that he doesn't want to do
that at the building permit, to me it would be okay to do that at the building permit. So to
ensure that homeowner got the type of fence they wanted but to make that there was
some type of fence constructed. We have had people go and put sprinkler systems out
onto adjacent property that does not in fact belong to them. There is a case over in
Golfview where it was platted as a common area, it has now turned into someone's
backyard. It is beautiful, they have done a nice job, it is beautifully landscaped but it is
also a drainage pond. Ada County Highway District was not contacted as far as I know
as to whether that was appropriate for them to do that type of thing in that space.
Those are just some of the problems we have had~ We are just trying to not have to
deal with these problems on a lot by Jot basis once a subdivision is sold out.
(~
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 39
Rountree: So if I can get from what you said you are talking all common areas not just
pedestrian ways.
Stiles: Correct
Morrow: Shari let me ask you this, the bottom part of your comment was that once the
subdivision is sold out these things begin to occur. Those issues ought to in fact be,
homeowner association issues or their civil issues that wouldn't involve the City of
Meridian. Basically if some body opts to capture the drainage retention pond of ACHD's
and landscape it that is really an issue between them and ACHD at that point in time.
Do we live with these (inaudible) what prevents if we require a fence to be built
(Inaudible) are we going to be there when it is replaced or when it is torn down or
moved. It looks to me like some of the problems that you are trying to resolve are not
(Inaudible) from a practical standpoint.
Stiles: It is eliminating a Jot of the problems at the beginning that will occur, will have
multiple problems instead of taking care of it all at one time. We live with every
residence, every commercial building in the entire city for as long as it exists. Just
because once it is built that doesn't end the problem and it is a happy story from there.
Morrow: Part of the philosophical question here is what is the legitimate role of
government, how far do we press one, that is really where we are getting with this.
Stiles: I guess in lieu of requiring the fencing if we have covenants. We have no control
over the covenants. J would think that the developer would at least desire some kind of
common treatment around that common area and would probably want to delineate it
somehow so he knew that everybody in the neighborhood was getting the full use and
enjoyment of the area they were entitled to, but we donft enforce those covenants.
Smith: We will just try and deal with it on buildjng permits.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Rountree: I don't have any further questions but I don't know that is particularly the
answer.
Corrie: I know that has been a problem out there by your house (inaudible).
Smith: It took a lot of time and a Jot of people were involved in it to resolve it. But again
that doesnJt happen all of the time luckily, I guess it is a case sometimes where you
make rules to try and resolve a problem because it turns into the problems you've had
in the past are pretty serious or pretty bad and have taken a lot of time and effort. In
doing so you penalize everybody.
{
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 40
Rountree: I guess I am thinking of that situation and I am not sure what a fence would
have accomplished in that situation_ I think the homeowner in that situation would have
pulled the fence up and done \^A1at they did anyway. But at least it would have been
obvious to them.
Smith: That particular case the pond was probably 3 foot deep, it was pretty obvious
anyway without a fence that it was a pond and it had a grate in the bottom of it and a
catch basin in the street. But it was their efforts at maintaining the area which took it out
of the need of the homeowners association to do so. And as you know most
homeowners associations don't have much strength anyway~ So that individual
homeowner did take it upon themselves to landscape it and maintain it. The issue that
came up was the adjacent property O'Nf"lers they were very upset that all of a sudden
that common area was being used by that property owner. That was the big issue. So
there were numerous phone calls, numerous conferences and numerous trips to the
field ad a lot of time spent trying to resolve. I guess it was finally resolved at least I quit
hearing about it, they moved.
Rountree: No matter what our action is here this evening I think that is something that
we need to keep in mind and we need to discuss more.
Smith: We will just try and deal with it on the building permit side and hopefully we won't
have the problem but if we do I guess I will just have to address it.
Morrow: I think what we might want to take a look at Mr. Mayor if I might offer
(inaudible) we will take a look at building permits that I have been getting and how they
resolve that issue and maybe there is some common ground (inaudible).
Corrie: How do you want to do the final plat?
Rountree: I guess I would have a further question of staff, did they have any other
issues with this final plat? Any difficulty with combustible fence on the one back yard on
the one boundary? There was a suggestion as opposed to a non-combustible fence on
Stites: To be non-combustible on the west and south boundaries, that would be fine.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I am prepared to move that we approve the final plat for Turnberry
Subdivision by Benchmark Land Co~ with the suggestion that staff and the applicant
work out the issue in terms common area property lines with respect to strengthening
the CC&R's to delineate those and what can and can't be done in the subdivision with
respect to those common areas. And that the fence issues or the approval of the
combustible fencing on the south and west property be entered into the record. And the
suggested change on item 14 with respect to we adopt and maintain Mr. Smith's
suggestions in terms of the easements as explained by him_
Tolsma: Second
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 41
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded is there any further discussion?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a comment on the location of the permanent fencing. The
applicant has actually indicated that their preference is on the north boundary, south
and west.
Elg: Shari is correct, we would prefer a non-combustible where we are not adjacent to, I
mean a combustible fence where we are not adjacent to those irrigation laterals.
Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #19: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR TURNBERRY
SUBDIVISION:
Morrow I move to table to January 6, 1998.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #20: REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR A
WAREHOUSE BUILDING BY MCCALL PROPERTIES:
Corrie: I will invite the McCall Properties representative to come forward at this time. No
representative from McCall Properties.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, that being the case I would recommend we table and have staff
advise the McCall Properties that they have one more shot at making a presentation or
it is wHI be removed from the agenda. This particular property is in the property that we
discussed at our last meeting with respect to the negotiation problems. So it is
appropriate (inaudible) my preference would be to table with notice that they can appear
at our next meeting or be dropped from the agenda.
Rountree: Motion made and seconded to table to January 6, any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION ON BRIDGEWOOD
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT:
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 42
Corrie: Is there a representative of that request here?
Hanson: My name is Larry Hanson, I represent Mr. Gary Hunnemiler. We are
requesting an extension of the condominium plat to finish up the CC&R's and submit
(inaudible)
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Bentley: I have a question for Shari, is this the project that fronts those apartments that
is already existing on James Street?
Stiles: James Court, yes~
Bentley: I think one of the conditions was to upgrade the landscaping.
Stiles: The landscaping as well as I think they had a storm drain problem. This was
approved in November of last year, however it was dropped and we were still awaiting
the major portion of their covenants as (inaudible) part of a condominium subdivision.
There were some outstanding issues that haven't been addressed but the final plat was
approved by Council.
Bentley: So they haven't done anything on any of the problem areas?
Stiles: Not that I am aware of.
Bentley: When were those going to be addressed and taken care of?
Hanson: Mr. Hunnemiller has is working with Briggs Engineering and ACHD to mitigate
the drainage problem. The drainage was installed as per plans and specifications, there
seems to be a problem with the specification anq they are currently working on that
issue at this time. All of the other suggestions and comments of staff are acceptable.
Bentley: When are they going to do the landscaping upgrade?
Hanson: It would be done along with the conversion of the four-plexes to
condominiums. I think that is a condition of the condominium plat approval so it would
be done prior to that.
Morrow I have a question of Shari, the first paragraph it says to complete the
conversion of the Bridgewood Townhouse apartments to Bridgewood condominiums is
this conversion taking place between now and 'Nhat we originally approved. We
approved did you say a preliminary plat?
Stiles: A final plat
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 43
Morrow: A final plat and that was approved to be town house apartments?
Stiles: It was a condominium plat~
Morrow What does conversion mean then?
Stiles: Town houses was not their application it was for condominiums.
Morrow Well the sentence says to complete the conversion of the Bridgewood Park
Townhouse Apartments to the Bridgewood Condominiums. So apparently it was
approved as an apartment complex to begin with.
Stiles: Yes
Morrow And now they have made an application to change from apartments to
condominiums.
Stiles: Yes four plex units.
Crookston: How are the, are the apartments already constructed?
Hanson: They are, they consist of 12 four plexes currently.
Crookston: How do you convert that construction wise to make them condominiums?
Hanson: The units have been constructed to the condominium codes and what we are
proposing is that we would eliminate lot lines that they would all be a common lot and
just the interior envelope of each unit to be a condominium.
Morrow: Mr. Mayorr so if I understand this thing you are proposing to switch the
apartments to condominiums (inaudible).
Stiles: That was not my understanding, I thought the extension was strictly for what their
application was which was condominiums. We have not reviewed the application in
terms of a town house development which would have different requirements.
Morrow: Yes but I think Shari the sticking point here is that it is in the name it is called
townhouse apartments and I think if I understand Mr. Hanson correctly what he is
saying is the apartments already exist as four plaxes and they are converting them to
condominiums and the final plat is expiring because as Mr. Bentley raised the issues
they haven't complied with all of the requirements. So, rather than let that plat expire
they are asking for a one year extension, that is where we are at here.
Stiles: For the condominium plat yes.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 44
Corrie: I think I have got it now~ Any further questions? What is the Council's pleasure?
Morrow: Mrw Mayor, I would move that we grant a one year extension based on the
anniversary date of the original approval.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the request for a one year
extension from the anniversary date, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #22: REQUEST FOR LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 1997 FOR THE 19TH HOLE INC.:
Corrie: Do you want to say anything Mae?
Alidjani: Mr. Mayor and Gentleman Council my name is Mae Alidjani and I am the
owner of 19th Hole Inc. I have brought some letters from my attorney and myself due to
the fact that I believe that the City of Meridian is a non-profit organization and when I
was a member of the Planning and Zoning I think our yearly income was one frozen
turkey as you remember. So with that in order for the City charging us the full price for
the this liquor license it might not be fair in my view. I have some letters if I may present
them herew In reality what I am saying that the original corporation RRE Inc. was the
owner of this liquor license, he has already paid the full price for a whole year. At the
present time we only have a month or basically I have been operating for a month and a
half since my temporary license was issued by the Statew I am paying another full price
for this year and also next year. Also when I brought it to your attention that the County
only has a $40 transfer fee not a full year fee for a whole year. So respectfully I request
that if it is possible to prorate those fees if it is possible of course if I get approved~
Corrie: So the ordinance doesn't allow for (inaudible)
Alidjani: As I read the ordinance Mrw Mayor there is no transfer fee at all mentioned in
the ordinance. But also since the last 17 or 18 years I have been here and attended
many of the City Council meetings there has been some pro-ration done by Council's
permission. Since we have been only using this particular license technically tonight if it
gets approved until the end of December.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would ask the Counselor if that is correct?
Crookston: If there is no transfer fee?
Morrow: Yas and we have the capability and historically have done a pro-ration?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 45
Crookston: Not to my knowledge.
Berg: We do not have a transfer fee for liquor license, they have to get a brand new
license. We have in the past pro-rated the license. In fact his predecessor when they
got their license it was for a % of the year I believe and it was pro-rated to that segment.
And that is all I have been familiar with since I have been here. But we have and the
Council has done it in the past as far as the pro-rating.
Crookston: I wouldn't be aware as to whether or not it was done it is not provided in the
ordinance.
Corrie: Your license is from year to year.
Alidjani: Yes, J have also applied for also next year in my application.
Rountree: (Inaudible)
Alidjani: I have talked to the State and also County, their answer is everybody set their
own rules and regulations. I really beHave strongly as a citizen that we do need some
kind of a transfer fee instead of a full rate so that \^/Quid be automatically taken care of
just like County.
Morrow: Mr. Alidjani, if I might Mr. Rountree's point is that your license for 127 Idaho
Street, Eagle Idaho.
AJidjani: I don't believe that is correct, the address of the owner is Eagle Idaho.
Tolsma: It has the address of the ovvner in Eagle too but the business of doing address.
Alidjani: There must be a mistake on their side. They have asked for two addresses,
one is the ovvners address the other one is a physical location of the license.
Corrie: The Ada County license is correct just the State.
Berg: I was just going to re-read the ordinance as is pointed out in the letter 3-1303s it
says, that is under license fees "the license fees required by the establishments
handling liquor by the drink shall be in the sum of $562.50 per calendar year or a portion
there of payable in advance." In the past we have, I believe what I have looked at is per
quarter, they haven't don't haven't gone anything less than a quarterly basis and we
have done that in the past. But I guess the understanding of mine is the Council has
always approved that, that is why the tetter is submitted.
Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor 1 would move that we charge the 19th Hole Inc.
for a % of the annual 1997 liquor license for the remainder of the year.
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 46
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second that we charge only % for the remaining of the year,
any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, usually we get a comment from the police chief on the transfer of
these licenses.
Gordon: (Inaudible)
Corrie: I would suggest that you get the Eagle Idaho changed with the State.
Berg: And submit copies to us when you get it changed.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the transfer of the liquor license from
the 127 Club to 19th Hole Inc.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that vve transfer the license from the 127 Club to the
19th Hole Inc., aU those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Berg: Clarification is that the liquor license? It is not a transfer he has to get a new
license.
Corrie: Item #23 says transfer of liquor license.
Rountree: That is beer and wine.
Berg: That is different1 he has to get a new liquor license. Just to make sure there is no
misunderstanding with your motion, it isn't a transfer.
Rountree: I withdraw my second.
Morrow: I withdraw my motion. And would re-state the motion, I would move that we
approve a new liquor license for the remainder of 1997 for the 19th hole~
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
(-
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 47
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #23: TRANSFER OF BEER AND WINE LICENSE FROM THE 127 CLUB TO
THE 19TH HOLE INCr:
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the transfer of the beer and wine
license from the 127 Club to the 19th Hole Inc.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we transfer the beer and wine license from 127
Club to the 19th Hole Inc., all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #24: BEERlWINE/LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS FOR 1998:
Corrie: Chief?
Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council I have reviewed the beer, wine and liquor license
renewals for 1998 and I don't have a problem with any of them.
Bentley: I would move that we accept the license renewals for 1998 as presented by the
Chief.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we accept the renewal for the beer, wine and
liquor licenses for 1998 for the City of Meridian, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #25: CONTRACTS FOR INSPECTORS:
Corrie: We made a few changes on the contracts for the inspectors, and we need to get
the Council's approval.
Morrow: To add some background we had approved the contracts at our last meeting
for the inspectors. The verbiage in the contracts there was a couple of things that were
added so when we looked at it the verbiage indicated that the Mayor would appoint and
the Council would approve. Clearly given the IRS ruling that we just have been through
we felt that it made sense to bring these back before the Council and have them strictly
as contracts with no verbiage about approvals or appointments other than (inaudible) in
which case (inaudible) for the time period of the contract which in this case it would be a
one year contract. So that is why (inaudible)
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 48
Rountree: Those changes have been made.
Morrow: That is correct, and I guess a procedural question counselor is do we
reconsider the contracts that we approved or do we void those contracts and then
(inaudible)
Crookston: The latter
Morrow: So the appropriate motion is to void the contracts that were approved at our
December 2nd meeting.
Crookston: That is correct
Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I would move that we void the contracts that we
entered into with Harold's Electric, Whitman and Associates, RIMllnc. and Lynd Inc.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: AU Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the contracts between the City of Meridian
and Harold's Electric, Whitman and Associates, RIMllnc. and Lynd Inc. authorizing the
Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Before we get to department reports, I believe the attorney would like to say a
few words.
Herzfeld: Thank you members of the Council and Mayor I won't take much time and I
do appreciate your making room in the meeting for some brief remarks. I am here to
address you tonight concerning the matter of the potential hiring of a new employee
who apparently may be soon to take responsibilities that are currently being performed
by the Fire Marshall. As I am sure all of you have had an opportunity to see I wrote a
letter to the Council on December 2nd with follow up letters on December 4th and
December 12th to the City's counselor asking for a response from the City as to their
position concerning this hiring. It is the Union's position as we communicated in this
letter that the Union represents the bargaining unit of all fire fighters pursuant to Title 44,
(
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 49
Chapter 18 Idaho Code. That bargaining unit includes the Fire Marshall. That as a result
of the collective bargaining act the Fire Fighters Collective Bargaining act in Title 18 that
the City and for that matter the Rural District which is a co-employer of these bargaining
unit employees has a duty to bargain with the Union conceming all terms and conditions
of employment otherwise known as mandatory subjects of bargaining. Further that the
scope of work of a bargaining unit employee is a term and condition of employment it is
a mandatory subject of bargaining about which the city and the Rural District have an
obligation to bargain before making any changes in a condition of employment. The
Fire Marshall has for years had a job description currently has a job description that
includes such things as fire plan review and inspections of new buildings for purposes of
issuance of occupancy permits etc. It appears from the ad that was placed in the
Statesman that the position which has been advertised for a Uniform Fire Code Building
Inspector would include duties traditionally performed by the Fire Marshall such as fire
plan review and inspection of new building for compliance with the Uniform Fire code. If
that is the case then that would represent a change in the job description, a change in
the scope of work of a member of the bargaining unit under the fire fighters collective
bargaining act. Assuming that what the City is thinking of doing is taking those
responsibilities from the Fire Marshall and given it to someone outside of the bargaining
unit, outside of the fire fighter bargaining unit. If that is what the City intends to do then I
suggest and I suggested in my letter that this is tantamount to what it is called an unfair
labor practice because it would violate Idaho State Law. It would violate the statute that
requires the City for that matter the Rural District to bargain over terms and conditions
of employment. We had urged you in the letter to give us an assurance that you would
not be transferring duties away from the Fire Marshall to someone outside of the
bargaining unit because that would be in violation of State Law as we see it. We have
not heard back from the City on this matter either in response to my letter of December
2nd or follow up letters of December 4th or December 12th. The Union does not want to
drag the City or the rural district into a lawsuit over this. We have no interest in litigating
it but we also have a duty under the Statute to protect the bargaining unit and to protect
the bargaining unit members. So we need to hear back from the Council, we need to
hear back as to whether the Council still plans to go ahead and take duties, traditional
job duties away from a fire fighters bargaining in a position. If the Council plans to do
that then we are going to have an obligation to file a lawsuit to try to enjoin the City from
doing that We don't want to but we see that as our only option that the City is going to
go ahead with that. I have talked with Mr. Fitzgerald of the Rural Districfs counsel he
has told him to his knowledge after talking with his clients the City has not consulted
with the Rural district over this matter. I suggest that since the Rural District is a
corporate authority, a co-corporate authority a co-employer of the bargaining unit people
that it would be appropriate for them to be part of any decision like this. I suggest that it
probably would be appropriate for the Council people elect who are going to have to
deal with this matter if it is litigated to be involved with this process. I understand from
members of the Union that the mayor has suggested that he does not think it would be
a bad idea for that to happen either. I would urge you finally that you reconsider if you
were about to go ahead and hire someone who would be taking duties from a traditional
fire fighters position and change that new position so that the traditional duties of the
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 50
Fire Marshall would remain in the bargaining unit. Again to take them away unilaterally
without bargaining I believe would be in violation of State law. So I urge you to do that
and I urge you for feedback so we are not placed in a position where absent feedback
from you we are going to have to proceed to file for a injunction relief because we need
to keep it from happening. Thank you for you time, I reafly appreciate your allowing me
to speak and I would certainly be available for any questions. And again would very
much appreciate your feedback on this tonight if possible.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I think you need to talk to the attorney again because the Rural
Commissioners were aware of this because they were well aware of it. Secondly on
your first letter has everything been responded to with the exception of this first item?
Herzfeld: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bentley if I may it is my understanding that of the
three matters that were addressed in that letter, one is the vacation accrual matter that
has been dealt with which we appreciate very much. With. respect to the second matter
(End of Tape) The union realizes that they are negotiating both with the City of Meridian
and the Rural Fire District. (inaudible) second issue 'Nhich was our request that the City
provide us with audited financial statements pursuant to Idaho State law. Frankly Mr.
Councilman we are not sure where we stand on that. We understand that the Mayor
has been in contact with the auditor again and that the auditor is still working on the
audits but we have never been given feedback as to when we should expect these. As I
am sure you know there is currently a fact finding hearing scheduled on this matter the
matter of wages for the fire fighters and the bargaining unit. That is scheduled for
February 3rd I believe it is which is 6 weeks away. We are certainly hopeful that the
auditor will be forthcoming with aU of the audits from 1994 to 1997 by that time so the
fact finders the City and the Union will have the best evidence available. We have yet to
hear back from Mr. Crookston or from the Council as to whether we will actually be
seeing those by that time.
Bentley: To answer that question we received another response today. They found an
error in 1994's, they are correcting it and they state that 95's and 96's will come along
smoothly behind it. You will not be receiving 97's by that time, that is guaranteed
because we can't start on 9718 until we get these three cleaned up. Information has
been passed on to the Fire Department as the information comes into us. We have
been waiting for them for 8 months.
Herzfeld: Thank you for the feedback.
Bentley: So the first two items have been answered then and you are still waiting on a
response on the hiring of a position.
Herzfeld: That is correct.
Bentley: So what you are telling us is the employer has no right to change a job
descri ption.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 51
Herzfeld: What I meant to convey to Councilman Bentley is that the scope of work the
job description of a bargaining unit member is similar to wages, benefits, other terms
and conditions of employment for purposes of the bargaining statute. That the
employer does not have the unilateral right to change bargaining unit work without
negotiation. It is my understanding that is what is going on here or at least that is what
appears to be happening. The union was not contacted prior to the apparent decision
to hire someone who would be taking over bargaining unit duties. The Union was not
provided an opportunity to negotiate about this. There is a job description already in
place that was in place the time the bargaining unit was or the union was certified as the
representative of the employees and there was a determination by the Idaho
Department of Labor specifically that the Fire Marshall is a member of that bargaining
unit So it is our position while any term and condition of employment is subject to
change with negotiation that no term and condition of employment may be unilaterally
changed without negotiations.
Bentley: Has there been any mention of reduction of grade or down grading of wages or
anything with this Fire Marshall?
Herzfeld: Mr. Mayor and Council I don't know that there has but the matter of the scope
of the bargaining unit work the job duties of an individual within the bargaining unit is a
separate condition of employment.
Bentley: I am very aware of that, I have dealt with unions quite a bit. But my point is
there has not been by this Council by the rural, by anybody else any mention of down
grading the position, lowering the man's rank or wages. I want to be on record that is
the case.
Herzfeld: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Councilman we appreciate that, certainly we appreciate
that. But that does not address the issue of whether there may be a change in job
duties.
Morrow Mr. Mayor, if I could discuss that briefly the issue in terms of the job description
that I have in terms of what you are discussing refers to (inaudible) it also refers to blue
prints also it also refers to assigned duties. Very candidly the City is looking to do the
same thing that Boise City has done in terms of operating efficiently where plan checks
on new construction and remodeled construction are done within the building
department as it the current trend. The traditional duties of the fire inspector in terms of
the City of Meridian would remain inspecting continuing businesses, occupancy limits in
terms of number of people and those things that are commensurate with traditional Fire
Marshall duties. So the position that you are talking about that we are actively
advertising for is to fulfill a position in the building department that does increase the
operating efficiencies of the building department and is a reorganization of that
department. That is going to be consistent with the one stop shop concept that we have
always had within the City of Meridian and very candidly is modeled on the current
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 52
model in place in Boise City~ So I think that unless there is a different job description
then the one we have out there and doesn't specifically allude to some of those things
that you talked about item by item.
Herzfeld: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Councilman, my understanding Mr. Councilman is that the
duties which appear to be transferred or which would be transferred are indeed limited.
What I do is compare the old job description with the new one and I see that it focuses
mainly on such things on plan review and inspections of new buildings not existing
buildings. But to the extent that there is any transfer of duties from the current traditional
duties of the Fire Marshall in this department to a civilian then again I suggest it is a
change in job description it is a change in the mandatory subject of bargaining. I
understand your comment when you say you are looking to do what Boise has done
and I suggest that what Boise did was a decision that was made in conjunction with
negotiations with the unione And that it had the City, Boise City proceeded unilaterally
to make a change. Then they would have been in the same boat and I also suggest that
one of the reasons perhaps the primary reason that Boise did 'VVhat it did was there was
no one available in the bargaining unit at the time that the change was made who was
willing to continue the duties that were traditionally the bargaining unit duties. So it was
something that was done in cooperation with the union not a unilateral change without
negotiating with the union. I realize that it may be a concern for efficiency with the City
but , don't think that removes it from a matter which is subject to negotiation.
Morrow: Well I think a response to that is maybe we are seeing two different job
descriptions here because the job description that we have doesn't allude to new ,
commercial and so forth it simply says blueprints. So the City (Inaudible) with respect to
how they choose to do their inspections (inaudible). We have no agreement with the
rural where our inspectors do their inspections.
Herzfeld: Mr. Mayor Councilmen even if all we are talking about here is review and I am
not sure this is the case but a review of blueprints for compliance with the uniform fire
code during the pre-construction phase and that is a traditional duty of the Fire Marshall
then the transfer of that work to civilian would be in violation of State Law as the union
understands without negotiation.
Corrie: Anything further from the Council? Thank you very much we will hopefully be at
the table with you guys very shortlYe So I think at this point I don't think the Council has
made any decision one way or the other. So we will just let it stand at that at this time. I
don't think (inaudible)
Bentley: What I would like to do is pass on making any kind of decision on this at this
time. After department reports I would like to have a short executive session. .
Crookston: I am sorry could you come back to the microphone, you didn't introduce
yourself.
(
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 53
Herzfeld: I am sorry, I am Alan Herzfeld I am with the firm Nevin, Herzfeld and
Benjamin. I am the attorney for the International Association of Firefighters 2311 which
is the certified bargaining representative of the fire fighters employed by Meridian and
the Rural district.
ITEM #26: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Corrie: Chief?
Gordon: Yes sir I have a couple of quick items, the breath testing machine that we the
Police Department uses for testing alcohol content on drunk drivers is located down at
the Sheriff's office. When that machine breaks or goes down or for some reason we are
not allowed to use it we are required to draw blood at the St. AI's Hospital. The hospital
because of liability reasons has been reluctant to do this. Ada County and the EMS has
established a blood drawing crew they come out on request when the machine is down
and draw blood for taw enforcement agencies. The breath test machine was down a
month ago and we called EMS out and found out that we don't have an existing contract
with them and they require that. They drew blood for us on this one individual and
charged it to Boise City of which I haven't paid for yet. What I would ask I gave Mr.
Crookston of the contract, the standard and it is signed they have an existing agreement
with Garden City and Boise City and also the State police at this time. It does require
the Mayor's signature and also a Council person. I would ask to get that signed.
Corrie: Any questions of Council on that one? I will entertain a motion that Mayor and
Council sign the agreement, if you want to see it.
Rountree: I would like to see it or get Counsel's opinion of it.
Crookston: I have not reviewed it yeta
Corrie: WaUlet's give him a copy of it
Crookston: I have a copy.
Morrow Mr_ Mayor, may I offer the suggestion then that that we as a Council have a
motion to approve the contract upon approval by the City Attomey, authorize the Mayor
to sign and the Clerk to attest and the four City Councilmen to sign.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second, discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
(
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 54
Corrie: Gordon: One other item, as you know the Police department is split. Half of the
department is located the investigative division is located over at 217 East Pine. The
lease on that building is $1800 a month. Originally it looked like a way to give us some
room upon moving over there we have found that we don't have any designated
parking. The owner of the building will not give us any designated parking. Also to run
our existing telephone service and our extensions over to that building is prohibitive cost
wise. Also to run the three teletypes we presently have extensions over there is
prohibitive. So they run on three separate telephone lines. The square footage is fine
the building is adequate. What I would propose is we put a temporary double wide
between the existinp police station and 201 East Idaho and Audio Electronics which is
located on East 2" Street. There is a space that the City owns in between the two
buildings which would allow us to put a 24 by 58 modular temporary structure in there~
The lease on this would be considerably less. We could connect the building with the
double wide with our telephone extensions. We could also connect it with our teletypes.
Even with the set up fee and the initial cost the first year we would save $2820, the
second year we would save $9720. The lease on this building is $990 a month
compared to the $1800 on the 217 East Pine. I would like the Council's okay to pursue.
There is a conditional use required, it is in Old Town. I would like to get as close as I
could back to the existing building. They will build the structure for us for our
specifications which meet the fire codes. They would also offer us to buy the building
out right, if we wanted to do that it was $54,000 and then sell it the time we were
finished with it or lease it at the $990 a month. The first year cost on setup is $6900,
you have to pay the tear down when you lease the building. So we would pay the front
end and the back end at the same time and it would still be $2800 less.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the term of the lease in the existing building with Red Canyon is
how long?
Gordon: It is up in March, the contract does allow for monthly extensions. Presently if
we move ahead the conditional use permit and the building time on the structures is
approximately 60 days. So if we move ahead we couldn't make the March 1 deadline
but I think we could get an extension for one month which would (inaudible). I have
already talked with Ken Thompson with AlE Electronics and he doesn't have a problem
with the structure in there.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, have you discussed with the fire rating on the building?
Gordon: I checked with the building inspector just briefly to see if it was even feasible
and I also checked with Planning and Zoning. The requirements so far have just been
the 1 hour fire rating and the contractor said that was not a problem. Here again these
figures would be given to us as we go through the Planning and Zoning procedure. The
contractor didn't see that there would be a problem meeting the codes for a temporary
structure. This is a double wide.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 55
Morrow: Let me ask you this Bill, how much distance is between the temporary structure
and the existing two buildings then?
Gordon: The double wide is 24 foot and the distance in between is 27 feet, 2 inches.
Morrow: J think you better have the contractor and the building department have a
closer conversation. I think that probably the one hour construction is not necessarily
an acceptable construction with those setbacks. So you need to research that fairly
extensively.
Gordon: That is what I would hope would come out in the conditional use application.
Morrow: My point is you need to do some pre-discussion with those folk because jf the
cost of the unit has to be something other than one hour than it may not be feasible to
press head with that particular concept. We may be paying a whole ton of money for a
unit that doesn't make sense because of the cost. So very candidly when you are 20
feet or less from an existing structure there is a radical change in terms of house those
things are addressed and how they have to be built. One hour of construction doesn't
generally cut it. So you need to get some real advice so that you can do an effective
cost analysis of this before we proceed on is what J am suggesting to you. You have to
start at the building department.
Gordon: I did, Daunt Whitman told me the one hour was sufficient.
Morrow: Let me have that discussion with Daunt, we need to get this ironed out before
we press on. I don't have a problem with the concept. If it i,s not cost effective because
of the type of construction required then it doesn't make sense to pursue, fair enough?
Gordon: I wouldn't have a problem with that, I was looking at the March deadline. The
next option would be put the structure out into the parking lot and give up parking.
Morrow: And that is not a good option eithera Let's find out what we can do.
Gordon: It is better than where we are at. Presently the problem that I am having is the
lack of communication with that building. They -don't have the teletype connections that
they need to do their job, they have to come back over to the original building so really
we are paying for a structure that we are not able to use. So I am looking for options.
Like I said I did check with the building inspector and those were the options that he
gave me. The people that manufacture the buitding did come out and they didn't seem
to think that it was a problem. But I would like to make sure, you are right, that is why
we had talked about going through the conditional use permit all of those would come
into play at that time.
Morrow: Well my suggestion is and I understand what you are saying, my suggestion is
that we can do a little pre-study and see if it is worth pursuing the conditional use
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 56
process. The second question would be is do you have monies in your budget to do
this?
Gordon: No sir, I didn't have monies in my budget to move over to 217 East Pine eithera
Morrow: So where were you proposing the monies come from or that was up to us?
Gordon: The workshop it was authorized in it was going to be provided.
Morrow: The new building or the move?
Gordon: Yes, I think Councilman Bentley can answer that.
Bentley: The least money 'Nhen it was agreed upon to move over there was supposed
to be provided and it hasn't been provided through budget adjustment.
Gordon: It has not been provided Councilman.
Rountree: I think it is a good concept, I think you need to pursue it and make sure it is a
viable concept. I would suggest you do that and make sure that it pencils out and make
sure what you have done reflects the actual cost and if it saves us money and makes
you more efficient then I think we ought to pursue it
Corrie: (Inaudible) Shari?
Stiles: Mra Mayor and Council, Mr. Robinette from the Good Will Store is in the
audience today. You have in your packets what he is proposing is a trailer a manned
trailer out on Cherry Lane at the Ten Mile Albertson's. Maybe he would like to get up
and give a short presentation and see what kind of questions you may have. I wanted
to refer this to Council because I don't know whether to run it through a conditional use
or if you want to just approve it with some conditions or have concems about location.
Robinette: Stuart Robinette, we are in the process now of building the first Good Will
Stofe in Idaho and we have an expected opening of around the mid part of February. In
order for us to have a successful opening and an ongoing operation we need to assure
that we have a constant flow of donations. One of the ways that we have traditionally
done this is by placing donation trailers that are attended throughout the community in
strategic locations. One of those locations we feel would be excellent for us and for the
community of Meridian would be at the Ten Mile and Cherry Lane Albertson's store. So
we are asking that you gentlemen consider that we be allowed to put a trailer there.
Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, is this a permanent trailer, is it on wheels, does it leave
there at nights or weekends?
(
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 57
Robinette: It is a permanent trailer in that it won't be leaving at nights~ We have a 27
foot trailer that we have painted up, we have our sign on it our logos. These trailers are
attended eight hours a day, seven days a week. We also have a driver that goes around
on weekends and different times throughout the day to make sure the areas are
maintained and kept up. As far as the time of a trailer at any specific locations would
certainly be up to the landlord (inaudible) allowing us to put the trailer there or by
ourselves~ And at any time if for any reason one or the other feel it is not a good
situation we can be up and out of there in a day.
Morrow: Is this trailer hooked up to electric and water does it have bathroom facilities?
Robinette: It will be hooked up to electric. We have provided a small room that has been
built into the trailers with windows with heating and light. The store owners where we
have placed our trailers do allow us to use their facilities in their stores for restrooms,
phone and water. We have had conversation with the store manager at Albertson's out
here, Mr. Gary Anderson, also the District Sales Manager and they are very much in
favor of allowing us to be there.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, one of the problems that I would like you to address that so many
times these containers that we see all over the valley that the stuff just gets stacked up
aside them and it is there for days on end becoming an eyesore.
Robinette: It is an eye sore and it is to our advantage to keep these areas clean. We
have trailers out now in the communities and it has certainly not been a problem. We
realize that we are guest of the landlord there we are a guest of the City. It is only to our
advantage to keep these places clean. At any point that we do not keep these clean I
am sure the landlord would ask us to leave which we would.
Corrie: The schematic you have here shows the trailer at Cherry Lane at the entrance.
Robinette: Pretty weak drawing, that would be on the northwest corner yes. That is
where we would like to see it go and that is where Mr. Anderson also suggested.
Rountree: We have been for a number of years imposing upon commercial
establishments coming into the City of Meridian on these entry way thoroughfares to
provide minimum of 35 foot landscaping to occasionally vary that to 25 foot. We have
been asking for sign reductions from large massive signs to monument. In my opinion in
this area this is the wrong thing. What we have in effect is an out building, having little
or no design offering some 300 square feet in advertising for Good Will. I have nothing
against Good Will, I am thinking of the area. We have a commercial establishment that
seems to blend fairly well with the neighborhood. We have a fairly high dollar
commercial establishment across the street. We just put into effect an LID to improve
the appearance of Cherry Lane along Cherry Lane Subdivision. I just don't think this is
the kind of thing we want to start seeing on our entry way streets. I think there are
appropriate commercial areas where this could be placed in the City that would be just
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 58
as strategic and not become a precedent setting. To be honest with you if I was
Wingers or Schucks or any of those folks that we said no to their advertising and they
drove down the street and saw that I would be a bit upset. That is my personal opinion.
Morrow Mr. Robinette where is your store?
Robinette: It will be down by Wal-Mart
Corrie: Any other comments?
Bentley: I would have to agree with what Charlie says I just don't think that is a good
location.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think those reasons are valid but I have to tell you basically seeing
the pictures and the map, Shari my position would be here that if we are going to do
anything here as a City it goes to the Conditional use process. Very candidly because
for two reasons, one is that those neighbors that have worked so hard in terms of the
doctors office across the street and the Lovan's to the west and their property. And the
folk that are surrounded there have a vested interest in that neighborhood and have
worked very hard to get it to the standard that it is at. They have been very active in
participation with projects in terms of the City. So at the very least if we were going to
look at it I do agree with Mr. Rountree and Mr. Bentley but if we are going to look at it, in
my mind it has to be the conditional use permit process. I think that there is probably for
the reasons stated by them better location for it.
Corrie: Does that give you the answer Shari?
Stiles: Yes thank you I think that is helpful to at least get that input from the Council
before they would go through that process. Thank you~ The next item I have, I am not
going to take a lot of time on it I know this is a lot of run on information here and it is
not totally complete yet. I think before I make any proposals for any type of change in
the filing fees I need some more input from the Council. I have had comments from, we
need to raise the fees so we generate more income for the Planning and Zoning
Department and also that we want more permitted uses so that we are encouraging
more business to come in. And that we need to be competitive with or have similar fee
structures as Boise and Ada County, but also that we need to not be more than Nampa
and similar cities~ So as you can see or hopefully can see wading through this. Nampa,
Lewiston, Twin Falls, Caldwell and Garden City are all considerably lower in the amount
of fees they charge. I need to talk to Norm Holm over at the City of Nampa to see if
maybe they are generating income from other kinds of permits that weren't reflected in
the ordinance I got from the City Administrator's office. The main differences are mostly
in the Boise City column, they charge considerable more for annexations and rezones
and conditional use permits~ They also have a variety of other staff level and other kinds
of applications that generates income for that department that we do not currently
charge for. I know this is kind of hard to tell just lookjng at this now but I would like you
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 59
to give me any input you have, any suggestions you have. I think we are pretty much
right on in the fees if you would look at Ada County or Boise City. We are not charging
too much but you also have to take into account how much all of this Planning and
Zoning is taking us. I think we generated $53,000 last year in filing fees and I think it
was $42,000 the year before. Whether you would rather see fee increases as some of
this staff level review that we do that you would never see or you would like it overall all
of the fees raised.
Morrow: Shari, having the comparison is kind of where we actuafly go now I think that
probably what is appropriate is we study it individually and at next Tuesday's strategic
planning meeting we address it at a round table discussion concerning. One of the other
things is we have to make sure that our fees are commensurate to our cost to producing
this service too. So I would like you to think about that between now and then and
anything else that you want to add to this~ But certainly this is a step in the right
direction.
Stiles: Like I said there still is some information missing but I will get a little more detail
at least from Nampa and Twin Falls if you think I need to~ It seems like Twin Falls
doesn't charge very much at all. This is based ani the ordinances I received and there
could be other departments~
Morrow I think the information from Nampa would be appropriate, I don't know that
Twin Falls is real appropriate.
Stiles: If you have any suggestions?
Rountree: Just a point of clarification, these numbers you show for Meridian they are
both current and suggested or they are all suggested?
Stiles: These are all current for all of the cities. I haven't proposed any yet because I just
kind of want to know where you are at.
Corrie: Okay the Council can get together and (inaudible)
Stiles: I had one more question about the ditch ordinance. When we passed that out the
proposed draft Council was going to get back to either me or Gary with some
comments? There were some comments I know at the meeting but if you had anything
additional. I don't know if you want that to be on the agenda on the 6th again for
discussion or next week for discussion.
Morrow: It will be topic of discussion next week, we will try to (inaudible)
Stiles: Thank you
Corrie: Counselor?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 60
Crookston: I have nothing.
Corrie: Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Only a couple of deals, the first is we do have the Planning session on the 23rd
it will be a continuation of the things we have been working on~ The second thing Will
handed out a letter I received today from your assignment from last Council meeting in
terms of your conversation with Bob Erickson at Hawley Troxel. You can each read that
we will discuss that also at our strategic planning meeting on Tuesday next It is pretty
self explanatory, I don't think that what we need to do in the short term for (inaudible)
with Generations I think we can handle that very easily by going the resolution route that
he is talking about and then getting the word out from there. I think we also need to look
at still doing a foundation of some sort for long term donations and things. The last issue
is we have been asked from time to time we have talked with our Department Heads
about consumerism and so on and so forth and the goal of City employees in terms of
how you serve the public and the attitude by which you serve the public is really an
outstanding of a City Employee going the extra mile. It came to my attention from one of
my suppliers who happened to be delivering to one of my job sites some materials~ On
the back of his pick up was a sign that said basically lost dog. So I was asking him if he
lost his dog and the answer was yes. The story is that they didn't have any success or
weren't having any success finding it They placed an ad and put up signs so pretty
soon they get a call. It is a call from our Alan Riggle who said I read your ad and I have
sad news that I did find your dog and your dog had been killed by a car~ The point is
here that it was a tough deal for the family to go through. But the bottom line is they
were really appreciative of the fact that a City employee cared enough to not only do his
job but to go the extra mile to read the paper and call the family and take away the
element of doubt that existed in their minds so that they could come to closure as a
family with the loss of their pet. I think the important thing here is to recognjze that truly
this is an example of an individual that at any level be it private sector or public sector
doing his or her job and doing it to the nth degree and having the best interest of those
that he or she serves at heart. So I would like to recognize that in this forum as a job
well done. Chief I would appreciate if you would follow up on that and extend again our
recognition of a job wen done. To my mind that sets a pretty high standard for public
and private sector employees to pursue when we serve either our customers or the
public. That Mr. Mayor would take care of that.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley?
Bentley: The Winterland Parade, the Police Department used 66 hours I don't know if I
gave you a copy of this for $1647.25. The Chief and I have been discussing the
possibility of putting together a special events ordinance. More and more of these things
are taking place and they are taking city dollars out of the police budget to do the traffic
control. We might have to take a look at trying to recoup some revenue~ Also we have
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 61
the cost from the Regia Sprinter for the Police department is was $8,323.38 for the
crossing. Mr. Mayor have we heard anything more from the rest?
Corrie: I don't know the exact figure (Inaudible)
Berg: I wish I had a real good handle but there are still some invoices missing that he is
supposed to be rounding up that I have questioned. We are trying to take care of that
this week (Inaudible)
Bentley: Okay we need to get this wrapped because they are starting to get short of
their budgeted over time hours in their budget. We need to get this (inaudible) I passed
out a copy of the ordinance Shari and I have been working on on the cellular towers.
Just so you can look it over and you can put some more notes on it. What we are
looking for is if we want a corridor such as Eagle has where we are not going allow
these at alt, pretty much put in there the residential areas we want to keep them out of
there, but a historic district or something like that. If there is something like that that we
want to add to it we need to know. This whole thing may go by way of the trash can
because I hear the feds are starting to stick their foot in the door on it. But in the mean
time I would like to get this completed out. That is all I had.
Corrie: Okay, Charlie?
Rountree: Last evening the Parks and Recreation Commission met and elected new
officers, Tammy DeWeerd was elected President and Jim Keller was elected Vice-
President We had a presentation by the Idaho Foundation for Parks and Lands. They
are a public private trust organization that deals with foundation trusts, donations, etc.
as opposed to belaboring that this evening because of the lateness I will provide some
information at the Planning session next week. I think that is all I had.
Corrie: I have a couple, the Historical Commission, Robert Hobbs has resigned Seat 4
and Alice Gould has said she would accept the appointment that expires 11-98. Then I
need to re-appoint Frank Thomason for three years and Bill Rockhold Seat 1 and 2. Do
you want to have those individually voted on?
Morrow Please
Corrie: Alice Gould for Seat 4 that seat expires 11-98 to replace Robert Hobbs.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the appointment of Alice Gould for
Seat 4 which expires 11-98 (End of Tape)
Tolsma: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Alice Gould for Seat 4 which expires 11-
98. All approve say aye?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 62
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Seat one to re-appoint Frank Thomason from 11-97 to 11-2000.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the re-appointment of Frank
Thomason at Seat 1 from 11-97 to 11-2000.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second that we have Frank Thomason re-appointed for 11-97
to 11-2000, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Seat No. 2 Bill Rockhold 11-97 to 11-2000.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the appointment for Bill Rockhold
from 11-97 to 11-2000 for Seat No.2.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve Seat No. 2 for Bill Rockhold from 11-97
to 11-2000, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Parks and Recreation Department Director, the committee recommended four
names and I got in contact with some of the references and talked to different ones and
I would like to place Tom Kuntz name in as Director of the Parks and Recreation at this
time at $3550 a month. He is from Pullman, Washington. He spent 11 years as the
Superintendent with the City of Pullman. I refer to Charlie on this he had the interview.
Rountree: To reiterate, there was a committee that interviewed the four top candidates
of the 31 applicants. We made a recommendation to the Mayor, Tom Kuntz was one of
the top candidate that we recommended. Tom comes to us with about 16 years of
experience, is a degreed individual in Parks and Recreation sciences. Has done a lot of
community outreach type of things. It sounds kind of funny but he has helped organize
the Lentil festival in Pullman and that is the big thing on the Palouse. He brings to the
community I think more than just his abilities with Parks and Recreation I think he will be
a great asset to the city. He is a very open individual, I think he will work well with the
other departments heads. Hopefully we can utilize his expertise to do some of the
planning as well.
Crookston: Has he accepted?
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 63
Rountree: He has accepted, I believe.
Corrie: I told him it was on your vote, so you can make that recommendation.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, before I offer a motion I would like to thank the Parks & -Recreation
Commission. This has been a long struggle to get to the point where we can now move
forward with some rather exciting things to serve the needs of our community. So I
would like to thank Tammy thank your commission and your fellow workers for all of
their great help getting us to this position. Mr. Rountree and Mayor Corrie for doing the
interviews. Based on that I am prepared to offer a motion to approve the appointment of
Tom Kuntz at $3550 a month to be the director of Parks and Recreation for the City of
Meridian.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that Thomas Kuntz be awarded the Parks and
Recreation Directorship any further discussion? I too would like to thank the Committee
for being so diligent in their (inaudible) I am sorry I didn't get to see Thomas at the
interviews I didn't make it that day. Charlie and (inaudible) so hearing no further
comments, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I will call Tom, I mentioned that Tom told me he was really happy to do that, it
was quite a Christmas present.
Crookston: I would suggest that we advise the Statesman Newspaper of that
nomination.
Corrie: They have been advised
Morrow: One final question Mr. Bentley and Mr. Herzfeld discussed this earlier this
evening but it has to do with these internal audits and I guess my position is that I am
well out of patience with this. The issue is that we as out going Councilmen have a
liability by statute in terms of audit issues and responsibility for those audits and those
monies being spent. I would certainly like to see before Mr. Tolsma and I are gone
which will be very soon here, not soon enough for some. The point is that we do have
that outstanding liability we share as Councilmen and would like to see those audits and
will do whatever it takes. Certainly everybody involved here has a legitimate complaint
with the audit. The fire people in their pursuit of their contract are entitled to that
information in a timely manner. We as Councilmen who have a legal statutory
responsibility and liability for those audits and the spending have an issue. So in
essence it seems to me we need that stuff prior to the meeting on January 6th and at
this juncture I am not caring what the excuses might be I just want to see performance.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 64
(
Corrie: You will probably have it all in your hands the 23rd but I will believe that when I
see it. I heard mentioned an executive session, do you still want to do that?
Bentley: I would so move to go into executive session for personnel.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Corrie: We are back from the executive session and the possible hiring of personnel.
No decision was made. I would like to have the attorney, what was that Walt that you
wanted added in there?
Morrow: The fund out clause.
Corrie: (Inaudible)
Morrow: We want a fund out clause entered into in the lease agreement (inaudible) the
fund out clause will take care of if we have a new facility or a changed facility for
whatever reasons we have continuing decline in the mill levy or the property tax levies
(inaudible) you just simply put in (inaudible) it is the same structure (inaudible)
Corrie: So with that added and in your comments that you can check on the City
Attorney that has added the addendum 49.1 on the standard lease for $4165 base rent
Crookston: Just, when I started to look at this it says that they have these changes but
the clauses have not been stricken from this lease.
Corrie: That is what you need to get with me and Tim Mussel or whoever they are doing
the lease through.
Bentley: Do we need a motion to approve?
Corrie: We do or I contact each one of you and have a special meeting.
Morrow: Let's structure it in this manner then, I would move that we authorize the Mayor
to sign and the Clerk to attest the lease between the City of Meridian and Tim Mussel
and Mr. Chetwood with respect to the P & Z space and the Public Works space subject
to the amendments that were discussed this evening.
Meridian City Council
December 16, 1997
Page 65
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second, further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Bentley: Move to adjourn.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Moved and seconded to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:04 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY DECEMBER 16, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROLL CALL:
__K CHARLIE ROUNTREE
+RON TOLSMA
1.
WALT MORROW
. GLENN BENTLEY
MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 2,1997: wl/IfiJI/-€."
TABLED NOVEMBER 18, 1997: FINAL PLAT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE
ESTATES, 46 LOTS BY MAX BOESIGER - SOUTH OF USTICK AND % MILE
WEST OF TEN MILE: ajJfJl...t?v~ bU/'rA/ ccrn..d/t:-/'6rn.1'
2.
TABLED DECEMBER 2,1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION: -Izr-Ue ~ -dtvn., 6-/)-/ ;q9'"9->.hd'-:;,
TABLED DECEMBER 2,.1997:. ORDINANCE #779 - TREE ORDINANCE:
~ h<-Ju 011 af)enc&u
AMENDED ORDINANCE #733 - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION:
-I-a.fJ Ie Uv,fl I ~. b tJ-.- h.--7'?)-
AMENDED ORDINANCE #760 - COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES:
-h- bee. ~JAl ~",5 /J. /L7
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-8
FOR ELVIRA SUBDIVISION BY RON CROW - 650 FEET SOUTH OF
FAIRVIEW AV~NUE, WEST OF DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.4:
/Lpj'l/,pvv/l.,c f c'IL -a)7pruv.e ?uc./3)~ - (!/h-J cvf:/'l;L.J1€.tf/-c>~/JCv\..e cn..cI0uv1c.e.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAl FOR ELVIRA
SUBDIVISION BY RON CROW - 650 FEET SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE,
WEST OF DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.4:
~P;?,\?ve/ ~--p<cd' bu/t-/~ C(f>'2 dlh~~
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ELVIRA SUBDIVISION FOR 33
STANDARD R-8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS PLUS 8 TOWNHOUSE LOTS BY RON
CROW - 650 FEET SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE, WEST OF DANBURY
FAIR SUBDIVISION NO.4: .
ap jJ J-t!? t/.e E/;:- f. C/0 c:( jJ fJ rtJ v..e .de c:is/~
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL
VALLEY CORPORAT':: PARK NO.6 SUBDIVISION BY RAFANELLI & NAliAS
- MERIDIAN ROAD AND CENTRAL VALLEY DRIVE:
cvjJf'rov~
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
10.
HOME DEPOTIWAREMART SITE PLAN REVIEW: jJrf'StntzLfJi>>v
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 62.06
ACRES TO L-Q FOR A CITY PARK AND PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES BY
CITY OF MERIDIAN> - WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD, NORTH OF USTICK
ROAD: ajJf'/77ve P/F t/ elt aj/pr17ve cLec/J/cnJ
e/tr Cl f~N '1 -Iv fJ'1-Lj/t1~ OL a: I' h Ci/Jt-0?-
PUBLIC HEA'RING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 47.58
ACRES TO I-L FOR A WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND RELATED
FACILITIES BY CITY OF MERIDIAN - WEST OF TEN MILE ROAD, NORTH OF
USTICK ROAD ?LfJfJrov~ -//;:: {elL , ClfJj/rov-c deci],,/~
{';0 a ~ y. -10 jdLR P ~ ()? ~tZ-rLc.e....J
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR flt VARIANCE FOR BEDFORD PLACE
SUBDIVISION NO.4 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION - N. OF BEDFORD
PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. ~: Ii If.J /
c/-l-<-; a;r~1 -1-0 p---ep~. It-':f elL
FINAL PLAT - BED'FORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.4, 39 LOTS BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION - N. OF BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO.3:
C:UppY&V-e,/tv/~iL ccn1-d/1-Ybrzs
FINAL PLAT - ECONO LUBE SUBDIVISION, 4 LOTS BY ECONO LUBE
N'TUNE - EAST OF LOCUST GROVE, S. SIDE OF FAIRVIEW:
&f?f?rov~ h)/"i-L C~/I-/(nJ..5.
FINAL PLAT - PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2, 27 LOTS BY EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION/PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC - N. OF PACKARD
SUBDIVISION NO.1: ap/Tov-e--
FINAL PLAT - TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO.2, 59 LOTS BY
STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION - SW CORNER OF USTICK AND LINDER
ROAD: tfc-jOPyove-
FINAL PLAT - TURNBERRY SUBDIVISION, 68 LOTS BY BENCHMARK LAND
CO. - W. OF B~GK CAT ROAD, S. OF USTIC~:
~fJY'O~ tJ)H,- Con-dlh'lrnJ
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR TURN BERRY
SUBDIVISION: -taJ:K;e. ~ d~. 6 -M- ~.
REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR A WAREHOUSE
BUILDING BY MCCALL PROPERTIES: /' If. ..A
-rL~ tkr>--h/ .;r~/ t7 ~ /h/'f.
REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION ON BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT: #--f7proVR/
REQUEST FOR LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 1997 FOR THE 19TH HOLE INC.:
ap//rl?v..e- tv/11L '1'., CJ;:~
TRANSFER 'JF l:teUOR LICENSE FROM THE 127 CLUB TO T~E 19TH HOLE
INC. ?<I}pmv.e-. ~ I Wlk.e...-
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
24.
25.
26.
BEERlWINElUQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS FOR 1998: CLf/prol/.e..-
CONTRACTS FOR INSPECTORS: V1f1CV ,/)-UY/~..r 'C!t;r>'V-I5-d.A~'~.f wh/2/L WC>Le-
O-jJfJroV.R./ _. <</flr<7t"i? I1e'V c-t7n -irA-cis .
DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. SHARI STilES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. GOODWILL TRAilER AT ALBERTSON STORE ON TEN MILE AND
CHERRY LANE:
2. TABLED DECEMBER 2,1997: DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED
FILING FEES:
'-'.......... .L '-I....' 1... .....c.,~ ~ ~
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 l~::;!
CITY OF IEkiujii
PHONE NUMBER
'Testrv-, 0 ""1
~lt$
PURl( -~ MEETING SIGN-ill JHEET
C!/ e /11-1; ~ /2 --/7-97 .
tt
T~
(
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RON CROW
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
ELVIRA SUBDIVISION
650 FEET SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AVE.,- WEST OF DANBURY FAIR
SUBDIVISION NO. 4
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for public hearing on October 14, 1997, at the hour of 7:00
o'clock p.m., the Applicant, appearing through his representative,
Gary Lee, the Planning and Zoning Conunission of the City of
Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes
the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The notice of public hearing on the - application for
annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks
prior to said public hearing scheduled for October 14, 1997, the
first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the October 14,
1997, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to
express conunents and submit ev~dence; and that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. The property included in the application for annexation
and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The property is
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISluN/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
approximately 10.85 acres in size.
3. The Applicant is not the record owner of the property;
however, the record owners, Ruth Crow and Elnora Johnson, have
consented to this application of the Applicant.
4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT, and
is currently vacant, as it has been out of agricultural use for
some time.
The Applicant requests the property be zoned R-8,
Medium Density Residential District. The Applicant has requested
the annexation and this zoning, and the application is not at the
request of the City of Meridian.
5. The Applicant intends to develop a Planned Unit
Development, Elvira Subdivision, containing 3. 78 single family lots
per acre. The project will consist of 33 standard single-family
lots, 8 single-family townhouse lots, plus 6 conunon lots. The
residential subdivision lots will vary in size from approximately
6,500 square feet to 14,000 square feet. The townhouse lots will
range from 3,477 square feet to 5,500 square feet.
6. The property is located 650 feet south of E. Fairview
Ave., west of Danbury Fair Subdivision No.4, and north of
Catherine Park Subdivision. The parcel is contiguous"to the city
limits of the City of Meridian.
7. At the public Hearing, the Applicant's representative,
Gary Lee, testified SUbstantially as follows.
The Elvira
Subdivision consists of 33 single family residential lots. They
range in size between 6500 and 14,000 square feet. The development
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF I.AW - PAGE 2
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDI"vISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
will also include 8 townhouse lots ranging in size from about 3400
square feet to 5500 square feet. There will be 6 conunon lots
scattered throughout the development. The overall site density on
this 10.84 acre parcel is about 3.8 units per acre, a little bit
less than four. The project is located south of Fairview Avenue
about 650 feet and West of Danbury Fair Subdivision. The Five Mile
Creek traverses through the property and it is -a designated area
for future pathways. There is an existing farm bridge that crosses
the Five Mile Creek Drainage at the south boundary that will either
be updated or replaced for pedestrian access. To the east side,
which is Danbury Fair SUbdivision, there are a couple of connection
points for pedestrian pathways.
The Applicant has no concerns
about the staff comments, except item number 1.
There is an
existing sewer line on Cathy Street that will have to be
accommodated by Applicant. The typical corridor would be the west
side of centerline, but in this case it is going to have to be on
the east because of its present location, and the details can be
worked out with the City Engineer.
The conditional use permit
portion of the Application is for a planned unit development to
allow for the 8 townhouse units situated along the southwest side
of the property. The townhouse lots are fairly narrow, but they
are very deep. The developer/owner thinks it would be best to
leave it up to potential buyers ,to build either 2 storys or single
story townhouses, and the lots are deep enough to give flexibility
for that.
The lots are approximately 28 ~ feet wide on the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA dUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
average, which is enough room for a duplex unit.
8 · In response to questions by Conunissioner Borup, the
Applicant's representative, Mr. Gary Lee, responded substantially
as follows. The ACHD comment on the extension of Carlton Ave. is
a possibility for the future, but it is unknown at this time if it
will be extended. The Applicant does not know the condition of the
property to the south, but the Applicant did look at a turnaround
at the end of the townhouse parcels with room for a turn around and
only 2 or 3 lots.
As to the setback on the last uni t, the
Applicant would like to see, if that is going to be imposed, a
setback from a turnaround in lieu of going all the way through
Cathy Lane which is private. The right of way currently ends at
the end of Carlton on the west boundary. Five Mile Creek will not
have a greenbelt constructed along it, but the Applicant will grant
an easement to the City of Meridian so that it can construct the
greenbelt at a later date.
The footbridge will be updated and
repaired, however.
9. Commissioner Smith commented that he believes single
family homes instead of townhomes belong on Block 1 of the
development and that the townhomes would more appropriately be
located in Block 2 next to existing apartments. He believes the
Applicant perhaps didn't want to extend Carlton Ave., and Block 1
was just left over, so they plunJced townhomes down there. He would
like to see single family homes in Block 1 with Carlton Ave.
extended. In response, Mr. Lee testified that the Applicant has
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - EL~IRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
looked at doing that, and from a transitional standpoint, it does
make more sense to put the townhouses by the existing apartment
complex, but the lots don't have the depth needed and the private
driveway works better for the townhomes.
10. In response to questions by Commissioner MacCoy, Mr. Lee
testified substantially as follows. The Applicant does not believe
that 3.78 is very high density and the plan uses the property most
efficiently and pleases the landowner, as the Applicant is
interested in building townhouses.
11. In response to questions by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Lee
testified that the Applicant has talked with the landowner to the
south, but the landowner has not said how he plans to use or
develop the property to the south. In response, Commissioner Smith
said he is not opposed to the townhouses per se, but he believes
they would be better placed next to the existing apartment complex
and if the property to the south were infilled, his idea would
work.
12. In response to further questions by Commissioner Borup,
Mr. Lee testified substantially as follows. West of the townhouses
are older residences, and the whole neighborhood around the
proposed development is a mix of mostly older homes and some
townhouses.
13. D.R. Lynn testified substantially as follows. She is the
sole owner of Cathy Lane and lives in a two story home there. She
intended to build her retirement home there, on lot 7, 1184 Cathy
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5
ANNEXATION AND ZONIN~ - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
Lane, but when she learned of the proposed use of the adjoining
property, she changed her mind and would like to sell Cathy Lane.
She would like to offer it to Mr. Crow, the Applicant, for her cost
of construction and on the condition that it would be maintained by
Ada County and that she can have two years to sell the house she's
in and move into the stairless one on lot 7 before the streets are
connected. She wants as little traffic on Cathy Lane as possible.
14. Responding to questions by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Lynn
testified that Cathy Lane is accessed off State Street, it is only
30 feet wide, and the County will not maintain it because it has to
be 60 feet wide for them to take it and maintain it. Cathy Lane
stops a long way short of" Washington Ave.
15. In response to qmestions by Commissioner Borup, Ms. Lynn
testified that Cathy Lane is not accessible from the proposed
project, but she is testifying to clarify that it will not be
accessible because she has had pressure to make it accessible.
16.
Mr. B.L. Rich testified substantially as follows.
He
lives at the dead end of Carlton Ave. and would like to see single
family homes on Block 1 of the proposed development instead of
townhomes. Also, when Cathy Lane was originally developed, there
was an agreement that there would be no two story homes, only one.
He has talked to the Applicant about how much better it would look
and how property values would be maintained if only single story
homes are built, and the townhouses should be moved to the other
side of Washington. He is also concerned about increased traffic
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6
ANNEXATION AND ~ONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
to the area and more children in the area with the additional
housing · He would like to see the Applicant construct a chain link
fence the whole length of the property line instead of wood like
-
the one that now exists by adjacent apartments.
project's use of two story homes and townhouses.
He opposes the
17. Barbara Smith testified substantially as follows. She is
concerned about increased traffic with this development and doesn't
want her view of an old barn to be townhouses.
I f there are
townhouses, she wants something to block the view of them and she
wants the end of Cathy Lane blocked off to prevent more traffic.
18. Gerda Dwyer testified substantially as follows. She does
not oppose the project, but doesn't want two story homes or
townhouses built.
She represents "herself, her husband, and her
street, Crossbill Court.
Also, there are more entrances needed
because there are only two.
19. Andrew Condon testified substantially as follows. He has
a twenty foot easement at the back of his prope~ty that abuts the
proposed development and he would like to see a pathway on the
easement.
He wants only single level dwellings and more access
roads.
He would also like the fence continued up past his-
property. In response, the City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented
that the current easement is a sewer easement. In response to a
question by Commissioner Nelson, Mr. Condon testified that he does
not want townhouses put in because all of Danbury Fair is one story
dwellings and townhouses make property values go down.
FINDINGS O~ FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROw
Finalized 10-24-97
20.
Mary Rich testified substantially as follows.
Her
neighborhood is nice and the two story townhouses already there are
not maintained the way she thinks they should be and look like low
income housing and she doesn't want more of that in her
neighborhood. In response to a question by Commissioner Johnson,
Ms. Rich testified that she doesn't want multi-family dwellings and
there will be too many people and too much traffic.
21. Mr. Lee continued his testimony substantially as follows.
The market for these homes will be the smaller home as Danbury Fair
has been. There are already apartments allover this neighborhood.
There are 3 lots of homes with a square footage of 1001, 4 with
1101 square feet, 8 with 1201, and 18 with 1301. The 8 townhouses
are 800 square feet. The Applicant wants to keep the option open
for larger 2 story homes to be built on the lots, but the market
will dictate the home size. Also, the townhomes will be for sale
and there will be a pride of ownership just like a single family
dwelling.
The Applicant has complied with ACHD requirements on
access and has made provision for the extension of Badley. There
will be a landscape buffer between Cathy Lane and the private
drive.
22. In response to questioning by Commissioner Borup, Mr. Lee
testified that there is no plan for access to Cathy Lane and there
is no need for it.
As far as ACHD ' s recommendation for a
pedestrian pat~ay over the 20 foot sewer easement, he doesn't have
a comment to that effect from Meridian staff.
Also, a 25 foot
FINDI~GS OF FACT 'AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGR 8
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RGN CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(-
(
setback between the townhouses and other subdivision is a good idea
and can be added to the restrictive covenants.
23. Conunissioner Smith conunented that townhouses do not
belong on this particular block and maybe this portion shouldn't be
developed until Carlton is extended and a better plan is developed.
24. In response to a question by Commissioner Borup, Mr. Lee
testified that there is one maybe two lots to the south.
25. Gerda Dwyer testified that townhouses look funny there,
would destroy the beauty of Meridian, and people would come and go
too much, so they would be run down.
Also,~ traffic is too
congested and there will be no access in an emergency, which may
result in someone getting killed. She does not think that just
because people have money they should be able to put in whatever
they want. She pays her taxes and supports the community and only
wants single homes there.
26. Barb Smith testified that just because the townhomes are
for sale doesn't mean they won't be used as rentals. Commissioner
Johnson responded that it doesn't mean they will become rentals
either.
27. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, and
the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles , submitted
general comments and site specific comments.
Their general
comments and site specific co~ents are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full. Their general comments included the following:
a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the
property to be included in this project, shall be tiled
FINDINGS OF FACT "AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 9
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDiVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
fr
\
per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Five Mile Creek is
specifically excluded from the tiling requirement. Plans
shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage
district, or lateral users association, with written
confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public
Works Dep~rtment.
b. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
within this project will have to be removed from their
domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517.
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
c. The Applicant is to determine the seasonal high
groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the
subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil
scientist with street development plans.
d. The Applicant is to provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in
accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B.
e. Water service to this development is contingent upon
positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our
computer model.
f. The Applicant is to submit a letter from the Ada County
street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and
street names. The Applicant must make any corrections
necessary to conform.
g. The Applicant is to coordinate fire hydrant placement
with. the Meridian Public Works Department.
h. The Applicant is to respond, in writing, to each of the
comments contained in this memorandum and submit to the
City Clerk's office prior to the hearing date.
Their site specific comments included the following:
a. Sanitary sewer service to this site could be via service
line taps into the existing City of Meridian trunk lines
which pass through the property, or from extensions from
the existing trunk line system. Approval of this
application needs to be contingent upon our ability to
accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this
proposed development. The Applicant will be responsible
to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed
development. The subdivision designer is to coordinate
main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department.
Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 10
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIrtA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
r
\
on the south and west sides of centerline.
b. Water service to this site could be via extensions of
existing mains installed in adjacent developments. The
Applicant will be responsible for constructing the
water mains to and through this proposed development.
The subdivlsion designer is to coordinate main sizing and
routing with the Public Works Department.
c. The conceptual engineering plan submitted with the
application indicates that this development's pressurized
irrigation system is going to connect to the existing
system in the Danbury Fair Subdivision. The pressurized
irrigation system in the Danbury Fair Subdivision is
owned and maintained by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District. Any proposal for a supplementary connection
from the City'S water system will need to be reviewed
closely due to the size of the area to be watered. The
Developer shall be responsible for the payment of
assessment and meter fees associated with said
supplementary connection.
d. One-hundred-watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights will
be required at locations designated by the Public Works
Department. All streetlights shall be installed at the
subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street
intersections and/or fire hydrants.
e. A detailed landscape plan for the conunon areas, including
fencing locations and types of construction, shall be
submitted for review and approval with the submittal of
the final plat map. A letter of credit or cash surety
will be required for the improvements prior to signature
on the final plat.
f. The Applicant shall construct six-foot-high, permanent,
non-combustible perimeter fencing except where the City
has expressly agreed, in writing, that such fencing is
not necessary · Fencing is to be in place prior to
applying for building permits.
g. The Applicant shall construct six-foot-high, permanent,
non-combustible fencing on both sides of the easement for
Five Mile Creek. Rear lot lines along Five Mile Creek
shall be set at the existing easement line, unless an
encroachment agreement is granted by the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District.
h. Five Mile Creek is designated as a multiple use pathway
in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. No encroachment of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCI.USIONS OF LAW - PAGE 11
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
the easterly easement boundary should be permitted. It
would be desirable if landscaping could be completed by
the individual homeowners on the western side of Five
Mile Creek (similar to Running Brook Estates and Meridian
Green Subdivision) in lieu of fencing. If this is not
feasible, fencing on the western side of Five Mile Creek
should be placed a minimum of five feet from the top of
bank to prevent inherent problems associated with eroding
slopes.
l. A development agreement is required for this project, as
a condition of annexation of the property.
j. The preliminary plat indicates that the existing
agricultural bridge crossing the Five Mile Creek shall
remain as a pedestrian access. This bridge is an old
dilapidated railroad flat car frame. At this time, there
isn't even any decking across the top of it. The
developer shall replace or upgrade the pedestrian access
bridge, including providing decking and handrails. The
bridge should also be brought up to an elevation that
would be even with the access path. The location of this
existing bridge coincides with the conunon drainage lot in
Danbury Subdivision No.5, which could easily provide an
inter-neighborhood connection. The existing 30-foot-wide
right-of-way for E. Washington Avenue will be maintained
as public right-of-way for pedestrian access to Five Mile
Creek.
k. There are several ditches crossing the property; however,
the conceptual engineering plan doesn't show how they
will be treated. The Applicant will revise the plan to
show all proposed piping of irrigation/drainage ditches,
or show that they are to be abandoned in place.
Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian
Building Department for all lots impacted by the filling
of said ditches.
1. Applicant proposes 42-foot-wide streets in portions of
the development. Ada County Highway District has agreed
to a 42-foot-wide right-of-way in cases where the streets
are non-continuous.
m. A 20-foot-wide private drive to access eight townhouse
units is proposed paralleling Cathy Lane, a substandard
private road to the east. Between Cathy Lane and the
private drive, an eight-foot-wide landscaped strip is
proposed. To provide adequate room for emergency vehicle
access and turnarounds, a portion of the iandscape strip
at the end of the private drive should not be
FINDINGS OF FACT A}TD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 12
ANNEXATION AND ZO~ING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
(
constructed to allow access to Cathy Lane. The Applicant
shall coordinate with the Meridian Fire Department and
comply with their requirements.
n. Although the configuration of Lot 9, Block 1, would
provide added privacy and traffic calming for the units
on the prIvate lane, staff has concerns about how well
this will work. . Due to the low number of vehicle trips
per day anticipated in this area, this may not be a
significant issue.
o. No sanitary sewer easement for the existing sewer line in
Cathy Lane is shown on the preliminary plat map.
Applicant is to verify if an easement exists for the
line. ,If no such easement exists, the Applicant will
need to obtain easements to allow connection to existing
sewer and water lines in the lane.
p. The Applicant will revise the legend to include all
easements and symbols shown on the plat.
q. The preliminary plat map seems to indicate that Carlton
Avenue extends further east from its existing constructed
terminus. Our records indicate the right-of-way ends a
the westerly boundary of the proposed development.
Please verify and revise map as needed.
r. A portion of Cathy Street is proposed to be constructed
within the Five Mile Creek easement and would be
immediately adjacent to the top of bank of the Creek.
Appropriate traffic/pedestrian safety devices will need
to be installed along this section, as well as for the
roadway crossing of Five Mile Creek. Pedestrian walkways
and railings will be needed on the bridge.
s. Proposals for PI-anned Unit Developments must include a
minimum of ten percent common area. Provi.ded the
easement of Five Mile Creek is considered to meet the
requirements for common area by the P&Z Commission and
Council, this development would exceed that requirement.
t. This infill project will require special design
consideration in order for the property to be reasonably
developed. Even though a zoning of R-B has been
requested, the resultant gross density is less than 4 per
acre.
28. The Applicant's representative, Gary Lee, responded in
writing to the general and site specific comments of the Assistant
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 13
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
to the City Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Administrator
through a letter dated October 6, 1997. This responsive letter is
incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Mr. Lee's responses
to the General comments included the following:
a. There are no irrigation or drainage ditches on the site
that will require piping, except those shown on Sheet 2
of the preliminary plat.
b. Any existing wells and septic tanks will be removed from
service that may be situated on the property. However,
there are no known wells or septic tanks on this parcel.
c. A groundwater level monitoring program is in progress.
The depth of the water level is being measured by J-U-B
on a weekly basis. The peak groundwater level will be
determined later this fall. Water level data and soils
profiles will be submitted with the final improvement
plans.
d. Five-foot sidewalks are planned for this development as
shown on the Conceptual Engineering Plan, Sheet 2.
e. The developer hereby requests that the City notify him
immediately if there is a lack of domestic and fire water
capacity for this development.
f. The Ada County Street Name Committee approval letter will
be submitted once received.
g. The fire hydrant placements are sho~ on the Engineering
Concept Plan, Sheet 2. We hereby request that the City
Staff review these placements and conunent on their
positions.
h. This letter shall act as our response to the City Staff's
General and Site Specific Comments. Ten copies of the
revised preliminary plat are included with this letter.
Mr. Lee's responses to the Site specific comments included the
following:
a. The Engineering Concept Plan, Sheet 2, shows the proposed
sanitary sewer line connections. The developer hereby
requests that the. City notify him immediately if there is
a lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity for this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 14
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
(
development. Main-line sizing shall be 8" throughout
with the sewer mains situated in the south and west
corridors as shown on the Concept Plan. However, due to
the location of an existing North-South sewer main along
Cathy Street, we hereby request that the City Public
Works Department approve the location of the main to be
situated along the eastern side of the street. The
street was placed here because of the deep lot depths
along the west side.
b. The Engineering Concept Plan, Sheet 2, shows the proposed
waterline connections at two locations adjacent to the
development. The main-line sizing will be determined
based upon hydraulic capacity. We hereby request that
the City staff review their hydraulic model so that the
Elvira Subdivision pipeline sizes can be determined. All
waterlines are shown on said Concept Plan to be situated
within the north and east corridors, except the waterline
within Cathy Street. Again, due to the location of the
existing sanitary sewer, we hereby request that the City
grant a waiver on the location of the waterline along
this street.
c. J-U-B will coordinate the extension of the pressurized
irrigation system from Danbury Fair into this
subdivision. Also, a secondary water source will be
reviewed with NMID and the City during final irrigation
system design.
d. Streetlights are shown on the Conceptual Engineering
Plan, Sheet 2. We hereby request that the Public Works
Department review said locations and make any
modifications as may be required.
e · A conunon area landscape plan will be prepared and
submitted with the Final Plat and Final Improvement
Plans. Also, a fencing plan will be prepared and
submitted with the Final Plat. The developer will
submit surety instruments during the final plat signature
stage.
f · Fencing exists around most of the property perimeter. A
chain link fence is planned along Five Mile Creek. We
hereby request that the City accept the existing fencing
systems as are in place at this time. Or identify which
areas need to be replaced.
g. A license agreement will be requested from NMID to allow
the fencing to be placed along the Five Mile Creek and
will be situated as follows: (1) The fence will be placed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 15
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - EL~JlRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
five feet west of the western bank of the creek bank; and
(2) The fence will be placed 20 feet east of the eastern
bank of the creek.
h. A pathway is shown along the eastern side of Five Mile
Creek. The creek will be fenced as identified in Item 7
above · However, the developer may consider your proposal
not to install fencing along the western side of Five
Mile Creek.
~. Please submit the development agreement to J-U-B for
review once it is prepared.
j. The condition of the pedestrian bridge will be evaluated
at time of final improvement plan preparation. Either
the bridge will be renovated, or a new pedestrian bridge
will be constructed.
k. The Engineering Concept Plan, Sheet 2 of the preliminary
plat, shows that the Adkins drain will be tiled. Other
small ditches on the site will be abandoned. The
conceptual engineering plan has been revised to show the
abandonment of these existing ditches. If fill is
greater than two feet, where a building foundation will
be placed, structural fill will be placed and compaction
tests taken.
1. The landscape buffer will be shortened to allow for
emergency vehicle access at the southern end of the
private driveway know as Lot 1 of Block 1. The width of
this access will be coordinated with the Meridian Fire
Department during final improvement plan preparation.
m. There is some flexibility in the design of Lot 9 Block 1.
The shape of the driveway approach can be modified.
Please let me know what the Staff concerns are.
n. A City Sewer and Waterline are located within Cathy Lane.
The improvement plans for Catherine Park Subdivision show
the construction of the sewer and waterline with services
to each lot. Also, these plans show sewer and water
services to be constructed into the Crow property for
future lots (four sewer services and two double water
services). We have assumed that the City has some sort
of easement for these facilities. If not, the City
likely has prescriptive rights. The City Attorney should
be consulted to determine what sewer and water easement
rights may exist, if not of record. We will check the
county records to see if an official easement document
was recorded when the City approved the plat of Catherine
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 16
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
Park Subdivision.
o. The preliminary plat legend has been amended per the
enclosed drawings.
p. East Carlton Avenue does not extend to Cathy Lane. The
preliminary pla~ has been modified.
q. The guardrail and fence designs along Cathy Street and
the bridge crossing East Badley Avenue will be prepared
during final improvements plan preparation in accordance
with ACHD requirements.
r. We have assumed that the Five Mile Creek
pathway/greenbelt will be used in the calculation of the
10% landscape rule. Please advise us if this is not the
case.
. 29. The Meridian Police Department, the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, and Central District Health submitted
comments, which respective comments are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
30. The Meridian Fire Department submitted comments that all
common lots will need to be kept clear of trash and weeds, and that
they don't like the shape of lots and the private driveway for Lots
#15 and #16. Its comments are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full.
31. The Meridian Water Department submitted comments,
including the conunent that it recommends that a 8" water line be
installed in the subdivision. Also, that they feel that the water
line on Cathy Lane should be connected for a second source and that
plan review will be done when the water plans are received. Its
comments are incorporated herein.
32. The Idaho Power company submitted the comment that 10-
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 17
ANNEXATION AND ~ONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
foot wide public utilities easements are required along all lots
adjacent to a road right-of-way dedicated to public or private use.
Its comments are incorporated herein.
33. The Ada County Highway District has or may hereafter
submit comments. Its submitted comments, if any, are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full, and its conunents hereafter
submitted shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full when
submitted.
34 · There were also comments by Tony Stopello by way of
correspondence directed to the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission, dated October 9, 1997.
His letter is incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
Mr. Stopello ' 5 conunents are
substantially as follows.
He owns two duplexes at 5th and
Washington streets.
He is opposed to the opening of Washington
Ave., there are high density structures there now, there is a
school bus pickup on the corner of 5th and Washington, and between
2 1/2 street to 5th street and on Carlton Ave., it is very narrow.
The whole project lacks access.
He opposes the two story
townhouses because this is zoned for single story buildings and
privacy would be destroyed.
Additionally, if single story
structures are allowed, he would like a chain link fence similar to
the one north of his property separating the large apartment
complex from his with privacy inserts.
The development is too
dense.
35 · There were no other comments by the public regarding this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 18
ANNEXATIO~ AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CRO~'
Finalized 10-24-97
(
application.
36. The property is adjacent and abutting the present city
limits of the City of Meridian.
37. The property which is the subject of this application is
within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
38. The entire parcel of the property is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
39. In the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban
Service Planning Area may be developed at greater densities than
one dwelling unit per acre.
40. In the Meridian Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, Rural
Areas, Section 6 · 3 provides that land in agricul tural acti vi ty
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can
be provided. ~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 29.
41. The City of Meridian has, and is, experiencing a
population increase. There exist pressures on land previously used
for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
42. The property can be physically serviced with City of
Meridian water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines, and
constructs and installs the necessary equipment and facilities.
43. The R-8, Medium Density Residential District is described
in the Zoning and Development Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows:
(R-8) Medium Densitv Residential District: The purpose
of the (R-8) District is to permit the establishment of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 19
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
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 conyersion 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 of Meridian is required.
44. Pursuant to the Zoning and Developme~t Ordinance, 11-2-
411 D 2., all new single-family detached housing in the (R-8)
Medium Density Residential District shall be constructed to contain
at least 1,301 square feet of living space of which the garage is
not included in determining the square footage of living space.
45. The following pertinent statement is made in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, "2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES 2.1U
Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-
family,
mUlti-family,
townhouses,
duplexes,
apartments,
condominiums etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a
range of affordable housing opportunities."
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 23.
46. The following pertinent statement is made in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, RURAL AREAS, section 6.3 c.:
Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may
occur in densities as low as 3 dwelling units per acre if
physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian
water and sewer service and the property is platted and
subdivided in accordance with Ada County Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances Policy. Development density below
three dwelling units per acre may be allowed by
conditional use permit if a cost/benefit analysis
indicates positive impacts to the City of Meridian.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 29.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 20
ANdEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
['
\
(
47. The following pertinent statement is made in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, RURAL AREAS, section 6.4:
Residential development is allowed in the rural areas
provided that said development does not exceed the Rural
Residential Agrlcul tural density, unless it is inside the
Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is
provided, when Low, Medium and High density residential
may be considered. All residential development must also
comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 30.
48. The following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan under HOUSING, Housing Policies:
1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular,
mobile homes and mUlti-family arrangements) and choices
between ownership and rental dwelling units for all
income groups in a variety of locations suitable for
residential development.
* * * *
1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless
of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background, shall
be encoura.ged.
1.4 The development of housing for all income groups
close to employment and shopping centers should be
encouraged.
1.13U Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially
developed, single-family areas should be considered at
densities similar to surrounding development. Increased
densities on random vacant lots should be considered if:
a. The cost of such a parcel of land precludes
development at surrounding densities; or
b. Development of uses other than single-family
structures are compatible with surrounding development.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at pages 67-68.
49. The City of Meridian has experienced an influx in its
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 21
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUB~IVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
{
population which influx is reasonably anticipated to continue. The
property borders upon city limits of the City of Meridian, and
economic conditions are making the continuation of farming in the
area difficult.
50. With regard to this application, Planning and Zoning
Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant to the City Engineer,
Bruce Freckleton, made the specific comment that the annexation of
the property should be conditioned upon a development agreement.
51. In 1992, the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to
the Local Planning Act, which included amending Idaho Code Section
67-6513. Section 67-6513 provides in part:
Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the
effects of subdivision development on the ability of
political subdivisions of the state, including school
districts, to deliver services without compromising
quality of service, delivery to current residents or
imposing substantial additional costs upon current
residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision.
52. The City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
its population, and the impact such increase has up~n its ability
to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks
and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City of Meridian. The City of Meridian is further
concerned about the impact and burden placed upon the schools of
Meridian School District No. 2 resulting from the influx of its
population. The City of Meridi~n knows the increase in population
does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the costs of
providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 22
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
( (
parks and recreation services. The City of Meridian further knows
the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
53. Pursuant to the instruction, guidance and direction of
the Idaho State Legislature, the City of Meridian may impose either
a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
if possible, would be retroactive to apply to all residential lots
in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare and
safety of its citizens.
54. Section 11-9-605 C of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides, "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the
middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain
convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping
areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
55. Section 11-9-605 G of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part:
Planting strips . . . shall conform to the following:
1. Plantinq Stri?s - Planting strips shall be required
to be placed next to incompatible features such as
highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses
to screen the view from residential properties.
Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal
street right of way or utility easement; . . . .
56. Section 11-9-605 H of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part:
Public sites and open spaces shall conform to the
following:
FINDINGS.OF FACT AND CON~LUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 23
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
* * * *
1. Natural Features - Existing natural features which
add value to residential development and enhance
the attractiveness of the community (such as trees,
watercours..es, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the
design of the subdivision;
57. Section 11-9-605 J of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in pertinent part:
6 · Fences may be erected in all residential and limi ted
office districts subject to the following:
e. Any developer intending to construct a boundary fence
on the boundaries of a proposed subdivision shall show
the fence on the preliminary plat and shall include with
the preliminary plat the design, placement, height,
specifications and drawing of said fence.
58. Section 11-9-605 K of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance 'provides:
The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined largely by natural
features and, to a lesser extent, by man-made features
such as utility easements, transportation rights of way
or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal
open space corridors may be required for the protection
of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets,
waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As
improved areas (landscaped), semi-improved areas (a
landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a
natural stat~), linear open space corridors serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within
rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To playa major role in conserving area scenic and
natural values, espec~ally waterways, drainageways
and natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 24
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(-
to the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities.
Subdivision pl~ts or development plans shall show the
location of any line~l open space corridors.
59. Section 11-9-605 L of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged
within new developments as part of the public right of
way or as separate easements so that an alternate
transportation system (which is distinct and separate
from the automobiles) can be provided throughout the City
Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council
shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Desiqn Manual for
Ada County ( as prepared by Ada county [ sic] Highway
District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway
provisions within developments.
60. Section 11-9-605 M of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part:
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of
natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying
adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or
laterals touch either or both sides of the area being
subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or
other covering equivalent in ability to detour access to
said ditch, lateral or canal.
61 · Proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Conunission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act
and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met;
including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 25
ANNEXAT:ON AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON C~OW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
(
feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property.
2. The City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant
to Idaho Code Section 50-222 and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The exercise of
the City'g annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. The Planning and Zoning conunission has judged this
annexation and zoning application" under Idaho Code Section 50-222,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it may take judicial notice.
4. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing
requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
5. The Commission may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
6. The land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to
the present city limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
would not be a shoestring annexation.
7 · The annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative
function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the
annexation of land.
See Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P2d 1075 (1983).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 26
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/R8N CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
9. The development of the annexed land, if annexed, shall
meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian
including, but not limited to: Section 11-9-616 which pertains to
development time schedules and requirements; Section 11-9-605 M,
which pertains to the piping of ditches; and Section 11-9-606 B
14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation systems.
10. The development of the property shall be subject to and
controlled by the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian.
11. Section 11-2-417 D of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part as follows:
If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office
of the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the
property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the
parcel.
It is concluded, however, that it is more appropriate to enter into
a development agreement for the development of the property, and
therefore as a condition of annexation, a development agreement
must be entered into prior to development of the property or
issuance of final plat approval.
12. As a condition of annexation and the zoning of (R-8)
Medium Density Residential Dist~ict, the Applicant shall enter into
a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 Land 11-2-417 D.
The development agreement shall address, but not limited to, the
FINDINGS OF FACT "AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 27
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVI~ION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
following matters:
a. Inclusion into the development the requirements of
11-9-605;
b.' Paym~nt by the Applicant, or if required, any
successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors
or personal representatives, of any impact,
development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City;
c. Addressing the property access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land uses and traffic
study;
d. An impact fee, or fees for fire, police, emergency
health care, water, sewer, and parks and recreation
services as determined by the City;
e. Appropriate berming and landscaping;
f. Submission and approval of any required plats;
g. Submission and approval of individual building,
drainage, lighting, parking, and other
developmental plans of the property;
h. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements
with the surrounding residential development and
other development;
~. Addressing and complying with the present general
and site specific COIImlents of and the comments
hereafter made by the Planning and Zoning
Administrator;
j. Addressing and complying with the present general
and site specific comments of and the comments
hereafter made by the City Engineer and the
Assistant to the City Engineer;
k. Addressing and complying with the conunents and
requirements of the Ada County Highway District;
I. Addressing and complying with the conunents and
requirements of other governmental agencies
submitting comments;
m. The sewer and water requirements;
n. Traffic plans and access into and out of any
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 28
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
~
(
development; and
o. Any other items or matters deemed necessary by the
City Staff, including design review of all
development, and conditional use processing.
13. As the property.is in an area marked as a single family
residential area, the annexation and zoning application is in
conformance with the Rural Area policies.
14. The development of the property as an (R-8) Medium
Density Residential District, as requested by the Applicant, would
be compatible to the development in the surrounding area.
15. It is therefore concluded that the annexing and zoning of
the property is in the best interest of the City of Meridian, and
it is concluded that the annexation shall be conditioned upon
meeting the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and if they are not met the land may be de-annexed.
16. The requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Meridian
Planning and Zoning Administrator, Ada County Highway District,
Central District Health Department, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, the Meridian Water Department, Idaho Power Company, the
Meridian Fire Department, the Meridian Police Department, and other
governmental agencies shall be met and addressed in a development
agreement.
17 · All ditches, canals, and waterways, except Five Mile
Creek, shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so
tiled, the property shall be subject to de-annexation.
18. Pressurized
irrigation
shall
be
installed
and
FINDINGS OF FACT 'AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 29
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
,., , , .
(
constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to
de-annexation.
19. The Applicant shall be required to connect the property
to Meridian water and sewer, extend the water and sewer lines to
serve the property, and resolve how the water and sewer mains will
serve the property, all of which shall be at the Applicant's, or
its successor's, or successors' cost and expense. Said water and
sewer requirements shall be performed on or before the time that
the Applicant or its successor, or successors desire to use the
property or place a user on the property.
20. These conditions shall run with the land and bind the
landowner, the Applicant and its, or their, successors in interest,
assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives.
21. with compliance of the conditions and requirements
contained herein, the annexation and zoning of the property as (R-
8) Medium Density Residential District would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
22. If these conditions of approval are not met, the property
shall not be annexed or if already annexed, it shall be de-annexed.
FINDINGS OF FACT 'AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 30
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(
\
(
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian
hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER BORUP
VOTED ~
VOTED a... ~
COMMISSIONER MACCOY
COMMISSIONER SMITH
VOTED
'~
~
~
l\\l ~~~
COMMISSIONER NELSON
VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the
property set forth in the application be approved by the City
Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the
Applicant or its successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors
or personal representatives enter into a development agreement;
that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law and/or is not agreeable with entering into
a development agreement, the property should not be annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED~
llfl-li 7
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINhS OF FACT 'AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 31
ANNEX1~~ION AND ZONING - ELVIRA SUBDIVISION/RON CROW
Finalized 10-24-97
(1
(
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact,
and Conclusions of Law on this ,/6-tA. day of M~ 1 19~ I
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
VOTED
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED.
(INITIAL)
APPROVED ~
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ ~ c:u/J~ I' ·
;} ~ - -a / -;#it; 7 7~1 ,
o)-~ ~ ~/lq / a'fr7"Ylo)-J
t
(
ITEM NUMBER:
26
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
COMMENTS
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE OEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING OEPT:
MERIOtAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at pUblic meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
The po\,ver to overcome
~
U~
.
Northern Rocky Mountain Easter Seal Society/Goodwill Industries
Idaho Easter Seal Services
Goodwill Industries of Southern Idaho
{k/fi /7cN;6
/ c?//t:;/9?--. C L
December 10, 1997
Dear Mayor Corrie & City Counsel members:
I am writing on behalf of the Northern Rocky Mountain Easter Seal SocietYa
We will be opening OUf first Goodwill store in Boise the mid part of February,
1998. In order to have a successful opening and ongoing operation, we need
to assure that we will have a constant flow of quality donated goods. Part of
those goods traditionally come from attended donation centers strategically
placed around the communities.
One of those areas we feel would be very successful is at the Albertson store
on Ten Mile and Cherry Lane. We have had conversation with Gary Adams,
manager of the Albertson's stofe and he ts very supportive of placing a donation
center there. We have also had communication with Albertson's Idaho Division District
Sales Manager, Greg McNiff and he indicated they would be pleased to accommodate
Goodwill at this location.
I am enclosing some information on our donation centers along with a picture of the
trailer that would be placed there. Also a map indicating the location chosen by the
store manager of where he feels would be best for Albertsons and Goodwill.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We are excited about our new store opening
and the continued services we will be providing for this area. Should you need additional
information please feel free to give me a call.
J~I2~'tt
Stuart Robinette
Goodwill Store Manager
1455A N. Cole Rd. · Boise, ID 83704-8537
(208) 378-9924 · Fax (208) 378-9965
Money raised in your state provides direct service for your residents tvith disabilities.
i
~
g
~.
.~..
g
I
I
I
I
~
~
'""'-
,~
~
~
.3
fS
<:)
\[;
JE~ M,tLcE
(
V1
?
b1
&
lu
cD
.....)
~
>.
1::
:l
o
o
ctJ
"C
<(
Q)
en
o
CO
~~~~
01,() 00
1.00......11)
"I;t CO 0) "I;t~
-c-
c
o
~~
~g ~
~)8:.:i ~
Set 6T"" en t;
'-c'Oiam~~
Q)><:So~-c-
Q.:g~<a[l
~a~~:A~
o
o
("')
o
o
(f')
00
00
(f')C\!
~ffi
~~
,r::: ) ....
C'j~
o
o
(f')
a
0
T""'
:> ::> :> :>
~ ~~ "'C
<(
+ + +
0 00 T~
~ ~~ 1
U) I~ Ul I 0
~ t--- ...... ...... I.l)
N N N
0
~ C'
It) c
'+ ~ ~-
0 0
0 0
"'Ct' T""'
0000 0
COItlOIl)
T""' N T""'
> 0
o 0
..c N
co
U)
aJ
CD
E
co
CIJ X
>: Q) T""'
o I-N
.c 0"-
co m
U) 0.
CD C'IJ
Q) :E
E N
co ~
CIJ T""'
~gg~
.c NN
ctI
U)
co
Q)
E
co:
CIJ
00 0
m 1.0 (t)
..- t.O
CIJ
a
('I')
+"
o
,....
L..,.
Q)
>
o
o
~
~
N
+
o
1.0
co
;;
o
..c
co
U)
ctJ
Q)
E
co
(IJ
C'\I
L.
Q)
>
o
:t:
c:
~
+"
o
~
C"')
o
1.0
"'Ct':t::t:::
~~~
o 0 ...r
++'i
1.01.00
"I;t"l;tC\f
('t)C"')~
o
o
N
o
~
N
.....
~
l.O&I}ltll.Ol.OlO
r--.,....r--.r--.r---......
NNNNNN
o
o
N
10001.0 0
r--. l.O l.O r--. l.O
NNNN N
&2
z
uo
ZZ
o
OU)<q'
ge~
uig~
g ffi 10 CD
00>"""'5
ll"ig~li;~
co .~>co
~'tn8~6
't) g +. ~ ~
~~~~~
~ ~~.1; a
acoc:0>2
~.s~~1no
"'CCI):::IQ..Oo
~$~C6}~
~~se~;S
ua.OG~O
00000000
N(f)..-l.ON"I;tCOCO
"I;tr--.m"l;t"l;tN
-N"
o
C>
,....
ClJf2
-(9
C>"I;t
t.O M
M+
+l.O
lO tl)
co ......
o
o
o
o~
(t)
L.
Q)
~~g~~g~g:t:~~~g~
NNT""NC\fT'"'N(t)c:U.
~~
+ +
00
00
('I) ('I)
UJ
e _ ~ E
& en & > E "
E~ E _ U 8~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~U) ~~
_~~ ~ ~ ~c: ~~
~E~~~ ~~ 8 0 c:c:
c <t Q.l ~ Q.l c :t: .- m :;: Q) Q)
~~~~~ ~ ~~s ~~ ~I ~~ ~~
~c~>m~ ~ ~s~~o~ ~E ma cc U)
mm0m0U 0 UUJ~~~U ~ ~~ ~~e 5
en c:>> 0:: ::) <( ..... 0 .... ::s :... C c. :s ~ U;I t>> <( '-;;:;; tI) .-
:t "- - C - T'"' U) 0 C 0 :sa Co Q.l CI.1 "C - 0 .- - a: ~ c: 15.
t~m~~CU)~~~C~CC00~~2~~ ~~ <~8~
o 0 0 'g. 0 co e 5 < '- .2 n; 0 GJ e l! w ::J <( cD 0:: c: - - ~x
~~~E~~5u~o~~~~cu~_~~~t>>gc~~oo~w
a~~~gS~<oN+m~;~'o~~~u~~~~~~~~~
N U C C _ C Q) '1 ...... 0 0 c. -g ~ ~ ~ ~ ,- -.;;; .> "C 0 'C ~ Q) " Q) 4> ~ ~,
~ ~ .s ,~ u.. ,'1 -I r- tb 'C N ITI 5: ,11 9 n ~ l-i! ~ ;; J,S'15 ~ Jrl ~ I-I!.) I!.) I-I"') I
~~
~r
tD
'Y
C\~
000 a a a l.() 00
~ ~~~ a a N ~~
() N (')
c::
Q)
"E
CO'
C)
Lt) ~
N
o :>
Q) :> -> :> ~:::~
~ ~~~ :> v -" + ~.e;
+ + + :> +-' 0
co 000 "C "C ~~~
() a 0 a ~ ~ <(<{
(W) CO') ('<') + + LO+LO + +
000 a 0 T + 0 + -I o a
000 t.() l.O 000 00
T""" T""" T""" T""" ...... 1.0 ...... 1.0
a I a a I lO lO
a ~15 .q- ,.... ,.....
CD
CD c:::!
OJ ~
co
w + 15 --
o~
00
'V......
0
.!2 1.0
N
co
U-
c::
~
00'
~ ~ ~ ~ lO 1.0
c: 'O'Ooan
'0 0
1i) ~~~ ~ ~:5g~
'3= 000 a
ID +++ + ......0
...J + + + "5
000 a ~~~~
coo a
(') ('l') ('<') C"')
...... ...... ...... Q) N o~~ ~ (0')("')......
~~~ J- ~ ......T"""~
('IJ a ~~~a
a. 0)
E Ci ~~ci~
co co
~ Lt'>lI)......cu
Z ~~~~
N
e NNC\I(I)
000100 a a 10 0 00 a
~ lOO~~~ a ~ ,.... co 00 0
c: (') N ......
co 0 T""" T""" '0
:c ~ 2i
"C: 1.0
Q) "+ ~~
~ a
0 00
-.::t ('l') ......
LO 0 0 0100 a a
.q- 0 ~ (f) a 0)
c. CD ...... ......
co
~
(f)
a-a:
Lt)ca
~ '+16
c: 0(1)
::J ~a
0 a
U 0 No 1O
co LO 0 +1O
to (')
'0 ('l') ON '-
~ ~ '- 0+ Q)
Q) T""" 1.0 >
> > ......N 0
0 ~!Q ~~!Q
15 (5 15-
;:: J!!C) =xC> ~ c:::!ca
COco ~b~
+ C!C"') +" :::C!
+ + -- + + +
lO lOa CC\l') 0 L() a
U; ......0 C\IlO..... a NN
-- co-.::t NtOM co
~ 0 ooooaoaooaoooLOO
~ CON-.::tNN-v'V'VN('l')mN......l.O......
...........C\I............ ...... ...... ......
Q) T"""
"~ lO fJ}
OLl) ca
m IV
E
co
Cf.)
~
1: g,
_ e ~ w~ ~
~ -~ ~ ~~ ~ +-,g~ ~ S
c ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~i; g :~~!
,g ~ & E~ ~ men C08~ Q) ~B~ < u~~
1ii = l1J "C U ';;: ir S G.lE:; ~ g a. a.. 15. e Q) ~ ": e
u 5 ~ ~~ ~~ em au~~= ~Q) a~c. ~ .E~en
:: ra Q) ,! en cu ~ Q. 0 .Q 0 Q. C 0 :a 6 c: CD 'S: 10 :;::: ~ C. -.J .5 0 = ~
c. :; en ~ = u E :;: = '0 tn 0 'ii ~ Z .2 ~ Q) e aJ;> <( ~ E (J C) .!!
c. e ::J Q.I "c 10 c - B tn U) ':; AI 'en > :t Q) fJ} 0 0:: 5 c.,~ '0 ~ C'G "C 0:: (I) >
ct ~ ~ "C E ~ u.; ,~ ~ ~ -a ~ (5:a E c ~ - .~ ~ ..;:. Q) c: ai E 8 6> Q) .2 en c( 0 B ~
~~iJ~~~~~~~~.~ ~~~!~!~_~~5~o~oO::~~~ ~~u~
~u~~OSmm~o;c(E~~~Q)wu~~w~ ~ga.Q)5~~=m--~~
~lgg~I~~~~~~~~o~~i~~i~o~~()~~()-~~j:x:~I~~~~II~~
~~~~~~~~o<>~~~ ~~~~m ~ ~NW OO~~~~~~~
f)
~
<...n
....~
i
HAWL~ l' TROXELL EN N IS cSt HAWLEY LLP
A LIMITED LJABILITY PARTNERSHIP OF ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
ROBERT S. ERICKSON
877 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1000
POST OFFICE BOX 1617
BOISE, IDAHO 83701-1617
EMail: RSE@HTEH.COM
TELEPHONE (208) 344-6000
FACSIMILE (208) 342-3829
December 12, 1997
Walt Morrow
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Street
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Walt:
You asked for advice on the City of Meridian's ability to receive tax deductible
donations for the construction of a public park. Contributions to the city for the construction of
a park are deductible to the same extent as contributions to private non-profit organizations, so
long as the contribution is intended as a gift, made without expectation of return or compensation,
and is made for exclusively public purposes.
Section 170( c) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that charitable contributions
include "a contribution or gift to or for the use of a state, a possession of the United States or any
political subdivision of any of the foregoing . . . but only if the contribution or gift is made for
exclusively public purposes. II The IRS has indicated its acceptance of park development as a
public purpose by using a city's development of a park as an example in regulations relating to
conditional gifts. Reg. Sec. 1.170A-l (e) states that gifts or contributions for charitable purposes
are not deductible if they are made dependent upon the performance of some act or future event,
unless the possibility that the charitable transfer will not become effective is so remote as to be
negligible. Included in the text of this regulation is the following example: itA transfers land to
a city government for as long as the land is used by the city for a public park. If on the date of
the gift the city does plan to use the land for a park and the possibility that the city will not use
the land for a public park is so remote as to be negligible, A is entitled to a deduction under
Section 170 for his charitable contribution."
It makes no difference that the donor is a corporation or other entity so long as
the contribution is made as a gift, and not in anticipation of some benefit or to fulfil some legal
requirement. A gift will not lose its charitable status if made with the expectation of receiving
an incidental benefit such as the improvement of the donor's relationship with the city or an
incidental increase in property value. Meyers v. U.S., 81-1 U8TC, (Dec. 30, 1980).
877 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1000
POST OFFICE BOX 1617
BOISE, IDAHO 83701-1617
TELEPHONE (208) 344-6000
FACSIMILE (208) 342-3829
371 WALNUT AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 297
KETCHUM, IDAHO 83340-0297
TELEPHONE (20S) 726-1700
FACSIMILE (208) 726-9743
333 SOUTH MAIN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 100
POCATELLO, IDAHO 83204-0100
TELEPHONE (208) 233-0845
FACSIMILE (208) 233-1304
S: \AUTl-KlR\GlL \ LETTER\t-KlRR~. RSE
I
HAWLEY TROXELL EN N IS \ <..x. HAWLEY LLP
Walt Morrow
December 12, 1997
Page 2
In order to remove any ambiguity regarding the purpose of the donations, the city
council should adopt a resolution declaring its intention to develop a park, stating its fmding that
the construction of the park will serve a public purpose, and establishing a special fund in which
donations for the development of the park will be maintained. Thereafter, the city should request
that donors indicate in writing that their contributions are being made for the development of the
park. The city can also create this written record by acknowledging the contributions through
thank you letters which indicate that the contribution was designated for the development of the
park. The letter may also say that the contribution is tax deductible to the extent permitted by
applicable law.
It is possible to establish a separate organization for the purpose of raising tax-
deductible contributions for the development of the park. However, the use of such an
intermediary organization is not necessary and will not add to the deductibility of contributions.
I hope the above information is helpful. Please call me or my associate Gabrielle
Lessard at 344-6000 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP
?A-
Robert S. Ericksen
RSE:mez
s: \AUTHOR\GLL \LETIER\HORROW .RSE