HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 04-01MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1997 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 18,1997:
(APPROVED)
PROCLAMATION: MARCH FOR PARKS DAY:
1. TABLED MARCH 4, 1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (TABLED UNTIL MAY 6, 1997)
2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO I -L BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURASKO: (APPROVE
AMENDED FINDINGS; APPROVE DECISION; CIN ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
AN ANNEXATION ORDINANCE)
3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO I -L BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: (APPROVE AMENDED
FINDINGS; APPROVE DECISION; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE)
4. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 18,1997: REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST
INC.: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 15, 1997)
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK BY MERIDIAN LDS CHURCH:
(APPROVE FINDINGS; APPROVE DECISION)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES TO T -E BY B.W. INC.: (APPROVE FINDINGS;
APPROVE DECISION; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ANNEXATION
ORDINANCE)
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF MERIDIAN MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMY BY JOINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2: (TABLED UNTIL APRIL 15, 1997)
8. PUBLIC HEARING= REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF EXPANDED BLEACHER SEATING, ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, AND MOVING OF TWO RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS BY
JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS;
APPROVE DECISION)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 9.42
ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-15 BY LORIN SAUNDERS: (TABLED UNTIL APRIL
15, 1997)
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPARKLING
SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY CARRIE HOMES INC.: (APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS)
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 8.38
ACRES OF LAND FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS:
(APPROVE FINDINGS; APPROVE DECISION; CIN ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE A REZONE ORDINANCE)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA 44 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH
A 16 UNIT ALZHEIMER WING, 10 GARDEN APARTMENTS AND A TWO
STORY 106 SUITE RETIREMENT COMPLEX: (APPROVE FINDINGS;
APPROVE DECISION)
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A SEWER EASEMENT
BY BERTA NEELY (NAPA AUTO PARTS): (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE EASEMENT)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF LOT 36, BLOCK 1 OF HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY
PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE TO VACATE EASEMENT)
15. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON GEMTONE CENTER NO. 2 FINAL
PLAT: (APPROVE ONE YEAR EXTENSION)
16. CESCO LATE COMERS AGREEMENT:
17. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED)
18. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED)
19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. SHARI STILES, PLANNING &ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. DOUG OLSON: 1 -ACRE LOT SPLIT IN MERIDIAN AREA OF IMPACT:
(APPROVED)
B. GARY SMITH, CIN ENGINEER:
1. ARCHITECT FOR SPACE STUDY: (APPROVED TO CONTRACT WITH
ZGA FOR $20,000)
C. WAYNE CROOKSTON:
1. PRESENTATION BY BILL SCHWARTZ ON BOND FORFEITURE
PROCEDURES:
D. WALT MORROW:
1. $25 GIFT CERTIFICATES TO EMPLOYEES: (APPROVED)
E. GLENN BENTLEY:
I. UPDATE ON RAIL STUDY.-
F.
TUDY:
F. MAYOR CORRIE:
1. APPOINT BYRON SMITH TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEAT #3: (APPROVED)
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 1, 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: Wait Morrow, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Dave
Bowman, Jim Johnson, Donna Pierce, Dan Sanford, Doc Schlekeway, Dan Johnson,
Bay Scout Troop #130, Tammy DeWeerd, John McCreedy, Jim Howard, Gary Lee, Jim
Witherell, Dan Torf n, Wayne Thowless, Jim Carberry, Lorin Saunders, Vern Alleman,
Melinda Belt, Charles Stewart, Keith Jacobs, John Sanford, Melissa LeC lerc, Tom
Eddy, Bill Schwartz:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1997:
Corrie: I will entertain a motion on those minutes.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the minutes of the meeting held March 18.
Tolsma: Second
Carrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the minutes of
the Meeting held March 18, all those in favor's Opposed'
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
PROCLAMATION: MARCH FOR PARKS DAY:
Corrie: WHEREAS, April 19, 1997 has been established as "March for Parks" day; and
WHEREAS, "March for Parks" day has been established nationwide as a demonstration
of public concern over the condition of the nation's parks and public spaces; and
WHEREAS, these events will not only raise awareness, but also necessary funds for
park improvement, protection and education projects benefiting national, state and local
public parks; and WHEREAS, those participating in March for Parks are demonstrating
that they are committed to protecting and revitalizing our national treasures for
generations to come; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation commission, the
Treasure Valley Volksports and the Meridian High School Boosters are sponsoring a
MARCH FOR PARKS event on April 19, 1997 which will take place at Storey Park, and
the funds raised will specifically benefit the parks facilities and recreational opportunities
in Meridian, Idaho; NOW, THEREFORE, i, Robert D. Corrie, Mayor of Meridian, Idaho,
do hereby proclaim April 19, 1997 as MARCH FOR PARKS DAY in Meridian and call
upon the residents of this city to observe and participate in this day, as well as the days
ahead, with sensitivity and respect for the nation's precious parks and public spaces.
Now 1 would like to have our Parks and Recreation Commissioner present this
(inaudible)
�r
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1007
Page 2
DeWeerd: I did ask Mayor Corrie if I could have a few minutes to address the March for
Parks. I know you have a full agenda so I will try and make it short. I know I am not a
very wordy person. I wanted to make sure that it is noted that the March for Parks is a
community event. It is organized and sponsored by the community for the community.
That is why I would like to recognize our organizing sponsor groups and the March for
Parks supporting sponsors. Our organizing sponsors are the City of Meridian Parks and
Recreation Commission, the Treasure Valley Volksports and the Meridian High School
Boosters. I think that the Commission is well represented here, two of us have been
really deeply involved with it but a lot of our other commission members are sponsors
as you will note when I read the sponsor list. The Treasure Valley Vol ksports are the
reason we are having this event. They came to us and perhaps at first were a little
bowled over by our enthusiasm. But we work well together and they will primarily be in
charge of the logistics of the walk. They are Dennis Himerick and Glenn and Joann
(Inaudible). We have a representative from the Meridian High School Boosters
(inaudible). We also have a couple of the other committee members here Robert Corval
and also Pam Hutchinson and (inaudible). We also wanted to thank our supporting
sponsors. We thank them for their support we appreciate their pioneering spirit and
commitment to the community by participating and unknown and first annual event. We
are going to prove that their support is well worth it. We are truly excited about the
March for Parks and what it will accomplish raising the awareness of the community to
what we are doing for Parks and Recreation as a City and as well as raising funds. Our
community sponsors we have (inaudible) which are $25 or more. I have talked to these
people and they said they would be here. Coast to Coast Hardware, Gail Bush, Costco,
(inaudible) Beta Sigma Phi, Brenda Van Couvering, Farmers and Merchant State Bank,
Foxtail Golf course, Les Bois Metro online, Meridian Quality Copy and Print, Glen
Hurley, Pioneer Federal Credit Union, St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center. Program
sponsors are $75 or more, All American Insurance Jim Johnson, Body and Balance,
that is my home business, Sanitary Service Inc. Moe Alidjani. Community sponsors are
$125 or more and Moe I put you in there and I know you want to be further up the list
(inaudible). Awards R Us, Gary or Sheryl (Inaudible), Cherry Lane Golf course, Lucky
Peak Nursery, Meridian Ford, Seal Company Paula Devaney, western Ada Recreation
District, Wait Casey, (inaudible). our business sponsors are $250 or more, A Laser
Copy and Print, Borup Construction. Major Business Sponsors $500 or more Artech
Holly Hoffberg, Holly is donating our March for Parks banner. Tzers Shirt Shop, Steve
Bravo. He has been doing our T-shirts so all of you will be sporting them soon. US
Bank of Idaho, Terry Smith, The Police Activities League, Meridian Athletic Association,
Keith Bird, Idaho Athletic Club, John Wardle. John is going to present you with T-shirts
or the march. While John does that I do have special thanks to the school district. They
are working with us, we will have lots of kids marching in this. So Chief Joseph, Linder
and Meridian elementary school, Meridian High School, Meridian Middle School and I
would also like to thank the Meridian Historical Society, COP's, Ladies of the Red
Cross, Meridian Dairy Board, Meridian chamber of Commerce, the Valley News, Silver
Sage Girl Scouts, and of course Councilman Rountree, will Berg who set up our
accounts and Mayor Corrie. We appreciate al of your help. And I think after hearing my
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 3
list there you can see that the community is making this happen. I also am pleased to
officially hand you a pledge form and I do look forward to having you join us the day of
this event and celebrating our current and future park projects. Thank you very much
for your time and the proclamation.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I would like to recommend that we give a big hand to all of the
members of the committee and all of the corporate sponsors and company sponsors
they have all done a heck of a fine job for us and it is a great event. I would urge all of
you that are here for other reasons to support this issue also when it comes time to do
this.
Corrie: Also at this time I would like to recognize we have a couple scouts here from
Troop ##130 and welcome fellows we appreciate you being here tonight.
ITEM #1: TABLED MARCH 4, 1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Corrie: Mr. Crookston you have some information on that.
Crookston: The information that I have is that the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and
the City still have some items to work out and it is not a done deal yet.
Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I would suggest that we table this until probably
the first meeting in May which would be May 6.
Rountree: second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we table this to the
first meeting in May which is May 6th any further discussion's All those in favor?.
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Council with your permission the City Attorney as requested that we put item
#16 up further the request on Cesco Agreement. So if the Council has no objection we
can move that to the second spot.
ITEM #16: CESCO LATE COMERS AGREEMENT:
Corrie: Is there a representative from Cesco here this evening?
McCreedy: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, John McCreedy
representing CESCO. We have been trying to hammer out what is now called the partial
amended development agreement for this property. You may recall we had a principal
�l.
t
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 4
issue of the Five Mile Trunk Sewer extension when we were doing the conditional use
permit application on that. My client CESCO agreed to participate in the construction of
that extension if it wasn't constructed by another party either with or without CESCO
within the next five years. And the city Attorney and I have been hammering out the
Language on that. We have one issue that remains and that is should the Five Mile
Trunk Extension if it has to be constructed by CESCO be extended to CESCO's eastern
or western boundary. Now I did submit a letter to you earlier today short two page letter
and I provided copies to Mr. Berg earlier this evening so I was hoping that you might
have a chance to just briefly review that issue. In light of that I would like to take a very
short couple of minutes and give you some background. First I have a document that I
would like to pass out if I might. What it is, basically is our version of what the Five Mile
Trunk Sewer extension should be. I understand city policy is that the developer or city
property owner should extend the surer line to the farthest point in the boundary. Fully
agree with that, when the next person down the line doesn't have sewer and it needs to
continue to run in a logical fashion. I think the exception that should be made in this
case is basically a factual one. You may remember and be familiar with the Playground
property. Lot 2 of the Playground property already has adequate sewer service. You
heard some testimony when we were doing the conditional use permit to that effect from
Mr. Howard. He is here again tonight and I would ask that he have just a few minutes to
kind of briefly recap that issue and briefly explain to you how CESCO is going to hook
up temporarily to that sewer service for five years. So our position is that it doesn't'
make a tremendous amount of sense to extend the, if the Five Mile Trunk Sewer
Extension has to be built to extend it to the CESCO western boundary. Because the
only property that could be served by that is Lot 2 of the Playground Subdivision which
is owned by the Playground and they already have adequate sewer service. In fact I
would like to hand to you a copy of a couple of pages from the development agreement
that was entered into between the Clark's Playground and the City and in that
development agreement the Playground agreed to provide their own sewer service. In
fact they agreed at that time to provide sewer service to the lot that we eventually
bought but that never came about. There was never sewer service provided to that lot.
But they did, provide in compliance with that agreement, I have highlighted the relevant
provisions of that for you. Their agreement to provide sewer service to their own
property. So we don't think it makes much sense to impose upon CESCO the economic
burden of ripping up the extensive landscaping that they are going to put in here in the
next few months and running a sewer line approximately 400 to 465 feet to the west to
serve a piece of property that already has adequate sewer. our goal tonight is not to
have this thing extended for another couple of months to do this issue. In that regard I
have brought original partial emended development agreements that I would like to give
to the City Attorney and I have attached to this as exhibit B the issue that we are
debating tonight. That is the diagram that I provided you earlier. We are ready to go, we
are ready to sign, we have signed in fact this agreement and my client's signature has
been notarized. We are hoping that you will see an exception here for that general
policy. It doesn't seem to make a tremendous amount of sense to impose and it is
approximately $30,000 in today's figures to run that line to the western boundary of
{
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 5
CESCO's property. I would stand for any questions that you might have and if not turn
it over to Mr. Howard for a very brief (Inaudible).
Corrie: Thank you
Howard: My name is Jim Howard with JJ Howard Engineering. If you have any
questions, any location, size, depth of manhole whatever that I can, any of the
engineering questions. I have a little, should I place this on the board over there in case
you want to refer to it (Inaudible). This is the CESCO property and this is the
Playground area (Inaudible) portion that now presently has sewer. (Inaudible) The rest
of this is gravity flowing over to Locust Grove. Here is CESCO, this the line they are
building a 2 inch pressure main into a manhole and then gravity all the way over here.
So all of this gravity line (Inaudible) presently being served by a sewer that ranges in a
depth of 5 feet here to probably 8 to 9 feet here. That is the kind of schematic
(inaudible) to a point (inaudible).
Crookston: Mr. Howard, I understood you to indicate that they were extending the
sewer along their southern boundary?
Howard: (Inaudible) and then they would (Inaudible) and run this way with it (Inaudible)
Crookston: That is what my understanding was from my discussion with John McCreedy
was that they wanted to stop the sewer at their eastern boundary.
Howard: (Inaudible) Here is a gravity line that runs all the way (inaudible)
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Howard, if it can be shown in the event that the sewer line that
is currently proposed to terminate at the eastern boundary went to the western
boundary what would the approximate elevation be when it got to the western
boundary?
Howard: I can't speak to that because that is a design (inaudible) perhaps your City
Engineer would know better than I (inaudible).
Morrow: What you are suggesting to us then is currently in order for this line to be
serviced off of the gravity flow line the elevation is not sufficient that it will gravity flow it
is an elevation issue where it has to be a pressure line to get into that gravity flow line.
Howard: At one time we thought that it would serve gravity but this is so much more
than (inaudible) that most, efficient cost (inaudible)
Morrow: Thank you
Corrie: Any further questions
7`
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 6
Bentley: I have one, in the event that proposed sewer line does come up, you say if you
can gravity feed then you will abandon that line?
Howard: Yes (inaudible)
Crookston: Excuse me Mr. Mayor and Council I would like to have Gary Smith make a
comment on this.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, the extension of the sewer line in overland
Road was not only intended to sewer property on the north side but it was also intended
to sewer property on the south side of overland. As the applicant has pointed out the
property on the north side Lot #2 of the Playground Subdivision is apparently sewerable
by the existing private sewer service line that runs through the RV park. We don't know
at this point what the status of the ground to the south is going to be. At one time as you
know it was proposed as a subdivision, since that time 50 some acres I believe has
been sold to the school district the Meridian school district for a high school site. The
frontage remains in the ownership of the original property owner or developer. I don't
believe that there is any problem with elevation on the sewer line as far as extension in
Overland Road. The ground slopes from the Hunter Lateral which crosses overland
Road west of C Esc 0's site. It slopes to the east downward. So I believe where the line
is brought under the Interstate and south to overland Road will have sufficient depth to
extend to the west across the front of CESCO and indeed pick up CESCO's sewage.
The reason that the applicant is here before you tonight is that the policy that we have
established in the past to extend the sewer and or water along the frontages of
properties that develop. Their request was contrary to that policy that is the reason I
asked Wayne to have them come and talk to you.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor and councilmen, it is actually more than a policy it is an
ordinance that requires that for the person that puts in the line to extend it to their
farthest boundary from the point in which the sewer and or water it is the same policy in
both the water and the sewer. They are to extend it to their farthest point from which it
enters.
(Inaudible)
McCreedy: We understand the ordinance and we understand the policy we are asking
for an exception to that and there are two principle reasons for that. one, I think you see
that CESCO has made a commitment to approximately a $300,000 expenditure. If in
fact they can't get that thing constructed in cooperation with some other parties over the
next five years obviously there are some land owners on the south side of overland that
are going to need to be consulted about that including the school district. We are aware
that there are some agreements and some plans already in place where there is some
money dedicated by the school district. So we hope to solve that problem through some
good communication and negotiation. What our principal point is we have made a pretty
serious commitment of $300,000 to take it to at least the eastern boundary our or
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 7
property. we did that commitment because we believed in having a facility in the City of
Meridian. We had an argument that we could have made about a year and a half ago
that we were entitled to a building permit instead of a conditional use permit and an
amended development agreement. I think from my client's standpoint I have to express
to you that they believe that they have done enough. They are looking for a little
reasonableness and a little compromise from the city Council in that regard. That is
quite an expenditure and quite a commitment that they are making. If the property
owners on the south side of the property that would have the ability and the financial
where with all to come and negotiate and get the sewer line from the eastern point I
think they are more than able to do that and more than willing to do that. I also
understand that their driveway is going to line up with our driveway which is on the
eastern side of the facility. So I question why they would want to come across Overland
Road at the western side of the facility to get that particular line. Although I recognize
the status of their site plans and the approval of their plats is a little bit in flux. It is not
exactly clear where they are going to need to do it. What our point is we have made a
serious commitment, we think we have done enough and we are asking for some
reasonableness and some compromise on the City Council's part, that in short is our
request.
Morrow. I have a question of Gary, with respect to the Playground the way that it was
originally approved the sewer line that the Playground was to put in was also to and
through their property was it not? aid they in fact do that?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Morrow, the, as far as I know the
agreement with the Playground was that Lot 1, the driving range which CESCO has
purchased was not sewerab le by gravity. As you know it is in a different drainage area it
is in the Five Mile Drainage area. when the property owner before CESCO, Dr. Clark
came to me one day and asked if they could extend their private sewer line to that lot #1
for a facilities building for the driving range, the ball shack in other words or a place that
may dispense soft drinks and that sort of thing. I wrote a letter to him and said yes you
could if it was physically possible to do that. The reason that I limited that service was
because it is in a different drainage area. There was no prospects at that point that the
Five Mile trunk line was going to be extended in the near future and that was the reason
that I wrote the letter. But I don't believe that the Clark's the developers of the
Playground Subdivision were required to extend sewer through there because it just
physically wasn't possible. The ground elevations would not permit it, the ground is
sloping from the Hunter Lateral to the east, the sewer is sloping from, it is adverse
grade you might say. As Jim Howard pointed out, its present elevation it pokes out of
the ground it is just not deep enough to serve that lot.
Morrow. My question then would be is the ordinance that Attorney Crookston refers to
does it have a provision within that ordinance that allows us not to require them to
sewer to and through their property even though it doesn't meet the grade requirements
or the drainage requirements. Is there provision that allows us to have that exception
and have them not extend that sewer?
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 8
Smith: I can't speak to it Councilman Morrow, I don't know that it does or doesn't. I
don't know if there is a provision for a waiver or not, without looking at it I couldn't tell
you.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, the only provision that the City has to
really get around that requirement is through a variance.
Morrow: Did we give them a variance from that requirement, the Playground's
Crookston: Not to my knowledge.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, a follow up question for Gary, the Voigt property that is across the
street from this particular parcel. That property by and large flows to the east is that
correct?
Smith: Yes 1 believe it does
Morrow: They have an obligation also with respect to the sewer line or the extension of
the sewer line to serve their property do they not?
Smith: Yes
Morrow: And in this case would that obligation be to extend it across the front of their
property to the point of the Hunter Lateral?
Smith: Yes, it would need to be extended as far as it was needed to serve that property.
At this point we don't know where that point is. It wouldn't go, I would not believe that it
would go to the Hunter Lateral because of the way that streets are laid out and lots are
positioned. I think on the preliminary plat and recalling from memory that there was an
access road over there someplace across from CESCO. There wouldn't be any reason
for the sewer line to extend past that if that was indeed where the access paint was
going to be. But I believe that plat has become null and void because of time since it
was approved.
Morrow. Then also if that was the case then we wouldn't have to follow the ordinance
that says that to and through their property. In other words their extension where they
developed first would simply be that portion of their property that could be served by
that line.
Smith: The intent of the ordinance as 1 understand it is to provide the extension of the
sewer and water line so that the adjacent development can pick it up and extend it on
through their property. This property is near the end of that line extension. So there
would be no reason to extend it to the Hunter Lateral and stop it at that point, it can't go
any farther to the west. It would be redundant unless there was a need on the south
side for the sewer line at the Hunter Lateral. Now I can't envision that there would be
k
Meridian city council
April 1 , 1997
Page 9
because the way the ground is sloping to the east. But at some point to the east of the
Hunter Lateral It could be needed.
Morrow: If in the event that the requirement of CESCO was to extend to their western
boundary and the only beneficiary of that is on the south side of the street then would
they be required to reimburse CESCO that cost of that extension through a Late
Comers Agreement or other means?
Smith: Well typically we haven't, unless it is a very restricted use on a sewer or water
line extension we haven't earmarked it as such. It is more generalized in terms of the
number of equivalent residential connections that are being made to the line that has
been extended. Perhaps a late comers agreement could be crafted so that it was
indeed equally shared, the cost, if there were only two users for example.
Morrow: I guess my concern here is that if it is extended that distance to the western
boundary then clearly the only beneficiary to that is the folk to the south side of the road
unless there is some provision for them to reimburse or pay it looks to me like you have
a case for unjust enrichment on their part. That doesn't seem to be fair to me.
Smith: They are the only ones that would be using it. That is right.
Morrow: Thank you
Rountree: I have a question for counsel, it appears that really the only solution if we are
to respond to the request of the applicant is to have this brought to the council in the
form of a variance hearing, correct?
Crookston: That is correct
Rountree: I would suggest that we do that as soon as possible and proceed with
working with the applicant on getting at least the language of the development
agreement worded,
Morrow. I guess my comment would be to that is very candidly from our side as the city
I think we have been remiss at getting this issue handled in a timely manner. I think the
other thing is that if we are going to do the variance route which is the legal way to do it
that we ought in fact instruct our Building department to process those plans and
specifications so that process can be ongoing and permit taken out so folk can begin
their construction as quickly as .possible while we resolve the technical issues. So I
would offer that comment to the Council. I think that we first dealt with this issue if
memory serves me back in October. Here it is April some five months later or six
months later that we are resolving this issue. That is not very timely on our part.
t
t
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 10
Bentley: I would agree, I think we need to as Councilman Rountree stated we need to
get the variance going. And in agreement with Councilman Morrow I feel we need to get
on the way and get this man his permit so they can get started on their building.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: The only concern that I have is that the property directly west of the CESCO
property we have no idea what use that will be put to. It is right now is in the Clark's
ownership whether or not that can be sold and the buyer need eventual sewage I have
no idea. That is the reason it was my understanding that the original extension of the
sewer line to the west was set to go to CESCO's western boundary so that property to
the west of CESCO could possibly connect to it. If tat can be severed by means of the
private line that the Playground now has the Clark's that is totally acceptable to me but it
is a private line. It is not a City line, that line does empty into a City of Meridian line in
Locust Grove Road but it is a private line right now. Is that not correct Gary?
Smith: Yes that is right.
Morrow. [does that line gravity flow at the current time?
Smith: As far as I know, I know it gravity flows through the RV park, I don't know how far
beyond the RV park that line was extended.
Morrow: Mr. Howard may I see your map please? At the point of the green at the round
point that is point of connection?
Howard: (Inaudible)
Morrow: And is currently exists and was functioning before its gravity flow line? At what
point is the private line?
Howard: The private line extends (Inaudible) on the east side of Locust Grove
(inaudible)
Morrow. Follow up for Gary, where is the, does the private line start at Locust Grove's
Smith: The private line starts at the fine in Locust Grove correct, not at the right of way
but at the sewer line.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, how large is that line?
Howard: This is a 6 inch and (inaudible) right now there is only one, no one being
served by that sanitary sewer even with the exception of these few service lines by
(inaudible) you really wouldn't want it any larger than that (inaudible)
r+I1'
C
Meridian City council
April 1, 1997
Page 11
Corrie: 1 guess it seems like we have a fairly good consensus of what we want to do is
to have them move on with their project and we'll have the variance put together for us.
If you want to go ahead and start the
Bentley: I have one more question, on that existing B inch line there is no actual
obligation on that field to sewer to that line is there?
Crookston: Linder our ordinance the Clark's were supposed to or should have extended
that sewer to and through their property which would have extended to their eastern
boundary which is the western boundary of CESCO's property.
Bentley: But basically what that design shows on that map that they have done that.
Crookston: That is correct but it is not a public line it is a service line.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to take the steps to
complete the development agreement, that we instruct Mr. McCreedy and his client
CESCO to immediately apply for the variance that is needed. We also instruct the city
building department to immediately begin processing of the building permits and the
plans and specifications in preparation to award a building permit to proceed upon
completion of the variance and for the staff to expedite the variance process.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, you heard the motion,
any further discussion? All those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Crookston: I have one more question Mr. McCreedy do we have a new child?
McCreedy: (Inaudible)
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING TO I -L BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURASKO:
Corrie: Counselor?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, what is cleaned up I believe it is paragraph 22.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I have a question or I guess a comment, question or comment or
both. Findings of fact do clean up the issues we were kind of concerned about. I guess
my question is this particular parcel does not have a development plan (Inaudible)
annexation and zoning (inaudible). It seems to me in the plat process or on the plat
there should be some kind of notification that there are pending issues to be dealt with
�Lr
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 12
prier to development. I don't want to see the City get into a position somewhat what
similar as memory now is beginning to serve me as the last issue and the Playground
by which we have to compromise City ordinances and City standards in order to make
(inaudible) somebody gets themselves upside down. The facts I think are that when
properties are sold folk don't see the findings of fact and conclusions of law and those
types of things. I guess that what I would like to see Is some type of reasonable
notification to the public that there are issues there that have to be dealt with so that
future councils and future owners or whatever that have to deal with the issue to
develop it or at least be aware that they need to research further. I offer that (inaudible)
for discussion by the council.
Rountree: As an additional conclusion to the findings or looking for some other
mechanism say as note on the plat or deed restriction.
Morrow: It could be any of the above, perhaps Gary can tell us the best way to serve
notice that there are issues to be dealt with.
Smith: Mayor and Council and Councilman Morrow there is a distinct possibility that
there would be no final plat on this piece of property that it could be developed as a
single user so there wouldn't be any requirement (End of Tape)
Morrow. Let me ask you this, Mr. Crookston if the development agreement was
(inaudible) would it show (inaudible) would someone have to receive a copy of that so
that they would become aware that there are special (inaudible)
Crookston: If it is stated in a development agreement that is to be done I am quite
certain but not absolutely certain that the title company would state that. But that is only
stated to the people that get copies of that title insurance report which would be the
prospective buyer but what they do it with it totally up to them.
Morrow. Do you have a suggestion as to the best way to serve notice that there are
specials issues with this property?
Crookston: I would say that the best thing to do is to have that in the development
agreement as to what the city wants and that the property owner must inform any
prospective buyers of their restrictions in the development agreement. Again though it is
just like a speed limit sign. How do you, what do you do when somebody goes faster
and how do you enforce it.
Morrow. I guess my perspective the Issue with the City and future councils and future
staffs is that I don't want them put in the position where they are forced to accept
something less than what the City requirements because somebody pleads they didn't
know or that it ought to be (Inaudible).
Meridian City council
April 1, 1997
Page 13
Crookston: You can put it in the development agreement that the City will not do
anything with the property until they know that a or the prospective buyer or buyers
have been so informed.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and council on page 19 of the findings under paragraph 17 it states
that it is concluded that it is more appropriate for a development agreement to be
entered into when plans for development of the property are determined 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. It is very hard to enter
into a development agreement when absolutely no plans are none or suggested. I think
it would probably be easier and more appropriate to have some kind of a deed
restriction.
Loveless: Keith Loveless from Loveless Engineering, my suggestion here Mr. Marrow
and councilmen would be to put the development agreement together as we see it
today with the conditions before that are in here and that we do a deed, a (inaudible) the
Murasko's with that becoming a part of the deed, attached to the deed and then that
would always be found by any title company that research the project and would go out
with any title policy. Then all you have to do is basically I believe it is in there that this
development agreement has to run with the land it and can't not be removed except by
the council and l think that would protect the city. Due notice to any potential buyer.
Corrie: I guess Council do you want to have that redone in your findings of fact or do
you want to work with it?
Morrow. I guess from my position Mr. Mayor I feel that the findings of fact that we have
before us could be amended to incorporate the verbiage for a deed restriction and the
process to get that deed restriction through he reconveyance or whatever immediately.
Ms. Stiles accurately discussed the development agreement and the problem with the
development agreement prior to actual development. So the deed restriction appears to
me to be the best way to do it. So I w►rould favor using these findings of fact and
conclusions but adding some short paragraph in terms of the deed restriction.
Corrie: Any comment from Council?
Rountree: I agree let's not extend this any further.
Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I would like to move that we adapt and approve
these findings of fact and conclusions of law with an additional paragraph to be worked
out by the city Attorney discussing the deed restriction for the development agreement
and the reconveyance of the deed.
Bentley: Second
i
E
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997"
Page 14
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the findings of
fact and conclusions as amended, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -- Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian city Council of the City of Meridian hereby decides
that the property set forth in the application should be approved for annexation and
zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions as
amended. That if the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and
conclusions as amended or is not agreeable with entering into the development
agreement and adopting covenants conditions, restrictions, deed restrictions the
property should not be annexed. There shall be no development or use whatever of the
property set forth in the application for any other than in a part of a mixed planned
development. All uses of the land must be approved under the conditional use permit
process.
Tolsma: second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision as stated,
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.
Bentley: second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to have the City Attorney
prepare an ordinance, any further discussion? All those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING TO I -L BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.:
Corrie: Council do you have those findings in front of you? I have a question, I believe
the counselor you had some changes, did we get those?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council the changes were basically the same as they were
for Murasko.
Corrie: I guess they are not in this one.
f
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 15
Crookston: You should have new ones. Most of it is in paragraph 22 in the conclusions.
Rountree: It looks the same to me as previous.
Morrow: So what was the verbiage supposed to be?
Crookston: It is basically the same as Murasko.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I will read item 22 as it should be. The current one says the
applicant shall be required to connect to the property to Meridian water and sewer and
resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the property. The desired
amendment is 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 such things that the applicants or
their successors (Inaudible). The previously mentioned water and sewer requirements
shall be performed on or before the time that the applicants or their successors desire to
use the property or place a user on the property.
Corrie: Is everybody following what we have done here?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would offer another change in condition 23 to be consistent with
the language in condition ##13. That we add for consideration last part of that sentence
that it shall only be developed under the conditional use process as described in
condition number 13.
Morrow: So you are adding as described in condition #13.
Corrie: Any other corrections or revisions? I will entertain a motion at this point.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as amended.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the findings of
fact and conclusions of law of the Planning and Zoning Commission as amended, any
further discussion?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have one question to ask of Shari and that is on the buffering
issue. Is it not design by ordinance that they cannot use utility areas as part of the
buffering?
Stiles: councilman Bentley and Mayor and council yes that is correct, the specific
ordinance excludes any of the utilities as part of the planting strip.
Meridian city council
April 1, 1997
Page 16
Bentley: And in this property are there utility easements?
Stiles: Yes
Bentley: Is that not part of the plan for the buffering?
Stiles: In the proposed plat they show a 20 foot utility irrigation and drainage easement
and they are also showing that as their landscape lot. The easement that has been
granted to Idaho Power Company many years ago basically includes about the whole
section. It is not defined, so at the time that they develop this property they will have to
go back to Idaho Power and develop and enact easement for those utility poles. The
utility poles shows, it looks I i ke they are about right on the property line itself. So I
would think that they would need five to ten feet on either side of those poles as an
easement.
Bentley: And then the buffering would go beyond that?
Stiles: I would be required to be beyond that utility easement.
Bentley: Thank you
Tolsma: I have a question for flus. Stiles. Page 30, item E, appropriate berming and
landscaping who deems what is appropriate.
Stiles: I believe you do Mr. Tolsma. For those lots adjacent to the existing residential
those would all have to come in as a conditional use permit and I guess that is when it
would be determined if it was appropriate for those adjacent residential properties. That
is the only, and the use that they are proposing.
Tolsma: Is that a landscape agreement for that then, that is when we deem what is
appropriate for that?
Stiles: I guess it wouldn't be resolved really for those particular lots until they did come
in with a conditional use permit application and that conditional use was granted, As far
as the rest of it, if you are proposing that the rest of it not be under the conditional use
permit it will just be through our normal review of the application when it comes in for a
building permit.
Tolsma: Well the question I was asking was what is, who determines what is
appropriate (inaudible)
Stiles: That is not a very good word, appropriate, it is very hard to define and it depends
on who is looking at it.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 17
Tolsma: who interprets what is appropriate?
Stiles: It is kind of
Tolsma: (Inaudible) is this part of the deal? It is not going to be done piece meal per lot
it is going to be done all (inaudible).
Stiles: 1 believe they proposed that the landscape strip along Franklin will be done and
the planting strip adjacent to the residential properties will be done at one time.
Tolsma: And this will be part of the development agreement then?
Stiles: Yes, we haven't finalized anything on the development agreement it needs quite
a bit more refinement before I would feel comfortable with it. But I think it is possible
(inaudible)
Corrie: Will that landscaping be done before any building permits are issued?
Stiles: I wouldn't guarantee that but I believe that was their representation when they
came in.
Morrow. I offer, the development agreement if this is a phased project like any phased
project then the landscaping issues are done as the phases are completed prior to lot
sales that is part of the platting process or development agreement or whatever. So if
the whole subdivision was going to be developed for sale at once then with the
exception of the things that were conditional use permitted then all of the other
landscaping would be going in at the development time. It would be operation at that
time. So does that answer your question and that would be spelled out in the
development agreement that we would be drafting up or amending.
Stiles: If Council would choose to have that language typically a plat can be recorded
and lots sold prior to any Improvements being made. But there would be no building
permits issued.
Morrow. And that is the method by which we make sure all of those improvements are
in. This is not different a commercial subdivision is no different than how we do a
residential subdivision. And that is the method by which we handle that in a residential
subdivision. So the answer to IIJ'Ir. Tolsma's question is the landscaping per phase would
be completed prior to building permits being issued.
Stiles: In residential subdivisions we have issued building permits prior to all of the
landscaping being done particularly when the timing of the season (inaudible)
Morrow. And those can be bonded around is that correct?
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 18
Stiles: Right
Morrow: So we have a procedure for handling that.
Corrie: Any further discussion?
Crookston: I had changed these findings, I had a fax today from vary Lee and I
changed that and I changed the findings of fact and conclusions of law. I thought that
my secretary had printed them, these are not the way that I changed them.
Bentley: Are they the way we changed them'
Crookston: They should be yes, but quite frankly (would have to sit down and read
them to make sure.
Morrow: So what are you proposing?
Crookston: I would propose that you table the matter and look at them corrected as they
should be corrected. What the changes, some of the changing was as far as the
conditional uses, it was not a standard requirement throughout the entire subdivision
and property that the applicant obtain a conditional use permit for every use that they
were going to have on the property. It was to be and this was the council's decision
was that the conditional uses would be required for any lots that were adjacent to
residences along Locust Grove Road but it had to be a back to back, when I say
adjacent it had to be back to back, corner to corner to count and that type of thing.
Thirteen then is in conflict with paragraph 23. why don't we go forward.
Corrie: Are you comfortable with your (inaudible)
Crookston: Yes I ani now, I was looking through this and I was not paying attention to
the motion. I apologize.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, we had a motion to approve of the
findings of fact and conclusions of law of the city council as amended, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow --Yea, Bentley -- Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma --- Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Vote on the decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City council hereby decide that the property set
forth in the application be annexed and zoned light industrial capable of development
only as allowed and set forth herein these amended findings of fact and conclusions
under the conditions. Including the applicant or its successors, interest assigns enter
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 19
into a development agreement and that if the applicant is not agreeable with these
findings of fact and conclusions of law as amended are not agreeable with entering into
the development the property should not be annexed.
Rountree: second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Marrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision as read,
any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Marrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance for annexation.
Tolsma: second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we have the City
Attorney draw up an ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 18,1997: REQUEST FOR
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST
INC.-
Corrie:
NC:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative of the
subdivision to come forward.
Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: I believe the continuation this evening was coupled to the annexation request on
item 3. At this point I would welcome any questions that the Council may have
concerning the preliminary plat as submitted.
Corrie: Any questions?
Rountree: Just an observation, it appears to me that some of the conditions of
annexation are going to impact your plat as presented. I would suggest that we either
continue the hearing or
Lee: Are you talking about the utility easements?
Rountree: Yes
Meridian City Council
April 1,'1997
Page 20
Lee: Yes, you are right, it may impact a few of those lots on the second phase of the
project. I did walk that site before the last public hearing to take a look at those poles for
myself. Part of them on the northerly portion I would say at least half are located about
30 off of the property, on Monty McClure's property. That won't affect phase 1 , phase 2
there are some poles there that are situated near the boundary, I think there was one
that was on our property and the rest were on the neighbors property. But, whatever
easement that Idaho bower would require on the maintenance of those poles we will
have to talk to them and decide what it should be and identify it on our preliminary and
final plats and shift everything over that amount. I don't think it will be much.
Corrie: Any other questions of Mr. Lee? Anyone else from the public that would dike to
enter testimony at this time?
Jim Witherell, 215 south Locust Grove, Meridian, was sworn by the city Attorney.
witherell: We would like this extended too, we don't have any idea of what these
conditions are that are being imposed, we are being held in suspense. So before I go
shooting my mouth off on what we think we should have which we may have already
got we would like this extended. Thank you
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time?
Council, questions of staff? Do you wish to continue the public hearing?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we continue the public hearing to the
April 15.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion?
Question Gary would that give you enough time?
Lee: (Inaudible)
Corrie: All those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK BY MERIDIAN LDS CHURCH:
Morrow: Mr. Mayor on that set of findings of fact and conclusions of law I have a
question with respect to on page B, item 7, 1 for the life of me can't figure out this is
supposed to be part of these findings of fact and conclusions. Item 7 says that there
does not appear, there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or
convenience to the applicant. If the variance is not granted the house would be required
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 21
to be moved which would require it be demolished and construction started over. But it
is not the applicant that created the ordinance violation. That the ordinance has been
changed since the subdivision plat was approved and the house setback now meets the
current setback requirements. It would be in the best interest of the City to grant a
variance. It can't be applied to the LDS church can it.
Crookston: Well all I need to do is (inaudible)
Morrow: So the issue here is that (inaudible) is there something of substance that we
are missing in these findings of fact and conclusions?
Crookston: This paragraph does not apply whatsoever to this application.
Corrie: I think you pulled this out of a different program. It would be apropos if it were a
neighborhood I think. If you want to delete it would be proper to delete it.
Crookston: You could delete it.
Morrow: what should the paragraph say?
Crookston: The only thing that would apply to this would be the last sentence or last
clause.
Marrow: So you mean the last clause that says the City's current set back requirements
that it would be in the best interest of the City to grant the variance?
Crookston: I would just leave the paragraph to say that it would be in the best interest of
the City to grant the variance.
Corrie: So item #7 would read, take out everything except it would be in the best interest
of the City to grant the variance, is that correct?
Crookston: That is correct
Morrow. And then items A through D stay the same and item 9 (inaudible)
Crookston: That is correct.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the city Council hereby approves these amended
findings of fact and conclusions.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, Second by Mr. Tolsma to approve of the findings
of fact and conclusions of law as amended, any further discussion? Roll call vote
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 22
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow --- Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree -- Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Entertain a motion on the decision.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that it is decided that the application for the variance of a
30 foot setback on Ten Mile Road in effect is approved. The application should allow a
25 foot setback on Ten Mile Road and the front setback shall be at that distance.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision as read,
all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
FIVE MINUTE BREAD{
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES TO T -E BY B.W. INC.:
Corrie: At this time
Morrow: Sorry to interrupt but I do own property within a 300 foot radius so if the council
sees a conflict I will stand down.
Rountree: I don't see a conflict personally.
Corrie: Any further comments, anyone see a conflict? Hearing none, the council is
agreed there is no conflict of interest. I will open the public hearing and invite the
applicant to speak first.
Dan Torfin, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the city Attorney.
Torfin: Mr. Mayor, members of the council the request before you tonight is a request
for annexation and zoning of a 5 acre parcel located on the north side of Layne
Industrial on the east side of Locust Grove Road. The request is submitted to you to
facilitate the development of the Meridian School District Middle School Academy. With
that presentation I will welcome any questions.
Corrie: Any questions from the Council? Anyone else from the public that would like to
issue testimony on this? Seeing, none council I will close the public hearing. Council
questions of staff?
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 23
Morrow: Mr. Mayor 1 would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared for us by the Planning and zoning Commission.
Tolsma: second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Tolsma to adopt the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared by the Planning and zoning Commission, any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow — Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree -i- Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: The decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the City Council of the City of Meridian approves 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, interested, assigns, heirs, executors or
personal representative enter into a development agreement and the property only be
developed under the conditional use process. If the applicant's are not agreeable with
these findings of fact and conclusions of law and they are not agreeable with entering
into a development agreement the property should not be annexed.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision as read,
any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of the decision? opposed'
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
annexation ordinance.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we instruct the City
Attorney to draw up an ordinance, all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF MERIDIAN MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMY BY JOINT SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 2:
�T
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 24
Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from Joint School
District No. 2 to come forward.
Wayne Thowless, 1735 Federal Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Thowless: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council on behalf of the Meridian School District
we are here to request approval of a conditional use allowing construction of a middle
school academy or alternative school at the subject property. As you can see it is the
school district's intent to place 7 relocatable classroom buildings and a small office
building in addition to that on the site. The very long range plan would be to replace
those relocatable classroom buildings with permanent structures. There is no specific
time frame to do so at this point in time. The site in addition to the relocatble class
rooms would consist of a paved parking lot, a bus and vehicular drop off and pick up
area for students and also a grass playing field. The site would be fully fenced and i
would be happy to entertain any questions you might have.
Corrie: Council, questions? Anyone else from the public would like to issue testimony
on this subject. Hearing none I will close the public hearing, Council discussion?
Morrow: I have a technical question for the City Attorney, my question would be is that
until we have the annexation ordinance adopted can we grant the conditional use?
Crookston: No you can't, you have no jurisdiction over it yet.
Morrow. So the appropriate course of action would be to table (inaudible).
Crookston: That is correct.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I would make a motion that we table the request for the CUP for the
Meridian Middle School Academy until April 15th.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to table the request for
conditional use permit to April 15, all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Jim (inaudible)
Carberry: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council my only question was really to our
architectural firm I was trying to remember what, when we were going to try to open bids
on this project and what that would do to with our time schedule. (inaudible)
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 25
Morrow: Part of the answer is that it is a formality, I don't think that there is any
opposition, certainly not from my standpoint. I am not speaking for the rest of the
Council it is a matter of procedural timing and formality. I guess from my perspective is
that if you have a bid opening scheduled take it and run with it if you are comfortable
with our position.
Carberry: Very comfortable with your position.
Crookston: I would advise though that Mr. Morrow is stating that at his own risk
(Inaudible)
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF EXPANDED BLEACHER SEATING, ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, AND MOVING OF TWO RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS BY JOINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 2:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite the school district's representative.
Wayne Thowless, 1735 Federal Way, Boise, was sworn by the city Attorney.
Thowless: Mr. Mayor, members of the council on behalf of the Meridian School district
we are here to request conditional use approval of expanded bleacher seating at
Meridian High School. The present bleachers at the varsity football field and track seat
approximately 380 people. It is the district's wish to be able to hold home varsity
football games at that location. For that reason needs expanded seating to
accommodate 3416 is the design capacity of the structures to be built on both the home
side or the south side of the field and the north side or visitors side of the field. In
conjunction with the bleacher seating itself additional fencing will be provided for crowd
control, perimeter fencing on the north side of the site will be added. To relocatable
classroom buildings that are presently on the south side of the football field are planned
to be moved to the south side of the property. Some right of way improvements in
accordance with ACHD conditions are planned along Linder Road on the east side of
the site. As a separate project the Meridian Boosters are planning a two story press
box and concessions building on the south side of the field which would be the home
side. That too is shown on the site plans you should have before you. I am going to go
over and change the drawing from the overall site plan to the plan in the immediate
vicinity of the track and football field and would stand for any questions.
Corrie: Questions from Council?
Tolsma: I have one, how are the restroom facilities are they going to be constructed on
both sides of the ball field?
Thowless: There are no rest rooms proposed to be constructed at this time in
conjunction with the project. The high school
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 26
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Thowless: There are a number of large rest room facilities within the buildings of the
campus itself and it is the school district's intention and has been their practice at other
campuses to bring in rental toilets to augment around the field and around the bleacher
seating area those toilets within the permanent buildings on the campus. By way of
comparison the gymnasium holds almost as many people as this stadium will hold and
the gymnasium rest rooms as well as other rest rooms at the facility will be made
available to the public as necessary and needed in addition to those rental toilets that
the school district will be providing for major events held in the stadium.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Rountree: You indicated a two story announcers booth that is essentially what is there
now.
Thowless: Significantly larger than what is there now.
Rountree: Height or floor space?
Thowless: It will be higher and it will be much larger.
Bentley: I have a question on your sound system, are you going to have speakers on
both sides?
Thowless: I don't believe so. The sound system that is in use presently will be continued
to be used. I don't believe the district has any intention of changing that, is that correct.
Mr. Carberry with the school district indicates that the sound system presently in use will
remain in use and will be mounted on the new press box structure when it is completed
which will be on the south side of the field.
Bentley: You don't think the (inaudible) is going to be too loud (inaudible) without having
speakers on both sides?
Thowless: Based on the experience at Eagle High School where a similar amplification
system is used I don't think so. But what is too loud and what isn't too loud for adjacent
neighbors is subjective so I can't really comment on that.
Corrie: Any questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at
this time?
Alloys Schelekeway, 2090 west Pine, Meridian was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 27
Schelekeway: I own the property directly to the west of the proposed stadium and we
have a wooden fence and as of I can see of it there are no plans to replace that with
chain link. Currently during high school there are some problems with kids going over
into my pasture and smoking and hiding behind that wooden fence. That is during the
daylight hours so a night time football game I can't imagine the parties that will be going
on in my pasture with the wooden fence to high behind. I would like to see them put the
higher chain link fence as a buffer zone between my property and the stadium. The
noise is kind of a concern for me to because my property some day W11 be a subdivision
too and there is no buffer zone between. The Vineyards behind that property has a
canal and some distance behind that. But (inaudible) on my property some day will be
right up against the football field area there with a small volley court in between. So I am
concerned about the noise and the kinds of speakers they will have too which was
already been brought. But mostly the fence and the wooden fence that is just a place to
hide behind. That is it.
Corrie: Question Mr. Tolsma?
Tolsma: Have you thought of a (Inaudible)
Schelekeway: That doesn't seem to deter (inaudible) if I got a mean one then it would
deter me too.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? I wi I I
close the public hearing? council, questions or discussion?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would have a question for Mr. Carberry in terms of I would like to
hear a response to the issue with the fence and the policing of the kids whether it be
chain link or solid. How do you propose to handle that issue?
Corrie: At this time I will reopen the public hearing.
Carberry: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, first of all I wasn't aware that the
students were hanging out behind the fence. That would be a concern and we will be
sure to inform the administration at Meridian High School that is taking place. we have
never really considered what we would call the west property line fence but we will
certainly look into that. I am not even sure what kind of condition that fence is in at this
time. But we will sure entertain a chain link fence if that is a requirement. All of these
games will have the necessary security being building administration and the Meridian
police department as well as our SRO's that will be assigned to patrol parking lots
adjacent areas and areas such as have been mentioned here. I can only say we have
really not looked into that fencing area, but we would certainly entertain to do that.
Corrie: Any further questions or testimony that you need.
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 28
Crookston: I just have one question, I just wondered whether or not Mr. Carberry was
going to go back to coaching so he could get into that stadium.
Corrie: At this paint I will close the public hearing.
Morrow. Point of discussion Mr. Mayor, 1 think I would like to see in the findings of fact
and conclusions from my perspective a short statement discussing the fence issue and
the policy of whether it be a chain link fence of a wood fence and the district handling
people that may be on the adjoining properties doing whatever it is they want to do. I
would like to see that in the findings of fact addressing that so that it does have the
administration look into it.
Rountree: Do we want to add that or do we want to amend the current findings with the
testimony and response that we have received at this hearing and press on?
Morrow. Well I don't have any problem with the findings as they are done, I would like,
and I don't think there was substantial testimony that changes the findings as prepared
for us by P & Z. I would like to see it amended to incorporate some verbiage that
handles the issue with respect to the fencing on the west property line.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I just have a comment, the city has no control whatsoever on any
property that the school does not awn that is, let's call it in back of the fence. That is all
the comment that I have.
Morrow. I don't disagree with that but I guess position is by virtue of the school wanting
to have the conditional use permit I think one of the stipulations of a conditional use
permit aught to be that they control their kids on other folks property. If they can't control
their kids on other folks property then maybe they ought not to have those kids there.
Crookston: To my knowledge I don't think the school has any control over what the kids
do on someone else's property. I agree with you but I see now way to require the school
to control that. It would be advisable and nice if they could do it but legally I don't think
the city can require them to something for which they have no control over.
Rountree: I believe our ordinances require perimeter fencing (inaudible) I think that
would be applicable to this application and that is really all you can ask the school to do
is to put in appropriate fencing.
Crookston: That is correct, what happens behind the fence it is not on the school
property l don't think the school has any control over that. The city police might that is
true.
Corrie: Well you can put it as a condition of the conditional use permit that they have a
chain link fence on the property to take care of that part of it and keep the kids on their
side.
Meridian city council
April 1, 1997
Page 29
Crookston: And you can see the Fids.
Morrow. well I guess from perspective then it seems to me that part of being a goad
citizen is not putting the next door neighbor in a situation by approving something that
causes them harm. So if the issue, if the solution to that problem is a chain link fence
then that in fact is what it aught to be. If that makes the control easier or by observation
the school can control where those folks are then that makes sense to me.
Bentley: I don't feel that they have hada (inaudible) doing that either.
Morrow: Do you have a problem with making it a requirement? I would move that
Rountree: I think it already is, I think our ordinance requires perimeter fencing.
Morrow. But the question (inaudible)
Rountree: It is a question of adequacy so !don't have a problem with (inaudible).
Morrow: I would move that we amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law as
prepared for us by P & Z to require in that portion on the western edge of the property a
chain link fence.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: I would assume that would be under 12 G, a motion was made that we approve
the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the Planning & Zoning
Commission with the additional requirement of the chain link fence, motion was made
and seconded, is there any discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Entertain a motion for the decision.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that the city council of the city of Meridian approve the
Conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth as amended in the findings of fact and
conclusions of law and similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the city
Council. And that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements,
the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking, paving and landscaping
requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use shall be
subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City.
I �r.
1
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 30
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the decision and
recommendation as amended, all those in favor of the decision as amended'
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY
9.42 ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-15 BY LORIN SAUNDERS:
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I would ask to step down on this (inaudible) abuts my property and
do have a problem with it.
Corrie: Any objections to Mr. Tolsma stepping down? I will open the public hearing and
invite the representative first.
Lorin Saunders, 888 East Sugarberry Drive, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Saunders: When I first came to the Planning and zoning for this rezoning I had tried
previously to develop the property because it is in an apartment area I couldn't do the
R-4 zoning because no one would build houses there that (inaudible) they didn't they
could sell them in that area. I approached the Planning and Zoning staff on this and
they recommend that I request an R-15 zoning. Since they have done that I, (inaudible)
didn't know what zonings were available to me but since I have been given approval by
the Planning and zoning I have done some research on it. It was the right suggestion
for me because it is very hard under the homes that we want to develop that (inaudible)
duplexes the size we want to develop which require a two car garage and at least 890
square feet to get at least 8 units in an acre. We can probably do it under the R-15
zoning. There are some side benefits as well, I have talked to some realtors since that
time and they have indicated the people who buy these units don't want to be involved
in a lot of yard work. So by being able to cluster the (inaudible) like that it gives the
whole project a little more open space and the common area seems to be a little more
visible, just a nicer project. So, I do appreciate the recommendation and that is why I
am seeking the zoning. I have a couple of questions that are found on, in pages of the
review by the City staff to you gentlemen. First on page 2, item 8, I have already
mentioned that we can't develop it under R-4 it is just too big of houses and be able to
sell it. In order for me to proceed any further on it I need to get some zoning changes in
order to get financing to do the project. We have, towards the bottom of that page the
Ada county Highway District has indicated that they prefer the Broadway Street not go
straight through. The Broadway Street would cover most of the drainage ditch that goes
down through that area by turning Broadway south and then going over to the back end
of the property. when people would go down Broadway it would make that whole area
would be a nice park area for Broadway on through the property where Broadway would
extend otherwise. So it would be a very nice looking area as you go down to the area
f
r
Meridian City Council
April '1,'1997
Page 31
because of the park area that is required for this type of zoning. I would like to mention
there was some concern of the people at the last meeting about the ditch being open. It
is quite a deep ditch and I was involved in bringing Broadway down to it. It was clear
back when Mayor Storey was the Mayor of the City (Inaudible). We covered the ditch,
we got permission to do it and since this objection has come up I have gone and called
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and talked it over with
ACHD and they see no problem with covering the ditch and tiling it. But either way we
would be able to make a nice park out of it. It might be a little better even if it were tiled.
Some of the people were kind of a little worried about the safety of their children. So
either way we can do either one, the cost is going to be about the same. we would like
to do it (inaudible) which way they would like us to go on that, on this particular item.
Another thing the City, I (inaudible) I used to own that property and I converted it to
condominiums and sold it individually. over the years these people have taken care of it
and it is a very nice area for condominiums. The apartment houses in the back present
some difficulty but because of the way they have taken care of the property on the
condominiums it makes the kind of project we want to develop feasible because it
transitions from the heavy duty apartment areas to condominiums and then to our
project. They indicated some problems or some concern about having duplexes and
rentals through the area and I agree with their concerns. I talked to some builders, I
have also talked to realtors so what I am proposing is that we will build mostly
condominiums and town houses but they will be two units with double car garages, it
will be better than anything that is in the area and it wi l I compliment the housing across
the street. The realtors that I have talked to told us that this type of housing if we can
build it down in the price range that is compatible to the area would be something that
we could really market. If we build a couple of show homes that we can probably sell
the entire property. In fact they indicate it would be better than doing it with duplexes.
So my intention is to build mostly homeowner occupied properties in the area. I have
talked to some builders, we have a builder now that is ready to go immediately on the
project, if we can get the zoning changed so that we can get it developed. It was
approved on a conditional use permit provision which gives the neighbors a chance to
review and know that my intentions and our intentions are honorable and we will follow
through with our commitment. I might also add that I don't think, there was some
concern about a higher density apartment area being built down there, that is not what
we are going to build or intend to build. I because of the discussions we have had I
don't think there is a ghost of a chance of anything like that ever happening because
don't think the Council of the Planning and zoning would ever approve and we of course
would never submit it, I just say this to rest the neighbors worry, it Is not going to
happen. They have through the Conditional use Permit a chance to review what we
plan to do and we plan to keep them well informed of our project as we proceed. The
project I think would really compliment the property values down there. It would increase
the property value that the people that are the most concerned that have the
condominiums and we would hope it would set a precedent to protect our interest in the
property too. The builder that I have we are all residents of this town or this area, we
have been here for many years. we have nothing but the good of the community in our
minds and the builder intends to build or buy some of the units himself. So we are really
t
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 32
quite concerned about keeping the property values up and making it (inaudible) I
mentioned also add some concern to the property and I don't know how many children
will be there. The realtors I have talked to said that these type of homes will probably
be pwrchased by older couples, single working people and entry level married couples
when they get too many children, the units won't be very large but they will probably all
be two bedroom units. They move onto other housing so according to what the realtors
say there probably won't be a lot of children here. It is mostly a bedroom type
community and they think it wi 11 be do very we I l because of its close proxi m ity to the
community. I am looking forward to building and I want to build it so that it enhances the
property value of the people here and they will of course have an opportunity to
question my integrity when we come with the right plan through the conditional use
permit. I think they will be very pleased with what we do. In reviewing what I have just
mentioned first of all by the R--15 zoning it gives us the opportunity to really get about 8
units to an acre by the time you take the roads out and the common area, the right of
way and all of those things it just about all we are ever going to get when we put a two
car garage with an 800 square foot unit you just don't any more than that. R-15 allows
us to do that any other zone it would be a little difficult to get those units and it brings
the economies to scale so the property can be developed. We get rid of a problem of a
weed patch and a trash dumping it has not been very good down there all these years
and has years progress it has become more difficult for me to get it cleaned up because
people dump trash down there. (Inaudible) it is an open field I guess is an invitation the
year before last 1 mowed the weeds I wrecked a beg wheel on the tractor and damaged
my beater because you just don't know what is in there from one year to the next so I
would clean up the area and I think it would be better for the community and the people
that lived there. I (Inaudible) to protect our own property. There will be CC&R's in the
property which will be strict and it will maintain the value of the property owners. We
found that since there will be community property the association a homeowners
association will take care of most of all of the common area and it won't be very much
cost because of the number of homes that will be developed. Also I have discussed this
other realtors and they say that this type of project usually the homeowners association
takes care of all of the lawns including all of the lawns of housing where there aren't too
many isn't too large of a lawn per unit and it is cheaper for each homeowner to do it. So
the place looks cleaner, there will be some very nice green areas along with a bike and
walking path which the City requires that will be maintained by the homeowners
association and not a great deal of expense. It will be something that everyone wants to
do. When you drive down the end of Broadway it is going to be a nice looking clean
complimentary area. We are trying to make it so that the .property can be sole and the
people will buy it. The city requires street lights so it is going to be safe at night. The
property will probably attract according to my realtors and everything that I have done to
investigate it industrious and really nice people that want to live there. There won't be
people on welfare and we will build all of the units even the duplexes in a manner that
can be sold separately. So in essence even the duplexes will be condominiums so that
in case, I found out this in the past that if you own these properties it gives you a lot
more latitude if you can sell them individually. So that is the way we are going to
develop them. I have a builder that has been here for many years, I have lived here for
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 33
30 years and it has only been the last two years that my address has been Eagle and I
didn't, the only way it was made Eagle because they annexed the farm I live on and I
had to give up my meridian address. It was pretty hard to do, all of kids graduated from
Meridian high and we just lived here for a long time. But I requested the zoning change
and 1 really think it would be in the best interest of everyone concerned. Like I said we
will address an of the concerns of the people and I just request that you approve the
zoning change. And the staff recommends it and I think it makes sense. Thank you
very much if You have any questions I would be glad to answer them.
Corrie: Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this
time?
Vern Alleman7 2101 East Ustick, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Alleman: My concerns are listed in the facts and findings under paragraphs 13 to 18.
And the petitions as has been presented to you. Now the petition that I have in addition
to that I have two more and I think probably one person will probably testify tonight. The
other one is (inaudible) Scrivner at 728 West 8 t he has property at that address.
Additionally I had reports of problems with young people crossing private property at will
and carrying off items plus coming over the wooden fence and taking produce from the
garden. Hopefully a 8 foot sealed seam link fence will help to eliminate this problem. Cho
I need to restate my concerns as listed in the facts and findings. I have contacted most
of the neighbors and didn't find one in favor of the R-'15 zone except I understand Larry
Hanson whose property adjoining the Saunders property is in favor. But anybody else I
contacted has been against this. As I stated in the petition the R--8 zoning is favorable.
If there are any questions.
Corrie: Thank you sir
Melinda Belt, 720 West 8#h Street, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
.
Belt: I am the president of the Broadway Estates Homeowners Association, the
condominiums across the street from this property. I am representing the homeowners
in my testimony. I also testified at the Planning and Zoning meeting which is my
testimony is included in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. My main concern
and our main concern with this is not that the property be developed but the R-15
zoning. In several places in the findings of fact and conclusions of law it is mentioned
that Mr. Saunders intention is to build duplexes. It mentions on page 12, that he does
not mind being restricted to duplexes and the zoning. duplexes are the highest density
for which he cares, he does not believe a higher density would compliment the area.
On the next page he also says he believes the best use is the construction of duplexes
which is the highest density he desires. Mr. Saunders testified that he would not be
opposed to an R-8 zoning which would allow the construction of minimum 800 square
foot duplexes. Under item 22, R-8 zoning is fine with him if such zoning makes the
neighbors surrounding the property more comfortable with the project. or restricting the
t
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 84
size of the buildings on this application is also fine with him. Basically what our concern
is, is why he is seeking R-15 when R-8 will satisfy the needs that he has expressed.
The R-15 does allow the building of apartments with a conditional use permit but no
conditional permit required for duplexes. The R-8 would also allow duplexes without a
conditional use permit. So we just don't quite understand why we need to go clear to R-
15 if R-8 is sufficient. We had discussed that in the first planning and zoning meeting
and I had the impression at that point that the Planning and Zoning commissioners were
in favor of looking into R-8 rather than R-15. There were just a couple of comments that
he made that concerned me. Baying that he thought that they would all be homeowner
occupied and once the places are built and sold the builder and the prior owner aren't
going to have any control whether they are owned occupied or whether they are rentals.
Even though they are small the apartments behind us are very small and they have a lot
of children in them. I don't know where they put them but they are there. So that really
doesn't seem to have much affect on the type of size of the families in some of these
places. The other problem that we have kind of bantered back and forth is about the
trash being dumped and the things like that on the property. I would just like to reiterate
in the three years that I have lived I believe that the weeds have been cut down once.
And that was after I spent a year and a half contacting the City and different officials
trying to get it taken care of because it was a fire hazard. The only instances of trash or
anything put over there by anyone in our neighborhood that I am aware of were two
Christmas trees that were dragged over there different years that I observed. They
were both taken over there by renters. So that was part of the whole basis of our
argument against the rentals versus the homeowners occupied. We just want to be sure
to have something that is going to enhance the neighborhood rather than to drag it
down. Leo you have any questions for me?
Rountree: Do you know the zoning of your property?
Belt: I believe we are R-8
Corrie: Thank you
Morrow. (Inaudible)
Stiles: The zoning in Broadway Estates is R-15.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public?
Charles Stewart, 821 West Pine, Meridian was sworn by the City Attorney.
Stewart: I have lived at 821 West Pine for 29 years, I have seen everything develop
around there and seen some things deteriorate because of it and the good way of life. I
would be more in favor of the R-8 zoning than a more dense po ulation there because I
had people cut through my property, I am directly in line with 8 street, 8th Street dead
ends on both ends of my property and it is a thoroughfare. The kids going to school up
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 35
8th street do not want to go around, this development does not help that problem it
makes it worse because it puts more people dead ended down a street. The more
people you put in there the worse the problem is. They rummage through things that
the business next to me, I have to run them off from stealing things. The more people
you put there the more it is going to be a problem I feel. The other concern is that the
second way out of that property is dumped east on Broadway and north on 7th street to
Pine. When you get to that intersection there is a school all three directions, there is one
Up 8th Street, there is one up Pine Street west, the high school and there is theg rade
school the other direction. Many people take their students to school in passenger cars
in the city because there is no bus service. There are three intersections that do not,
there are two from the north and one from the south that none of those align and they
are within probably 800 feet of each other. That is a real problem with traffic there in the
morning. My wife tries to get out to go to work, sometimes she has to go to downtown
Meridian and make a circle to go west. The more people, if we put more and more
people in that area it gets worse. So we are really against that type of dense population.
I understood him to say that they are planning 8 units per acre which is 72 that is a lot of
units in a small area. Thank you.
Corrie: Thank you, any questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to issue
testimony at this time?
Saunders: First of all I think that the City ordinance does require that we put a fence
around the property and secondly I don't mind be limited to 8 units per acre. I am not
intending to do any more than that. The R-1 5 allows us to build the units on a little
smaller piece of property. I think over all it will benefit the aesthetics of the property by
giving us more of a common area, more park area. Since we do have to bring the park,
the bike path through the whole property along the Nine Mile ditch drainage. So I think
the R-1 5 zoning allows us to make a nice more aesthetic project out of it. Another thing
is the people that live in the project across the (End of Tape) I don't mind the approval
to be given to keep the units 8 units to an acre because I don't think it would be in the
best interest of the homeowners down here to have a lot of apartment houses either. So
I am not opposed to restriction on the R-1 5 zoning. The R-8 zoning by the time you put
the roads in and all the common areas, it is very hard to get 8 units to the acre which is
what R-8 says you can have. But it is very hard to get it because of the space it takes
to put in those roads and the size of the lots that they require. The size of the houses
are no different if you build a duplex or a condominium or a townhouse two units
together they all have to be at least 800 square feet and they all require a 2 car garage
whether they are R-8 zoning or R-15 zoning. So the houses that we built and we intend
to build a couple of condominium units right across the street as show homes they are
going to be nicer homes than what is down there. And the density is not going to
exceed the 8 units to an acre. Like I say I don't mind being restricted to that in the
approval either. It is just because that is what we want to do. As far as the weeds are
concerned I agree with her that I haven't' been taken care of them. There is some trash
down there and it gets built up every year. I have hauled some of it a time or two, we did
cut the ground last year, I cut them myself the year before and run into some trash. WE
Meridian City council
April 1, 1997
Page 36
have cut them a few times and I apologize we haven't taken care of the property like it
probably should have done. By developing it will certainly be taken care of. I would like
to mention ACHD requires us to run the roads to the property line to the west when
eventually as it is developed down there, there will be access over into Pine Street and
there will be some good flow through that property that will be I am sure developed
some time in the near future. So there will be an improvement in the flow of the
property. The density of our area will be less than the density of the areas in the
housing near us. Like I say I don't mind you putting a restriction on the number of units
per acre and the approval. But R-15 would really be a lot nicer project because of the
reasons I have mentioned.
Corrie: council, discussion or questions of staff. Mr. Alleman?
Alleman: As far as the street going out to Pine, I don't see any way that there is anyway
possibly of getting property that would allow the required roadway to go out on Pine.
You might look at it.
Corrie: I will close the public hearing.
Rountree: Just for discussion and where I am in terms of concerns on this application.
My reservations are probably more in terms of not having anything at hand as far as the
development goes in the way of a preliminary plat or a concept. It gets to a matter of
Mr. Saunders word and the position we put the City staff in and trying to force what has
been represented to us this evening. At a minimum I would like to see the findings of
fact have a restriction (inaudible) identify the number of units that would be allowed per
acre and if we could a reversionary clause that it would revert back to R-4 if the property
were sold undeveloped. I guess my hesitancy is once it is R-15 it is R-15 whether the
development occurs or not.
Morrow. I guess from my perspective is you know in the past we have turned down
proposals or at least tabled them (inaudible). What we have tried to get away from
doing is blanket zoning changes or annexations (inaudible) some sort of plan is
committed. So from that perspective I don't see (inaudible) I would like to see the
information, I would like to more commitment. Ido think that from my perspective that if
the R-15 zoning is to be granted it would have to have a cap of 8 units per acre in terms
of development (inaudible) but it would allow some greater flexibility with respect to
landscaping and those kinds of issues. I do think (inaudible) back to R-4 has some real
merit. So, I guess what I am indicating is that I am probably not inclined to support
these findings of fact and conclusions (inaudible).
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would concur with the two councilmen that have spoken on this
issue. I too have some real problems with R-15 that is unrestricted. I too don't doubt the
gentleman's word on what he plans on but without further plans before I would be real
hesitant to support these.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 37
Corrie: Sounds like I have to entertain a motion here.
Rountree: I guess for sake of process could we table these with further discussion from
the applicant and maybe they would want to pursue (inaudible) a development concept
and then amend the findings accordingly.
Morrow: My preference would be to see something done like that (inaudible) I think
clearly an example earlier tonight in terms of (inaudible) zoning and annexation
(inaudible) in this case we don't have any of that. So it seems to me that (inaudible) to
give the applicant an opportunity to make a decision whether he wishes to do that or
wishes to provide that information and leave that decision to him. If 1 have to vote on
the findings of fact as they are written I am voting against them. So I would move to
table (inaudible) opportunity Mr. Saunders, to make the determination (inaudible)
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Table to?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor it would April 15th
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table this until April 14 this will be a public
hearing tabling, is that correct, table it as a public hearing?
Morrow: Well the public hearing has been closed so we can't (inaudible)
Corrie: That is what I am saying do you just want to table it and have him bring it back.
All those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Do you understand what we are asking for Mr. Saunders?
(Inaudible)
Corrie: I think Gary he would have to go through Platting wouldn't he?
Smith: If he wants to sell lots it would have to be a plat.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: A plat has to go through a public hearing.
Corrie: So you would end up going through two public hearings, one at the Planning and
Zoning and one for the council.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 38
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I think what he is asking is would he still be required to go
through the Conditional use permit process. I believe he would for the planned
development.
Rountree: (Inaudible)
Stiles: But the findings indicate that he would have to go through the conditional use
permit prior to development.
Morrow: I guess the issue there is Shari we are not supporting these findings right now
we are tabling it. (inaudible) towards solving the issues that we are concerned about.
Stiles: what commitment does somebody showing a concept plan, what commitment
does that make? I have never heard of anybody submitting a concept plan that is not in
the public hearing that binds them in any way.
Morrow: Well he is submitting a preliminary plat
Stiles: Is that what you are asking for, him to submit a preliminary plat?
Morrow: Yes
Stiles: By the 115th?
Morrow: He has to have hearings, he has to go through the process. what we are
asking is by the 15 th he needs to make a decision as to what it is he wants to do. If he
wants to stand with these findings of fact and conclusions as written then at that
juncture I have indicated that I can't support these findings of fact and conclusions. The
two week table from my perspective is to give him an opportunity to make a decision as
to what itis he wants to do and then come back and tell us what he wants to do.
Stiles: So he would give just a basic maybe a layout of the roads, where a common
area might be, where
Morrow: No, what I would anticipate seeing from my perspective on the 15th in person or
by letter he would ask for a table on this long enough to do a regular preliminary plat
and address the issues that we have talked about in some manner. And if he says no I
don't wish to do that I want to take my chances with the vote on these findings of fact
and conclusions. Then at that juncture we would vote on these findings of fact and
conclusions. I am suggesting to you and the public that my vote would be no on these
findings of fact and conclusions.
(Inaudible)
{
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 39
Rountree: I am confused as to what is trying to be done here. There can't be any selling
of lots and building of buildings until there is a final plat submitted. So in terms of trying
to see this is going to be done next month that is not real. I hope that you understand
that. what we normally see with an annexation or zoning change is a preliminary plat.
something that is tangible and we can tie conditions to. Short of having that we have to
condition whatever action is taken on this whether it is denial or something to guarantee
the City that we don't get you all in a corner about what it is that can and can't be built
there.
Stiles: I think Mr. Saunders position was when he came to talk to me was without a
rezone of some type he didn't, if he didn't know the rezone was possible he didn't want
to go to all of the expense of designing. They have to submit profiles of all of the utilities.
It would be a very costly and time consuming process which I know we have been
requiring. I think this is an infill project, I just wondered if you would consider if he came
in with a basic concept that you felt you could approve, not approve but buy into and
incorporate some of those conditions into the findings that would make you comfortable
with the rezone.
Rountree: If the question is to me, we have done that with the planned unit
developments. But again this project and request has not been presented to us as a
planned unit development it has been presented as an R-15.
Morrow: I guess Shari to answer the question from my perspective I am sensitive and I
understand what is trying to go on here. what I am simply saying. is that there is not
enough data that shows me what it is we are buying off on so that I am comfortable that
the necessary guarantees are in place and that these findings of fact are lacking in that.
What I want to see Is I Avant to see a presentation that makes some commitment
through a preliminary plat process. As a perfect example, it doesn't necessarily have to
be right down to the brass tacks there but it needs to be defined enough so that I know
what it is we are buying. My motion to table this for two weeks is merely to give the
applicant the opportunity to determine if that is what he wants to do or not. If he comes
back and says no I don't want to do that then I am telling you ahead of time that I w1111
be voting no on these findings of fact and conclusions because they don't provide me
enough information to solve the issues that are of legitimate concerns or guarantees if
there are going to be some. Part of what it is that we have to think through here is that
should Mr. Saunders sell the property of something else happen that he was not
involved in the development, we have his personal guarantees, but if he is outside of
that there are no guarantees for the next folk that at this juncture that might take over a
project. So, I want to see some of that.
(Inaudible)
Saunders: I don't have any objections providing you the information, I am not interested
in doing something that is going to adversely affect the property in any way. I just want
to try and get about 8 units to an acre and it is a little better for me if we can group
l
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 40
together under R-15, I don't mind the restrictions or being restricted to 8 units to an
acre, it doesn't bother me at all. I will present some kind of a platting pian, I Can't do it in
two weeks, but I am willing to do that. I don't mind the approval being contingent or
requiring that 8 units per acre be maximum because that is all we intend to do anyway.
We think we are going to have a great little project down there and so I am interested in
doing and I will do whatever I need to, to satisfy the Council of my integrity. I don't mind
them putting some of the restrictions you have talked about on the approval. I have a
builder right now that is ready to go with it and he and I are going to do it together. I am
going to see the project to completion. I have every intention to, I have lived here, that
is what 1 want to do. I don't have an objection, I just want to be clear what you really
want. I appreciate you tabling so I can present, but when I come I will have a preliminary
plat that shows 8 units maximum to an acre and some open area just exactly hove it will
be developed. I would assume that is what you were after. Well l will be glad to do it. 1
Wil make a point to come again to the hearing when I Can get this information together.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I didn't recall that you voted to table the
Corrie: We didn't
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table the application by Lorin Saunders until
April 15tH
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to table the request for
rezone until April 15 th , any further discussion? All those in favor?pp osed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORA PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
SPARKLING SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY CARRIE HOMES INC..
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from
Sparkling Springs to give testimony at this time.
Keith Jacobs, 290 North Maple Grove, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Jacobs: Mayor and Councilmen we are asking for approval on Sparkling Springs
Subdivision. It is a 43 lot single family subdivision north of Lansbury Lane off of Meridian
Road. There are two existing residences on that property, we intend to incorporate
those in the subdivision and leave the buildings as they are today. The two lots the two
existing single family homes will take access to Meridian Road through a Common
driveway that is the way they do it at this time. Lot 3 which is the larger lot to the north of
the two will have a public frontage on the internal road. The other lot which is south of
that will have frontage on Meridian Road. The annexation and zoning ordinance
Meridian city council
April 1, 1997
Page 41
requires 1800 square foot homes as a minimum in there, we are intending to comply
with that. However I do not know the size of the two homes that are existing and wish to
have those as they are and not alter them. The lots will range from 8,000 square feet to
24,900. Twenty of the largest lots are in the range of 11, 000 to 24,000. We intend to
have Meridian city services. We will have pressurized irrigation, the system will either
be an internal homeowners association or Nampa Meridian Irrigation. Nampa Meridian
seems to be a cleaner way to go in that respect. However this is off of the users ditch
and the question is whether they will take over the maintenance of that and the
operation of that system. We are unclear at this point and will hammer that out with
them. Either way this wi I l have a pressurized irrigation system. There is a street to the
south, 3rd street and presently in Lansbury it is a 40 foot right of way. The Highway
g y
District has required that be a 50 foot right of way. The improvements will be tapered
from our south boundary into our main access into the road to provide a full width at the
intersection. The Highway District has also requested two stub streets to the north, one
we have shown on our preliminary plat the other one came up on what is marked as Lot
8. We can put in that 50 foot right of way in there and will not increase the number of
lots in this subdivision buildable lots. There is a large lot at the entrance, lot 1 in block 4
which would be a landscape lot and also the pressure irrigation system will be located
on that lot itself. There is a stub street to the west for future connection. We will develop
this in accordance with the Ada county Highway District standards and the city of
Meridian and the annexation ordinance for this particular parcel. With that I will answer
any questions I can.
Bentley: You are proposing then to keep the new construction at 1800 square feet.
Jacobs: Yes sir
Bentley: Do you know the approximate size of the other two homes, the existing
homes?
Jacobs: No I don't, I would have to estimate at this point. The one on the north I believe
exceeds the 1800 or matches but I don't know that for sure.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, there is a letter in here from the property owner to the west that has
a horse operation of some sort. I cannot find in my packet any response to addressing
his issues in terms of agricultural (inaudible). He raises some valid points that the
homeowners ought to in fact be notified that it is an agricultural use and that animals
(inaudible) l can't find any place (inaudible).
Jacobs: It was not, I have not received that letter, I am not aware of that letter. However,
there is a note that I have dealt with in other situations like this which would be on the
face of the plat that advises the homeowners the potential homeowners that there are
farming practices in that area and they have a right to operate without impedance.
Meridian city council
April 1, 1997
Page 42
Corrie: Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony?
John Sanford, 2880 Venable Lane, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sanford: Thank you for bringing it up the ranch that mentioned is my operation. I have
a big concern with that property line there because adjoining is where my cattle. I run a
cutting horse training and breeding operation of quarter horses. The property adjoining
to the west of this proposed subdivision is completely lined with my cattle pens. I run
has high as 80 to 80 cattle in there in the pens, they are not in pastures. what we do is
train those cutting horses with these cattle. My experience with Lansbury Lane which is
also adjoining my property has been horrible and dogs chasing my horses. What I am
proposing at this paint in time with regard to this cattle situation is going to definitely be
a nuisance to this subdivision. So there needs to be a berm there in addition to a
hurricane fence. I say this because I have already had people come over and threaten
me bodily because my calves cry at night when they are weaning which is
understandable. So I am just making these precautions ahead of time for the people
that will be buying that property. I hope to continue my operation there. Are there any
questions that I may -answer? I have lived there for 27 years, I was born in Nampa so I
have been (inaudible).
Corrie: I think I recall a little bit of a similar situation (inaudible)
Sanford: He was bailing his hay, it came out in favor of the other people, it didn't came
out in favor of the farming. So 1 think the time to approach this is possibly now. The
berm to be truthful is the only alternative because if they are looking out their back door
into that cattle pen it Isn't a pretty site, if you are not a farmer it is ugly I guess.
Corrie: Any questions? Any further testimony from the public? council, questions of the
staff?
Morrow: (Inaudible) existing cattle operation with respect to screening (inaudible)
Stiles: The berm may cut down on some of the noise, but as far as a hurricane fence
we are restricted in that zone to only have a 8 foot fence and that would be including the
height of the berm. I know that there are problems where we have these stub streets
into existing properties. We have the perimeter fencing requirement but they leave
where the stub street is going to go through that is left open. I think in this case we
required the perimeter fencing to be permanently along that boundary that they would
take that portion down at the time Mr. Sanford would develop. I may help them, I know
Ada county also has a note they put on their plats about the adjacent agricultural uses.
It is not going to stop all of the complaints but at least there is something recorded you
can show them and say this is the property you bought this is the note on that property.
I am sorry you don't have a valid complaint here. That is the only thing I can think of for
those problems.
Meridian City council
April 1, 1997
Page 43
Morrow: Let me ask you this, the fencing that was proposed for there was chain link
fencing or cedar fencing (inaudible). I guess from my perspective, although I arra
sensitive to Mr. Sanford talking about a berm the cattle operation (inaudible) that means
that you only get a 3 foot fence on top of it. I don't think that is (inaudible) and certainly
the interest of the subdivision (inaudible) So I guess from my perspective I would like to
see that fence be a continuous B foot fence.
Rountree: It could be on the other side of the berm.
Morrow: (Inaudible) could I get a response from Mr. Jacobs concerning that please?
Jacobs: With the fence I really don't see a problem with a 6 foot chain link fence. I think
it protects both people as best we can, the property owner to the west and then the
subdivision. A berm I don't know that say some enterprising youngsters may be able to
build a bridge across and go into the pens. That way, I don't know what we can do to
cut down on the noise. Perhaps some trees along that area to obscure it, some
landscaping in that respect that would over the years develop a barrier between the two
properties that would also be a visual and a noise barrier. cattle operations or any
farming operations as has been pointed out is always a problem when residential
intrudes into those areas. canyon county has dealt with this with this note on the plat
and I will present, or get that wording to Shari tomorrow morning. I don't have it with me
tonight but basically it says that residents within the subdivision recognize that the cattle
operation or any farming operation has right to be there and they do not have the right
to impede that operation. They can object obviously however they can't change that
operation.
Rountree: I guess I would like to see that taken a step further and that sign be posted
on those adjoining lots and be mandatory if in fact this subdivision is approved that they
be there at all times so the prospective buyers know that they are going to be adjacent
to a cattle and horse cutting operation. They can't say I didn't know and- cause a
problem not for the developer but a problem for the city and the adjacent property
owner.
Jacobs: I think that would not be a problem but that wording on a sign, several signs
and post them along that (inaudible)
Bentley: I too would agree with that because I equate this situation to similar things
where somebody builds right next to the airport and then complains about the noise.
My question is on the chain link fence, while it may be the strongest, are we going to be
faced with complaints about site problems. Being about to see through the fence.
Morrow: (Inaudible) parents to see their kids that may (inaudible). The other thing is if
there is agricultural burning (inaudible)
i
{
Meridian City Council
April 1,'1997
Page 44
Jacobs: If I may, Nampa Meridian prefers a chain link because of that burning issue.
Bentley: As far as the kids go I think about the first trip over there and trip and fall and
get that wonderful smell of (inaudible)
Tolsma: They also have a (inaudible) if they wanted security (inaudible)
Jacobs: I would think that the property owner that purchases that lot desires a different
look they can obviously put in an (inaudible) and hopefully not punch a hole in the
pressure irrigation system (Inaudible) feel more comfortable with.
Corrie: Does that answer the question Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Yes it does.
Corrie: Any further comments?
Sanford: In reply to this gentlemen's, he doesn't feel that people wouldn't abuse it, they
do abuse it. I am going to give you an example of the abuse we are taking from
Waterbury No. 5 also on the 7.5 acres adjoining it. The other day I encountered two
young men over there flying these model airplanes and they were diving at my brood
mares. I paid $15,000 for these brood mares. The only way we stopped them was wit
the City police. So it is just crazy stuff. The reason I mention the hurricane fence is
because Lansbury subdivision which adjoins my property where I also have horses.,
numerous times we have chased dogs out of there that are chasing the horses at 2:00
in the morning, a chain link fence would quite likely keep that out.
Corrie: Thank you, any further discussion? I will close the public hearing.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for sparkling
Springs subdivision by Carrie Homes subject to all staff conditions and the additional
conditions of requiring B foot chain link fence the full length of the gest property line. A
note on the plat advising potential buyers of the agricultural purposes to the west and
signage within the subdivision during its construction phase until the last home is sold
that advises potential buyers of the agricultural nature of the properties to the west.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: A motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the preliminary plat
of Sparkling Springs subdivision according to the motion as stated, any further
discussion? All those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian city council l
April 1, 1997
Page 45
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY
8.38 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite the representatives from the architects to
come forward.
Melissa Leclerc, 2260 McOilchrist Street SE, Suite 100, Salem, Oregon, was sworn by
the city Attorney.
Leclerc: As I stated my name is Melissa Leclerc and I am with curry Brandaw
Architects out of Salem. What we are proposing is the rezone of an R-4 parcel, it is
about, the actual rezone is Just for 8 acres. We got an agreement to purchase all of the
25 acres. The, what we are proposing to do is a retirement community. In the first
phase there would be a two story , combination of one and two story building, an
assisted living would be 44 units and 18 units of Alzheimer's. Forty-four units would be
approximately 45% one bedroom, 45% studios- and 10% two bedrooms. Sixteen units
would be 18 studio suites. We call them suites because none of the units are equipped
with full kitchens. They are little mini refrigerators, microwaves and bar sinks. Residents
take their meals in a common dining area in the central part of the building. That
common dining area also has other accommodations, a beauty salon, commercial
kitchen, activity center, those sorts of things. This facility provides an alternative
lifestyle for seniors that at one time may have probably lived in their own homes but now
are no longer able or willing to do that and are seeking additional support. The basic
rent of these units covers housekeeping and meals, transportation and activities. But
increased level of care is available if they need to have assistance in bathing or
dressing or that sort of thing. That is the lower part right off of Cherry. The smaller
buildings that you see on the west side are a series of duplexes, we are proposing ten
of them, 5 buildings, 2 units each. Those are 2 bedroom, two bath, single car garage,
one story and those would be for more independent seniors. Occasionally a couple, one
of the couples might live in the bigger building and the other couple might take the
duplex where they are still more mobile. Of if the duplex might be rented by someone
who would stili be independent, still be driving, still want a full kitchen, but still want the
advantage of the security of this sort of environment and housekeeping services. The
building in the back is suppose to be two story, 108 units, that is for phase two for
congregate living which would be more independent than the assisted but again sort of
the same concept where housing keeping meals and activities and transportation are
provided. It is a combination of one bedroom, two bedroom and studios with the same
(inaudible) 45%, 44% and 10%. We are proposing the leave the 12 acres in the central
part in the same zone. We don't know what we are going to do there but feel like this is
a pretty good chunk to bite off in a piece the 8 acres. We will leave the middle acres in
the R-4 zone and then I guess in keeping with this March for Parks we are dedicating a
5 acre parcel in the back to the City of Meridian for public park. All the conditions that
staff has presented we are comfortable with and are planning to adhere to. If there are
any specific questions I would be happy to answer them.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 46
Rountree: I have a question (End of Tape)
LeClerc: We as a condition of approval through Ada County Highway District we must
connect Gemstone to the, on the west side with a street and we have our choice of two
to the west. So that is a condition of their approval, actually there are three choices in
addition to having Chateau (inaudible). The surrounding neighbors are very
uncomfortable with any connections. We are comfortable with having one access off
Cherry and we plan on using that as really our only access. The existing residents don't
like the idea of connecting it up, they are worried about their children, they are worried
about additional traffic, they are worried about seniors driving. Most of these seniors
wouldn't drive but for those that would they would be coming down and through to
Cherry. I don't know how to address you discomfort with how Gemstone dead ends. It
is, it makes those neighbors a lot more comfortable with that we are proposing. Ada
County has only stipulated that we somehow connect the Gemstone to the west with
one of those stub streets.
Rountree-, It just seems to me that on the one hand we are being told to provide
interconnectivity of neighborhoods which was the attempt of providing stub streets in
neighborhoods. Now we are putting up a barrier to that interconnectivity, there is no
path, there is no bike way, there is no motor vehicle access. I don't see any, maybe you
can address that.
Leclerc: There, the whole site is connected with a series of walking paths to encourage
outdoor activity and to enhance that park like environment. Also as a condition of
approval staff wanted us to connect the two with walking paths as well that would be
accessible to the public. We would want to do that even if that weren't a condition of
approval. It helps to keep the seniors that live there connected to both the adjacent
neighborhoods and within the community to the various building types that we have. So
we do have walking paths. I suppose that we could vehicularly connect it but again the
adjacent neighborhoods were very uncomfortable with that prospect.
Corrie: (Inaudible) is that connected to the street nem to it (inaudible)
LeClerc: And that is also a condition of approval.
Tolsma: Question, that park site then on the lower end that connects with the park that
is in Sunnybrook right now.
LeClerc: That is correct, there hasn't been any sort of agreement even approached
about connecting those two and that would probably really be up to the neighborhood
association rather than us.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) they said they wanted (inaudible). I have another question for Mr.
Smith, that park site down there is really low isn't it? Wasn't that the non-sewerable part
of the property when they looked at it before?
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 47
Smith: The park site on the north end? I don't think the park site on the north end
Councilman Tolsma
Tolsma: There was a problem in there one time when we were looking at that before,
Smith: The development of that property there was a sewer problem on the south end of
the project.
Leclerc: we have actually looked at that with staff and Tealy Engineering who will be
our civil engineer. we feel like we can raise the grade a couple of feet and actually
serve the building with a gravity fed line instead of any sort of lift station.
Corrie: Any further questions? Thank you, is there anyone else from the public that
would like to enter testimony in this public hearing? Council, comments or questions?
Rountree: I just have a question to staff that all of their issues and questions have been
answered by the findings that have been prepared?
Stiles: Yes, I believe they have, I would also like to compliment Ms. Leclerc and Mike
for all of their cooperation. They have gone to a great deal of effort in developing this
project and I think it will be a great addition to the community.
Corrie: I will close the public hearing.
Morrow. I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared for
usbyP&Z.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to adopt the findings of fact
and conclusions of law adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, any further
discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -w Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: We need a motion on the decision.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby recommends that the
property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for the zoning
amendment requested under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Including the applicant or its successors and interests, assigns,
heirs, executors, or personal representatives enter into a development agreement. And
i
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 48
that the property only be developed under the conditional use process. If the applicant is
not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions of law it is agreeable that with
entering into a development agreement the application for zoning amendment should be
denied.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision as read,
all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that vire instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
rezone ordinance.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to direct the City Attorney
to prepare a rezone ordinance, all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA 44 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH A 16
UNIT ALZHEIMER WING, 10 GARDEN APARTMENTS, AND A TWO STORY 106
SUITE RETIREMENT COMPLEX.
Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite the representative to step forward.
Melissa Leclerc, 2260 McGilchrist St. SE Suite 100, Salem, Oregon, was sworn by the
City Attorney.
Leclerc: I wish to reiterate all of the information I did for the zoning change.
Corrie: Cues the Council have any questions? Anybody else from the public that would
lie to enter testimony at this hearing? Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared for us by P & Z.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: I will close the public hearing, a motion made by Mr. Marrow, second by Mr.
Rountree to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the
Planning and zoning, roll call vote.
Meridian City Council
April +1, 1997
Page 49
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow — Yea, Bentley — Yea, Rountree — Yea, Tolsma — Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Entertain a motion on the decision.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move the Meridian City Council 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. And that the property
be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes,
uniform fire codes, parking, paving and landscape requirements and all of the
ordinances of the city of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon
notice to the applicant by the City.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the decision
and recommendation as read, Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: (Inaudible)
Rountree: I will amend my motion to include the statement upon the approval of the
rezoning ordinance.
Corrie: I accept the, motion made and seconded on the decision as amended, all those
in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF SEWER
EASEMENT BY BERTA NEELY (NAPA AUTO PARTS):
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from
Napa Auto Parks to come forward.
Alloys Schelekeway, 2090 west Pine, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Schelekeway: We have discovered a sewer line late in the project when the civil
engineer did the plot plan missed the sewer line. We designed the property with the
building to be where the sewer line. So it ended up being a better deal to move the
sewer line than to move the building. So it is a Johnny come lately change. That is
basically the basis of it. I don't know if Gary has anything on it.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 50
Corrie: council any questions? Thank you very much, anybody else from the public that
would like to enter testimony on this sewer easement?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, council members, Councilman Morrow, it is an old sewer line that
has been there since I guess the late 60's maybe. The upper end of this sewer line
dead ends behind Giesler automotive. It crosses through this property and eventually
dumps out into Meridian Road. So, the length that they will be abandoning w411 be
rerouted onto Taylor and then into Meridian and into a manhole. The length of line
downstream from this abandoned section %411 just remain in place and continue to serve,
I think there are two homes along the west side of Meridian Road.
Morrow: So you have no objections to this?
Smith: No we don't, that is fine.
Corrie: At this time I will close the public hearing.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I guess a question with the council, I do business with Berta Neely,
do have an account there, I don't know if that constitutes a conflict but my suspicion is
that (inaudible) state for the record (inaudible) and have the address the issue.
(inaudible) that being the case then, Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance to vacate the sewer easement as requested.
Bentley: second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to direct the City Attorney to
draw up an ordinance for vacating a sewer easement, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF THE WEST BOUNDARY OF LOT 367
BLOCK 1 OF HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS:
Corrie: AT this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from
Pacific Land surveyors to come forward.
Tom Eddy, 290 North Maple Grove, Boise was sworn by the city Attorney.
Eddy: Mr. Mayor and council, I would like to clarify it is a request for a vacation of an
easement on the west boundary of Lot 36, not a vacation of the west boundary of lot 36.
Lot 36 is a large lot, some 1 4, 000 square feet. Lot 60 of Haven cove No. 6 is a smaller
lot. Combining the two makes two 8,000 square feet lots. We want to vacate this ease
and then we prepared a lot line adjustment to make 2 8,000 square foot lots. On the
adjusted lot line we had provided an easement to take care of the services.
Meridian City Council
April '1,'1997
Page 51
Corrie: Any questions? Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony
at this time? Questions of staff? Seeing none 1 W11 close the public hearing. Entertain a
motion for an ordinance.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance to allow the vacation of the easement on the west boundary line of Lot 36,
Block 1 of Haven Cove subdivision No. 5.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to instruct the City Attorney
to write up an ordinance request the vacation for Pacific Land Surveyors, any further
discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON GEMTONE CENTER NO. 2 FINAL
PLAT:
Carrie: Council I guess, do we have Briggs Engineering here or anybody? Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I informed Briggs that they didn't need to attend to take
care of this. The plat would need to be recorded by March 1 9t" since they didn't make
that date they are in the process of getting their number 2 plat recorded. They need an
additional length of time probably another 3 to 6 months. They are asking for the year
that is allowed.
Marrow: what is your recommendation?
Stiles: I would recommend that they get the year.
Marrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant Oemtone Center NO. 2 a one year
extension on a date of expiration for their plat.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the extension of
Oerntone Center No. 2 final plat one year from the expiration date, date of expiration,
any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
Meridian city council
April 1, 1997
Page 52
Corrie:. This is the delinquency for the turn off schedule for April 4, 1997. This is to
inform you in writing if you choose to, you have the right to a predetermination hearing
at 7:39 on Tuesday, April 1, 1997 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in
person and be judged on the facts and defend the claims made by the City that your
water, sewer and trash bill are delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be
discontinued on April 9, 1997 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone
present that wishes to contest their water/sewer/trash delinquency? You are hereby
informed that you may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth
.Judicial District court pursuant to Idaho code. Even though they appear their water will
be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $37,234.43. 1 will entertain a motion for the
delinquency list for the turn off schedule.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, 1 move we accept the water and sewer delinquency list.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to accept the delinquency list for
turn off schedule scheduled for April 9, 1997, all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Item #18: APPROVE BILLS:
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve the bills as presented.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the bills, any
further discussion? All those in favor of the bills being approved? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM ##19: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I would like to bring up a department report out of schedule. Bill
Schwartz who does our prosecutions is here. we had discussed the bond forfeiture
situation. I am wondering if the council would allow Mr. Schwartz can go ahead so he
can be in court in the morning.
Corrie: Bill step forward, I assume the Council will approve that.
Schwartz: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, it Is late and I do have to get up tomorrow
morning and 1 am sure you do too. I will try to make this as brief as possible. Basically
as I understand it some of the procedures I used were called into question and that
procedure is basically is the concept of a bond forfeiture. I think there are some
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 53
misunderstandings first of all that I would like to clear up. First of all there is not, there
are really basically three types of bond forfeitures that are routinely done in the Fourth
Judicial District. The first type is something at the port of entry where an overweight
trucker will carne in and he can post a very large bond and then continue on his way.
That, the only agency that affects and the agency by that I mean Boise city, Garden
City, Meridian city and Ada county is Ada County. They are the only ones that have a
port of entry. They routinely forfeit bonds as final disposition. Somebody will post
literally thousands of dollars and they will just take that and accept it and not continue
on with any criminal prosecution of the individual. The second type is bond forfeitures
from just a misdemeanor, by that just your regular old garden variety misdemeanor,
maybe two kids fighting or something like that. Not wishing to start a criminal record of
them an agency might offer a bond forfeiture in that situation. That would prevent a
criminal conviction from going on the individual's record. Those are routinely used by
Meridian city, Garden city, Boise city and Ada county. The third type is the one that I
think brings me before you. That is the practice of taking an infraction, a speeding ticket,
a civil infraction, these are considered civil penalties and amending that charge up to a
misdemeanor. From that misdemeanor forfeiting bond as final disposition. First of all if
may, these practices (inaudible) .specifically authorized by the Idaho code. This is not
anything that I invented (inaudible) I have recently been hired and I am not working for
the city, but I have basically been doing this job for 8 years. We can trace my lineage
back to when Wayne Crookston basically did my job and it would probably be close to
18 years ago. Wayne did this 18 years ago, this is nothing that has been invented by
Bill Schwartz, this is something that has been going on from the city of Meridian for
quite awhile. I didn't invent it I use it. The other jurisdictions, Garden city, Boise city
also routinely does this. Ada County does not do this particular version of bored
forfeiture. Greg Bower the Ada county prosecutor doesn't agree with it, so be it that is
his opinion and he is entitled to his opinion. I am not saying he is right, I am not saying
he is wrong but it is just simply his opinion. I view this first of all as just another tool
towards resolution of cases. On your typical infraction, well first of all I had my
secretary count up today the number of open files I have. gust a thumbnail, I am not
going to swear that this is an enact number because all she could do was count open
files and I am sure there were some missing and I am sure there are some in there that
have actually been disposed. Right now I have 880 open cases, quite a bit of those are
cases set for court trials, quite a few of those are cases set for jury trial. On an average
day the average judge out at Barrister even after pre -trials will have 80 cases left on his
trial calendar for jury trial and he has to sort through those before he figures what is
going to settle at the last minute, who didn't show up and get a Bench Warrant issued.
And quite frankly which ones are going to trial and which ones have to be reset because
he can't try all of them on a given day. You try one case on a given day. Bottom line is
resolution of cases is very important, on top of that on a bond forfeiture concept on your
average citation the city collects by my recollection or by my calculation something in
the neighborhood of $18, that is all we get for writing a speeding ticket, that is our share
of writing a speeding ticket. Resolution means compromise, there is a compromise
going on here. What I am giving up is a conviction, what I am giving up is that this lives
and dies at Barrister, it is not consider a conviction, it does not go to the department of
Meridian city council
April 1,'1997
Page 54
Motor vehicles, this individual does not get any points on his driving record. What I am
gaining is certainty, the case is resolved. second of all the officer doesn't need to show
up on this case which can involve if he is off duty I believe Dave Bowman can talk to
this but I believe he is entitled to 2 hours of overtime or something in that neighborhood.
It takes it off my calendar, I am still working for the city but I can be doing something
possibly more useful than this. From the individuals point of view he pays more money
for this but he doesn't get the points on his driving record. For a lot of people that is very
important because they are worried about keeping their driving record pure and not
having to deal with insurance situations. He also has the benefit of not being found
guild and not having to appear in court and go through the whole process of a court trial.
It is a compromise. I know one of the questions that Wayne raised to me is how do we
know that somebody doesn't just continue to get these all of the time. I check the
records, bottom line, I check the records. If you have had a prior bond forfeiture you
don't get a second one. If you have a bad driving record you don't get a second one. As
I have indicated these are civil infractions, these are sort of the one free bite of the
apple you get otherwise good citizens people that are worried about insurance and
things of that nature and this is one free bite you give them in order to keep their driving
record clean. It is an opportunity that is all it is, they don't have to take it. They have
three options, they can accept the bond forfeiture if they want to, they can go pay the
ticket if they want to or they can have their day in court if they want to. I try to make that
perfectly clear that they have any one of those three options when in fact I even
entertain the concept of a bond forfeiture. The other concern Wayne stressed to me
that these might not be given out or offered to everyone. Well they aren't offered to
everyone they are only offered to good drivers first of all. second of all I think that
concern probably is historically correct. It has not been possible to contact all of these
people prior to trials it is not an offer that has been extended to all people that might fit
into this category uniformly. However, for the last four or five months we have a rotating
schedule and in fact I have to do it I believe this Thursday is my turn for pre -trials and
court trials. Explaining to people what their rights are explaining what their options are
and explaining to them that if this is a concept they wish to pursue they can contact and
should contact the appropriate prosecutor. obviously a Meridian citation that is me and
discuss with him the possibility that this is another choice they have besides paying the
ticket or going to trial. So the word is getting out basically uniformly as we sit here and
speak now. It is something that I will entertain if the person wishes me to entertain it
and if he checks out and is in fact an otherwise good driver.
Crookston Bill, we talked about you being able to find out whether or not a person had
previously had a bond forfeiture, can you explain that?
Schwartz As I have indicated I do a records check on these individuals, when I say it
lives and dies at Barrister that doesn't mean that all the paperwork gets ripped up. It is
still carried on the computer and I can still find out that in fact this charge was amended
to the misdemeanor and bond was forfeited as final disposition. I found that out again,
you don't get the second free bite of the apple. This was all basically one time deal in an
effort to keep your driving record clean so that you don't have to worry about insurance.
Meridian City council
April 1, 1997
Page 55
Crookston: It does not go on record (inaudible)
Schwartz: Right it lives and dies in Barrister it does not, it is not considered a conviction
so therefore it does not get forwarded and they don't get the points on their record. That
is benefit to them as I indicated this is a compromise. They pay some additional funds,
they don't have the points on their record, they don't have to worry about their insurance
increasing because of a speeding ticket type of conviction. Quite frankly normally I start
out at $199 plus $53.50 court cost and that is a starting point that I start from. That
Crookston: (Inaudible) penalty anyway are they not?
Schwartz: No, not an infraction, an infraction is $29.59 and then I believe it is $28.50 on
court cost on an infraction. But by amending it to a misdemeanor it takes it up to the
misdemeanor court cost which our Meridian share is approximately $99 versus the $18
that they are just convicted assuming I am lucky enough, good enough to get the
conviction to begin with. And again it takes the uncertainty out of it from my point of
view. This is not something I forced on them if they don't want to do it that is their
chose. It is just simply another option, another potential way to resolve cases, get cases
off of the congested court calendar. There was a point I was going to make, I forget so
it was probably not terribly important. But this is just to summarize this is nothing more
than another tool to try to unclog an overcrowded court system and at the same time
offer some benefit to the individual who wants to pursue this and also gain some benefit
for the city of Meridian by doing it this way. It is just another tool is the way I view it and
that is also quite frankly Garden city views it, and Boise city views it. Mr. Bower who
has his opinion is quite frankly in the minority in his opinion on these matters. I had the
opportunity yesterday to ask Steve Bradley who is one of the more experienced officers
and one of the more proficient traffic officers if he felt that there was any problem with
this. I wanted to get some feedback from him. He indicated to me no he had absolutely
no problem and he was all for the idea basically. I talked to officer Rick Murphy today
who is also another very proficient officer in traffic duties who writes quite a few tickets.
He also has no problem with the concept. I cannot say to you gentleman that I have
talked to every single police officer, no I have not had that opportunity since this
situation arose. But I have never had a rank and file police officer complain when I
disposed of a case in this manner. Quite frankly I think most of them support the
proposition because they really don't want to be coming in on their days off and time off
if they don't have to. If there is a way to resolve this short of that. I think that is all I have
to say, I would entertain questions right now.
Rountree: I guess the area that I am uncomfortable with in this thing is the criteria
established for implementing this and you verbalized it quite well and I am comfortable
with what you said. Is that in writing anywhere, about haw you say this is only available
to good drivers, I checked their record and if there is a bond forfeiture in the past they
don't get it. If it is an infraction of such a degree they are not going to get. If that criteria
were established I think my comfort level would go up.
Meridian city council
April 1, 1037
Fuge 55
Schwartz: It is not established, because, not any more established than what I do any
other given misdemeanor, what I recommend on a given DUI, what I recommend on a
given domestic battery case. It is basically the prosecutor dealing with his discretionary
function which quite frankly he can't be tied to too tight because there are no two
situations that are exactly alike. You did remind me of what I wanted to say before, I
think one of the other concerns that Wayne said to me was that somehow this benefits
the wealthier person and hurts the poorer person. I have two responses to that and it
doesn't really address your concerns here because ultimately these are all prosecutorial
discretion concerns also. First of all I start out with $100 that is not set in stone.
Someone can actually convince that they have financial hardships and $100 is an
excessive amount for them. I try to be flexible and I am downwardly mobile. The
second thing is if the person is interested in the concept but simply is not financially
solvent enough to come up with the money on that particular date and time I have done
this many times in the past through one method or another I have continued the case
down the road for two, three, four months sometimes so that person has an opportunity
to get those funds together. So this is a big block hitting him all at once so that he can
put away $25 a month or something towards resolving in the nature of a bond forfeiture.
Again that didn't really address your concerns but again all of these functions that
perform none of this is set in stone. I have basically a set standard on what I will do on
a appear first time [QUI and what I will recommend for fines, jail time, driver's license
suspensions, probation, etc. However that is not cut in stone either, every time I go in
there I am willing to be swayed in one direction or another after listening to the particular
facts of the case. But basically that is why you higher a prosecutor and that is the
function that he has to do as the prosecutor he has to use his prosecutorial discretion in
a case to figure out what the appropriate solution to any case is. Not just bond forfeiture
cases but basically any case.
Rountree: I have one more, and you are talking about fees or penalties or whatever they
might be. My question is what is the rationale for the City collecting higher fees for in
theory less work on your part and or on the courts parts'
Schwartz: what is the rationale, well the rationale is I have 030 cases and sometimes I
have 0 or 7 cases set on a court trial calendar. This gives certainty to the case. Again
didn't invent this but it has always been considered a benefit to the defendant to offer
him a bond forfeiture. He saves certain penalties by accepting that. He saves the
conviction, he saves the potential of what his insurance company is going to do over
which none of us in the judicial system have any control. It saves the points on his
record for that. He basically his version of the compromise, his side of it is he has to pay
additional funds. That is what justifies the compromising and the coming together of
minds. Again councilmen if I might stress this, this is just, if you were not a City
Councilman and you came to me with a clean driving record and I made you that offer
what I would make you, what I would basically advise you is exactly what these people
are being advised in the pre-trial conferences now. You have three choices, whichever
choice you decide to do is fine with me. I am not trying to influence you choice. You
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 57
have the choice to have your court trial. If that is what you want to do, you are entitled to
that by right and you can have your court trial. You have the right to go out there and
pay this ticket right now and it will cost you $48 if that is what you choose to do that is
fine. But sir because you are also a good driver I will also make a third option available
to you, I will make open this concept of bond forfeiture. Just please advise me of which
one you want to follow sir and I will assist you in doing it.
Bowman: Mr. Mayor and Council, 1 do have a question for Mr. Schwartz, what type of
misdemeanors are you dealing with and specifically does this involve DUI' s. If so what
does the MADD organization have to say about that.
Schwartz: Thanks Dave, first of all what we are talking about here tonight or at least
what I am trying to approach here tonight are infractions, speeding tickets they get
amended up to a misdemeanor and then bond is forfeited. That is the (inaudible) now
there is the type of bond forfeiture which I addressed here which is (inaudible) forfeit
bond from a misdemeanor. However, and I can give you a copy of it
Crookston: The statute says that you cannot do it on DUFs
Schwartz: Right there are specific sections specifically (inaudible) excluded from the
concept of bond forfeiture. In your situation that you are talking about Dave where all
we are talking about is a general type of bond forfeiture where someone has already
been charged with a misdemeanor. what we are really dealing with are really minor
situations, someone playing his music too loud. Two kids getting into a fight, what would
normally be a high school fight except they both happen to be over 18 years of age so
they got charged as adults. Real minor things, quite frankly it doesn't get used that often
and when it gets used there is usually the aspect of it that I feel 1 have got some
problem with part of my case on top of it. And it is just a way to resolve a case short of
getting a guilty plea but also recognizing that one of my favorite lines to a person when I
offer them a bond forfeiture out of this type of situation is well it is all well and good I
know you did something stupid, I suspect you wouldn't do it again. However you have to
understand you tied up two police officers for 45 minutes having to unsort this stupid
situation and for that I think you need a penalty. It doesn't have to be a criminal
conviction but you need to have a certain amount of penalty associated because of your
stupid acts.
Corrie: Bill I have a couple of questions if I might, on speeding tickets and that do you
check all of driver records of everyone that comes across?
Schwartz: I check all Ada county driving records. I don't always have access to their
DMV print out. I do tend to talk to them to try to establish that and I do, I can usually
determine how long the person has been in the Ada county area. And that gives me
some assistance and I cannot say that there is 100% accuracy involved here. However I
do think when I turn to someone and say well sir I don't show that you have any local
tickets do you have an Idaho Driving record, I think they are taking their life in their own
I
Meridian city Council
April 1, 1997
Page 53
hands if they turn around and lie to me and I figure out that they are lying. And I think it
would be a very stupid thing for them to do. But I can't absolutely guarantee that. I only
have access to certain levels of record.
Corrie: when you upgrade from a speeding to a misdemeanor which, and he comes
back a second time how do you know, if it is a misdemeanor you don't have any idea
that it was a speeding before that they got, how do you determine if it was just a
misdemeanor or a speeding.
Schwartz: Actually you can tell, the printouts will read charge amended from 49584
which is speeding to 491493 which is the section I tend to use which is (inaudible)
unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. Then the next line will say band forfeited in the
amount of $100 plus court cost. I couldn't get a much bigger clue than that if it had a
neon light attached. I know exactly what that means happened in the case.
Corrie: If I was an insurance investigator I wouldn't get that same thing?
Schwartz: You wouldn't get it because you don't have access to the criminal justice
system files. You would have access to the files out on state Street and that is exactly
where we are keeping these from going. That is exactly the benefit that the driver gets. I
might point out that obviously there has been a moratorium put on this and one of the
people that has asked me for a bond forfeiture and I told him I cannot offer you one right
now because there has been a moratorium put on this is a Boise City police officer who
was issued a citation for speeding by one of our officers and this is the way he wanted
to resolve the situation. And of course he has reasons and he has a clean record and
he has reasons to want to keep his records clean. He is willing to pay a penalty, he just
doesn't especially want the points and the driving record associated with it. For that he
was willing to pay some extra money. Again this is nothing that I invented, this has
been going on for quite awhile in all jurisdictions.
Corrie: I understand that I am just trying to understand how everybody gets the same
across the board, if they come to you or if you check their records each time and it is
clean and you say okay I will give you this (inaudible).
Schwartz: I only go to, I think I am set to go to one out of every 6 times on the pre -trials
on the court trials are done. However I have had extensive talks with the Boise City
attorney's, Garden city attorneys, Ada county people who handle it and I have advised
them and they do this and I know they do this because it comes back at me that if the
person has a clean driving record and he wants to entertain the concept of a bond
forfeiture he should contact me at my office and discuss the matter with me to discuss
the possiblity of doing the band forfeiture. So I know it is getting out there and I believe
it is getting done about as even handily as it can be done. The system is quite frankly
ripe with levels of inequity. People who get sentenced on DU1's to basically $599 fines
which is fairly standard (End of Tape) tell you I do it 100% effectively, I can't it would
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 59
be an impossibility. All I can ever do is go out there and try to do my best in that
situation.
Crookston: But that question about how much a person is fined the statute only allows a
find of so much, you can't go above that. Let's say you had JR Simplot and he had a
DUI you cannot fine him $8.5 million.
Schwartz: $1000 would the maximum on a first time at any rate. So I would be stuck
with that. Quite frankly even though he is JR Simplot most of the judges out there would
give him a $500 fine because they don't like to treat people different because they have
one.
Corrie: I guess one of the reasons that this all came about is perhaps we need to or
somebody needs to whenever you do this explain what you are doing a little better. I am
the one that brought this up as a fireman came to me and said what is going on out
there. It wasn't explained to him
Schwartz: Actually Mayor I beg to differ, that was at one of my pre -trials that I explained
it to everyone before hand that it would be something that they could take up with either
me or the handling the prosecutor. He came up, he asked me twice what was going on
with this. I explained it to him twice and you know how sometimes you can talk to
someone and you get all the correct nods but you just get this vacant glare and you just
know that they aren't quite grasping what you are saying. And I knew he wasn't
grasping it and I attempted to explain it to him a fourth time and he says no that is okay I
am just going to go out and pay the ticket which is what he chose to do and that was
fine. But I did explain it to him and quite frankly I think the S years I have been doing
this I think I have had, that ►,would amount to the third complaint I have had lodged with
the Mayor's office over doing my job. Quite frankly is to convict people and to put
people in jail so I don't consider that too bad of a record and I think quite frankly I was
innocent of any of the allegations all three times and this particular gentleman just didn't
understand. l don't know what else, I was going to give it another run when he decided
to go out and pay the ticket. other people understood, other people understood without
even me having to go through it the second and third time with them personally so I
don't understand what particular mental block he had against understanding what I was
saying. But it was clear he did not understand what I was saying. I know he considered
it and I afro sorry he considered it that but it just isn't true.
Corrie: That is why I am bringing it to you to get your side of it. Because I hear other
sides of stories and you have your day in your as you say too. He was, as it was
presented to me he was so upset he was going to the paper and I wanted to find out
what was going on. whether he understand it, I find people everyday people don't
understand it. I explain it to them and they still don't understand it so I understand what
you are saying. But, I just, I avant to get some of these things across what you and I
think the council didn't know what was going on either and we needed this information
presented to us.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 60
Schwartz: I would like to extend an offer to everyone here anytime you folks you have a
free day or something and want to spend a day tagging along with rye to find out what I
do for a living you are definitely more than welcome and I think you night actually enjoy
the experience and it might help you understand that there are a whole lot of cases out
there that need to be resolved in one shape or another. Well when I started here 8
years ago, about 8 officers on staff I believe the (inaudible) and there is still little of me
out there doing it and the cases keep corning more and more and I have got to resolve
them the hest I can.
Corrie: I have been to court with you about 4 times, it was a fight (inaudible) I don't see
how you do it myself because it was a fiasco and you tried to keep things down and
their attorney does this and then, (inaudible) finally he plead guilty and got a fine and
that was the end of it.
Schwartz: That sounds about like the criminal justice system in Ada county.
Corrie: Any other questions? Well I guess at this point do we want to lift the upgrading
and resolution to traffic (inaudible)
Morrow: I understand the issue and I think it does make some sense in my mind to have
a written policy for the city. And that policy could be a little bit liberal or whatever but I
do think we need that policy.
Corrie: Well I guess we could leave it
Rountree: Or a nebulous criteria but something if somebody asks we could say here,
here is the code and hers is the (inaudible) as prosecutor.
Schwartz: I have absolutely no problem with that because quite frankly what would be
written up is I am not going to go beyond that anyway because those are my rules,
those are Boise City's rules, those are Garden city's rule and we do try to (inaudible)
certain amount of consistency amongst the agencies so that there is not a benefit to
getting a ticket in Meridian versus getting one in Garden city. We try to maintain some
consistency amongst our agencies and these are pretty well unwritten but universal
rules.
(Inaudible)
Schwartz: I can throw something together in about ten minutes Wayne.
Crookston: You throw it together and f will review it, but I just want to say that I think
your presentation was very good and that f also however think that things like this need
to be brought to the Council so that there can be a discussion. What does the
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 61
prosecutor and City Attorney feel, what does the City Engineer feel like, we are much
better off to get it out in the open and discuss it then we are to say (inaudible).
Come: Thank you Bill. Gary?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members I placed- in your box today a little synopsis I
think it is on our selection committees progress last week to select an architect to
perforin a programming and space needs study. Councilman Rountree, Will Berg,
Mayor Corrie and myself and Jim Johnson sat on the selection committee sat on the
selection and we interviewed four firms during Friday and ultimately selected ZGA
Architects and Manners of Boise to do the study for us. It was rather interesting after
listening to four oral presentations we independently made a ballot and ranked four
firms I being the best and number 4 being the least best. The five of us ranked the
number 1 and number 2 firm the same. Four of us ranked 3 and 4 the same and there
was on individual that had those two turned around. But it was bind of remarkable that
we had that close of ballot. ZGa made a very good presentation to us and it is this
committee's recommendation that the Council allow the committee or a selected
member of the committee to enter negotiations with the architect or accept his proposal
for a fee.
Morrow. what do you mean by negotiations'
Smith: If you don't feel that the fee is appropriate.
Morrow. tlt/ett f never want to pay for anything.
Smith: We really did, as a selection committee didn't discuss the fee schedules to any
great degree. They were submitted, we looked at thein and they were all different to an
extent. This was not, this particular firm was not the most expensive it was not the least
expensive.
Morrow. well let me ask you this do you feel that there is any negotiating roam there?
Smith: I don't know, I really don't. I would assume that he has put his fee together
based on a certain scope of services.
Morrow. Let me rephrase the question, is there enough negotiating room there that it
would benefit us to delay proceeding with this to allow time (inaudible).
smith: No I don't think so.
Rountree: I guess I would offer that I think it ought to be put in terms of a not to exceed
amount and as far as room for negotiation I think their fee in terms of cost per hour is
fixed. We may alter the scope a little bit as we sit down with them and they talk to our
folks but I don't think that is going to result in a significant change I mope.
rr'
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 62
Morrow. Well that being the case then I would move that we authorize the drawing up of
the contract to accept the ZGA proposal for a cost net to exceed $20,000 and upon
review of that contract we authorize the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest.
Rountree: second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to have ZGA provide the
service not to exceed $20,000, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: f think they will do a good job, (inaudible).
Morrow. As a point of clarification do they have a standard contract Gary or Charlie that
they would submit to us that Mayne would review or is it up to us to write the contract's
Smith: They should have a standard short form agreement, architectural and
engineering firms both seem to operate on (inaudible) it may be an AIA document. I am
more familiar with engineering agreements than architectural. I am sure there is a lot of
standard verbiage that goes into that form.
Rountree: I am guess they have one (inaudible)
Corrie: Lt. bowman anything? Shari?
Stiles: You have in your packets a report a department report, this is the property that is
a half mile west, no a half mile east of Locust Grave on Victory. The property is on a
private lane in Ada County, it is zoned R-1. The people if you have read the letter
explains how they happen to split this property and then they went to Ada County and
Ada County said no you can't do that. They went through trying to get a variance and
they still denied it because of the fact that our comprehensive says they have to have
five acres unless they are hooked up to sewer and then they have to be of an urban
density. Ada County's comprehensive plans says the same thing. Even they are zoned
R--1 they told them they couldn't do it unless the Meridian City Council authorized that a
letter be sent approving this split. There are currently two homes on the lane, it is a dirt
lana, possibly some of the homes on the east side of the lane may access it to the
backs of their properties. I don't see any problem with not allowing it after they went
through the whole process and were denied the director of Ada County Planning and
Zoning said that you could have done it all the time if we they weren't in Meridian's area
of impact. So, I am just asking if you want me to write a letter saying it is okay, it is not
okay, I don't care.
Morrow. Well let me (inaudible) it is okay, I don't have a problem with this.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 63
Rountree: Probably aught to put it in the terms of it is their job but if they want to give
us approval of authority over things that happen in the County we will take it.
Stiles: That is why this puzzled me is because they have never asked for any kind of
(inaudible)
Morrow: (Inaudible)
Corrie: I will entertain a motion that we allow the one acre permit.
Rountree: So moved
Bentley: second
Carrie: Motion made and seconded that we allow the one acre permit, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Walt?
Morrow: A couple of simple issues, we need to get that plaque for Becky Peterson.
Corrie: What is the second thing?
Morrow: She is on the transportation task force as a representative, she served on that
at the same time.
Corrie: I couldn't remember what it was.
Morrow. Well remember we had Pete Michaelson do the Air Quality and the
transportation task force. It would be (inaudible) the person that does the air quality
representation also is a representative on the Meridian transportation task force. So the
plaque needs to do both of those and what we need to do is to appoint a person to take
that position.
Corrie: I was going to say we need somebody to be up there with me.
Morrow. So the person does both jobs.
Carrie: okay, give me some names if you have somebody that you want in there.
Morrow. I will talk to you about that later. Then we did talk about in the strategic
planning meeting the dinner or whatever we wanted to do something nice for the staff in
terms of (inaudible).
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 54
Corrie: $25 is what the Internal Revenue Service allows without question.
Morrow. So the $50 was too high?
Corrie: $25 is what they allow without question anything over $25 they can question.
Morrow►- Well so I guess my inclination would be let's figure out a restaurant and buy
them $25 gift certificates and (inaudible) let them go on their way.
Corrie: (Inaudible) so you want $25 then.
Morrow: $25 is fine that is the easy slam dunk deal let's do the $25 and let's pick a
restaurant that is pretty nice and they can go or not go. Mr. Mayor I would move that we
instruct the City Clerk to be responsible for determining which restaurant it is that we are
going to buy a $25 gift certificate for each of our staff within the City and also select the
appropriate thank you card to include with the little gift certificate.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Mr. Bentley?
Bentley: Yes, a couple of things, we had the regional sprinter, the commuter train
meeting the other day. It is going to be here October 15th through the 31 St, they got a
shortened time, that is all that was available. one of the things they are talking about
doing is shortening up the run, just having four stops for it starting with the Idaho Center
here in Meridian, the Mall and the depot. Boise City has put up $100,000 and I believe
ITD has put $108,000, (inaudible). They are looking for some more cities to make some
donations, I think we need to take a look at that. We also are going to be needing some
help from the police for help in kind to watch some of the crossings that aren't lit during
the running of the train. It will be running, they are going to have a window where they
can run it for 14 hours during the day, they are going to run the freight at night during
the other 10 hours. So I think we need to take a look at what we can budget for them
since they are not going to be here until October and we wouldn't have to worry about
the money until then. That is that on the train.
Corrie: Do we build a platform?
Bentley: They are working to possibly get Truss Joist to do the building.
Corrie: How about parking?
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 65
Bentley: That is part of, they have five different committees spun off of this that are
working on the different issues, park and ride lot, transportation. I don't know what,
whether we could have the school busses help us out with that or how we are going to
work that.
Corrie: what were the four stops Glenn I didn't hear you.
Bentley: The Idaho Center, Meridian at zamzows, the mall and the depot.
Corrie: (Inaudible)
Bentley: Secondly, on this track system computer deal that we were supposedly going
to get through HP the Chief and I are becoming very disgusted with the program. We
feel that we have been lead on to a come on for a sale pitch. What was supposed to be
available to the eleven police communities is come down that they put up three
computer systems. The United Way put up a couple, and Boise City bought their own.
We have been put off and put of on it and the Chief, I spoke to the Chief and I would like
to turn around and write a letter to HP and tell them how really disappointed we are with
the way this process has gone. I am just wanting to ask your opinions whether I should
proceed with writing that letter. I don't want to be nasty with them I just want to tell them
we are kind of disappointed in what has happened. I thought I would bring that up
amongst all of you to see what your feeling is or whether we should not just say
anything about it.
Morrow. (Inaudible)
Bentley: The first six, we went to the last meeting we went to they figured out where
they were going to go. We decided we didn't want one here we wanted them on the
perimeter, each end of the valley to start. Boise is getting one because they bought their
own and Mountain home and so on. They were supposed to have been installed in
January and the last word we heard they were having a meeting on the 8th about the
installation.
Morrow. I guess from my perspective (inaudible).
Bentley: I didn't want to write it on City stationary without you guys knowing what I plan
on putting in it.
Morrow. (Inaudible) copy for the record.
Rountree: I guess the only caution I would have is that is sour grapes going to be
something that is going to buy us something. If you are going to express your
dissatisfaction I think it has to be done fairly softly.
Meridian city council
April 1, 1997
Page 66
Bentley: That is all I have.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: I have one thing, we have a summer recreation program without an
individual to run it at this point in time. We have an applicant who a number of people
feel is probably qualified and would be a good place to probably release some of his
pent up energies. The difficulty is that individual is a member of the Parks and
Recreation commission. I think it is the city's position to hire whomever they want but if
they do hire this individual it would be my opinion that hey would no longer serve as a
community resident at large which that is the current position that they fill and probably
would have to be replaced on the Parks and Recreation commission. But I just was a
read from the council on that.
Morrow: I guess my perspective Charlie is that I would really like to see us hire a Parks
and Recreation department head and do so immediately rather than somebody to run a
program. I think that person needs to be running a full department and having the
responsibility for not only the implementation of the short term immediate stuff but also
for the longer term in bringing together all of the assets of the parks and recreations
commission is trying to put together and bringing together the planning for development
of future park sites. 1 see it as being a stand alone department (inaudible) it appears to
me that in the short term the individual could be taking care of summer rec. program
and then get into the long term aspects of what the job really is and you would probably
be hiring an assistant of somebody within the department that actually does summer
rec. programs and those type of things once they really kind of got going. I know that
from the standpoint of western Ada recreation we are very close to being prepared to
turn over the operation of a lot of the stuff within that operation and fund our share of the
person that is doing that. But I wouldn't see us turning that over to anything other than a
fu l I fledged department with a department head.
Rountree: I guess I agree with what you are saying Walt and that would be my desire
and that is one of the goals that we are trying to do in terms of getting position
descriptions written. But we are in April right now, we have people who need to be
identified and let known that they are going to have a B week job this summer and that
is about all the program is funded to do. As efficient as we are I would be surprised if
we could have anybody even hired by May or the end of May and or on board by June
and that is when the program is over. so I guess I am looking this is just a short term six
week job that folks want and we have done it historically with the school teacher and
can't do it any longer and we have a couple of applicants. 1 just bring this up that one
applicant is in that situation and I just want you to be aware of this of the potential, my
read of the potential conflict. I don't think that we can wait until we get a parks director
or parks manager on board to get this summer rec. program.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 67
Morrow. It is a six week job and it is done by June, as long as whoever is vying for the
job understands that it is a six week deal that is fine. And that is contract and that is it.
With respect to, no I don't want to see a conflict of interest.
Corrie: WE don't have the appropriations for a director anyway yet.
Morrow: (Inaudible) because that is very critical.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I think too that we go with the 6 week guy just to get us from here to
there and then proceed with maybe getting some applications put together and
somebody on a permanent basis. Because I too feel with as much as we are growing
we are going to have to have a director to make this thing fly right.
Rountree: We need somebody full time who can roll with this full time, Gary doesn't
have the time. His staff doesn't have the expertise and we have to do it and I would like
to get it done this year. I think there are budget savings that we can identify and that is
something that is out of my play to do as well.
Morrow. I guess the final support to that is it doesn't do a whole lot of good to
(inaudible) and then not have somebody on board (inaudible)
Rountree: So I guess my question is if this individual is hired for this in short duration do
you see a conflict or not?
Morrow: well I think that, I don't want to see the perception of any conflict, I guess from
my standpoint that is a major problem.
Rountree: So if it is explained if that individual is the selected individual they step down
from the Commission they can hold or retain their capacity as a sub -committee person
on the commission and can still participate and etc. It is not like we are doing great
amounts of things.
(Inaudible)
Rountree: You and I need to get with Ron and (inaudible) I guess I would move that we
have some kind of a commemorative minute in City record that would designate the
softball field at Storey Park as the Herald J. Cox Ball Field.
Morrow. Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded, all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 88
Morrow. Dees that mean we are going to present him with a plaque and bring him onto
the City Council meeting and get his picture taken.
Corrie: I will notify his son too.
Rountree: I just want to get clear on what is happening on Generations Plaza. There is
a meeting at 4:30 on Thursday.
Corrie: I have called the Girl Scouts
Rountree: An update on that, I have talked to Job Corps one last time today. They are
not going to be available, it doesn't sound like they are going to be available at all this
year as far as laborers and or mason types. We will have to find some other source for
that.
Morrow: (Inaudible)
Corrie: I have two, three things actually. Bill Moore gave that presentation at the
Planning meeting, do you want to do anything now with the RC&D membership?
Morrow. I don't
Rountree: I don't see any value at all. I question the Federal government even being
involved in that type of project.
Corrie: second is Leroy Meyers called me, he would like to have a meeting with one or
two of you to talk about the Eagle Road preservation west of 1-84 and also the Magic
View intersection lights. He has 5 dates here that he would like to meet, only one out of
those sic. But I need a couple of you that would like to meet with him.
Marrow: I have been on that project.
Corrie: Who else would like to, I will give you the dates here. April 15, 21, 25, 28 and 29.
Rountree: 1 will sustain from any action on that particular project because 1 have 3 board
members that will camp out in my office (inaudible).
Carrie: Anybody else, I don't be able to make any one of those except the 15th. I will get
back with you. The other one is for the Planning and Zoning Commission vacancy,
gave you Byron Lee smith's application. Myself and Jim Johnson had lunch with him
and went through an interview, he is an architect, he is very interested in doing this. He
called me this morning and said he had thought about it. He would be happy to serve on
the committee, he has the time. He has been a resident of the City for 21 years. So
would give you his name as a recommendation for filling the vacancy of Oslund. Osiund
will be here the 8t" of April and then he will beoin to Sacramento.
g g
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 69
Morrow. What is the seat number for Greg?
Corrie: Seat 3
Berg: 1 don't know what the seat number for this is but would it be a better idea to
appoint this at the next meeting so that Greg (Inaudible).
Corrie: Well Greg is going to attend anyway, I told Byron that he wouldn't start until May.
Berg: I know but what I am saying is if you appoint somebody to do this seat the seat
isn't vacated until after the 8t".
Crookston: You can appoint him as of a certain date.
Corrie: May the 13tH
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we appoint Byron Smith to seat #3 to fill the
vacancy of Greg Oslund effective date of appointment would be May 13tH
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley
Rountree: Just a point of clarification and I think it is probably understood in the motion
but it is to serve the duration of that seat.
Corrie: That is correct yes, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: That is all I have at this point.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Corrie: I will entertain a motion that we adjourn.
Bentley: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
r
t -
E.
Meridian City Council
April 1, 1997
Page 70
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:17 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
_""35R"kIE MAYOR
L
ATTEST:
titijtjII I
r
y
OeL fA M%` G. BERG, .JR., CITY CEMVz
44 1
r
4 4
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1997 -- 7:39 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 18,1997:
PROCLAMATION: MARCH FOR PARKS DAY:
1. TABLED MARCH 4, 1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BRIGHTON CORPORATION: -table, Grrnfi? l2iay 6 I -A_
2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO I -L BY MICHAEL ANDMICHELLE MURASKO:�ceoprov-e.
0/c, � ppm �e rl�c� f/ � C,`� �c�i�-�.l•�.e,`' Z6
3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO I -L BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: aplohov--ems ,�/� �;' ele- std`
ccvnehaCeek aloprov-e decf`,t'ieri- C'i�y at�ot-ney �vpr-qate a�q ovdihahc.4
4. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 18,1997: REQUEST FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST
INC.: /:)//-1 &4,-e�7 l /�pry-1 /n-eeb'y
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK BY MERIDIAN LDS CHURCH:
a��fove� �'/f � G�� aPp�-vcr.�
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES TO T -E BY B.W. INC.: o ve Alf 41, e/L
al�fai-ov.e� C&cih/ P�-
� ���j atz�-�y �-epare oY-d�a nc_e>
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF MERIDIAN MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMY BY JOINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2: -6z,h/.e iv� l 151�1 mfy-
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF EXPANDED BLEACHER SEATING, ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, AND MOVING OF TWO RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS BY
JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2:
ll�_/Vi-o ve cLe c f sjon)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 9.42
ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-15 BY LORIN SAUNDERS: fe%Jle ltin.62
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPARKLING
SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY CARRIE HOMES INC.:
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 8.38
ACRES OF LAND FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY CURRY BRANDAW ARCHITECTS:
g;oprov.e, j e/L �pro✓� Gl2c>TitT,-�
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA 44 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH
A 16 UNIT ALZHEIMER WING, 10 GARDEN APARTMENTS AND A TWO
STORY 106 SUITE RETIREMENT COMPLEX:
Q�protle Greri..f-i o.J
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A SEWER EASEMENT
BY BERTA NEELY (NAPA AUTO PARTS): C'diz GLtPI-ney ZvyV1-eoai--e_ o�-dinahee_
-6O vacate- .Q6t,retnelzt
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF LOT 36, BLOCK 1 OF HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY
PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS: t0y att�2ilxy �v lvrepare oYd�"s�.ance>
� vacu.Z`2. erzfem eve. f
15. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON GEMTONE CENTER NO. 2 FINAL
PLAT: app rov-� &2,z,e ��e� ;&�f.P/& f `o�J
16. CESCO LATE COMERS AGREEMENT:
17. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
18. APPROVE BILLS: `��pfrov-ems
19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. DOUG OLSON: 1 -ACRE LOT SPLIT IN MERIDIAN AREA OF IMPACT:
CITY OF MERIDIAN,--,
PUBLtC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET APR _ I IQ97
%.P
NAME PHONE NUMBER
APR - 1 1*9007
DELINQUENCY FOR CMOFIAN 7
TITh OFF SCHEDULED FOR 03/04197
MAYOR: This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a
Pre -determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday APRIL. 1, 1997 before the Mayor and
the City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and defend the claim made
by this City that your waters sewer and trash bill in delinquent. You may retain
council. This service will be discontinued on APRIL. 09, 1997, unless payment
is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest their water, sewer and
trash delinquency? No response.
MAYOR: They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the
City reviewed by Fourth Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even
though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list
is.,$37,,234,43,
DELINQUENCY LIST
TURN OFF FOR 04/09/97
ACCOUNT#
NAME & ADDRESS
AMOUNT
1-30
JOHN R BEAUDOIN
55.21
713 MERIDIAN .S T
1-90
LEONARD MCFADDEN
51.99
710 W 2ND ST
1-110
NO CROTEAU
83.15
717W2ND ST
1-170
RICHARD & KIMBERLY LOVA
82.63
721 W 3RD ST
1-460
JOHN WARDLE
48.16
716 W 8TH ST
1-720
DOUGLAS HADLEY
47.55
647 W BROADWAY AV
1-750
RAYMOND HOPKINS
54.97
607 W BROADWAY AV
1--770
THOMAS DEUBER
157.01
511 W BROADWAY AV
1-800
SID & SHELLY BREWER
45.15
423 W BRAODWAY AV
1-1330
KAY LOUISE ESTES
46.06
813 W 3RD ST
1-1780
MELVIN L. SCRIVNER
63.45
728 W STH ST
1-2010
RICIN S WISDOM
74.41
323 W IDAHO AV
1-2730
CHRISTINA MADER
65.51
1521 W BIDDICK ST
1--2774
HAROLD E. RIGENHAGEN
45.16
552 NW 15TH ST
1-2844
JON R. CHIPMAN
67.31
692 NW 15TH ST
1-3130
ALLEN FLEMING
55.76
935 W PINE AV
1-3424
JEANNIE NORMAN
38.18
417 W PINE AV
1-3510
EARL & KATHLEEN BRINEGAR
171.44
205 W PINE AV
1-3674
SHELLIE FARRAND
51.99
443 MERIDIAN ST
1-4430
HELEN RAWLEY
76.51
854 W FRANKLIN RD
2-74
CYNTHIA THOMAS
63.48
922 W. 2ND ST
2-114
DAVID SANTISTEVAN
80.53
230WPINE AV
2--244
GERALD & MARIILYN BLAZEK
63.45
1441 W 4TH ST
2--444
LARRY R. SMITH
144.48
724 W PINE AV
2-442
ANDREW & DANITA LUBACKY
55.82
912 NW 7TH AV
2-424
BRADLEY & SHERRY YOUNG
69.45
539 W CRITERION ST
2-564
DEAN .ANDERSON
268.51
1244 W PINE AV
2-596
HOME ART CORP
39.87
1263 W CLARINDA ST
2.958
TINA HENDRICKSON
78.80
997 NW 14TH ST
2-970
DAVID ROEPKER
78.80
1419 W STATE ST
2-1200
B. SMART
74.97
1332 W 1ST ST
2-1250
ELIZABETH WEAKLEY
59.65
1525 W IST ST.
2-1300
E.E. BRINEGAR
71.14
1532 W 1ST ST.
2-1560
DAVID DOMIK-A
78.50
1404 W 2ND ST.
2-1570
MICHAEL LOCK
113.27
1410 W 2ND ST.
2-1610
DEVICE DESILET
68.52
1502 W 2ND ST
2-1840
RICHARD J HAIRSTON
90.29
218 W MAPLE AV
2-1560
H LARUE BEVINGTGN
127.10
240 W MAPLE AV
2-1870
LARRY PIPER.
63.45
3 06 W MAPLE AV
2-1970
KERRY L. LARSDN
194.96
225 W MAPLE AV
2--2060
SCOTTFARMER
56.91
314 CAMELLIA AV
2-2160
CLAY & NANCY G#DELL
77.31
224 W CHERRY AV
2-2180
DUVVAIN SHEPARD
86.63
238 CHERRY AV
2-2350
DIANA HARPER
38.16
126 W WASHINGTON AV
2-2550
PAUL PACK
122.45
1313 W 4TH ST
2-2910
GEORGE L. O#BRIEN
45.76
654 W WASBINGTON AV
2-3184
WALTER. RYAN
67.31
1131 W 7TH ST
2--3284
ROBERT D. RUNDLE
48.16
1121 W 5TH ST
2-3340
RICHARD POE
57.73
1115 W 6TH ST
2-3912
DONALD & CAROLYN COUCH
48.16
1121 MERIDIAN ST.
2-4314
DENNIS K WILSON
55.82
1239 ELM CT
2-4344
RICHARD CARRIER
64.89
1215 ELM CT
2-4590
JOHN CARNAHAN
51.99
1231 W 13TH ST
2-4740
JUDY ALBRECHT
81.14
1446 W 14TH ST
2-4770
CRISTI COX
141.78
1434 W 14YH ST
2-4944
SHARRON HILL
46.47
1537 W 15TH ST
2-5444
BARRY D. MITCHELL
128.59
1527 NORTHGATE AV
2-5274
STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION
69.11
1520 MAPLE AV E 3RD
2-5310
PENNY MCATHRON
54.56
15 3 3 ELM PLACE
2-5400
MICHAEL STEVENSON
48.16
1426 ELM PLACE
2-5610
KRIS HOPKINS/GAYLEE AARCHULETA
71.14
1504 W WASHINGTON ST
2-5650
MELODY FARNSWORTH
63.45
1527 W WASINGTON ST
2-5850
PHILLIP A DUPER.OZEL
88.14
1406 W CARLTON ST
2-6030
TOM KRASOWSKI
67.31
1017 W 12TH AV
2-6170
MRS. GEORGE KING
51.99
1119W 11TH ST
2-6180
TERRY & SHANNAN AHRENS
74.97
1225 W 11TH ST
2-6300
PATRICIA ANSON
131.83
1203 W STH ST
2-6440
FREDRICK J. SHADDICK
146.85
1002 W WASHINGTON DR
2-6970
TAMARA DLTLHANTY
64.71
917 W CARLTON
3-94
PAUL NEEDHAM
74.97
689 N TIDWELL WY
3-344
L. DEAR & REBECCA GOODNER
59.65
731 N ROTAN AV
3-362
GREG & NANCY HONG
74.97
1903 W SNYDER DR
3-388
LESLIE BRUNTON
59.65
84.35
78.80
74.97
67.31
63.48
64.05
75.23
94.12
64.72
60.76
105.61
55.82
251.23
74.97
1968 W SLATON DR
3-420
RICHARD THURBER
674 N TALL PINE PL
3-650
LYNDA HAYWARD
1775 W PINE AV
4-1412
RODNEY & M. NAOMI PLUMLEY
2826 W LEONARD CT
4-1424
SHIIZLY BUTLER
2774 W SHERYL ST
4-1594
BRIAN HALL
2921 W WII.,LARD ST
4-1598
JOHN &DAWN 4GAN (CKCHG)
2857 W WII.,LARD ST
4-1634
RUSSELL C MOORS
2922 W WII,LARD ST
4-1776
BUD LANSING
2628 W WII,LARD ST
4-1834
MARK BITONI
2494 W SANTA CLARA DR
4-1880
DENNIS McCUE
1510 N TINA MARIE AV (CK&CHG)
4-1908
DARRELL R. BYERS
1533 N TOKAY WY
4-1930
MIIU RIGGS
1421 N VINEYARDS AV
4-1950
EDWARD WHITE
2200 W SONOMA DR
4-2308
CHARLES & TONI BUTTERFIELD
1475 N SANTA ROSA PL.
5-164
CAL &COLLEEN ROBINSON
3969 W ASPEN CREEK CT
84.35
78.80
74.97
67.31
63.48
64.05
75.23
94.12
64.72
60.76
105.61
55.82
251.23
74.97
5--184
MICHAEL PARRS
4061 W THORN CREEK CT
5-214
DUANE SESSIONS
3 545 W PARK CREEK DR
5-254
TE CE & GAYLE BRENNAN
1225 N SAW CREEK PL
5 -3 92
LORIN WELLMAN
3 831 W PARK CREEK DR
5-454
R. SHANE RILEY
3 663 W PARD CREEK DR
5-505
RANDY HART CK CHG
3353 W PARD CREEK DR
5-752
JON 8 MARLA BERGER
1432 N MIRROR CREEK WY
19-46
ROBERT MOWERY
3 727 HARBOR POINT DR
20-1486
CHARLES HUFF
3552 W TUPELO CT
20-1510
JAY D. ALLRED
1855 N OAK HILLS DR.
20-1530
EUGENE BROWN
3 595 W WOODMONT DR.
20-1542
WILLIAM KNAPP
3465 WOODMONT DR.
20-1558
DAVID MOE
3440 SUGAR CREEK DR
20-1664
STEVEN MEDLEY
3 761 WOODMONT DR
20-1726
NANCY MESROP
2110 N SCIOTO PL,
63.31
125.59
101.78
45.70
97.29
61.81
50.62
42.96
51.99
71.14
128.55
166.59
20-1826
LORIN GIBB S
3820 SEA ISLAND CT
20-1846
MICKEY L. WART
3721 SEA ISLAND CT
20-1848
DWAYNE LINGEL
2153 TURNBERRY CL
20-1890
RONALD LUKESH
1971 INTERLACHEN WY
20-1910
JOE & SUZANNE SHEA
1865 INTERLACHEN WY
20-2008
BRYAN W RUHL
3730 QUAKER RIDGE DR
20-2010
GARY & CHARLENE MILLER
3740 QUAKER RIDGE DR
20-2042
DANEEN SANCHEZ
1620 LAUDERHII,L WY
21-28
DAVID KENT
1860 KRISTEN WY
21-30
TIM CARRANZA
1890 KRISTEN WY
21-32
CORTNEY LARSEN
1922 KRISTEN WY
21-42
TANYA RAMSEY
2006 KRISTEN WY
21-80
DARIN LOWS
2402 N LEANN WY
21-94
JAMES METIVIER
2522 N WATERSTONE WY
21-204
DANA DUMOND
2660 W CREEKSTONE CT
101.34
97.95
73.32
67.31
71.14
70.78
128.59
83.58
58.16
75.47
105.05
59.65
71.43
51.99
21-502
ROBERT STANPHII,L
2818 N QUARRYSTONE WY
21-996
KRISTEN GOURLEY (CK&CHG)
2723 W PEBBLESTONE CT
21-1014
DAVID FUNK
2879 N QUARRYSTONE WY
21-1084
RICHARD &LINDA TEASLEY
2765 N FIELDSTONE WY
21-1106
BRIAN EDGERTON
2661 N OLD STONE WY
21-1168
DAVID &LAURIE CARLSON
2395 N LEANN WY
21-1172
RICHARD FALK
2375 LEANN WY
21-1652
MARILYN MYERS
2085 KRISTEN WY
21-1758
ROBERT B. COOK
1840 TODD WY
21-1766
RICK K. COFFMAN
1960 NLARLANNA PL
21-1770
YVONNE DESINU
1941 MARIANNA PL
21-1832
PHILIP SHOEMAKER
2637 REBECCA WY
21-1866
KEVIN & GWENDA FIELD
2630 REBECCA WY
21-1870
DOUGLAS & CARLA SCHOPELERY
264 REBECCA WY
21-1892
JERRY E ORSBORN
2570 MISTY DR
45.57
285..41
41.74
51.99
51.99
94.12
459.41
81.14
53.23
315.87
55.52
105.61
55.82
71.00
21--1896
CHARLES & JUNE FIELD
2556 MISTY DR.
21-1925
BRUCE R BAILEY
2950 REBECCA VvTY
21-1934
DAARICE BEHRENDT
2612 MISTY DR
21--2006
MARK & TAMARA ROSE (CKCHG)
1732 N MORELLO AV
21-2015
WILLIAM STUHR
2876 W GEMSTONE DR
21-2056
JEFF SALVATORE
1735 N VICTOR AV
21-2070
MICHAEL A ANKENMAN
2993 W ANN ST
21-2122
PHYLLIS NIXON
1745 N MORELLO AV
21-2182
JUAN S LUNA
3 040 ALT HIGAN ST
21-1866
KEVIN & GWENDA SCI IOPPELREY
2644 REBECCA WY
21--1892
JERRY E. ORSBORN
2570 MISTY DR
21-1896
CHARLES & JUNE FIELD
2586 MISTY DR
21-1928
BRUCE R. BAILEY
2590 REBECCA WY
21-1934
DARIE BEHRENDT
2612 MISTY DR
21-1955
ALAN DOTY
2575 REBECCA WY
73.46
62.36
55.52
75.12
67.31
67.31
74.97
82.63
99.42
55.82
71.00
73.46
62.36
55.52
72.57
21-2006
MARK& TAMARA ROSE (CCH-)
1732 N MORELLO AV
21-2018
WILLIAM STS
2576 ALT GEMSTONE DR
21--2056
JEFF SALVATORE
1735 N VICTOR AV
21-2070
MICHAEL A ANKENNLkN
2993 W ANN ST
21-2122
PHYLLIS NIXON
1745 N MORELLO AV
21-2182
JAUN LUNA
3040 W FlIGAN ST
21-2194
PATICK WILDS
3073 W KANDICE ST
21-2214
BLAIR & TIFFANY CARPENTER.
2823 W KANDICE CT
21-2222
ROBERT & CORENNE MORRISON
2824 V KANDICE CT
21-2732
RON THLJRBER
2482 N STONE PL N
21-2736
RICHARD THURBER
2506 N STONE PL
21-2918
DAVID &KAREN R.EYES
2953 W ELIC STREAM ST
21-2954
CARL & SHARON ADAMS
2696 MORELLO AV N
21-2984
TOM & DENTE MOHR
313 8 W MIRAGE CT
21-2990
HUBERT & ANNABELLA PRICE
3133 W MIRAGE CT
72.12
67.31
67.31
74.97
82.63
99.42
71.14
67.31
60.15
151.57
60.53
51.99
82.63
59.65
21-3018
GORDON LARSON
2887 N HEARTH AV
21-3036
GERALDINE BARR
2991 W RAVE ST ST
21-3068
PATRICK & JUDY BOYDSTUN
2943 W JOUST ST
21-3072
LYLE MILLER&JANNA CHANEY
2915 W JOUST ST
21-3290
RAYMOND B OBKO
3133 N HEARTH AV
21-3296
DWAYNE & VICKI MORRISON
3037 N HEARTH AVE
22-310
MICHAEL & KORRENA GODSIL
1730 W CHATEAU DR
22-320
DOLPH & EILEEN HITE SMAN
181 O W CHATEAU DR
22-326
ROBERT W. GARRISON
18990 W CHATEAU DR
22-330
ELDON & LORI JONES
2312 MONACO WY
22-344
LLOYD WITELEY
1844 TRACY CT
22-808
DAN EKENBERG
2283 N ASTAIRE WY
22-810
JOHN L. BRUNELLO
2257 N ASTAIRE WY
22-868
RONALD POLLARD
2307NKUBIKPL
22--872
LYONS TYLER
2259 N KUBIK PL
82.63
100.29
55.26
67.17
59.65
105.61
59.65
115.61
59.65
rlfl
74.05
104.57
22-914
JEAN RUCKER
62.14
2261 MONACO
22-922
RODNEY D. BRADY
67.31
2155 MONACO WY
22-1008
GARNETT BLEDSOE
40.56
2065 N ASTAIRE WY
22-1032
REN THOMPSON (CK&CHG)
180.02
2039 N NYBORG WY
22-1150
GARY HARRISON
86.46
2365 W RAINWATER CT
22-1216
ROBERT WHEII,ER (CK&CHG)
199.48
2208 W HENDRICKS ST
22-1346
REYNALSO DE ROSARIO
71.14
1902 W MCGLINCHEY ST
22-1350
GAYLEN &SHANNON COWGER
67.35
1956 W MCGLINCHEY ST
22-1356
MAVIN L KERBS (CK&CHG)
134.76
1983 HENDRICKS CT
22-1412
MARTIN DUARTE
86.46
1803 W MCGLINCHEY
22-1416
SHANNON ALLEN
76,16
1763 W MCGLINCHEY
22-1424
ROBERTO CHAVEZ
94.12
1667 W MCGLINCHY ST
22-1466
MARCUS SHELDON (CKCHG)
105.96
1710 W HENDDRICKS ST
22-1504
RANDY L SIlVIPSON
90.29
1764 SANDALWOOD DR
22-1518
JAMES WOOSLEY
135.86
1942 SANDALWOOD DR
�6
22-1524
CARL L. KOCH
73.48
1994 SANDALWOOD DR
22-1546
BECKY PETERSON (CK&CHG)
63.48
2184 MONACO WAY CASH ONLY
22-1552
WENDY SI-IREMAN
57.94
1911 TANA CT
31-176
JOHN OBERBUBOR
125.86
1912 NW 12TH ST
31-184
TRACEY &THOMAS BENNETT
288.64
1968 NW 12TH ST
31-234
JIM F GABRIELSON
60.88
1625 NW 13TH AV
31-430
RAY CASTANEDA
97.95
1511 STOREY AV
31-502
MARY ANN OLSEN
65.19
1472 STOREY AV
31-514
LORETTA A JENSEN
55.82
1522 STOREY AV
31-538
ROBERT L MILLER
84.72
1521 KINGSWOOD AV
31-548
ROBERT SPARKS
71.00
1509 KINGSWOOD AV
31-628
JAMES & LYNDA KOVACH
109.44
1319 NWPORT DR
31-720
MARY F BURKE
68.54
1236 NEWPORT DR
31-732
WII.,LIAM & SANDY PENDELTON
86.46
2132 NEWPORT DR (CK & CHG)
31-734
RONALD PARKS
70.59
2207 FAIRWOOD DR
31-775
JOSEPH A SIRNI
114.33
2234 FAIRW44D DR
31-834
CHRISTOPHER & SADIE KNIGHT
45.13
1243 DELMAR DR
31-866
VICKEE K. LARSON--POOLE
89.19
1328 W CHATEAU AV
31-1008
MARY PERMAN
78.84
1451 DARRAH DR
31-1424
ROGER OLDS
93.95
1411 DARRAH DR
31-2264
RICHARD ANDERSON
141.78
1455 CLAIRE ST
31-2344
DOUGLAS HALLOCK
66.25
1532 LOWERY ST
31-2304
KAREN GE SELLS
115.53
2841 NW 15TH ST
31-2308
DENNY A THOMAS
45.16
1562 CLAIRE ST
31-2318
ROBERT EAGLE
64.24
1411 LOWERY ST
31--3442
DAVE CHRISTENSEN
97.95
2244 NW 15TH ST
31-3016
HARRY DAVIS
69.77
2217 NW 14TH ST
31-3415
FORREST F. SCHUSTER
92.44
2218 NW 14TH ST
31-3422
GARY TIPTON
56.91
2244 NW 14TH ST
31-3028
JOEL LYNN YEAGER
67.17
13 3 9 W CHATEAU AV
31-3036
BENJAMIN &PAM HASSIS
1303 W CHATEAU AV
31-3058
DOROTHY L. HARBOUR
940 W CHATEAU DR
31-3242
DAVID MCGOWAN
2211 NW 11TH ST
31-3294
ROD WERLE
1061 W NEWPORT CT
31-3414
DAVID J. STINGER
1053 FAIRWOOD CT
31-3428
EVIE A BLACK
1082 FAIRWOOD CT
31-3458
DARRYL HOPKINS
2048 NW 9TH PL
31-3528
JACK TEATER
1938 NW 11TH AV
31-3560
DONALD FICKES
1016 STOREY AV
35-566
BARBARA J HICKS (CK & CHG)
1919 CRESTMONT DR
32-568
MELVIN & DEANNA FISHER
620 CRESTMONT CL
32-630
VINCENT GARDNER
2070 CRESTMONT DR
32-656
H. LARUE BEVINGTON
467 CRAMMER DR
32-732
DELMAR GLASER
113 W Wa,LOWBROOK DR
32-818
LINDA LOU OWSLEY
362 W WII,LOWBROOK DR
96.02
109.44
141.19
74.97
59.65
94.12
153.19
211.22
71.17
74.97
76.33
101.75
90.29
51.23
32-864
LEROY F. SMITH
694 LONGFORD DR
32-878
FREDRIC PRICE
571 TIFFANY DR
32-928
PHILIP BYRNE
2320 KENIVERE DR(CKCHG)
32-960
ALAN BUCHANAN
132 W WOODGLEN PL
32-1168
ANTHONY &PENNY GULBIS
285 W SPICEWOOD DR
32-1280
STEVEN NINES
392 W WOODBURY DR
32-1368
THOMAS GRATTON
382 W WATERBURY DR
32-1378
WALTER BURNSIDE
496 W WATERBURY DR
32-1404
ALAN &SHARON WHITE
2614 N RIDGEBURY WY
32-1612
GENA MEHLUM
2611 N RIDGEBURY WY
32-1632
MICHAEL &SUSAN WRIGHT
639 W WATERBURY DR
32-1710
SEAN STROEBEL
292 W CLAIRE ST
33-56
TEL -CAR (CK&CHG)
220 E FAIRVIEW AVE
33-108
SEAT COVER FACTORY
200 E FAIRVIEW AV
33-1850
GARY & BOBETTE MARSHALL
2472 N LARCHMONT PL
147.74
45.56
85.31
132.42
127.07
91:24
5.00
56.73
74.97
49.39
65.94
1169.10
63.48
82.52
f
33-2306
ROBERT & MARY S CHNEIDER
564 E BROWN BEAR ST
33-2338
TRACEY HAMILTON
677 E WOODBURY DR
33-2414
FALTER DAVIS
641 E COUGAR DR
33-2538
GEORGE & ELIZABETH MIENDOZA
744 E CROUSE CT
33-3566
DUNCAN COLLIER
464EEDGAR CT
33-3572
TRACY & KATHY ANDERSON
410EEDGAR CT
33-4258
STEVE & TERRI FRO S TROM
453 E MOOSE ST
33-4280
LYNN & PATRICIA JOHNSTON
2548 N LARCHMONT
33-4344
MARK CIRELLI
2557 N LARCHMONT AV
34-342
RONALD & THERESE DARCO
1686 JERICHO RD
34-354
ROBERT HYLTON
1812 JERICHO RD
34-382
ROBERT & TERRY GRIMM
1184 E WILLOWBROOK DR
34-388
CHARLES & GAIL HOWARTH
2494 JERICHO WY
34-496
TIMOTHY LOVE
2489 N SAPPHIRE PL
34-544
LAYNE MOURITSEN
2092 N SAPPHIRE PL
96.58
U11=1
57.45
51.99
58.28
59.17
85.49
115.61
61.83
94.12
59.65
77.28
63.14
34-696
DEANNA BUTTRAM
1513ETOURMALINE ST
34-958
CHERYL MbkRX
2594 N VALMET PL
3 4-103 6
RONALD & MELANIE LANDON
1258E HUNTER DR
34-1080
LEIF CHASTAINE KEIF
2598 N SHOVELER WY
34-1195
MICHAEL SELkNKEL
2797W SNOW GOOSE WY
34-1218
HARVEY JONES
2675 N SNOW GOOSE WY
34-1240
JOSEPH GORE
2633 N GOLDENEYE WY
34-1560
HAROLD PHILP
952 E HAWK ST
34-1844
STEPHEN BUFFATT
2092 NE 1 OTH ST
34-1880
SHANNON JOHNSTON
2062 N LARK PL
34-1888
MAROUM
2132 N LARD PL
34-1898
REX S EDINGER
2111 N LARK PL
34-1900
SANFORD E GATES
2101 N LARK PL
34-1906
MARLA JO GARDNER
2041 N LARK PL
34-1982
RODGER RODRIrUEZ
958 CLARENE ST
59.65
113.27
67.31
45.16
277.96
140.34
65.55
59.55
46.32
113.27
83.84
34-2044
WILLIAM G MILLER
1855 TEARE AV
34-2046
DENNIS L. KENNEY
1835 TEARE AV
34-2144
HEIDI TYLER
1434 TAMMY ST
34-2122
GLEN SCHMIDT
1924 TEARE AV
34-2144
THOMAS A SCHRANK
1841 JERICH4 RD
34-2728
RON TFILJRBER
1214 E COUGAR CREEK DR
34-2734
NIKE WALL
2882 N WREN PL
34-2764
RIC ER
1197 E COUGAR CREEK DR
34-2$42
BRETT & MICHELLE DUNSTAN
1316 E RINGNECK CT
34-2820
LANCE & KELLY R4 S S
1281 E RINGNECK CT
40-245
VICTOR & DONNA GREENFIELD
1686 E S RFALLS DR
44-250
LONNY T4MICH
1691 E SUMMERBEIGHTS DR
42-452
THOMAS JORGENSEN (CKCHG)
2449 E GRAPEW44D DR
42-456
BARBARA CIRELLI
2443 E GRAPEW44D DR
42-1474
NLkRK THOMAS
1715 E 4 AKCRE S T DR
143.41
74.97
142.99
71.14
99.95
94.29
124.93
88.87
64.57
61.23
63.48
51.56
64.44
97.95
73.48
42-1988
MICHAEL HARRISON
125.44
2219 N MEADOWROSE PL
42-1990
JAMES PETERSON
48.16
2215 N NIEADOWRO SE PL
42-2072
TODD & LEISA MCCLINTICK
105.61
2047 N WINGATE PL
42-2118
JIM & SANDI MILLER
76.20
2287 N WINGATE PL
42-2252
BRAD L. MCKI LEY
94.09
2220 E CHATEAU DR
42-2294
ROY G HAMILTON
49.39
2122 E KATELYN DR
42-2404
PHOEBE ROSE
59.64
2277 N LOCHNESS
42-2452
BRYON & MARYLEN JOHNSON
45.24
2421 N SEQUOIA AV
42-2496
LESLIE SIEMON
113.27
1961 E GLENLOCH ST
42-2512
JUAN & CONNIE LEMUS
57.05
1833 E LOCHMEADOW ST
42-2582
LORRI CHAPMAN
62.45
2542 N MEADOWGLEN PL
46-274
AUSTIN CONSTRUCTION
51.85
3791 E EISENHOWER DR
46-330
SHAWN SUTTON
51.99
3 524 E EISENHOWER DR
46-444
DWIGHT AND SONS CONSTRUCTION
48.16
3592 E CONGRESSIONAL DR
46-468
KEVIN & TTNA BORCHARDT
70.85
1071 N FILLMORE WY
49-902
FREDRICK. BAGLEY (CK&CHG)
1901 E LARD ST
50-88
IAYNESUE DOWDY
934 E 5TH ST
50-244
BRENT ALGER
114 E STATE AV
50-262
SCOTTMURRI
12 E STATE ST
50-354
DENNIS CARSTENSEN
416 E CARLTON AV
50-1020
TECO INVESTMENTS
3 01 E GRUBER AV
50-1195
WILLIAM GARDOSKI
1620 E 2 112 ST
50-1405
WESLEY CORP
1412 E 1ST ST
50-1412
WESLEY CORP
1420 E 1ST ST
50.1512
PEffL ASHBAUGH
1505 E 1ST ST
50--1606
INTEC►RIETY LLC
1323 E 1ST ST
50-1676
MARVIN TAVARES
3 8 E WASHINGTON AV
50-1706
STEVE HUNT
16 E WASI1[[NGTON AV
50-1730
G ALVEN MAHLER
1304 MERIDIAN ST
50-1742
ELMORE BROOKS
1332 MERIDIAN ST
246.97
53.22
48.16
56.70
83.72
90.29
74.97
169.09
107.81
59.69
89.32
59.65
82.29
63.48
50--1910
GROVER BROWN
58.20
1578 N PENRITH PL
50-1918
JUSTIN OSTERHOUT
63.02
1557 N PENRITH PL
50-2036
KATHY & GUADALUPE RIVERA
66.00
957 W WENTWORTH ST
50-2096
GEORGE & PATTY JEFFS
55.73
1305 N SANDLIN AV
50-2106
RICHARD & PRISCILLA ROBINSON
66.71
1275 N STONEHENGE WY
50-2116
T.R. & JAMIE KlRfCvfA.N
71.47
1356 N STONEHENGE WY
50-2156
WADE SUMAMRS
63.45
1052 E ASHFORD ST
50-2198
DOUG MASON
52.94
564 E ASHFORD ST
50-2242
JUDITH GREEN
84.68
1059 N CRESTLEY AV
50-2292
TIMOTHY & SUSAN BAUMGARDNER.
45.56
1053 E ASHFORD ST
50-2302
KENNETH TODD
75.37
1159 E SHELLBROOK DR
50-2354
OWEN & LARA JONES
62.11
1294 N SANDLIN AV
50-2416
DORY HANSEN
72.37
1361 N PENRITH AV
50-2444
STEVE & TRACY MCNITT
55.52
1472 N PENRITH AV
5 0-3 726
NICKIE MEATTE
81.36
989 N RALSTIN PL
50-4034
JAILS & KIMBERLY REESE
1071 N PETERSBURG WY
51-334
MATTHEW & JULIE BROWN
304 E BROADWAY AV
51-45
' S ELECTRONICS
131 E IDAHO AV
51-506
LOUISE BROO SHIRE
731E5TH ST
51-698
WALTER DUEROCK
438EIDAHO AV
51-758
ELITE CLEANERS
144 E IDAHO AV
51-3168
MERIDIAN INSURANCE CO.
108 E 3RD ST
51-3350
STEVEN GREGORY
225 E KING ST
51-3820
JEFFREY L CHANCE
342 E 3RD ST
51-3 93 0
RICHARD MILLER.
402 E 2ND ST
51-4200
PHILIP G LORCHER
432 E 2ND ST
54-12
THE PLAUGROUND
PLAYGROUND STORE
54-14
THE PLAYGROUND
1780 E OVERLAND RD
54-16
THE PLAYGROUND
1780 E OVERLAND RD
68-50
MICHELLE BURLS
1212 E TIMIE ZONE DR
54.45
90.03
67.39
82.63
343.07
215.04
82.63
141.94
I'016,1'7
325.03
394.34
52.16
69-116
E -ZEE BUILDERS
1398 E BLUE TICK ST
69-180
W WARRREN MAYS
1476 E DOBERMAN
69-200
SANDI SCHEMER
1431 DOBERMAN LN (CK & CHG)
69-208
JULIE POND
2362 S CHESAPEAKE AV
69-226
KAREN TIMA
2122 S CHESAPEAKE AV
69-422
MONTEREY HOMES
2031 S ELKHOUND AV
69-518
ROBERT L GASS (CKCHG)
1155 E BORZOI ST
69-524
PAT & BEKKI ELORDI
1082 E PEACOCK ST
69-528
MARVIlv & KATHI.YN FIELDS
1044 E PEACOCK ST
69-566
LAWRENCE &DEBRA CHURCH
1035 E SHEPARD ST
69-770
LARYY &JULIA WAYMENT
1698 S BLACKSMITH PL
69-864
MUSSELL CONSTRUCTION INC.
1819 SE 3RD WI'
69-1076
DAVID &LAURA RUPERT
923 E STE. MARTIN DR
69-1296
N&D INC
512 E WHITHALL ST
69-1392
JAQUELINE UPDIKE
2208 SE 5TH WY
48.16
59.31
281.79
74.53
83.12
91.78
120.93
41.74
65.35
48.16
69-1558
THOMAS SUPNET
147.79
617 E LINKERSHINI DR
72-144
KEN & JOYCE WELAND
97.75
112 W DAVENPORT DR
72-212
JUSTIN GREEN
71.14
2493 A RIPTIDE PL
72-222
BRAD ANDERSON
72.37
2108 S RIPTIDE PL
72-225
HOME ART CORPORATION
45.16
2149 S COVEY AV
74-64
VALERIE ALVE S
94.12
343 SST 7TH AV
74-324
VALERIE COPELAND
147.74
694 PENNWOOD ST
74-368
JOHNNY W GIDE
135.80
743 FULMER CT
74r-416
PATRICIA SIMS
63.45
671 BARRETT ST
74-1424
JUNE MCKINLEY
5 5.52
54 ROSE CL
74-1436
WILSON BEVINGTON
45.75
72 ROSE CL
74-1456
SANDRA HINZ
45.24
22 ROSE CL
74-1264
ROBERT & EVANGELINA MAYFIELD
25.56
305 S MERIDIAN ST
74-2424
ANTHONY & KRISTINE 4'BRIEN
124.93
1456 W KEVERA ST
74-2452
DONALD BOGDANSKI
53.22
1375 S HEIDI PL
74-2568
LARRY & CHERYL ELD
975 W PENNWOOD ST
74-2588
JOHN LABBE
334 S PENNANT PL
74-2596
SOLI STARR
3 75 S PENNANT PL
74-2672
RAMON AMOUREUX
328 S OUTFIELD WY
74--2522
KENNETH BARR
1421 W CRESTWOOD DR
74-2876
TRACY US SERY
1345 W MERGANSER DR
74r-2900
BUCK DAVENPORT
455 S SPOONBILL AV
74-2925
ARLIN D. SMITH
1322 W PINTAIL DR
74-2978
JAMES J. ANDERSON
1471 W PINTAIL DR
74--2985
PERRY ELIASON
1367 W PINTAIL, DR
74-3000
RICHARD PHILLIPS
613 S CANVASBACK WY
74-3096
BRADLEY WELLS
1075 W EGRET DR.
74-3100
ALLEN & KATHY GIACONIM
1037 W EGET DR
74-3118
ROBERT HERNANDEZ
711 MUSCOVY AV S
74-3210
LONNIE ROBINSON
866 W GREENHEAD ST
57.05
74.91
55.56 J
114.50
144.96
136.25
71.14
137.20
74--97
97.41
50.62
4195
59.65
74-3216
STEVEN & RITA WILLACY
926 W GREENB EAD ST
74-3244
RICHARD & TERE SA SARGENT
447 S PELICAN WY
74-3252
COREY KDEPPLIN
547 S PELICAN WY
74-3260
BRIAN & VICKIE GARNER
660 S CANVAS BACK WY
74-3296
ROB & CARMEN BIENAPFL
404 S CANVASBACK WY
74-3308
WAIDE T. WOODLAND
1312 W GREENHEAD DR
74-3334
PATRICK & LISA GRIFFIN
1547 GARDNER DR
74-3336
KENNETH ILG
1525 W GANDER DR
74-3356
STEPHEN PAYNE
1311 W GARDNER DR
74-3820
THOMAS MORIS SETTS
1126 W WALTMAN DR
74-3956
DAVID WGBIG
1401 W WALTMAN DR
74-3966
JAMES HDSAC
1360 W GANDER DR
771.14
116.54
49.20
63.65
51.99
67.31
74.97
83.20
49.39
45.56
74.97
71.14 �kr
"'I �,__
TOTAL SHUTOFFS --- Y..C.
"I.:w....____..__�._ AMOUT $-- _ __
10/00/95
235
$263917.95
64
$6,595.95
11/15/95
181
$211043.78
35
$4,271.74
12113195
267
$251869.42
54
$127519.57
2/17196
246
$18,874.87
68
$51347.35
3/13/96
258
$19,934.89
38
$39154.20
4/10196
262
$21,055.55
58
$4,701.91
5/15/96
196
$163980.06
38
$2,713.32
6/12/96
263
$19,527.28
45
$3,291.76
7/10196
217
$161444.55
64
$5,610.89
817198
137
$13,860.07
98
$9)750.27
914196
142
$16,315.14
96
$10,500.74
10/1196
173
$209416.27
138
$16,339.93
1116196
225
$26,517.16
65
$71815.25
12/3/96
364
$40,442.27
87
$91014.00
1!7197
254
$147513.21
114
$10,116.82
2/4197
309
$271739.74
87
$7,711.27
3/4197
377
$34,112.56
74
$6,727.97_
4/1/971
424
$371234.43
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
APRm,
liou_c._JA til r (".So-, 2 -- t" 2 3 7
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Aril 'I 1997
APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 19
REQUEST: DEPARTMENT REPORTS
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN 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.
Glc
PR
OF
I
M
52"
R
2%
67 GENERAL
49-243.,.
r
Lie, under automobile guest statue. 6
AIR.3d 769.
49.239. Disposition on of fines, penalties, fitures
and fees.
(0)] All fines, penalties, an d forfeitures collectel
r violations of any of
the provisions of chapter 4 of this title, shall be r
itted to the state trea
surer a placed in the highway distribution a,
U nt.
aXxand
d forfeitures
(2) A 11 other fines, penalties an 'acted by any court or
"R .
Nz
. . ..... j
d for violation of motor vehicle laws, for N
)U re
ation of state driving
this sha 11 be distributed
privilege laws or for any other provisions of, .e,
-4705,1daho Code.
provided in section 19
All fees collected shall be remitted to the s
treasurer and placed
A in this title.
In the highway distribution accoun t unless otbery
provi
provided
11988, ch. 265, 31, p. 549.1
4
compiler's notes. This sectio n was for- 261, § 17 P.
_J` am. 974, ch. 27, § 99,p.
V
compiled as § 49-149 and was 811; am. 198!
J. 95) § 20, p. 185; am. I 984
Amcor) (led and redesignated by § 3 I of S.L. ch. 195� § I'
1988, Cli. 265 to become this section. The brackc
r 445.1
L subsection designation "(1)"
rmer § 49-149 is as fol- -ted
�tory of former
ne Iiis was insei
ch.
b 1953,
the compiler.
s added
I.C., § 49-136a, a y
419-240. Certain circumstances for forfeit.
of bond for traffic
offemes. — (1) Whenever a person hreceived;
ritte uniform misdeas
......... . . . .... ..
summons or complaint
Meallor traffic citation, plaint
taming a notice to ap-
-N fbefore
pair a magistrate, and if the attorney pro.,
luting the case and the
=°
3pw t=``
defendant concur that it is in the best interest o
ce that the defendant
M"'Y Post and forfeit an amount of the bond agre
on by the parties the
hall dismiss the charge. when bond is for
d under the provisions
T.F.
orthis subsection, no violation points, as prescribe
section 49-326, Idaho
C(xle, shall accrue. A forfeiture of under th
is subset-
# �,'ovisions of this
tioii shall not be recorded as a conviction, but th
) cee ds of the bond shall.,:.
Ire distributed as court costs and fines as thoug.
...rere were a conviction..
J ....
r
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this sec
shall not be availabl.... .41, 1
summons or comp r
when citations, complaints are w
I for a violation of the,
. . . . . . .. ... ..
..........
provisions of section 18 -8001 18-8004 18-800
49 -14 01 Idaho Code
11.988, c1l. 265, 3 2, p. 549; am. 1992, ch. 16
1, P. 517.1
A
Compiler's notes. This section was for- The histo
former § 49-1121 is as fol
'j.ar . ..
I compiled as § 49-1121 and was lows: [I.C., �1121, as added by 1983 (Ex..
mcr y S.L. Sess.), 3 8; am. 1984, ch. 22, § 7,
32
��.�
Amen(led and redesignated by § of ch.
p•
1988, di. 265 to become this section. p. 25.1
.49-241t 49-242. [Reserved.]
HA.
-T
49-243. Severability. The provisions of title are declared to be
'
x NM
Rverable, and if any provision of this title or theipplication of that prove
n,,.'
A on t any persol or circumstan ce is declared lid for any reason, that
declaration shall not affect the validity of rema f 9 portions of this title.
11988, cli. 265, 33, p. 549.1
V
Glc
PR
OF
I
M
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. SMITH, City Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Administrator
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L.. "BILL' GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
March 28, 1997
HUB OFREV
�sU Ar,LE�
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
Phone (208) 888-4433 * FAX (208) 887-4813
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4.443
ROBERT D. CORRIE
Mayor
Mr. Thomas Zabala
ZGA Architects & Planners, Chartered
815 Park. Boulevard, Suite 350
Boise, Idaho 83712-7737
RE: City of Meridian
"PROGRAM & SPACE NEED ANALYSIS"
Architect Selection
Dear Tom:
OOUNCIL MEMBERS
WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALD R. TOLSMA
CHARLES M. ROUNTREE
GLENN R. BENTLEY
P & Z CQMMISSION
JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
TIM HEPPER
JIM SHEARER
GREG OSLUND
MALCOLM MACCOY
CO NGRA T ATL A TIONS!
The Citys' committee to select an architect for
this
project has selected
your firm.
The selection
will be presented to the Meridian
City
Council during their
regularly scheduled meeting
of April 1, 1997 for confirmation.
The
committee will recommend that
the Mayor and
City Clerk be authorized to sign
and
attest a contractual
obligation between us and.
will authorize Cary Smith to be
the
intermediary person
for the City
of Meridian.
You should be proud of your firm's overall qualifications and of particular, your
presentation to us today. It was very well done. You command a very professional
presence. We look forward to working with you and to this being a successful project
for all involved.
Sion ere y,
Gary D. Smith, P.E.
City Engineer
cc: File
Selection Committee
PRESENTATION AGENDA
CITY OF MERIDIAN PROGRAM AND SPACE NEEDS ANALYSIS
28 MARCH 1997
I. INTRODUCTION
II. HOW WE WILL DO THIS PROJECT
A. NEEDS ANALYSIS
• Orientation Meeting
1'. Present the process and schedule
2. Identify User Groups
• Interview User Groups
1. Specific requirements
2. Projected needs
3. Generation of data forms
4. Policy review
• Organize Information/Review with User Groups
B. FACTUAL ANALYSIS
1. Facilities potential
2. Projected City growth
C. PROGRAM DOCUMENT GENERATION
t. Draft program generation and review
2. Program validation meeting
III. SCHEDULE AND FEES
City of Meridian
Program 9 and Space Need Analysis
Activity/Task Summary
I. Architect S election/Contract
H. General Mobilization
A. Overall Project Set-up and Organization
B. work Plan and Schedule
III. Programming
A. Pre -Programming Activities
1 1. Confirm scope of programming services required.
•2. clarify and/or establish Owner's user group/department structure. Identify
wo0"""
points of contact.
3. Dick -off meeting. User group/department orientation (i.e. programnung
process, schedule of activities, participant commitment, reporting and
documentation procedures, etc.)
B, User Group/Department Interviews and Needs Analysis (Concurrent with Factual
ei, VS*4, clysis Activities)
1. Interview the key decision makers - 14 groups. (i.e. operational considerations,
01(i expectations, preconceptions, quantify space requirements, determine functional
affinities, equipment needs, staffing projections, etc.)
Z. Review, consolidate and organize interview input.
C. Factual Analysis (Concurrent with User/Department Interviews)
1. Existing facilities analysis (i.e. size, type, age, functional
assignments/relationships, architectural/engineering systems status, code/zoning
compliance, reassignment potential, site area used, parking and open space
optionAimits, serviceability, maintenance requirements, remodel/expansion
potential, etc.)
D. Program Draft #I
1. Document program data gathered to date
Z. Report Format
GOALS - Statements of goals and objectives as established and refined
from the initial review process.
FACTS - written descriptions of the factual information identified to date.
NEEDS- Tabulations of space projections as developed from interview
data.
CONCEPTS - Diagrams, written descriptions of abstract ideas intended as
functional solutions to performance problems.
BUDGET ANALYSIS - Develop "order of magnitude" cost estimates as
required.
PROBLEM STATEMENTS - Succinct statements which document the
salient issues describing the problems.
OUTSTANDING ISSUES - A listing of those issues which remain
undefined and require special attention by the programming team
to achieve closure
3. Presentation of Program Draft
E. Program Validation Dram #2
1. Incorporate ideas and comments from draft #1 review.
2. Reconcile needs projections with budget limitations.
3. Develop a space program including area and configuration requirements,
access/adjacency requirements, security/safety requirements, etc.
F. Final Drag Review
L Incorporate final comments/changes.
2. S ' e program requirements.
3. Print and distribute
G. Final Program Presentation
VO
0
a
is
io
P-!�
■
w
O
QUO)
FEE PROPOSAL
ZGA Architects and Planners'. Chartered understands that the project consists of 'services to
identify and assess the current and future space needs of the following City departments:
Mayor &City Council
City Clerk
City Treasurer
Police Department
Fire Department
City Engineer
Drivers License Department
Water Department
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Building Inspection Department
Planning &Zoning Department
City Attorney
Parks Department
County Assessor
It is our understanding that our services will begin on or before 15 April 1997 and must be
completed on or before 5 August 1997.
ZGA proposes to provide the services outlined in the Programming and Space Need Analysis
Activity/Task Summary for a fixed fee of Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Dollars
($18,280.00). Reimbursable expenses, including twenty (20) copies of the final program
document for the City's use, would be an additional fixed fee of One Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars ($1,500.00). Total contract service fees including reimbursables would be Nuieteen
Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($19,780.'00).
Our services are invoiced on a monthly basis with payment in full required within thirty (30) days
following the invoice date. Any unpaid balance shall bear interest form the date payment is due at
a rate of 1-112 % per month (18% per annum). Late payments apply to interest first then
principle.
ail
Date: February 27, 1997
Dear Mayor Corrie,
My name is Doug Olson, and my wife and I purchased an acre
lot from, Kathy Kerwin with the intent to build a new home- We
currently own an acre right next to this subject lot, and we
built our home 6 years ago, so we felt comfortable purchasing
the lot knowing that the zoning is R1. x After purchasing the lot
from Kathy,, we went to the County to get a building permit, and
their initial response was that the lot size didn't meet the
minimum requirement. We mentioned to them the RI zoning, and
that we already have an acre homestead right net door. At this
point we were concerned about spending $24,000.00 for a non -
buildable lot.
We had our realto meet with Jeff Patlovich at Ada county
Planning and Zoning, and .teff did some research and had some
discussion with the county attorney to find a way to help us
out. Jeff called our realto a week later and told him thcat the
County would issue City
hu i 1 d i ng permit , and a l l he wou 1 d need i s a
letter from the cty of Meridian idian allowsn this one acre lot
split. Jeff further stated that he would have been able to do
everything, except for the fact that the land lies within the
Meridian "Area of I mpact "
We want to be able to help out Kathy Kerwin, but we also
understand that value -wise, a non -buildable lot i s not worth
$243000.00
We ask that the City of Meridian review this request with
a l 1 the circumstances that have token place, and allow us the 1
acre lot split to make this a buildable lot.
Sincerely,
2oug� Dison
Date: February 27, 1997
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Attn: Mayor Robert Corrie
Dear Mr. Corrie,
My name is Kathy Kerwin and back in December 1996 1 sold an acre parcel to Doug and
Tammy Olson to help get out of a financial dilemma. My daughter required serious medical
help, and since I had no insurance, I was forced to use all my money to pay medical expenses.
Since all money was gain towards medical expenses, p
g p , my mortgage on my house fell behind
and consequently went in to foreclosure.
My home and land included 3.4 acres of which after doing some preliminary checking I
felt I could sell off an acre and cure my financial dilemma. The bank agreed to release their lien
on one acre and stop foreclosure for $24,000.00, which would bring everything current and get
me back on my feet, but they only gave me one week to do this in. My neighbor offered to buy
the acre for a building site right next to his acre homestead for the needed $24,000.00. The
zoning on my tax sheet showed R1, and our preliminary check found that we could sell the acre
for the building of one home, just like the Olson's one acre homestead. We closed on December
6, 1996, my foreclosure was stopped, the bank released the acre parcel, and my mortgage is
now current.
The Olson's went to get a building permit for the one acre parcel and were told that they
did not meet the new minimum lot size requirement. The Olson's had their realtor go and talk
with the director of Ada County Development Services to see if there was some sort of variance
or approval process to allow a 1 acre permit. The director told the Olson's realtor that he would
issue a building permit for this 1 acre parcel with simply a letter from the city of Meridian allowing
a 1 acre lot size.
At this point I cannot pay back the Olson's for the lot, nor will my bank reverse the
payment for reimbursement to the olsons. I am asking the city of Meridian and the city council
to allow this 1 acre lot split to help all parties involved. Thank Youi
Sincere) ,
Kath Ke 'n
Y
• ■ ■ ■ • ■ . • AP• ■ ■ ■ r r • + ■ •
so/ • ■• F • • �■ r ■ 44■• j ■■ ••• w r w i i ■■ : ■ • •• f ■■ ■ : ■• • ■ r •
0 so
00 00 1
as
0 40 40 W
■■ : , r •■ • • r f / r• ■• : f a■ ■ • r ■a f •■ r ,... ■ r r 1•r r • - ■ •• a ■ ■ ••
' • • i • I i f f • ' I ■• • ■ I ■• I • • • \ • r f ■ r • r a • i • f ■• • • % • ■ ■ rt ■ •o r • • i
■ • r f • ! ■ ■ ■ r s , I , • 14,
• • ■ ■ ■ • • •• • ■ • ■ ■
•' ■ r ■ • f a f ■ , so , • ■ ■ r • ■ a Ow ■ • It r• , • ■At • ■ • • • ■■ ■■ • a • • •
so
so
OF 4
o or 40
o a
,' • ,• i : ,• a •■ rt • f : ,• t 40 •■ •' ■' • • • •• ■ : ,• • ■ ■' a+• :• ■` • : r v o' \ a ♦ a,. ■ ■• ■, a•
41
• . • • • .me • . ■ r ■ a . , . , . a .� . • r ■ ■ , . 1 . .• •
� r■' f • � + i f' ■•I /• a■ � • .� ■ • 1r I / • a■■o 4v •• ■••o 6 i ■■• r F ■% � r■ �! ■1 ■ ••r a■ ••' ••• •• •a• ■ � L •• • � o. • .r •• w� /{ • • ,as
■.•
me
or 41 Nam t
■ •6 so f • ■ I • • • • *X f we • • • ■ • •a No f ■ • •
of a
a a
■ ■ • • ■ • ■ r ■ • ■ t • • r ■ •
V.
••• • ■ t / 1 ■ r ■ ■ f • ■ • f • f ■ • • • • • • r ■ ■ *so
■ • ■ • r r• ■• •• ■ �• ■
41
a i : •a ■ ar : • 40 0 : !■ • r• w, •• • 41' ■• •� ■' i OP •� w go
, : : • •• am ■. : • ■■'• a '� ■. • e.•. •aI ■•■ ■• ■• .a.
• / • • • ■ • ■ ♦ ■ I a aa No
• r • ■ s• • ■�so so
Io ,
r
■
• ■• w•' f r! a' ,f r• a' ar f a■ f ,• f1 a' ■■ i ■• a• • ■• ■• ■'� r t. ■■ ■r i■ ■■ '• a■ a'a ■• ••
r ■ s • 1 go • ■ • ► • { • • • • so a
a ■ ■ ■ a ■ . ■ a r • • r • • ■ • • ■ • • / • • ■ • • ••
"
• •■• ■, f ■■ ■ f ■, a• ' ■, 40 f ■ f ra a' 1 r ■• a' r ' r' • r • • • •' •a ■ ■ • ■ •• ■ ,''
■ i + ■• r • •• •• •• •• r :
'
■• ••'
•' r •a } •• r ■+ ■r i +r •' • ■r •• •■ r ••• •■ •a ■■ •� r� i
• ■ rr I f •• • : I f ■r r■ ■■ •■ ■ ■• e s •/ • �• + • ■r ■ w• ■ •• so •• • sa r i
I so a �'
• ■ ! a • r r : ■ a
aso
aj , ■' ■ • 0,r •■ a• ■J a• �■ ■• ■• •■ • • ■
: t a• ar
0, me O-wv
•
S7333000240
• • ■■ , a• f w v • we r • i • r ,■ w ■• : + r , ■■ as ■•" ■■ • ■ _ i me r • a, r a• f •
J.
■'• • •• i •■ ■o ►r i i 'so ra :'•• •■• •■" •■■ •. ■•' a' , ■ •• r r •' 41 • • ■ ••e s • ■ ar {■ aa■ 1' .•■ : ■ f •■ •
,+a
•• �• • : ■■ ■■ •a v / •r : •+ ■■ •a "■ ■� •'a■'a'■ ! •a •• •i• ■ ', •• r•, •r • i • •• •'. �. as a■ : i
• ■ ■s ••
■■ f a■ •• a f ar I : : r` i a' 0 a Y' a■ : ' ■• I ••
ft ■■ •• as of■■■ ■•` •r •r w■ ••
of r
%
a a
• ` ■• ■ , • ■ • •■ a• rt
• r• • : i
i
•e
'a' �•• ai ■• �■ : .■■ as r •• ` •■ •,• .a•
as ,•• as ••■ If
■r as ■,• a"•
• ■• f : f r r+ f i ■ •a"a■• 1,! ••■ I■ i • ■F ■• •a• f rr ■• r� rr ■•■ ■■ • •►� _ • ■r ■. ■•• •a :• •• • ■• t`rr■• aa• fa r r •r
• ■ ■•
LL e ■` •• • : a ra •
r• : • rr ••
a■ : r' ■j a' w • • r
■a• •�• •■ as .• •■' /•
'• as
OK
■ r so+ /v ■r ■ •' •■ ■ ■ ■ r ■• ■ ■ r r ■a • ar-1 ■• • •• r ■ • ■■ r I■ op f ■ '• , ' • 'of• r■ ■
■ ■ ■ r •
■•` ,■ •• a : ■■ ■• aa' ••+ ■� a■• ■■• r■• •••'■■• •■• •• ' % ■• rr■ /r a• ••• '' •• r
•• •r ■ •' ■ ■ f a+r i ••
■ • a • ■
•
r , •• ■�•v • a •1 ■••
• r • •
• a • ■ ■' • / ■ • ■ ■' • ■ a ■ • •• • • • ■ • r ■ ■ r • f ■�l 156*..
• a • ■ • ■ • • ■ ■■ • 5I 12 347
• • • • ■ • w ■ • ■ • w r
0. 0-0"
. ■'• .■ • 4e ■off , as we
ao
•• ` ■. . !
+ a+ a■ •■ ■ • r "a •■r + *@ *#
■• a■ ■ of aa■ • ■ ■ '. w • a. •' 'a ' ■•■• .0 ' . "a ".1
2
• a■ • a a■ f ■■ ■ ■• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ • • • • • • ■ r ■ a ■ a •• ■• •• r•w
me as + •■• a• to wa ■aa ^• .� ••■ ■+ a 41+ar 'a •� •• •r■ , a• ■ ' •■ • r a ■■, as at as •r ••• a . ■' •■ .
• : . . `■r
R
+
• ■ •• - •.
.� • r•
a•.■■•• ar a ti
;
■w• ,■
• ■rr
'•a. •'
i •
ars ■•w••ar■,'
■.wi ■
, a••• v'a■'■
■•■ wr■■ r
fI■ a'a■ ••■■• •� .a■• ••r ■''■
•■■' ■: ••■•
■aa .■ra■ aa'
•'F:
■.
a a ••
•• • r a r•a : •r •aa •■ •• : ■ : •• •aa 40 ar ■, •r •• ■• ■ • as • ■ : ra of +r aa• of
0 am
so Or a Is
• •
�• aa• '••' r~ •wr• a• a.wr ■ aa■ •■ r'■• aa' •• • ■■` •i•'
w.•'•wa •r■ ■• : • ■■wa a r■r ■'a• : • ai •''• as ■■" •wa ■■ ■■■ •a, "� •• a.
• • • • ■• •. • • • • ■ •• , • + f
t a • •• ■ • •• •
me
•
• "' • ■ : I •+ •• " r■ r ■� ■ •■ `• • •- ►• • • • ■ • • a a■ ame*■
•• r! ,• ■w 1" a' wr • ■•
• ■ , see • ■ ■ • ■ ■ • • ■ • • • ■ • • • • • • a •
Is.
"a
A�333aoa22o
04,60o
P&O
1.
some
8 • r as ry • ■a ■• , •�
■ a•• ■■■ f ■■ • ,■• + We • ■ : + j • ■ r ff ■' •■ • r ■■ , w• . • ra so
r / ■ r •
: ■
.• •! 'af' +■■ •r : ■■■ : a■r • ■•• ,■ ■• r■ ■ •
a: ■• rI • ■• r.r ■■ ■■■ : : r ■■ . so■ : a
so
r ! a ■ f 0 r •' • 10:11:
■ r ■ J a• • ■ w•.r frr+ m r •.■rr M � �� w.++ .....w a■ r
,•• ■■ � • a■• as ■r to ■■ •' or 6 a• •• f' r■ •.• ■• � � • � •• "■• ■• •• � •• % a■ f i ■•
' •.` : a,• a• r ■a' • •• sof
••■ ■, a, am •, r ••• as 00, 0 rt ff r • aa■ a, ■ . •+• r • me rr a■ ■ •+■� ieii. �3 .. i��■A :
• • i f j.J •
�.�w•.�r .rw�■� ■r �M
,• f •• a■'
■■ .• a' a' ■• ■■ of : as r rr ■• ■• ar r, ,■ N ar of a• : ■■ , •r
. a' •• ` ■' .% r• • ■•• a as a a'ofa,• •■ aa■ a■ at a a■ _or■• .■+ v ■ a • •'' ■• ■ r■ ,•
wa •■ r.
• fj ■ • • • ■ r • r • ■ ■• • • 1 r Is + • • ' ■
of
�• ar` ■ a r ` ,•v ■ r' ■ • t j a •• �•� "• ■• r ar _ ,• ■ t r • • ■ a• ar r rf r
of,
• as • a o % r •t age a % ra" •`' •r r ••r■ a■■ f a . ' a• ■■ a! •■••411m' •~ 'a1. j ■ v� •• ■'• •• ■r j /�
■
,
lop 10, 41
w* # . . . a so 40' 0 0
so
■ 0 49*r ` i ■ ■ • ■ a` ■ a ■ • • ■ • • ■ •
a
& a a 6 1
• • r
• ■ r a Y
0 /1FLr�•✓7
a
�■
40 -.0
'ood' so
or 6 of
a me
• ■■r r, • •t 0 • ■• •a• + r1 ■, a• +■ • •• a■• •• wa •■ ■, ••• a, aa• - = a■ ■• a■• ■■ : ■• '. .�. • • •
6 'a
• r • • ■' ■ • • •■ ■r • • •+ • • + •• • •• ■ ■ • V. • fr ■y } * • I ■
• ■ a• • V • • f r ■ar i ! ■ • a ■ • a a ■ a • ■ ■ ■ • ■ r .
•
• a ■ ■■ ■■ No •■ r! •■ a••" ■• f ,■' a■ aw f ■• a■a ■ : •■ •■• •� • • ■' r • i as of ! a •• r ■+ f
401 Or ■`r`
■
r
••' 'M 'a.■ •' ■ '• fa •a ■a a• •• i a •• ■'a we so•'• •'r a''• a'a ,•'• ■■■ ,rr •• ■•■ r■ .0 Or i1 f ■r
•• ,• ,• a♦■• a •■' a• • a• a• •■■ a■ r■ ■a ■■ a■ ,• 1 a• •■ i • ■• i * • s •a ar ■•
OP
OF
i
m P
!• �� • r•• : a •• : i j • ■•a fa
•■• �■• rf � ■
• :' s`''' a►■ rr
• ■�''�• �+f�f � ■ �
,,
■•• !■/• a.■f
�a■a
■,' a♦�
+ : r *r
• i ft +•' j a 'a s r , f •■ : ■ i ■ ••■ V C�+74��a,�J ■'r •v a■■ Ir f• a• ■" a■i ri ■i. r.��V��v f r }
40
■■• ■ ! ■ • • f f • ■• ■ ■ • v • ■ •r • ■ f •' ■ • ■ ' • w
•a a
•■
f•t
•■■'
■ •r■ f•■
• r : +
r ■ :a•
f• i r f■■ ■■■
■ f f■ •■'
•■" f■•• :0. ■■■ f•■
■!•• �•■ 'rt ■1 •■■■
f• '•■` ■f f■ ■r •~ '■■■ fa
~
1
so
It
PARC
o a
•' ■' aa■ a■ a, •/ ! .■ aa• f• w,• : • i ■,r a,• ■' ,• ■■ •6-4
• rr •• i ■' a• f a. : i ■ ■'a 'a a
' a '■ w a
' • ` r ' ■
•f .1 ■f aaa ■
,■� : ,r ■■a •■a• ,i • f• •'• a+• :
,•' •f : ► : f i• so: r• f 0.
• , .
10 Is :
Of
••■ rI ■■ : a ■ •• • •: ■ ■■ If : • : I f i f• • : ■a• r• ••• i •40 • • r ■■ ■, as a• a■■ • •
of
'
A7 3 3304 0 1 8
■a •` 0/1 •■• r /' f •■ '*.a
,■ ■r i ■' f i • •r 'a •■ so' ra• ,• ■' *1a+ "me.' ►� : ,• ■ + ,•
a
m. : w •f IN ■aa
'• •� : ,•a r•IF •a OF i ■■e 0 ■i :r a■• a•■ ra ■•• + ►iN ■ am ■a ■■' ai •+
•
w■■ a•r wr'
■ •■•• ■■' : ••
■ ■,•■■■■■ '•• '■► o ■ 'a■ ■r■ 6 •a■ a, `r aa■ a, ■■r '•r me tor ■■• • ■ ■ of i `
• Y / • , ■ • • ■ ■ ■ r •• ■ •
■ ■ ' ■
1
• ■a
•• a,' as • •• ■f r r 1 ■a a+ 1 a, "a■ a.
41 • as ■■ ■' • too f■ a■ ■''• ■■ of* • ■ 1 'aof -a
.6 a
'
'
■' � ■f f : l/ t• : •a rrIs-r : ■■r i : ■' r fa •' ■r•• • ■a f ■' f■ •• : • •a •• !■ % r
■.■ .,/""a
•' ar ■ i : I ■ ■ .■ •■ , f fa •'••.44
■ f• , fa +a fI •• ,• f ■ •• f' r r0 40 l■' ,■ •• • a fJljyYJ�l
+ ■'06,
t- t as f ■'■ + ."■ • � • R .• i ; +•a f• �/ ■ ■
• ; • r: ■ ■'w • Ir■ a a : ' 1 aam ■a f• ; ; •
'
go' •a■■
does
. • • •■• !'' f • ■ , " a of •r ■ ■ ■■• of a a ■ ■■ 'so' *R a' a■■ ,Y r r ■• • ••
a■ • , •■ +Ir a•f •' y ■•■
sP me me so ."#
m or •' so 00
■' •■ J : ■ •■ • a f ■■ ,■ •/ a• as ■, r■ 1 a' a, r' •• , .■ • • = ■• `■ j ■f i ,
■
• •` a"• ,■ i f■ ff •■ : ■ f ■a■ :: r ,■• : • + f
• ■ ; 1.0, a, r %• " ■■• ■'■ w a
■ �� err w�
rrll
•w.`
raf :
•w■'
+' sea rra• •-■ •:/ ■ a■,
■■ ; r e •■ a ■ ■ ■ f ■` ■ r r s r r I r t ■ r 1 •
44
1 INCH 7QUAUP 2M FEET F
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF LDS CHURCH -- AREA OFFICE
FOR A VARIANCE TO FRONT SET* -BACK REQUIREMENT
AT 1560 NORTH TEN MILE ROAD
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for hearing
on March 18, 1997, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date,
at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho,
Steve Simmons appearing, and the City Council having heard and
taken oral., testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for March 18, 1997, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the March 18, 1997, hearing,* that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11--2--416 E., 11-2.419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. 1.b. of the Revised and Compiled ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
3. That the property is zoned R--4 Residential, which at this
time does not allow churches, but that is not the concern in the
Application; the concern is that under 11-2-410 A, thirty (30) feet ..
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1
is required for a front building set -back and twenty --five (25) feet
for local streets; the property fronts on Ten Mile Road which is a
collector street at this time, and the required front set --back for
the church property is therefore thirty (30) feet.
4. That the Applicant has requested that it be granted a
variance from the required front set --back requirement of thirty
(30) f eet and be allowed to only have a twenty --f ive (25) f cont set-
back.
5. The entire property in question is described in the
Application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
5. That the Applicant owns the property.
7* That the Applicant testif 3" -ed that they have submitted for
the variance, a 5 foot infringement into the required 30 foot
setback on the west side of the property fronting Albertson's
directly to the west and Ten Mile. We haven' t received any negative
comments from staff or any of the other utilities in their review
and basically are just waiting for a decision. our violation is
only a small portion of the building because of the additional
right of granted to ACHD back when the building was originally
built.
There was discussion between Mr. Simmons, the Mayor and
Councilmen, City Engineer, Gary Smith, and Wayne Crookston, City
Attorney, regarding the width of Ten Mile Road and if there would
be sufficient set --back if the Road was widened; there was comment
by Mr. Simmons, that the original width was requested or right -of
way was requested to allow for that flaring of that intersection.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page . Z
We don't know when that is going to happen and our original letter
to the Council we had also stated that the church would be willing
to grant the additional five feet if required on the south side of
the property. We haven't heard of a time frame as to when that is
going to happen or even if it will happen.
Mr. Morrow stated that that is a section line road, the right
of way will be a 99 foot right of way. The cross section of
asphalt ultimately could be the same as Cherry Lane. Mr. Crookston
stated that as he understood it they have a 30 foot required
setback now and what they are asking for is a variance of 5 feet
for this portion and they would then have a setback of 25 feet and
Mr. Morrow stated the new setback would be 25 feet; that is
correct. Mr. Morrow also stated that it was his presumption that
ACRD had bought the right of way for a 90 foot right of way for the
portion across the front of, not only the LDS church but the
Reynolds property, and there is another little church to the south,,
Stonehouse. The question would be is,, "Does the five foot right of
way that ACRD acquired complete the 90 foot section, 45 feet on
your side of center line which is the maximum right of way for that
section line roads?" Mr. Simmons responded that that is the reason
we are asking for the variance. We are five feet into the west
setback on the top or I guess it would be the 3rd of the building
to the north side which that illustration shows. So otherwise-Ve
wouldn't be asking for the variance. So you are correct Mr.
Crookston that it would be a 25 foot setback. ..
Gary Smith stated, that according to the bid plans on the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 3
Cherry Lane remodel project the highway show 45 foot of property on
the Reynolds but it jogs back to 40 feet in front of the church
according to the plans of the reconstruction project. It means
there is not 45 feet of right of way existing in front of the
church.
Mr. Simmons responded that it was his understanding that the
additional right of way, where you see the jog, that is where the
additional right of way was added and requested to allow for the
intersection expansion if it ever happened. City Staff, at our
first meeting on November 6, recommended that we touch base with
ACHD and in fact we would agree that if they need the additional
right-of-way along the west side of the property we will work with
them and provide that if they really want that. The owner did not
have a concern with that. So we don't have a problem if that is a
condition.
8. That no person appeared at the hearing objecting to the
variance application, and no other testimony was taken.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. That 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 388 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11--2--419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record submitted
to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5* That the following provision of Section 11-9-612 A. 1. ,
of the Zoning ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the
Application
11-9-612 A. 1. PURPOSE
The Council, as a result of unique circumstances (such as
topographic - physical limitations or a planned unit
development) , may grant variances from the provisions of this
Ordinance on a finding that undue hardship results from the
strict compliance with specific provisions or requirements of
the Ordinance or that application of such provision or
requirement is impracticable.
6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11--9-612 A. 2., FINDINGS
It No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing,
that all of the following exist
a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions,
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of this ordinance would clearly be
impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the
subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to
the specific provision or requirement involved;
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 5
b. That the strict compliance with the requirements of this
Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the
subdivider because of unusual topography, other physical
conditions or other such conditions which are not self-
inflicted, or that these conditions would result in
inhibiting the achievement of the objectives of this
Ordinance;
c. That the granting of the specified variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the
Idaho Code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying
the ,interest and purpose of this ordinance and the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
7* That -o-== be—a—spec-i f % ---=-ben- e fit or
r,porf-it�ec-��
eon�owi-e-�ga-kn-or-conveni
�ence-to- the Applicant--- �s-ince -L- f the
Yr, -,_� RG _ �he.---�hou se—wou -1-d be-pequ-it--�-ed - to�--:�be- - moredµ
-wh-ie-hr---wou-1d--r-egu-i-re---i:-t- -tc- be-demal-fished and--construct-icon- -star e -d
,--av-er,r—bu-t—i�-t -was n6t -the Applicant.-- that---oreatedr- t- he, ---ord nance,--
vie-1a:t-i-on-nth the—e-r-dinars -e hra s been— changed-.s.ir-G-e.,.th.e=
be That strict compliance with the requirements of the set-
back requirements in effect at the time of the
reconstruction of Ten Mile Road would result in
extraordinary hardship to the Applicant as a result of
factors not self-inflicted and if that much of a set back
was required. by ACHD it could have asserted that at the
time that it widened that portion of Ten Mile Road.
c . That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental
to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in
the area in which the property is situated.
d. That the variance would not have the effect of altering
the interests and purposes of the front set -back
requirement, as required by the Zoning ordinance.
9. That it is concluded the Application for a variance
should be approved.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby approve
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
1%T.1A"Troor*%"
VOTED
.GXM,
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
That it is decided the Application for a variance of 30 foot
setback on Ten Mile Road in effect is approved, but the Applicant
shall allow a 25 foot set --back on Ten Mile Road and the front set-
back shall be that distance.
APPROVEDOr
DISAPPROVED.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURASKO
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
A PORTION OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION $ TOWNSHIP
3 NORTH RANGE 1 EASTr BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTYr IDAHO
NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROADt a.ri..WEST OF EAGLE ROAD
MERIDIAN,r. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS I ONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for public hearing before the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission on January 16, 1997 at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m.,
and also for public hearing before the Meridian City Council on
March 18, 1997, both at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, a representative of the Applicants, Keith
Loveless, hereinafter referred to as the "Representative,"
appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
City Council of the City of Meridian both 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 both of said public hearings, the Planning and Zoning
hearing scheduled for January 16, 1997, and the City Council
hearing scheduled for March 18, 1997, the first publication of each
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1.
MURASKO
notice being published for fifteen ( days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the January 15, 1997, and
March 18, 1997, hearings; that the public was given full
opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; 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
approximately 5.46 acres in size.
3 The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT,
Rural Transitional, and is vacant land. The Applicants request the
property be zoned I --L, Light Industrial. The Applicants have
requested the annexation and this zoning, and the application is
not at the request of the City of Meridian.
4. The property is presently vacant and the Applicants do
not presently propose a project with the property or propose a
change in the land use at this time.
5. The property is north of Franklin Road and west of Eagle
Road. The property is south of and borders an existing industrial
subdivision.
5. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted comments and
requirements, all of which comments and requirements are hereby
incorporated herein as if set forth in full, and some of which are
more particularly set forth as follows. ACRD made a special
recommendation to ITD (Idaho Transportation Department) that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - page 2.
MURASKO
r
Applicants should not have any direct lot access to Eagle Road.
ACRD made several site specific requirements, which included that
there be compliance with requirements of ITD for State Highway 55
(Eagle Road ) frontage; that a letter from ITD be submitted to ACHD
regarding said requirements prior to ACRD approval of the final
plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits ) ,
whichever occurs first; that access to Franklin Road is restricted
within 440 -feet of Eagle Road; that a driveway located a minimum of
440 -feet from Eagle Road may be restricted to right turns in the
future if an interchange is constructed at the Franklin/Eagle Road
intersection.
7. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
submitted comments which comments are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full. His comments included that the legal description
submitted with this application for Annexation and Zoning appears
to meet all of the criteria required by Meridian City Resolution
#158, and the Idaho State Tax Commission; that sanitary sewer
service to this parcel is not available at this time; thatP lans
have been developed by Ron van Auker for the extension of sewer
into the area, however easements have not been obtained nor have
they obtained full plan approval; that water service for this
parcel could be from an existing main adjacent to the east of the
site in Eagle Road; that the legal description submitted with this
application places this parcel adjacent to the south of Olson &
Bush Industrial Park, approximately 270 feet from the Lanark Street
right-of-way, and approximately 170 feet north of the Franklin Road
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3.
MURAS leo
right--of-way; that direct right--of-way access to the property from
North Eagle Road is prohibited according to Dan Cantrell, Right--Of-
way agent with the Idaho Transportation Department; that the
Applicants have made a directive to their engineer in their
authorization to act on their behalf to "make sure that we shall
have a legal right of way off of Franklin and Lanark Street for
commercial use. There is no point in annexing if there are no
right of ways . " ; and that from the information provided in the
application, there does not appear to be any contiguous public
right-of-way other than North Eagle Road.
8. Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator,
submitted comments which comments are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full. Her comments included that this annexation and
zoning request is in general compliance with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan; that the parcel was, part of an illegal lot
split that was made in Ada Counter; that the other portion of the
property was annexed as the Haski.n/Green property; that the western
most parcel fronting Franklin Road was split off from this parcel,
which lies below the ridge adjacent to the Olson & Bush Industrial
Park; that an easement has been granted from Franklin Road to
access this property, and no direct access is allowed from Eagle
Road; that the site is shown on the Generalized Land Use Map of the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan as Commercial and Industrial; that this
may eventually be tied to the stub street being provided in Phase
2 of the Olson & Bush Industrial Park, that the intersection'of
Eagle Road/Franklin is destined to be developed as an urban
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4.
MURASKO
interchange with grade--separated approaches; that access on
Franklin Road will be limited to one access a minimum of 660 feet
west of the intersection; that all ditches are to be tiled"in
accordance with Meridian City Ordinance unless a variance is
granted; that landscape setbacks are required on Eagle and Franklin
Roads* that a thirty-five feet ( 35 ' ) setback shall be provided on
Eagle Road; that the Applicants dedicate any additional right-of-
way on Eagle Road prior to obtaining building permits /certificates
of occupancy; that Applicants furnish a copy of recorded warranty
deed for dedication of additional right-of-way prior to obtaining
building permits; that, as no use is proposed, all uses shall be
governed under the conditional use permit process, which is
particularly important because of the problems of access to the
site and aesthetics of this entrance-corridor property; that
currently, there exists only an easement from Franklin Road, and an
easement from Lanark Street; that the easement from Eagle Road
through Lanark Street was granted to the previous owners* that the
previous owners executed a quit-claim deed to the present owner for
the Eagle Road access through property owned by Ted Sigmont; that
it is questionable whether this access is feasible for any use;
that storage units could possible be one of the few uses compatible
with such existing access; that the property will be extremely
limited in usability because of the restrictive access; that there
appears to be no legal frontage for the property; that the
application indicates the property is currently vacant, however,
there is a structure of some kind currently on the property; that
FINDINGS of FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5.
MURAS KD
the Applicants previously requested a building permit from Ada
County for construction of a residential unit on the property; that
it is assumed that the response to Item la of the application
refers to the Land Use section, pages 24 and 25, of the
Comprehensive Plan, although the intent of this response is
unclear; and that a development agreement shall be required as a
condition of annexation and additional site requirements will be
detailed during the conditional use review process.
9. The Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire
Department and the Central District Health Department submitted
comments, which respective comments are hereby incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
10. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted
comments, which respective comments are hereby incorporated herein
as if set forth in full. Its comments included that its Snyder
Lateral courses through the project; that the right -of --way of the
Snyder Lateral is 48 feet, 20 feet from the center facing
downstream; that the developer must contact John P. Anderson or
Bill Henson for approval before any encroachment or change of
right-of-way occurs; that it requires a Land Use Change/Site
Development application be filed for review prior to final
platting; that all lateral and waste ways must be protected; that
all municipal surface drainage must be retained on site; that i f
any surface drainage leaves the site, it must review drainage
plans; that the developer must comply with Idaho Code Section 31-
3805; and that it recommends that irrigation water be made
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAYS - Page 6.
MURAS KO
available to all developments with the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District.
11. The Representative stated that their is no project for
the property; it is strictly a bare land annexation. The
Representative further stated that they have no problems with the
comments submitted by the agencies.
12. There was a discussion between Commissioner Borup and the
Representative concerning a right -of --way access to Franklin Road.
The Representative stated that the right-of-way to Franklin Road is
a maybe dependent upon the neighbors, but he thinks in the long
term development such right--of-way access will occur. The
Representative stated that the Applicants want to proceed without
a right-of-way access to Franklin Road; that they have access to
Lanark Street via a permanent easement. The Representative
explained that the easement to Lanark Street was put together when
ITD (Idaho Transportation Department) widened Eagle Road and ITD
purchased the easement for the property. The Representative stated
that the right-of-way to Lanark Street is 50 to 60 feet in width,
but he would have to review his documents to recall the exact
width.
13. There was a discussion between Commissioner Oslund and
the Representative about ACHD's comments of a study for an
interchange location on Eagle Road, the Applicants' easement to
Franklin Road and the potential of the property being land locked
without access. The Representative stated that the Applicants are
not sure whether they have an access easement to Franklin, but they
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7.
MURASKO
have access to Lanark street, and Lanark street will not be shut
off by an interchange or improvements.
14. Ted S igmont stated to the Commission his opposition to
the annexation of the property based upon an inability to provide
utility services to the property.
15. Dale ownby stated to the Commission that there is a
recorded easement for the property which runs from the property
south to Franklin Road. This easement allows for any type of
utility; sewer line, water line, telephone line, electric lines;
which are needed. Mr. ownby further stated that Mr. Sigmont was
correct that their is the easement across his property; it is not
over property of the state of Idaho.
16. Brad Miller stated to the Commission his objection to the
annexat ion of the property based upon an inability to access the
sewer line. Mr. Miller stated that notwithstanding the easement to
which Mr. ownby testified allows for sewer, the sewage cannot flow
up hill and the easement across Mr. Sigmont's property is for
ingress and egress only, not for utilities. Mr. Miller further
stated his objection based upon a lack of adequate access to the
property.
17. With regard to the availability of sewer to the property,
the Representative stated that once the sewer goes down Lanark
Street and crosses Eagle Road to Mr. Van Auker's proposed project
on the east side of Eagle Road, that the Applicants would have no
problem acquiring an easement from the state of Idaho to run sewer
within the Eagle Road right -of --way; that the Applicant's will not
FINDINGS of FACT AND CONCLUSIONS of LAW - Page 8.
MURAS K0
need to use Mr. Sigmont's property. The Representative
acknowledged that sewer service is a problem until it gets down
Lanark Street.
18. There were no other comments by the public regarding this
application.
13. The property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
20. The property requested to be annexed is presently
included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P.A
}
as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact.
21. The property cannot presently be physically serviced with
City sewer, but water is available from an existing water main in
Eagle Road..
22. The following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic
Development Goal Statement.
1. Policies
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort
to create a positive atmosphere which
encourages industrial and commercial
enterprises to locate in Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
set aside areas where commercial and
industrial interests and activities are to
dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of
new commercial or industrial developments
should be harmonized with the natural
environment and respect the unique needs and
features of each area.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9.
MURAS KO
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a
Design Review ordinance which will foster
compatible land use and design within the
development, and with contiguous developments;
and encourage innovations in building
techniques, so that the *growing demands of the
community are met, whsle at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at pages 18 - 19.
23. The following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, INDUSTRIAL POLICIES.
3.1 Industrial development within the urban service
planning area should receive the highest priority.
3.3 Access to industrial areas from collector and local
streets will be discouraged.
3.4 Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas
should not create noise, odor, air pollutiont and
visual pollution greater than levels normally
associated with surrounding residential activities.
3.5 Industrial development should be encouraged to
locate adjacent to existing industrial uses.
3.6 Industrial areas should be located within proximity
to major utility, transportation and services
facilities.
3.7 Industrial uses which require the storage or the
production of explosive or hazardous materials
should not be located near residential areas, and
should conform to disposal, spill and storage
measures as outlined by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
3.8 Industrial uses which require the storage or
production of explosive or toxic materials should
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ Page 10,
MURAS KO
be excluded from any area which has a potential of
flooding from natural runoff or canal breakage.
3.9 Industrial uses should be located where discharge
water can be properly treated or pre-treated to 4...
eliminate adverse impacts upon the City sewer
treatment facility and irrigated lands that receive
industrial runoff water.
3.10 Industrial uses should be located where adequate
water supply and water pressure are available for
fire protection.
3.11 zoning and development within each of the
Industrial Review Areas should be analyzed to
ascertain if there are potential problems or
conflicts which would hinder the development of
these areas by private industrial and business
interests.
3.12 All industrial proposals that pertain to the
Industrial Review Areas shall be reviewed and
monitored by the City Council or designated
commissions or committees,, so that approved uses
are compatible with surrounding planned uses and
preserve the integrity of the review areas.
Eastern -Eagle Road Light Industrial Review Area.
3.14 The character, site improvements and type of light
industrial developments should be harmonized with
the residential uses in this area.
3.15 The City of Meridian shall encourage the
development of a Technological parr and compatible
light industrial uses within the proximity of the
Idaho Foreign Trade Zone.
3.16U Land uses within the Eastern Light Industrial
Review area must be clean, quiet, and free of
hazardous or objectionable elements.
3.17U It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
encourage and promote light industrial
development in the Eastern Light Industrial
Review Area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 24 - 25.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11.
MURASKo
24. In the Meridian Comprehensive Plan under TRANSPORTATION,
Franklin Road, East of Meridian Road, and Eagle Road, North of
Overland Road are designated as Principal Arterials. See
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 43.
25. In the Meridian Comprehensive Plan under COMMUNITY
DESIGN, Entryway Corridor, Franklin Road (East and West entrances)
and Eagle Road (East and 'Test entrances) are designated gateway
arterials. See, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 72.
The COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN provides the following
statements under COMMUNITY DESIGN relative to entrance corridors:
Entrance corridors Goal Statement
Promote, encourage, develop and maintain
aesthetically -pleasing entrances to the City of Meridian.
4. Policies
4.1U Jointly plan entryway corridors to Meridian
with Nampa and Boise.
4.2U Support ACHD corridor development standards
for the entryways to the City.
4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision
regulations, and zoning to discourage strip
development and encourage clustered, landscaped
business or residential development on entrance
corridors.
4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new
development on entrance corridors. The City shall
require, as a condition of development approval,
landscaping along all entrance corridors.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 73.
26. The property is included within an area designated on the
Generalized Land Use Map at page 4 of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY
OF MERIDIAN as a Light Industrial.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 12.
MURAS ISO
2 7 . The requested zoning of Light Industrial (I -L) is defined
in the Zoning ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 14. as follows:
(I -L -I ----Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I -L) Light
Industrial District is to provide for light industrial
development and opportunities for employment of Meridian
citizens and area residents and reduce the need to
commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the
development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments
which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or
objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke
or glare and that are operated entirely or almost
entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas
best suited for industrial development because of
location, topography, existing facilities and
relationship to other land uses. This district must also
be in such proximity to insure connection to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of
Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not
permitted, and strip development is prohibited.
28. That at
the City Council
hearing there
was discussion
between the Mayor,
City Councilmen,
City Engineer,
City Attorney,
and the Representative of the Applicant, Keith Loveless, that
pertained to annexation of land into the City and the requirements -
of the City dealing with construction and placement of city sewer
and water facilities, when such facilities should be constructed,
that if such facilities are not constructed the land should not be
annexed, or if already annexed, it should be de --annexed, and which
entity, the annexation applicant, the person or entity that desired
the services, or the city, had the responsibility to pay the cost
of construction, gaining and/or paying for easements, and/or access
to and for the sewer and/or water lines.
29. That the Water and Sewer ordinances of the City state, '� .in
5-124, 5--124A, 5-124B, 5-140 and 7-527, 7-527A, and 7--527B, state
that it shall be the property's owner, or the owner's agent, who
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 13,
MURAS KO
has the responsibility to pay for the cost of the extension of
water or sewer lines and facilities, whether the extension is on
the property or outside of the property.
30. That all owners, subdividers, and/or developers, of land
in the City of Meridian have been in the past, and are now,
required to construct and place sewer and/or water lines and
facilities to serve the land that they owned or were developing,
and pay for all cost of construction, permits, licensing, obtaining
access or easements, and any other cost; that such construction
and/or placement of sewer and/or water lines has been required to
be done at the time that the property is developed or a use is
desired to placed on the property.
31. Proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and zoning commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUS I ONS 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 ofro ert within 300
p p Y
feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants' 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's annexation authority is a legislative function.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14.
MURASKO
3. The Planning and Zoning commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Idaho Code Section 50-222,
Title 67, Chapter 55, 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. All notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the ordinances of the city of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. The Council 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, 555 Ptd. 1075 (1983).
9. The development of annexed land must meet and comply with
the ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section
11--9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements; Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and waterways; and 11--9--606 14 . , which requires pressurized
irrigation.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 15. ._..
MURASKO
10. The Applicants stated no proposed use of the property;
therefore it cannot be determined if the use would be in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, however any uses would have to comply
p y
with the Zoning Ordinance.
11. The City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on
January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning ordinance to
reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, uses may
be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning
Ordinance may not address provisions for the use. It is concluded
that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may
impose restrictions that'are not otherwise contained in the current
Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
12. The Applicants have not stated or represented their
intention as to development. It is therefore concluded, as a
condition of annexation and zoning, that any use or development of
the property shall only be allowed under the conditional use
process.
13. It is concluded that the City could annex the property
and zone it ( I -L ) Light Industrial, but once the property was zoned
(I -L) Light Industrial, the Applicants could place many different
uses on the property without additional approval from the City
other than building permits, which limits the control that the City
should have over the development and the uses of the property due
to the mandates of the Comprehensive Plan.
14. As the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN provides under
LAND USE, Eastern -Eagle Road Light Industrial Review Area in 3.14
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16.
MURASKO
and 3.16U, at page 25, that the character, site improvements and
type of light industrial developments should be harmonized with the
residential uses in the area; that land uses in the Eastern Light
Industrial Review area must be clean, quiet, and free of hazardous
or objectionable elements; and that because the City should have
control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is
therefore concluded that development of the property shall be under
the conditional use permit process.
15. It is concluded that the property should be annexed and
zoned (I -L) Light Industrial, but only capable of being developed
ed
�
under the conditional use permit process,
16. As a condition of annexation and the zoning of (I -L)
Light Industrial, the Applicants shall be required to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
that the development agreement shall address, among other things,
the following:
a. Inclusion into the development the requirements of
11-9-605;
b. Payment by the Applicants, 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 park, police, and fire
services as determined by the City;
e. Appropriate berming and landscaping;
f. Submission and approval of any required plats;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 17,
MURAS KO
g. Submission and approval of individual building,
drainage, lighting, parking, and other development
plans of the property;
h. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements
with the surrounding residential development and
other development;
i. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping
the same;
j. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director,
Shari Stiles;
k. The sewer and water requirements;
1. Traffic plans and access into and out of any
development; and
m. Any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing.
17. Section 11--2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning 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 for a
development agreement to be entered into when plans for development.
of the property are determined, 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.
18. It is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian and it
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 18.
MURAS K0
is concluded that the annexation shall be conditioned on meeting
the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and if they are not met the land may be de -annexed.
19. The requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, iAda
�
County Highway District, Meridian Planning Administrator. Central
District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement.
20. All ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as:::,, -:a
condition
condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be
subject to de -annexation.
21. Pressurized irrigation shall be installed and
constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to
de -annexation.
22. The Applicants 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 such things at Applicant's, or their
successor's, or successors' cost; the previously mentioned water
and sewer requirements shall be performed on or before the time
that the Applicants or their successor, or successors, desire to
use the property or place a user on the property.
23. The development of the property shall be subject to and
controlled by the Zoning and Development ordinance and the
development agreement, and it shall only be developed under the
conditional use process.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 19.
MURAS KO
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS I ONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions. 9-S 4,edX67-1 U
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
The Meridian City Council of the City of Meridian hereby
decides that the property set forth in the application should be
approved for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth
in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the
Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions and/or is not agreeable with entering into"'a
development agreement and adopting covenants, conditions and
restrictions, the property should not be annexed. There shall -:--be
no development or use whatsoever of the property set forth in the
Application for anything other than, and a part of, a Mixed Planned
Development. All uses of the land must first be approved under the
conditional use process.
MOTION:
APPROVED• 7 DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21. ._.
MURAS ISO
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
MR. JON L. BARNES _ pROPERTIES WEST
INC.
APPLICATION FOR ANNEgATION
A PORTION O�TRE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1 4 �D ZONING
OF SECTION 18 TOWNgAIP
3 NORTH RANGE 1 EAST BOISE
MERIDIAN IF ADA COUNTY IDAg�
SOUTH OF FRANICI,IM ROAD
WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD
MERIDIAN IDAHO
F I ND I NGS OF FACT
AND C DND,Z,,US I DNS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application come on for tion having
Public hearingbefore ore the Ing
Commission ❑ Planning and Zoning
n Januar ing
Y 14 r I� 9 7, at the
hour of 7:00 o •
and also for clock p,m,�
Public hearin be
g fore the Meridia •
March Ig n City Council on
. X997, both at the Meridian Cit
Street y Hall, 33 East Id
• Meridian. Idaho Idaho
. a representative of t
Tree hereinafter he Applicants
Wafter referred to Gary
as the "Representative �ve�" appearing in
the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council
both of the Cit cit
Y of Meridian and r
having dulyco =
evidence and the considered the
matter City Counci
l '
Of Fact and conclusions of Law: makes the following Findings
FINDINGS OF FACT
�. The notice
Of Public hearing °n the appy
annexation -cation and zoning n for
g was published for
two (2) consecutive weeks
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS O
NIR . JON
BARNES - - PROPER' F L - Page Z .
IES VEST, INC.
prior to both of said public hearings, the Planning and Zoning
hearing scheduled for January 14, 1997, and the City council
hearing scheduled for March 18, 1997, the first publication of each
notice being published for fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the January 14f 1997, and
March 18, 1997, hearings; that the public was given full
opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; 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. The property is approximately 26.5 acres
in size.
3 The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT,
Rural Transitional, and is used as agricultural pasture land; the
Applicant requests the property be zoned I -L, Light Industrial.
4, The Applicant intends to develop an upper end light
industrial business park subdivision of 18 building lots and five
common lots. The use of the lots will be specifically permitted
uses under the I -L, Light Industrial, zone as set forth in the
present Zoning and Development ordinance of the City of Meridian,
Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning ordinance," or
otherwise restricted by the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions
(CC&Rs) which the Applicant plans to present. The Applicant stated
that the uses it will not allow on the property, and are thus
restricted uses and which are restrictions to be imposed by the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAVA - Page 2,
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
Applicant pursuant to the CC&Rs , are Asphalt & Concrete, Automobile
Wrecking Yard & Storage, Fuel Yards, Junk Yard, Mobile Home
Manufacturing, Railroad Yards & Shops, Recycling Plants, and Solid
Waste Transfer Stations. The forgoing permitted uses are permitted
uses, but will not be allowed on or at the property pursuant to the
CC&Rs to be recorded with the final plat of the property.
5. In the application and at the hearing, the Representative
requests that the conditional use process not be a condition of
annexation. Applicant requested that the uses which are permitted
uses in the I -L, Light Industrial zone pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance be permitted uses at the property without the necessity
of securing conditional use permits; uses which are allowed by
conditional use permit in the I -L, Light Industrial zone pursuant
to the Zoning ordinance would still require the necessity of
securing a conditional use permit for such use pursuant to the
Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant will consider entering into a
development agreement with the City of Meridian to restrict the
permitted uses of the property. The Applicant has one use planned
for the property, and will have a controlled environment as to the
development of the property.
That at the City Council Hearing the Representative of the
.Applicant, Gary Lee, stated as set forth in Paragraphs 30. a. and
f . , and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
6. The property is south of Franklin Road and approximately
500 feet west of Locust Grove Road. The surrounding properties are
of mixed use: to the north are light industrial businesses; to the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES `i`TEST, INC*
northwest a subdivision presently being marketed as industrial;
across Franklin Road is a pumice block business which is
industrial* to the north and northeast is the Doug Tamura property
being zoned commercial general and light industrial; to the west,
south and east of the property is not in the City and is zoned RT
by Ada County; also there is property Zoned R1 by Ada County, which
is at the northwest corner and southeast corner of the property.
7. There currently exists six single family homes along the
easterly boundary of the property situated on acreages ranging in
size from one to three acres. There exists two single family homes
on the westerly boundary, one of which is a rental mobile home
which belongs to the owner of the parcel.
$. Mr. Jon L. Barnes, of Properties west, Inc. is the
Applicant. Properties west, Inc. owns a portion of the property.
Gary R. Little and Deborah A. Little own the other portion of the
property. Gary R. Little and Deborah A. Little consented to the
application and have requested and consented to the annexation of
the portion of the property they own. The application is not at
the request of the City of Meridian.
91 .Ada County Highway District ( ACHD ) has submitted comments
and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the
comments did not address the annexation or zoning issues, but only
the Medimont Subdivision issues and, therefore, have no bearing on
the annexation and zoning issues.
10. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the city Engineer, and
Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, submitted comments
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS of LAW -- Page 4.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
which comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
The comments included: that the legal description for annexation
included in the application appears to conform to all the
provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158, and the
requirements of the Idaho State Tax Commission; that any existing
irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in
the project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M.; that
the ditches to be piped are to be shown on the Preliminary Plat;
that the plans will need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with
written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works
Department; that no variances have been requested for tiling of any
ditches crossing the project; that 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;
that wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation; that the Applicant determine the seasonal high
groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface soil
conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the street
development plans; that the Applicant submit a master street
drainage plan approval from the affected irrigation/drainage
district; the Applicant coordinate fire hydrant placement with
Meridian's water Works Superintendent; that the Applicant revise
the Preliminary Plat map to include land use and existing zoning of
the land adjacent to the proposed development; that the pressurized
irrigation system within the development needs to be designed along
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5,
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
the rear of the lots to avoid conflicts with utilities; that any
proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water
system to the pressurized irrigation system being proposed will
need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be
watered; that 250 -watt, high-pres sure sodium street lights will be
required at locations designated by the Meridian Public works
Department after Idaho Power Company completes their design for the
service of this development; that all street lights shall be
installed at subdivider's expense; that the Applicant add a street
name to the stub street going to the west boundary of the property,
and provide a 50 feet radius temporary turnaround at the west end
of the property; that the temporary turnaround at the west end of
the property may require some building restriction status for Lot
1, Block 4 and/or Lot 8, Block. 1, depending on an acceptable
turnaround design; that John Priesten, the Ada County Surveyor, has
recently indicated that it is not desirable to show these temporary
turnarounds on the plats, because it is then a dedicated public
right-of-way that must later be vacated; that Mr. Priester stated
the best solution to this problem is to record an instrument,
either prior or after plat recordation, providing an easement for
this purpose, and that the document would have a provision that the
easement would automatically be rescinded when the streets are able
to go through; that the Applicant has indicated in his preliminary
plat Note No. 9 that "improvements along E. Franklin Road (future)
will be Road Trusted and constructed by Ada County Highway District
at a later date;" that the Applicant is to install a five--foot-wide
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
detached sidewalk along the Franklin Road frontage at this time
ahead of the Ada County Highway District reconstruction; that a 20
feet wide planting strips are required to be placed adjacent to all
residential properties in accordance with city ordinance Section
11-9.605 G.; that a planting strip needs to be added on the
westerly boundary of the property; that the planting strip shall
not be a part of the normal street right-of-way or utility
easements; that any contractor's yards proposed must be located a
minimum distance of 300 feet from any residence, except for an
owner's residence, have a screening fence erected around areas
utilized for storage of equipment, with the areas limited to
storage, maintenance and processing incidental to contracting work;
that lighting shall be designed so as not to cause glare or impact
adjacent residential properties, as determined by the City of
Meridian; that the Meridian comprehensive Plan states that all uses
within this Mixed/Planned Use Development Area shall be developed
as a planned unit development under the conditional use process
which will be particularly important if the proposed zoning is
approved because of the possibility of adverse impacts on adjacent
residential properties; and that the potential for incompatible
uses is great if the I -L, Light Industrial, zoning is approved
without stringent development guidelines being imposed.
11. The Meridian Police and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS of LAW Page 7.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC*
12. The Meridian Fire Department submitted comments which are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full. These comments
included: that there is only one way in and out of the complex;
that as long as all codes, number of hydrant requirements, and
water supply requirements are met, the Meridian Fire Department
will not have a problem.
13. The Central District Health Department submitted comments
which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. These
comments included* that after written approval from the appropriate
entities are submitted, it can approve this proposal for central
sewage; that plans for central sewage and central water must be
submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality; that it recommends that
the first one half inch of storm water be pretreated through a
grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact
to groundwater and surface water quality; and that the engineers
and architects involved with the design of the project should
obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal
and design a storm water management system that is preventing
groundwater and surface water degradation.
14. The Representative stated that the proposed improvements
that the Applicant is identifying are the roads, water, waste water
collection facilities, storm drain facilities and pressurized
irrigation. The Representative further, stated that in addition to
the foregoing improvements there will be a landscaped common lot
along Franklin Road, 35 feet in width, a landscaped entry island
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
into the project and there will be a landscaped buffer strip along
the easterly boundary 20 feet wide.
15. The Representative stated that the building which the
Applicant envisions constructing is intended to be of light
industrial use that would lend to a small business operation that
somewhat needs a store front and also a requirement of a storage
area in the rear.
16. The Representative stated that the Applicant had a couple
neighborhood meetings with the adjoining property owners, and
invitations were sent to the property owners within 300 f eet of the
property; that the Applicant had an occasion to meet with a couple
of the property owners on a one on one basis and reviewed some of
the concerns they had previously expressed. The Representative
stated that they discussed the irrigation system that is an
existing ditch that will be piped. The ditch, in its state today,
has caused leakage problems and contributed to flooding of
basements to the east side of the' property. By piping the ditch,
they can alleviate some of that problem.
17. The Representative, on behalf of the Applicant, responded
by letter dated January 13, 1397, to the submitted comments of
Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the city Engineer, and Shari Stiles,
Planning and Zoning Administrator. Said response of the
Representative are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
18. With regard to the Applicant's request that the
conditional use process not be a condition of annexation, the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 9.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
Representative stated that this development will not be a mixed use
development, but a single use development. The particular uses
have been identified, and they will identify controls. The
Representative stated that the conditional use permit requirement
will place the developer at a disadvantage when competing with the
developer across from the property; there exists industrial uses
within the City of Meridian which do not require conditional use
processes; and consistent with a statement in the comprehensive
plan, they are attempting to develop business atmosphere and to
create jobs, increase economic base and other things which the City
is desiring.
19. In response to a question of Commissioner MacCoy
concerning control over building construction, the type and color
of the material used. the Representative stated that there will be
an architectural control committee established, and they have
identified building material to be used and the types of products
to be used in the development. The construction will need the
approval of the architectural control committee, including
landscape plans, site plan and building materials. The intent is
to try to have the same feel throughout the project as created in
the entrance. They will ]peep full control of everything until the
last lot is sold.
20. Jim Boyd stated to the Commission that he is in the
commercial real estate business and has specialized in industrial
real estate for 19 years in the Boise area. Mr. Boyd stated that
he believes the project the Applicant is proposing goes well beyond
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 10.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
the developments seen in the past with the exception of the one
like Central valley. The restrictive covenants used by residential
developments are good for this type of project. The restrictive
covenants make the project viable not only during the selling
phase, but viable and workable into the future. The architectural
control committee cannot be dictatorial because of different
products coming into the market; however, it provides for
consistency in the project, Mr, Boyd believes there is a need f or
this type of project; it offers a nice affordable environment for
small businesses.
21. Mr. Boyd stated that he would life to see the conditional
use process not be a condition of the project. The conditional use
process puts the development at a disadvantage.
22. There was testimony at the hearing objecting to the
application which was principally as follows:
a. Jim Witherell testified that the difference between
this project and other properties is that the project
immediately adjoins housing. When the City of Meridian
adopted its Comprehensive Plan it adopted some very good
standards which include the following: the adjoining
property owners cannot lose property valuer cannot lose
water, cannot suffer damage, and cannot incur health
risks. For this reason, light industrial is in
segregated areas; areas in which there are no housing.
The property has R1 housing on both sides. His house is
with 12 feet of the property line. The house on the west
side is within one foot of the property line. Mr.
witherell desires the conditional use process to be a
condition of the approval of the application. As
adjacent property owners, they loop at landscaping from
the rear, whereas the landscaping is designed from the
front. From the rear, the landscaping is a chain link
fence and a couple of trees. Based upon definition or
logic, the application has to be denied because no amount
of landscaping and conditional use restrictions can quiet
industrial noise, dim industrial lighting or prohibit
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
health or safety risks to residential areas. The
proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions do not
provide protection because they do not provide standards,
only statements. In response to questions from chairman
Johnson and commissioner Borup , Mr Withere ll stated that
he does not object to development of the property, but
objects to the proposed zoning and use.
b. Ann Witherell testified that if the property is
developed as light industrial there will be constant
noise. She testified the noise created by traffic and
vehicles based upon statistics, and based upon the
statistics concerning noise, the proposed industrial park
creates a health risk and property values will decline.
In response to Commissioner Oslund's question, Ann
Wetherell stated that the statistics are compiled by the
Federal Bureau of Transportation.
c. Ted Hanson stated that he had several questions
which were not addressed. These questions included
whether permission from the Corps of Engineers for a
filtration system adjacent to Franklin Road and whether
the usage of the property would be 24 hours a day which
would increase the noise level at night.
d. Robert R. Smith testified that during the
development of the property., they will be adversely
affected by dust, noise and pollutants during
construction. They will need a buffer because his and
other neighboring properties adjoin the property. Their
backyards adjoin the property and they spend a lot of
time in their backyards.
22. The Representative testified in response to Mr. Hanson' s
testimony, Mr. Smith's testimony and the Witherell's testimony as
follows. Irrigation from the property has historically run north.
The water drains into a drainage that crosses Franklin Road, and
then through a natural drainage into the Five Mile Creek on the
north side of Franklin Road. The policies of Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, the City of Meridian, and Ada County Highway
District in the design of storm water facilities are to permit the
existing amount of discharge to continue after development.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
However, Ada County Highway District, the City and Corp of
Engineers have guidelines for the quality of the discharge water.
The rates of flow will be in accordance with the current
regulations and codes. The approval of the Corp of Engineers comes
in the final design phase of the first final plat along with other
issues.
With regard to Mr. Smith testimony, there exist requirements
imposed upon them; dust will be minimized through the availability
and use of water trucks; trash fences will be constructed to
contain building materials which may be blown from the property.
It does not matter if construction occurs on the property, there
will be such a phase of the development of the property.
With regard to the Witherell's testimony, they are concerned
about the health and well being of the neighbors. They will make
every effort to prepare the designs and seek the approval of the
regulatory agencies having control over the project. There exist
agencies to control the use of the lots after construction. They
do not intend to build anything in the project that is not in
accordance with currently adopted regulations and standards.
23. In response to questions of Commissioner MacCoy, the
Representative stated that he has read nothing in the covenants,
conditions and restrictions concerning the restriction of noise,
but such could be added if the City so desired.
24. There was comment and discussion between the Commission,
the Representative concerning the proposed plat and design for the
development of the property.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
�t
j
25 . The Representative further testified that there are other
areas in which light industrial borders residential areas. one of
these areas is a stretch along Emerald Street between Five Mile and
Maple Grove, and there is no buffer strips at all. These areas
have managed to make the uses compatible, and it seems to work just
fine.
26. Mr. Smith testified in response to the Representative's
comments concerning the bordering of light industrial and
residential. Mr. Smith's testimony included that he is retired
from Idaho Power. That while working for Idaho Power, he the
worked to restore a power outage at Sears computer industry,
because of the noise. There is a conflict because of the uses of
the respective areas during different hours of a day.
27. George and Mary Ann States submitted a letter concerning
this application, which letter is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
28. Monte C. McClure submitted a letter concerning this
application, which letter is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
29. Archie T. and Ernistine Robinson, James N. and Ann C.
Wetherell, Gene and Vernadene Pressley, and Robert R. and Jeri
Smith, submitted a letter objecting to this application, which
letter is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
30. There were comments made from the Applicant's
Representative and the public at the City Council hearing, which
were as follows, as stated in part:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
a, Gary Lee stated that the City had requested an
opinion from a soils engineer about the potential ground
water contamination of the existing domestic wells along
the easterly side of this development next to the 5 or so
residents along that property. He had faxed a letter to
the City. The letter came from Strata Geotechnical
Engineering and Materials Testing by Mr. Van Gato,
professional engineer. He read a paragraph, which stated
as follows:
"Based on our review of the hydro -geological
conditions in the vicinity of the project site, it
is our opinion that any surface contaminants that
may be spilled near the ground surface at the
project site would not likely be transmitted to the
lower potable water supply aquifer that is located
at a depth of 70 to 130 feet below the ground
surface due to the presence of impermeable
(inaudible), layer of silt and clay, soils that
underlay the site. Additionally, the ground water
gradient to the northwest would cause contaminants
to flow away from the residents located east and
south of the proposed development."
Mr. Lee then stated he thought that should address
the concerns of the City about some of the potentials of
contamination.
He then stated that there are probably 3 or 4
different options that the city can take at this
particular junction. The City can 1) deny the application
in its total form. 2) Annex and zone the property I -L
without the special conditional use permit requirement.
3 ) Annex and zone the property I -L with the requirement
that all of the lots be required to process a conditional
use permit. And 4), annex and zone the property with a
development agreement and put some language in the
development agreement that would require conditional use
permits for those lots that are adjacent to those
residential houses and that gives the City some further
latitude in their building permit review process on the
applications as they come in to place some additional
requirements depending on the type of use being proposed.
He stated that it would be kind of like a design
review process and could be handled internally. I
discussed those options with John Barnes the owner of the
Properties west and we think the final option would be a
workable scenario.
b. Jim witherell stated, in part, that he was amazed about
the soil sample report. He stated that he has 30 feet of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15,
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES NEST, INC.
pipe in his well but still 45 feet from the water
according to that description.
The comprehensive plan says that in a mixed use area
you can put light industrial. Of course the
comprehensive plan is attempting to limit the City's
liability under Idaho, Title 52, Idaho Code, which is
nuisance. The findings of fact came back and did in fact
say those things. They recommended it be seriously held
down and that it loop like the rest of the neighborhood
and blend in. We initially figured with transition this
could possibly work. Then the best I could do was read
the [proposed] development agreement against what the
findings of fact said and see if there are any
discrepancies. The findings of fact said the contractors
yards must be 300 f eet from any residents. The response
to that was the contractor's yards would be a maximum of
40 feet from the residents on lots 3 through 6, Block 1,
only. The blocks 6 through 10 are not all the residents
in the area. Second, the findings of fact said that
every building should be subject to conditional use. The
developers agreement says no conditional use except on
lots 6 through 9.
Findings of fact #3 says all buildings shall go
through the design review process for compatibility with
the area. The developers agreement says no review,
building permits only and the building permits are
appropriate in the interest of the health and welfare and
or safety of the inhabitants of the City. Subsection 9
emphasis is added because we don't live in the City.
Therefore technically these agreements don't even apply
to use
Number 4, requires stringent development guidelines.
The developers agreements says no conditional use except
on lots 6 through 10, Block 3, and the only restriction
is the building height is limited to 40 feet adjoining
the residences. Five, the findings of fact said this
should not create noise exceeded by that of the
surrounding neighborhood. The developers agreement did
not have such restriction, except on lots 6 through 9.
Block 3 adjoining the residences.
1
The findings of fact said it should not create lots
exceeding those of the surrounding residential
neighborhood. We are rural, but there are no
restrictions in the developers agreement, except that
lights shall be up on posts. He [Applicant] has promised
on all lots that there will be an annual dust abatement
of the yards, Exhibit C, subsection 13. once a year.
The findings of fact says the storage or production
of hazardous materials is prohibited near residential but
-there are no such restrictions in the developer's
agreement. It says adequate landscaping and buffering on
FINDINGS OF FACT .AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
the east and west boundaries. All the developer's
agreement says is, "As illustrated on the plat." The
size or type of tree is not described.
We testified last meeting we believed we had.legal
cause to ask for a 35 foot setback with full landscaping
on a berm with a 6 foot masonry sound fence. That is on
the western side. On the eastern side there is no
landscaping of any type and only a 10 foot setback.
In Number 11, the development must be designed to
blend in with surrounding neighborhood. The developer's
agreement says that all storage yards will be in the rear
of the lots which is, of course, next to our housing.
So we would ask that the first option be pursued.
Turn this down and maybe we will get a better deal next
time but we certainly are not going to get what blends
with a residential area. This is an industrial park, it
is a chain link fence park. There are cranes parked
behind a very minimal barrier. It is noise and it is
dust.
c. Ernestine Robinson testified that in response to Mr.
Morrow's question at the last meeting whether there was
an impervious layer of soil on the property to be
developed. It is my understanding that soil testing was
done to a depth of 3 in two places. During that time we
have lived in our home we have dug post holes discovering
each time that the soil was discontinuous. Since I
already had concerns about the water table, toxic spills
and etc. I decided to call the geosc ience s department at
Boise State University for an opinion. I discussed the
issue with Dr. Monty Wilson, a professor in the
geosciences department. I would like to read you Dr.
Wilson's letter. Monty Wilson stated:
"Most of the soil types along the south side
of Franklin Road near Meridian tend to have
substantial amounts of hard pan. In some places,
particularly along depressions this hard pan is
discontinuous. And even where the hard pan is
continuous there are fractures that penetrate
completely through it. Further, more a variety of
human activities such as excavation for building
foundations, drilling wells or placement of septic
tanks produce other breaks that may go partially or
completely through the hard pan. In some spots the
hard pan may well be thick enough and solid enough
so that it will act as a barrier to the downward
migration of contaminated water or other liquid
pollutants. It is also the fact however, that
fluids tend to flow laterally along the top of the
hard pan until it reaches a fractured zone, deep
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17.
MR, JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
post hole or any or one of the many breaks in the
hard pan. obviously such a discontinuity in the
hard pan provides an avenue through which fluids
can migrate downward and contaminate the underlying
aquifer."
Thus it is absolutely incorrect to say that the
hard pan will keep the aquifer from becoming
contaminated. A particular useful reference about the
soils in the area of concern is the soil survey of Ada
County published in 1980 by the USDA soil conservation
service. It is signed by Monty Wilson. In light of Dr.
Wilson's letter I believe we should again address this
issue. I feel it is relevant to the possible
contamination of our precious water supply. If necessary
I suggest that a study or survey be done to determine if
the ground does in fact have the possibility of a high
rate of absorption from spills due to chemicals and or
other toxic materials or pollutants.
d. Morgan Plant testified that anyone who thinks that the
hard pan layer is continuous and solid has not dug very
many holes. It is not continuous. It is not sealed. It
is very impervious. Would you like to have your home
there and allow an industrial park with noise, pollution,
lights,, activity 24 hours a day, in your backyard? You
are asking these people along here to allow an industrial
yard backing up to their domestic back yard. If this
were yours would you allow it? The least you can do is
to put in a 6 to an S foot masonry fence to keep the
trash, the dustf the noise out. We get enough noise
right now from the Masonry Products place over there. We
hear their bull horns, we see their lights. our back
yard is lit up so that I don't hardly have to use a f lash
light if I want to check the water at night with the
lights from Masonry Products. And that is quite further
away than these people are living.
e. Robert Smith testified that he affirms what Mr. Plant
said. This is in our back yards but it is kind of in his
front yard. We can see now what is going to happen to us
right in our backyards so we really want to address this
and get our concerns to you. As Mr, Plant said would you
really want this to happen to you? We have lived there
for 31 years. I have dug a lot of holes in Meridian. To
attest to what Mr. Plant said, you can go down one span
and you have good digging all the way and the next hole
you can't get it down because of hard pan or rock. I
know the first year that we lived in our home we did not
have our yards in but we had excavated down into the hard
pan layer and within about 3 weeks after the water came
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES KEST, INC.
in the ditch water began to flow right over the hard pan
layer and flowed into where we had to dig around our home
a drainage line to get rid of this water. It all came
from the west, it did not come from the east. we are all
downhill running into easterly direction.
f. Gary Lee responded to the above comments stating that
the landscape buffer required in your current ordinance
allows for a mixture of uses. You allow for industrial
in commercial zones next to residential zones. There are
allowances in there for landscape buffers which we have
addressed. The findings of fact as prepared for P & Z
have not been approved by you, the final decision makers.
We would expect that they would be revised in such a
manner that would allow a development agreement to
proceed.
A couple of comments about the soils. I did have a
chance to talk to Mr. Gado on the phone after he wrote
this report. He did investigate not only his own test
pits that they had excavated on the site, I think most of
those were 10 to 12 feet deep, but also he acquired all
of the well lots for the adjacent wells in the
neighborhood. On those well logs it identifies the soil
types as they are going through the strata. It
identifies the links of the casing for each well and in
his letter he had addressed that these wells were drilled
and cased to depths that range from 70 to 130 feet. He
also goes on to say that the colichi layer that Mrs.
Robinson spoke about is a shallow layer. It is not
continuous and I don' t think anyone has represented that
it is. It can be broken and most times it is broken
through. But the water that they are taking into their
wells comes from a deeper aquifer. If you read his
letter he states that there are clay layers throughout
that strata that attract the water source. That is of
course the key in developing good domestic wells to have
those barriers so you do have protected water. The key
thing here is the gradient of water flow in this valley
at those depths is northwest. It is flowing away from
those domestic wells. So contamination from anything on
the property west of their homes is very unlikely to flow
easterly. The gradient is northwest in this valley.
Some of the water that does move west is surface water
coming from the irrigation of that pasture that we are
proposing to develop and also coming from that concrete
ditch that is leaking irrigation water. The water does
go down that first 2 to 3 feet of top soil, lands on top
of that colichi layer and it does slope back towards
Locust Grove Road. That is the water they are getting.
I certainly hope that water that was coming off that
pasture is not getting into their wells, it would be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 19.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
highly contaminated with fecal coliform and nitrates from
that pasture operation.
31. The property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
32. The property requested to be annexed is presently
included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U,S,P,A,)
as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
10
Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact.
33. The property can presently be physically serviced with
City sewer and water .
34. The following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic
Development Goal Statement.
1. Policies
1.1 The city of Meridian shall make every effort
to create a positive atmosphere which
encourages industrial and commercial
enterprises to locate in Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
set aside areas where commercial and
industrial interests and activities are to
dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of
new commercial or industrial developments
should be harmonized with the natural
environment and respect the unique needs and
features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a
Design Review ordinance which will foster
compatible land use and design within the
development, and with contiguous developments;
and encourage innovations in building
techniques, so that the growing demands of the
community are met, while at the same time
providing f or the of f icient use of such lands .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY of MERIDIAN at pages 18 - 19.
35. The following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, INDUSTRIAL POLICIES.
3.1 Industrial development within the urban service
planning area should receive the highest priority.
3.3 Access to industrial areas from collector and local
streets will be discouraged.
3.4 Industrial uses adjacent to residential areas
should not create noise, odor, air pollution, and
visual pollution greater than levels normally
associated with surrounding residential activities.
3.5 Industrial development should be encouraged to
locate adjacent to existing industrial uses.
3.6 Industrial areas should be located within proximity
to major utility, transportation and services
facilities.
3.7 Industrial uses which require the storage or the
production of explosive or hazardous materials
should not be located near residential areas, and
should conform to disposal, spill and storage
measures as outlined by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.,
3.8 Industrial uses which require the storage or
production of explosive or toxic materials should
be excluded from any area which has a potential of
flooding f rom natural runoff or canal breakage.
3.9 Industrial uses should be located where discharge
water can be properly treated or pre-treated to
eliminate adverse impacts upon the City sewer
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 21.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
treatment facility and irrigated lands that receive
industrial runoff water.
3.10 Industrial uses should be located where adequate
water supply and water pressure are available for
fire protection.
3.11 Zoning and development within each of the
Industrial Review Areas should be analyzed to
ascertain if there are potential problems or
conflicts which would hinder the development of
these areas by private industrial and business
interests.
3.12 All industrial proposals that pertain to the
Industrial Review Areas shall be reviewed and
monitored by the city Council or designated
commissions or committees, so that approved uses
are compatible with surrounding planned uses and
preserve the integrity of the review areas.
Eastern -Eagle Road Light Industrial Review Area.
3.13 It is the policy of the city of Meridian to encourage and
promote the development of an overpass at the
intersection of Locust Grove Road and I--84 by the Idaho
Department of Transportation
3.14 The character, site improvements and type of light
industrial developments should be harmonized with
the residential uses in this area.
3.15 The City of Meridian shall encourage the
development of a Technological park and compatible
light industrial uses within the proximity of the
Idaho Foreign Trade Zone.
3.16U Land uses within the Eastern Light Industrial
Review area must be clean, quiet, and free of
hazardous or objectionable elements.
3.17U It is the policy of the city of Meridian to
encourage and promote light industrial
development in the Eastern Light Industrial
Review Area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 24 - 25.
35. In the Meridian Comprehensive Plan under TRANSPORTATION,
Franklin Road, East of Meridian Road, and Eagle Road, North of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 22.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
Overland Road, are designated as Principal Arterials. See
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 43.
37. In the Meridian comprehensive Plan under COMMUNITY
DESIGN, Entryway Corridor, Franklin Road. (East and west entrances)
and Eagle Road (North and South entrances) are designated gateway
arterials. See COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 72.
The COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN provides the following
statements under COMMUNITY DESIGN relative to entrance corridors:
Entrance Corridors Goal Statement
Promote, encourage, develop and maintain
aesthetically --pleasing entrances to the City of Meridian.
4. Policies
4.1U Jointly plan entryway corridors to Meridian
with Nampa and Boise.
4.2U Support ACHD corridor development standards
for the entryways to the City.
4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan,, subdivision
regulations, and zoning to discourage strip
development and encourage clustered, landscaped
business or residential development on entrance
corridors.'
4,4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new
development on entrance corridors. The City shall
require, as a condition of development approval,
landscaping along all entrance corridors.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 73.
38. The property is included within an area designated on the
Generalized Land Use Map at page 4 of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY
OF MERIDIAN as MIXEDIPLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT.
39. The requested zoning of Light Industrial (I -L) is defined
in the Zoning ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 14. as follows.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 23,
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
I Licht Industrial: The purpose of the (I -L) Light
Industrial District is to provide for light industrial
development and opportunities for employment of Meridian
citizens and area residents and reduce the need to
commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the
development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments
which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or
objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke
or glare and that are operated entirely or almost
entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas
best suited for industrial development because of
location., topography, existing facilities and
relationship to other land uses. This district must also
be in such proximity to insure connection to the
Municipal Water and. Sewer systems of the City of
Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not
permitted, and strip development is prohibited.
40. Proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 24.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
t �r
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
feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants' 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's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. The Planning and Zoning commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Idaho Code Section 50-222,
Title 57, Chapter 55, 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. All notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 55, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. The Council 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
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).
94, The development of annexed land must meet and comply with
the ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section
11-9-515, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements; Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and waterways; and 11-9-606 14 . , which requires pressurized
irrigation.
10. The Applicants stated that it intends to develop an upper
end light --industrial business park subdivision of 18 building lots
and five common lots. Any uses would have to comply with the
Zoning ordinance, Subdivision and Development Ordinance, and the
other Meridian ordinances.
11. The City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on
January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning ordinance to
reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, uses may
be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning
Ordinance may not address provisions for the use. It is concluded
that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may
impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current
Zoning and Subdivision and Development ordinances.
12. It is concluded that the City could annex the property
and zone it ( I -L ) Light Industrial, but once the property was zoned
(I-L) Light Industrial, the Applicants could place many different
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 26.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
uses on the property without additional approval from the City
other than building permits, which limits the control that the city
should have over the development and the uses of the property due
to the mandates of the Comprehensive Plan.
13. It is concluded, due to the statements and objections of
the owners of lots and homes on Locust Grove Road which abut the
subdivision proposed by the Applicant (back-to-back) and which lots
directly abutting the subdivision but not corner to corner, that as
a condition of annexation and zoning, any use or development of
lots within the proposed subdivision of the Applicant directly
abutting, back-to-back but not corner to corner., the mentioned
homes and lots, shall only be allowed under the conditional use
process. It is further conc luded that the lots in the Applicant's
proposed subdivision which do not directly abut, back-to-back,
those lots with homes on them which lots front on Locust Grove Road
shall not be required to obtain conditional use permits for
proposed uses, but shall be required to obtain a conditional use
permit if a conditional use is required for such use under the
Zoning Ordinance or the Applicant has agreed to obtain a
conditional use permit for that classification of use.
The Applicant has stated and represented that even though some
uses are allowed under the Light Industrial Zone such uses will not
be allowed as uses within the subdivision, even though allowed in
the zone to which the Applicant's property is zoned pursuant to the
zoning Ordinance. It is further concluded that the Applicant and
the Planning and zoning Department of the City shall establish, by
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LATHY - Page 27.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES SHYEST, INC.
written agreement, which uses shall be allowed pursuant to the
Z on.i.ng ordinance, which uses shall be allowed only by means of a
conditional use permit, and those uses that shall not be allowed.
14. Even though the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN
provides under LAND USE, Eastern -Eagle Road Light Industrial Review
Area, in 3.14 and 3.16U, at page 25, that the character, site
improvements and type of light industrial developments should be
harmonized with the residential uses in the area, that land uses in
the Eastern Light Industrial Review area must be clean, quiet, and
free of hazardous or objectionable elements, and that the City
should have control over any uses that are to be placed on the
land, it has been held that a city comprehensive plan is a guide
only and is not similar to a zoning ordinance; that the City
Council understands the objections and sympathizes with them on an
individual basis and understands the Comprehensive Plan's direction
for development of the area; that the duty of the Council, however,
is not to be controlled by the interests of individual property
owners and their concerns, but also the Comprehensive Plan is just:
that, a plan and not a controlling ordinance; that this statement
that the comprehensive plan is not controlling is supported by
Balzer v. Kootenai County Bd of commis, 110 Idaho 37, 714 P.2d 6
(1986).
14A. It is further concluded that this Application has been
difficult for the Council to decide because of opposition to the
Application, which could dictate that the Application should be
denied but the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which shows the land as
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 28.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
{ if
being in an area shown as a Mixed/Planned Development Area, which
would indicate that the Application should be approved; that the
Council understands the objections and sympathizes with them on an
individual basis but also understands the Comprehensive Plans
direction for development of the area; but the duty of the Council,
however, is not to be controlled by the interests of individual
property owners and their concerns and the Comprehensive Plan is
just that, a plan and not a controlling ordinance; that this
statement that the comprehensive plan is not controlling is
supported by the above stated case of Balzer v. Kootenai County Bd
of Commis.
14B. It is further concluded that the duty of the Council is
to assess the applications on the basis of the overall good of the
City and its citizens; that it is with this duty and background
that the council has undertaken to make these Findings and
Conclusions.
15. It is concluded that the property should be annexed and
zoned (I -L) Light Industrial, but only capable of being developed
as set forth in paragraph 12.
16. As a condition of annexation and the zoning of (I -L)
Light Industrial, the Applicants shall be required to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
that the development agreement shall address, among other things,
the following:
a. Inclusion into the development the requirements of
11-9-605;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAST - Page 29.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
b. Payment by the Applicants, 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, f or park, police, and fire
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 development
plans of the property;
h. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements
with the surrounding residential development and
other development;
i. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping
the same;
jo Addressing the comments of the Assistant to the
City Engineer and Planning and Zoning
Administrator;
k. The sewer and water requirements;
1. Traffic plans and access into and out of any
development; and
M, Any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing.
17. Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 30
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
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 for a
development agreement to be entered into when plans for development
of the property are determined, 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.
18. It is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian, and it
is concluded t hat the annexation shall be conditioned on meeting
the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and if they are not met the land may be de -annexed.
19. The requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada
County Highway District, Meridian Planning Administrator, Central
District Health Department, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District and other governmental agencies shall be met and addressed
in a development agreement.
20. All ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a
condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be
subject to de -annexation.
21. Pressurized irrigation shall be installed and
constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to
de -annexation.
22. The Applicants will be required to connect the property
to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer
mains will serve the property.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 31.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
23. The development of the property shall be subject to and
controlled by the Zoning and Development Ordinance and the
development agreement, and it shall only be developed under the
conditional use process.
24. These conditions shall run with the land and bind the
Applicants and their successors in interest, assigns, heirs,
executors or personal representatives.
25. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of the property as (I -L) Light Industrial
would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
26. I f these conditions o f 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 32.
MR. JON BARNES -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
el -7y
The Meridianand Z.o:n ,n.g—Gomm-i-s-s!, nr of the City
of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law.
T1 fti T T 1-1 ?1 T T
C"oa- ic(CjG in l'Pr41jlnnekow VOTED
N.
a2aAlclt mAAI NEa—OSm-LTND` 8&Y7 -i E)l VOTED
/c?DqV Tf 4� VOTED
Cc?6t116-11,/"Al �AIRbIAN—JAHNSON—(-TI-E—BitRA-KER-)-1)CS�1?, VOTED
71C-'131dt-W1e1- -- /hAYai2- C�o.pKlC
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The City Council hereby decides that the property set forth in
the application be annexed and zoned Light Industrial but capable
of development only as allowed and set forth herein and
under the conditions set forth in these A Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, including that the Applicant or its successors
in interest, assigns, and/or successors enter into a development
agreement; that if the Applicants are not agreeable with these
-r 41ol e'(te ez'
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and are not agreeable with
g
entering into a development agreement, the property should not be
annexed.
MOTION
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ Page 33.
MR. JON BARNES -- -- PROPERTIES WEST, INC,
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
B.W. INC.
APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
A PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 SOUTH 1/2 NORTH 1/2
NORTHWEST 1/4 SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,
RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
EAST OF LOCUST GROVE, SOUTH OF -PINE STREET
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for public hearing on for public hearing on February 11,
1997, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant appearing
through its representative, Dan Torfin, the Planning and Zoning
Commission 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 February 11, 1997, the
first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 11,
1997, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to
express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 1.
B.W. Inc.
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
approximately 5.00 acres in size.
3 The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT,
Rural Transitional, and is vacant land. The Applicant requests the
property be zoned (TE), Technical. Distract. The Applicant has
requested the annexation and this zoning, and the application is
not at the request of the City of Meridian.
4. The property is presently vacant. The proposed use of
the property is as a Meridian Academy Alternate Middle School for
Meridian Joint School District No, 2.
5. The property is east of Locust Grove, south of Pine
Street and borders an existing industrial subdivision, Layne
Industrial Park.
6, The Ada County Highway District has or may submit
comments, and such comments are hereby incorporated herein as if
set forth in full or shall be incorporated herein as if set forth
in full when submitted.
7. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
submitted comments which comments are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full. His comments included that the legal description
submitted with the subject application appears to meet all of the
criteria required by Meridian City Resolution #1.58, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission; that sanitary sewer service for the parcel
could possibly be from an extension of the existing sanitary sewer
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2.
B.w. Inc.
main located in North Locust Grove Road at the north
boundary of
Layne Industrial Park; that the depth of the existing main,
approximately 5.5 feet deep, may limit the serviceability'
of this
parcel to this main; that as an alternative, there is an exist'
ng
8 inch diameter main stubbed south in North Locust Grove Road from
the existing 15 inch diameter trunk line located in' .
Pine Street;
that the depth of this stub is approximately 155 feet �° y ,et deep. The
treatment capacity of the Meridian Wasterwater Treatment
Plant is
currently being evaluated; that approval of this application pp n needs
to be contingent upon the City's ability to accept the additional
sanitary sewage generated by anyro osed development; p P g t; that water
service for this development shall be from an existing 10 inch
diameter main located on North Locust Grove Road*
■ and that water
service to this development is ' os
on contingent upon g Positive results
from a hydraulic analysis by the Cit 's computer
Y P model,
8. The Planning and Zoning Administrator has or may submit
comments, and such comments are hereby incorporated herein
as if
set forth in full or shall be incorporated herein as i
p f set forth
in full when submitted.
91 The Meridian Fire Department Meridian City Police
Department ■ and Nampa & Meridian Irri ation District '
�3 submitted
comments which respective comments are incorporated herein n as if
set forth in full,
10r Central District Health Department submitted d comments
which comments are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
Its comments included that after written approval from
Ap appropriate
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS of LAW - Page 3.
B-W- Inc. g
entities are submitted, it can approve thisro osal for
P P central
sewage and central water.
11. The Applicant's representative testified that this
application is for the annexation and zoning of thero ert
P P Y. a
five acre parcel, located on the north side of Layne `
� Industrial
Park on the east side of Locust Grove. The application PP n is
submitted to facilitate the development of the Meridian ian Joint
School District's middle school academy,
y
1 . There were no other comments by thec ubliregarding P g g t his
application.
13. The property included in the annexation and'
zanzng
application is within the Area of Im act of the cit oMeridian.
P y f
14. The property requested to be annexed isre
p sently
included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (U.S.P,A,)
as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the'
Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact,
15. The property can presently be physicallyi
serviced with
City sewer and water.
16. The following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan under SCHOOL FACILIT
2ES, Quality
Education Goal Statement.
Enrollment Goal Statement
Because the quality and use of educational
facilities available to every
significantly group of citizens in
the
community affects the
quality of life in
Meridian and the area's abilityto attract ment quality
llty
development, , and because quality education is an
important economic factor in the area the community
mmunity
FINDINGS OF.FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4.
B.W. Inc.
seeks to develop new school facilities and expand
programs as needed to serve community enrollment growth.
Enrollment Policies
2.1U Routinely educate and update the public on the need
to finance new school facilities and programs in
the Meridian School District and create new
legislative funding programs.
School Siting Gaal Statement
School and subdivision developments will be jointly
planned and sited to ensu
re mutual benefits and
neighborhood identity.
Siting Policies
3.1 Schools should be planned with two concerns in
mind:
a. Schools should be protected from incompatible
uses; andr (sic)
b. Elementary and intermediate primaryschools
should be the focal
point of community development.
3.2 School sites should be selected to avoid limiting
physical features and other 9
hazards detrimental to
the safety of children and to the general operation
of the school.
3.4 School sites should be enough large h to
accommodate g g
ate possible future building expansion
and recreation needs.
3.7 Widening and the general upgrading of street
should not be � g s
considered when it will have a
negative impact upon schools.
3.8 Secondary schools (junior and senior high schools
' g }
should have direct access onto a collector or minor
arterial thoroughfare.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY of MERIDIAN atP g a e s 13 - 14
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5.
BeWe Inc. g
17. In the Meridian Comprehensive Plan under TRANSPORTATION,
Locust Grover Franklin to Ustick is designated as a Minor Arterial,
See COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 43. In the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan under TRANSPORTATION, Pine, Ten Mile to
Locust Grove is designated as a Collector. See COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 44.
18. The property is included within an area designated on the
Generalized Land Use Map at page 4 of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY
OF MERIDIAN as Mixed 1 Planned Use Development,
19. The requested zoning of (TE) Technical District is
defined in the zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 13. as follows:
TE Technical Industrial: The purpose of the TE
District is to permit and encourage the development of a
technological park, including research and development
centers, vocational and technical schools and compatible
manufacturing, and wholesale business establishments
which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous materials
and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within
enclosed structures; to delineate an area of adequate
size to accommodate present and future compatible needs
on lands which are relatively free of improvements, well
suited for such use because -of location, topography,
access and utility service potential, and relationship to
other land uses could render the district infeasible for
its intended use. The District must have direct access
on two or more transportation arterial or collectors
designed to convey large volumes of traffic through non-
residential areas to major highways and thoroughfares.
It must also be in such proximity to insure connection to
the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the Cit of
Meridian for domestic y
requirements. The district is
further designed to act as a buffer between industrial
and highway uses and other less intensive business and
residential uses, and to provide an environmentally
pleasing, safe and aesthetically pleasing employment
center for the community and region.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW - Page 5.
B.W. Inc.
f'
t
20. Proper notice was given as required by law and all
4
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS off" LAW
1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act
and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have be •
been met,
including the mailing of notice to owners. ofro ert `
p p y within 300
feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property,
2. The City of Meridian has authority to annex landursuan
P t
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's annexation authority is a legislative function.
n.
3. The Planning and Zoning commission has t
judged his
annexation and zoning application under Idaho Code Section 50-
222r
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Coder Meridian City ordinances,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record'
submitted
to it and things of which it may take judicial notice.
4. All notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the ordinances o '
f the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. The Council may take judicial notice ofovernme
g nt
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing i
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS of LAW -- Page 7.
B.W.
Inc.g
+Ff'
� 1l
t
7. The annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the cit of Meridian.
dean.
8. Since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative
function, the City has authority to place conditions upon p the
annexation of land. See Burt vs. The Cijiy of Idaho Falls 1
� 15
Idaho 65, 665 P2d. 1075 (1983).
9. The development of annexed land must meet and comply with
ith
the ordinances of the City of Meridian and inarticular Section
ion
11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules
and
requirements; Section 11-9-605 M., `►whicherta�ins to the tiling g of
ditches and waterways; and 11-9-606 14. , which resres requires q pressurized
irrigation.
10. Any uses of the property would have to comply with
p y the
Zoning ordinance.
11. The City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on
January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning ordinance to
reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan. Thus uses
■ may
be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning
Ordinance may not address provisions for the use. It is concluded
that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation the City may
impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the
current
Zoning and Development ordinance of the City of Meridian.
12. The property could be annexed and zonedTE
� ) Technical
District, but once the property was zoned(TE) Technical District,
the Applicant could place different uses on thero ert it
P p y without
additional approval from the City other than buildinge
permits,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - page 8.
B.w. Inc.
S
which limits the control that the City should have over the
development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is, therefore, concluded, as a condition
of
annexation and zoning, that any use or development of thero
p perty
shall only be, allowed under the conditional usep rocess.
13. 1 It is concluded that the propertyshould be annexed.
and
zoned (TE) Technical District, but only capable of being d
P geve Loped
under the conditional use permit process.
14. The Applicant stated, that the annexation and zoningi
s to
facilitate the development, by the Meridian Joint School. District
No. 2, of a middle school academy. In the event that thero
p party
is not used as a middle school academy,such other development elopment of
or proposed uses of the property shall be under the conditional use
permit process.
15. Section I1-2--417 D of the Meridian Zoning -And Development
pment
Ordinance provides in part as follows:
If property is annexed, and zoned., the City may require or
q
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer ma g
p 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 ordinanceP
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
for a
development agreement to be entered into whenlans
p for development
of the property are determined and confirmed and therefore, re, as a
condition of annexation a development agreement must b
g e entered
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS of LAW - Page 9.
S.W, Inc,
into prior to development of the property or issuance of final1
p at
approval.
15. It is concluded that as a condition of annexation and the
zoning of (TE) Technical District, the Applicant shall be req uired
to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11--2.415 L
and 11-2-417 D. The development agreement shall address among
g
other things, the following:
a. Inclusion into the development the requirements of
11-9-505;
b. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, 4 r an y
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,
, transitional land
bufferin
g d uses and traffic
study;
do An impact fee or f ees f or ark, police, and fire
services as determined by the City;
e. Appropriate berming and landscaping;
gr
f. Submission and approval of any requiredlats
P r
g. Submission and approval of individual, building,
lighting, parking,
drainage, li
g g■ p g■ and other development
plans of the property;
h. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements
P
with the surrounding residential development and
other development;
i. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback
mentioned in the comprehensive Plan and landscaping
the same'
j. Addressing the comments of the Assistant to the
City Engineer and the Planning and Zoning
Administrator;
k. The sewer and water requirements;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10.
B.W. Inc.
1. Traff is plans and access into and out of an
development; and Y
M, Any other items deemed necessary by the City Staf f ,
including design review of all development and
conditional use processing.
17. It is concluded that the annexing and Z-oning of the
property is in the hest interests of the City of Meridian and it
is concluded that the annexation shall be conditioned on meeting
the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions ncluslons of Law
and if they are not met the land may be de -annexed.
18. The requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, ineer Ada
County Highway District, Meridian Planning Administrator, Central
District Health Department, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District and other governmental agencies shall be met and addressed
in a development agreement.
19. All ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a
condition of annexation and if not so tiled, thero ert shall P F Y 1 be
subject to de -annexation.
20. Pressurized irrigation shall be installed and
constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to
de -annexation,
21. The Applicant shall be required to connect thero e
P P rty
to Meridian water and sewer.
22. The development of the property shall be subject to an
J d
controlled by the Zoning and Development ordinance and
the
development agreement, and it shall onlybe developed p under the
conditional use process.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 11.
B.W. Inc.
23. These conditions shall run with the land and bind the
Applicant and their successors in interest i
r assigns, ■ he1rS,
executors or personal representatives.
24. with compliance of the conditions contained herein
the
annexation and zoning of the property as (TE) Technical District
would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
25. If these conditions of approval are not met the
� property
shall not be annexed or if already annexed, it shall be de-annexed.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND C€3NCLUSIDNS OF LAW
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
g Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER BORUP VOTED
COMMISSIONER OSLUND VOTED-
COMMISSIONER MACCOY VOTED
�P~ - r4AW c
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER ). VOTED
04, t7Z
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- Page 12.
BoWo Inc.
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 and
that the property only be developed under the conditional use
process; that if the Applicants are not agreeable with these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and are not agreeable with
h
entering into a development agreement, theP Y' ro ert should not be
P
annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13.
B.W. Inc.