HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 03-19
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 29, 1996:
(APPROVED)
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD MARCH 1, 1996:
(APPROVED)
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 5, 1996:
(APPROVED)
APA: TREASURE VALLEY ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS:
2. TABLED FEBRUARY 20, 1996: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD
GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW)
3. TABLED MARCH 5, 1996: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON
RAPIDS N0.3 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH: (TABLED
UNTIL APRIL 2, 1996)
4. TABLED MARCH 5, 1996: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR GEMTONE CENTER: (APPROVED SUBJECT TO CITY
ATTORNEY'S REVIEW)
5. FINAL PLAT FOR GEMTONE CENTER N0.2 BY GEMTONE INC.:
(APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DOVE MEADOWS NO. 2
SUBDIVISION BY DAVE LEADER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
7. PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE BY TRUDY CUMBA: (APPROVED)
8. PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE BY CHRIS WILSON: (APPROVED
WITH CONDITIONS)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK NO.6 (REPEAT) BY BOB NAHAS:
(APPROVED)
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF .48
ACRES TO R-4 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVE
FINDINGS; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDINANCE)
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF .95
ACRES TO R-4 BY KENT 8< MARY BARNEY: (APPROVE
FINDINGS; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDINANCE)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
52 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SENIOR/ADULT LIVING; 1 LOT
RECREATION CENTER FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
(TABLED UNTIL APRIL 2, 1996)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A 74 UNIT PUD WITH DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO.2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE):
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD
GREENS N0.2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE) BY BRIGHTON CORP.:
(TABLED UNTIL APRIL 2, 1996)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF 8.34 ACRES TO C-N
BY SMITHS FOOD AND DRUG CENTER INC.: (CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
17. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE
BY KATHLEEN LAWRENCE: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
18. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE,
FUEL ISLANDS, CAR WASH AND DRIVE THRU WINDOW BY AVEST:
(APPROVED)
19. REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF RAVEN HILL
SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT: (APPROVED)
20. REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION ON THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
N0.4: (APPROVED)
21. REQUEST TO REVOKE THEFINCH CREEK NON-DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT: (APPROVED)
22. HEARING REQUESTED BY PAUL CONSTRUCTION REGARDING GREGORY
LIFT STATION BID:
23. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. WATER METER FEES:
B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. D & B SUPPLY UPDATE:
2. COPPER TOP CAB COMPANY: (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUIRED)
3. USE OF MERIDIAN FORD SITE FOR USED CAR LOT: (CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT REQUIRED)
4. ENGLEWOOD CREEK PLAT: (EXTENDED UNTIL JULY 5, 1996)
C. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY:
1. APPROVAL OF CLOSING OF THE OTTER PROPERTY:
D. MAYOR CORRIE:
1. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT:. (APPROVED)
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 19, 1996
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D.
Corrie at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Glenn Bentley, Charles Rountree, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Chief Gordon.,
Dan Bachini, Peggy Paul, Rick Fox, Larry Durkin, Liz Boone, Charles Klein, Jennifer
Mischel-Klein, Robert Morrison, Jack Muldoon, Sharon Litzbauer, Paula Devaney, Georgia
Markley, Claire Bowman, David Turnbull, Van Elg, Ted Hutchinson, Chris Wilson, Dave
Roylance, Steve Bradbury, Mike Wardle, Gary Funkhouser, Joann Butler, Larry Wolf, Mary
Ann Christman, Masceda Bachini, David Nelson, Kathleen Lawrence, Doug Campbell, Jim
Paul:
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 29, 1996:
Corrie: What is your pleasure as far as those minutes?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that they be approved as written.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to be approved as written, all
those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD MARCH 1, 1996:
Corrie: I will entertain a motion for that one.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the minutes of the special meeting.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the minutes
of the Special Meeting held March 1, 1996, all those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 5, 1996:
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we accept the minutes as written.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 2
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that the minutes of the
previous meeting held March 5, 1996 be approved, all those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: APA: TREASURE VALLEY ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS:
Corrie: Mr. Claire Bowman?
Bowman: Thank you Mr. Mayor and, members of the Council. I appreciate the opportunity
to be here for a few minutes of your time on a very busy evening. The letter that I have
just given you requests a response from the City Council it is not something I anticipate
I will get tonight. I have spoken with the Mayor and asked him and the Council here to
determine how to provide that feedback back to us some time over the next several weeks.
Treasure Valley Alternative Transportation Analysis was initiated because of a perceived
need to better coordinate long range transportation planning even beginning some initial
dialogue between Ada and Canyon counties. This was #acilitated by a Federal Highway
administration grant and was managed by the Ada Planning Association on behalf of the
two counties. There was a steering committee made up of elected officials and senior staff
from four cities in Canyon County the County Commission there, four cities in Ada County
and the County Commission here. We solicited and were awarded funds for a consultant
to look at the transportation links and make recommendations based upon that analysis.
I think you have had ample opportunity over the past couple of months to hear what those
recommendations were. The last time the steering committee met they came back with the
recommendation that APA within Ada County and each of the other governments within
Canyon County go back to their representative agencies and solicit some feed back for
what the elected officials preferences would be on the next step to take. We worked with
the steering committee over the last month and a half to develop a list and shorten it as
much as we could so we could target your response. You see that in the bullets, that list
in the bullets at the bottom of the memorandum I gave you. Nine alternatives essentially
they identify the issues that the consultants came up with include a couple we have added
ourselves one of which is identify the short term funding alternatives to support some of
the jointly determined next steps. We propose in June to get the steering committee
together and identify one or perhaps two items of this on which to focus our attention. A
couple of the key issues that I think may affect the City of hlleridian are the one dealing
with the east-west arterial alignments in future interstate locations. What the consultants
found is that Ada County Highway District and the Canyon County Highway District do not
necessarily have in mind common east-west development of arterials. There are places
where ones on Ada County side come up this way and. meet Canyon County proposals this
t
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 3
way on the other side. We believe that is an intolerable situation long term. Given your
location you are obviously one of the first cities to feel the impact of some of those things
if they were to happen. Another is interstate location, for new interchange somewhere
between Meridian and Garrity Blvd. interchange. The Cenyon County Highway Districts
have Robertson Road identified as their preferred alternative in the future, we in our long
range plan have either Ten mile or Black Cat Road identified as the preferred alternatives,
in fact I think we ended up with Ten Mile as the one we recommended as preserving right
of way. It is pretty clear to us that if the two counties do not get together and agree on a
single location that neither of those will be built in the next 20 years. There will be an
enforcement done essentially by the limitation on the funds that are provided through the
Federal Highway Administration. Some of those kind of issues are the ones I would like
you to think about, find the mechanism that is appropriate for you and for the Mayor to
provide us some feedback. My preference is that we would get back from you either a
prioritized list of all of these or just an identification of the key ones that you would like to
have this group pay attention to as it seeks to bring the elected officials in Canyon County,
elected officials in Ada County and some of our senior staff members together to do joint
planning. I think unless you have questions I would probably do better to stop there
tonight.
Corrie: Any questions from Council? Would you like to take this up at one of our planning
meetings and look at it for awhile and then discuss it and we get back with Claire and this
committee what we would like to see (inaudible).
Morrow: I think the proper forum is the strategic planning meetings.
Rountree: I guess I do have a question for Claire, what is the time line on this?
Bowman: We anticipate having the steering committee back together the second week of
June. So we really have 6 or 7 weeks before we have to begin blending things back
together into a common report.
Corrie: Any further questions or comments? Thank you Claire, we will get back with you
on that. Thank you for coming.
ITEM #2: TABLED FEBRUARY 20, 1996: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD
GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Corrie: Is there a representative from Brighton?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, is this a continuation of the public hearing, it doesn't say on the
agenda?
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 4
Corrie: Yes it is.
David Turnbull, 12301 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Turnbull: I will try to move around here so I can make some references to this map and
the handouts will maybe make is easier for the Council to see what the issues are.. The
first hand out I have given you is the bulk of the Asford greens project with two blue lines
denoting the major laterals that cross the property. The second hand out I am going to
give you is a little more site Specific because it regards to the Safford lateral where it abuts
Golf View Estates No. 2. As I mentioned there are two major laterals that abut the Ashford
Greens property and this might be a little confusing. Actually north is to the left and east
is to the top. The Eight Mile lateral runs through the current golf course in a open ditch to
this point, it is buried underneath the road opens up again at this point. Flows along where
the existing temporary club house is and makes a bend here and (inaudible) at
approximately that location. The Safford lateral comes off Cherry Lane runs through the
existing between Golf View Estates Subdivision and Cherry Lane Subdivision and comes
out at this point and makes a bend and then goes between Golf View Estates Subdivision
and Ashord Greens Subdivision and finally crosses Black Cat Road at this point here. WE
submitted for a variance request approximately a year ago and there were some issues
we have been trying to deal with since that time so we have asked for a continuation. I
suppose I am ready to talk about them now, I have had several conversations mostly with
former Mayor Kingsford, I had some with Councilman Morrow, I believe I have had some
with now Mayor Corrie who was then Council member at the time. If you look at the
second exhibit I gave you, I will speak specifically to the Safford lateral at this moment.
This is the God View Estates plat which was recorded in the Golf View Estates No. 2 was
recorded in September 1992. You see the pink area there, which denotes an area the
Safford Lateral falls entirely within the Golf View Estates property. The blue area is the
area of the open ditch and so you can where it leaves that pink area and continues to the
west. That is the area where the center line of the ditch falls on the Golf View Estates
property and the Ashford Greens subdivision property. So that ditch remains in and open
state at this time. My conversations with Mayor Kingsford regarding the entire site and
specifically about what is to be the disposition between Golf View Estates and Ashford
Greens and further more what is to be the treatment through and around the golf course.
If you look on the first exhibit I gave you it also shows that in a smaller scale so you get
a bigger scope of the picture. The Safford lateral between the point where it leaves the
pink region down to Black Cat road is approximately 2000 feet. The Eight Mile Lateral then
enters the property that is designated medium density parcel that large empty block in the
right hand corner. The Eight Mile Lateral enters the property at that point and continues
along this medium density parcel on its northeast boundary. From there it takes a sharp
angle to the north and would essentially flow through what has been dedicated by Mr.
Fuller to Meridian City for the golf course and then it takes another approximately 45
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 5
degree bend back to the west center line between our property and I think it is (inaudible)
to the north. It leaves our property approximately where the page ends there. Of that
Eight Mile lateral you go back up to the medium density parcel there is approximately 920
feet between the current #1 fairway and this medium density parcel. There is
approximately 1320 feet between our property and the Wilkerson property to the north.
And then there is approximately 1500 feet that runs through the golf course property.
When we first purchased the property we obviously looked at the surrounding conditions
noted the Golf View Estates that the ditch lied in an open state at that point and also was
the Eight Mile Lateral remained in an open state through much of the golf course project.
So I guess what I am here for we understand a new ordinance was passed requiring all
ditches or laterals that will fit in a 48 inch pipe or under to be tiled. I guess that depends
on how you calculate it, if you calculate it in a CNP pipe corrugated metal pipe the Safford
Lateral requires a 60 inch pipe, the Eight Mile lateral requires a 54 inch pipe. It is possible
to nan it into a 48 inch concrete pipe as you know that is rather expensive in fact I just got
some updated costs on 48 inch concrete pipe and 48 inch concrete pipe is approximately
$77 a foot for material and installation. That is just a portion of the cost in addition to that
you will have a running footing concrete structure that are required at least every 400 feet.
In addition to that Nampa Meridian irrigation District would require you to install a gravel
access over their ditch even where they don't have an existing gravel access, they
generally just have dirt roads. Now they want you to install an upgraded road for their
system at approximately $20 a foot. Not only that they want you to fence it as well at
approximately $8 a foot. So you total those all up and it is about $113 a running foot to
bury those pipes. If you take the approximately 2000 feet of the Safford lateral plus
approximately 2240 feet of the Eight Mile Lateral that is a total cost of just under a half
million to bury those two pipes. Which is obviously a terribly significant expense. In my
discussions particularly with mayor Kingsford we discussed the Eight Mile Lateral where
it abuts the current number 1 fairway of the Meridian Cherry Lane Golf Course. His feeling
at the time I think Councilman Morrow was in the same meeting what that perhaps that
would be an appropriate location for a number of reasons. Number one it abuts the golf
course and runs through the existing golf course that plays into the golf course Number
two a water hazard of that nature is beneficial to any house that abuts it because people
tend to drive away from water hazards and so that would probably help them to prevent
them from hitting into houses. Of course the Mayor made it clear that was his opinion and
was subject to, excuse me the then Mayor Kingsford, made it clear that was his opinion
and subject to Council approval. That has been my discussion with him so far. On the
Safford Lateral, there was the question since Golf View Estates had not been required to
the that lateral that perhaps a variance would be granted on our side. Now the one point
the Mayor did bring up in our conversation that don't we stand to benefit from piping that
ditch, we have currently a 25 foot easement on our side of the property on the Safford
lateral. Well the problem is not only do you get the privilege of spending half a million
dollars to pipe their ditch you are also still required to put in a fence at the 25 foot
~ ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 6
easement you are still required to leave it in and then the gravel access road and
basically you haven't gained any ground and you haven't cleared up any weed patches
you are leaving it in the same configuration the only difference is you put it in a pipe. I
guess and I don't know exactly how to approach it but I would almost like to expand this
into a larger discussion of the issue of the ordinance itself. I don't mean to say this by any
way of assessing any blame or anything but the Meridian City ordinances in my view has
enabled or empowered Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to refuse to agree to any
standard of reasonableness. Ivan site you examples where three years ago we were
piping their ditches in ADS N-12 pipe which is a double wall plastic pipe, red pipe which
is approved by Ada County Highway District, it is approved by the Idaho publics work
contracting specifications we were using that three years ago in another subdivisions, all
of a sudden that is not acceptable pipe anymore. The only thing that is acceptable is
concrete pipe. Three years ago we were piping those along back lot lines and people were
able to landscape that easement and get use and enjoyment qut of that easement and no
longer are we allowed to do that. It is basically you are going to leave a demilitarized zone,
you are going to have 25 feet of barren ground in there that is not going to be used or
maintained by anybody except for the irrigation district. I have seen areas where they
come in and drudge out those ditches and leave the piles. They are really not interested
in maintaining a property in an orderly manner. At least a sitely and pleasing manner. In
answer to Mayor Kingsford's question don't we gain from it, no we don't gain anything from
it. Just another example is a project we are doing in Meridian, Bedford Place has 2 36
inch laterals running through it. Last year we did one of the laterals we piped it in an ADS
N 12 pipe, put it on front lot lines so they would have access to it off of their street. We go
back to do the same thing to the Finch lateral, I have spent four weeks fooling around
trying to get approval for doing the same thing we did a year ago and yet last something
that wasn't deep enough is almost too deep now. It is a frustration, it is a costly delay. I
wish that there were a way to provide some standard reasonableness in this whole
process. I probably have a lot of other things I could say and probably a lot of questions
you want to ask me and I would be happy to answer at this time.
Tolsma: What was the size of the pipe that (inaudible)
Turnbull: I couldn't tell you that, it looked big.
tolsma: Gary do you know what that was?
Smith: No I don't.
Tolsma: I know on the other side of the road on the Albertsons (inaudible)
Turnbull: If I had to guess what I saw out on the road there was probably a 60 inch pipe.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 7
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Morrow: That would have been in the specs for the road and I don't know (inaudible) it
wasn't part of the presentations that were given to us. I have a couple of questions, I
understood you to say that if it is piped you still need to do the gravel access road and you
still need to fence the gravel access road is that correct?
Turnbull: That is what they required in Bedford Place Subdivision.
Morrow: Do we have a letter from them requiring that in here, do we know that?
Turnbull: I don't' know I have not made a submittal to them yet on this.
Morrow: With respect to the discussions with Grant and myself we did talk about the open
waterway along the golf course. As it appears to cross over and head north what were the
discussions with respect to that portion that crosses the golf course?
Turnbull: With the portion that crosses the golf course?
Morrow: This one right here this is the one that runs parallel to the golf course from this
point here to here.
Turnbull: My understanding is that runs through the golf course and would be used as
some sort of water hazard type of a situation like it is in the rest of the golf course.
Morrow: In the rest of the golf course is it not part of the site of the course, it doesn't cross
through the center of the golf course anywhere?
Crookston: Not at this juncture, excuse me, yet is does, it crosses in front of the number
7 tee and goes through part of its pipe underneath the eight fairway, the 9 fairway and
then it opens up back to just being open after it is under ground on the number 1 fairway
as it basically heads towards the club house, the existing club house.
Turnbull: Now Councilman Morrow basically on this configuration it does kind of parallel
the one fairway it does cut across the green on that one hole so it becomes a shoot over
on the second shot on that one on that last hole there. There is also a pond planned in
there but the Mayor suggested that might be reconfigured in some manner from the way
it is laid out now, excuse me the former Mayor.
Morrow: Was it not also brought up that there would be places there for crossings for golf
carts and pedestrians and those kinds of things.
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 8
Turnbull: Yes there would have to be crossings some kind of culvert system fbl' crossings
where needed.
Morrow: And you are willing to participate in that if the variance if granted for the other
issues?
Turnbull: That is something we could certainly talk about I guess. I might just clarify
tonight, we have been at this for about a year, I am not looking for any answers or
decisions tonight, I understand it is complex and complicated issue. I would be happy, we
are not going to develop any of these parcels for at least two years. We have been in no
hurry but I want to get the issues out on the table and I would like to pursue not only this
but the larger issue.
Morrow: I have no further questions.
Corrie: Looking at this, you are contemplating some open and some closed is that correct,
where it goes through the blockage of the homes to the north that would have to be
underneath.
Turnbull: Right, correct.
Corrie: So you are asking for some open part where it is the golf course and the
undemeath where the homes are and open at the Eight Mile lateral as it goes on north is
that correct?
Turnbull: Correct
Tolsma: Does the irrigation district have any problems with (inaudible)
Turnbull: Building over the top? They won't allow that.
Tolsma: Well on this lot 29 or 30.
Turnbull: That is the current location it would obviously have to be routed between lot lines
so it would fall on the side lot line easement, it would not bisect the lot.
Tolsma: That would basically be an access from the golf course into the street.
Turnbull: Probably would be and it would have to be piped at that location.
Rountree: You indicated there is a lack of interest on part of the Irrigation District to
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 9
maintain these demilitarized zones as you called them, do you know what the language
is in those easements. It would appear to me that the Irrigation District is responsible for
the maintenance.
Turnbull: Well maintenance up to what aspect, I would, the ones I have seen have weeds
growing and how high do the weeds get before they come and do something about them
remains a question. I just saw a location next to a property we own where they came in
and dredged it up and left four to six foot piles of dirt just heaped up on the side. So they
plan on hauling that off I do not know, when I do not know. But if I were an adjoining
property owner I would be very happy about the situation. I am not here to bash Nampa
Meridian I wouldn't mind sitting down and talking to them. When they are empowered by
the City and they know that you don't' have any options, they really don't' care to talk, they
don't care to discuss it, it is their way of the highway.
Corrie: Well David did I understand you to say it is going to be two years before you want
to approach this?
Turnbull: We are presuming it is going to be a ways off, we are doing approximately in our
first phase which you see down at the bottom, you can't see the whole thing but there are
54 lots there we have a medium density retirement center that is up fora hearing later
tonight which you see kind of on the right and middle part of the project which is 74 lots
which we anticipate doing this year. Between those we will have 128 lots and that might
take us a little while to work through. So I think we are probably 2 years off before we are
developing adjacent to those irrigation laterals. This is just a major irrigation laterals, we
have smaller 15 inch ditches and so forth that we are going to be piping through there so
we are already spending a high amount of money piping the smaller ditches.
Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Since this is a continuation of a public hearing
is there anybody from the audience that would like to comment or has questions? Council
any comments?
(Inaudible)
Corrie: I will when you are ready I will close it if you are ready to do that. I will close the
public hearing.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law for the requested variance for Ashford Greens Subdivision.
Rountree: Second
U
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 10
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that the Attorney draw up
findings of fact and conclusions of law for the variance request for Ashford Greens
Subdivision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLE MARCH 5, 1996: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON
RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH:
Corrie: Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, due to new information that we are receiving from staff and also some
things that Mr. Goldsmith was supposed to have completed but as of yet has not I would
suggestion that we table this item to our April 2nd meeting.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we table the development
agreement item until April 2nd meeting, any further discussion? All those in favor of the
motion say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED MARCH 5, 1996: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, ANp RESTRICTIONS
FOR GEMTONE CENTER:
Corrie: Counselor, where are we on that?
Crookston: I submitted my comments to the City and I haven't received any new CC&R's.
(Inaudible)
Corrie: Evidently Council this was received today, the covenants; conditions and restriction
for Gemtone office center. So evidently you haven't had a chance to get copies of it yet.
Crookston: I have not reviewed what has been resubmitted.
Corrie: I think we had better table this again to the April meeting until we get that
straightened out.
Morrow: So let me understand this then, what has happened then is we as through the City
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 11
Attorney submit our comments to Gemtone and their attorney and then we receive back
today their comments is that what you have in your hand Will?
Berg: I have received some comments for a new set it even has a recorded date on it but
I can't tell you if that was in response to Wayne's comments because I haven't even had
time to review them.
Corrie: I thought I saw Tom Wright out there.
Wright: I am confused, did we send you a copy, did you get a copy.
Crookston: Yes you mailed me a copy and that is what I commented on and sent back to
the City.
Wright: That is clear, I was sure the attorney had gotten a copy. We sent an extra copy to
Will Berg to make sure he had a copy of it, we are really routing it through attorney
Crookston.
Rountree: Which set is that? The only set that I know we have received is dated stamped
February 5th.
(Inaudible)
Berg: Wayne we received your comments on the 15th.
Crookston: I believe that they were submitted the 11th.
Berg: I have the 15th on here those are the ones you gave to me, we highlight it and mail
it back to
Crookston: Those could be what we are talking about.
Berg: I received a copy hand delivered today this afternoon I believe that are recorded.
Crookston: I believe the ones that I reviewed initially were recorded,
Wright: March 8th
Corrie: Right, that shows recorded March 8, 1996. Wayne take a look at that one, that is
the one we received today delivered to us. Tom have you had a chance to see the
comments the City attorney made on the original?
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 12
Wright: I am not sure I have Mr. Mayor, I think our attorney has though. Mr. Mayor with
respect to your agenda we have no quarrel if you want to put this aside and look at it later.
The next item on the agenda is fairly important to us.
Crookston: It would be my suggestion that you go ahead and approve that subject to my
review and approval.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the CC&R's for Gemtone Center subject
to the review and approval by City Attorney Crookston.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the covenants,
conditions and restrictions for Gemtone Center subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney, any further discussion? All those in favor say eye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: FINAL PLAT FOR GEMTONE CENTER NO. 2 BY GEMTONE INC.:
Corrie: Staff comments?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council we did get the response to our comments today, I looked
over my portion of the response. The only real item of concern I have remaining is that
they do not consider our requirement to have a bike lane on Pine Street to be valid
because Ada County Highway District hasn't required that. However our comprehensive
plan does require a bike lane a separate striped bike lane and it is designated as a minor
arterial in our comp plan and not a collector as ACHD has referred to it.
Corrie: Gary, have all of your questions been answered?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, we received a response from Gemtone's
engineers today and I think in general terms everything has been commented to,
responded to. We have a couple of minor questions I guess that we need to ask but they
are of little significance.
Morrow: Gary, what was the resolution of the issue with the well lot and the access road?
Smith: We are having to quit claim a portion bf the access road to Gemtone which I don't
have any problem with at atl in order to complete their extension of Hickory I believe it is.
At this time we will maintain the access road as it exists, there is a possibility because they
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 13
are piping the ditch that some of that access way could be returned to these owners.
However I think that our access road is on the extreme south edge of the 60 foot piece that
was dedicated to us by Gemtone originally. So I don't know that a dedication back to them
on a portion on the north side of the pavement, paved access way would be of any benefit
to them.
Morrow: But you are satisfied that everything there with respect to that well lot and the
access and covering of the ditch all those issues that we talked about before are pretty
well covered now then?
Smith: Yes
Corrie: I guess I would direct the Council's to Shari's No. 4 item there on Pine Street in
reference to ACHD's designation of that as a collector and we have it as a minor arterial
in the comp plan with no bike path.
Morrow: Say that to me again?
Corrie: On Pine Street,
Morrow: You just said we don't have it as a bike path, we do?
Corrie: We do have it as a bike path they do not.
Morrow: And they have changed the designation from a minor arterial to that of a
collector?
Corrie: Right
Rountree: And Mr. Mayor I believe it is shown as an arterial in the destination 2015 plan
and that is consistent with our comp plan and I believe we should pursue it that way.
(End of Tape)
Tolsma: (Inaudible) why is the road width in Treasure Valley Business Center 60 feet and
the (inaudible)
Elg: I am Van Elg with Briggs Engineering, with respect to the street widths we discussed
them with ACRD numerous times and we are concerned also that the widths weren't at 60
feet we asked them if that was required, they told us no that 56 was sufficient. The street
section width will not change, the street section will remain the same throughout the entire
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 14
development in that it is already developed for Treasure Valley Business Center NO. 1 and
Gemtone Center No. 2 so that same street section will be available.
Morrow: So it will still be 60 feet?
Elg: It will be a 56 foot right of way but a 41 back of curb to back of curb street section, 5
foot sidewalks on each side. So 51 feet of improvement.
Morrow: So the actually street itself is going to be the same all the way through it is just
the right of way has changed four feet.
Elg: That is correct.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) Settlers Irrigation said they didn't have anything on the pressurized
irrigation system, I think Shari Stiles wrote that (inaudible) no plans provided for
pressurized irrigation system (inaudible).
Elg: Well at this point since each individual lot owner will be addressing landscaping on
a case by case basis we don't know what type of landscaping will be there, maybe it will
be zero scape since it is an industrial type development. But in any event the landscaping
or the irrigation issue was discussed at the first Council meeting and as noted in Stan
McHutchinson's letter the developers are negotiating with Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District and Settlers for exclusion and I believe that there is a comment in, there was some
discussion the first meeting that if we could exclude from the district that those water rights
would be transferred out into the district for use in other areas. And that there may be an
option of eliminating the pressurized irrigation system. However Mr. Crookston indicated
that we would it would require an application for a variance or waiver for that to proceed
with that. Once we have figured out what is going to happen with Nampa Meridian and
Settlers we will be able to pursue either excluding out and the variance request or simply
submitting the plans as addressed by Stan McHutchinson. If we are required to put it in
by, if we can't exclude out of the district for this than we simply will provide the pressurized
irrigation as required.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) how will that affect the final plat if the pressurized irrigation system
is not going in or is going in does that affect the outcome of the Final plat on this thing?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Tolsma, Council, I think the only thing it would affect
would be location of easements. If additional width of easements were required for the
irrigation lines or pump station. I can't think of any other affect it would have on the plat
itself. The irrigation district doesn't sign off on the plat.
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 15
Tolsma: I was thinking more of the construction problems though, they are going to have
to have something signed, sealed and delivered before the final plat will be approved
because of the underground piping for an irrigation system (inaudible) per lot irrigation
system for the landscaping.
Smith: The installation of the piping would have to be part of the improvement plans for the
subdivision. But not part of the plat, the final plat. The improvement plans which include
sewer and water, streets would need to show piping for the irrigation system if that is
required.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Smith: Before we could approve the development plans yes, right.
Elg: And we understand that also.
Smith: I guess Mr. Mayor and Councilman Tolsma, Council one other thing before we
could sign the plat they would need to if pressurized irrigation was required there would
need to be a letter of credit issued to cover that cost of that improvement unless the
improvement has been constructed before the plat is signed. And that is in accord with
what we have been doing with all plats.
Morrow: And that would be agreeable to you?
Elg: Yes we understand that.
Corrie; Any further comments from Council?
Elg: Mr. Mayor I guess for point of clarification perhaps we ought to address the bike path.
This was, I guess this was somewhat of a shock to us, none of us realized that the bike
path would be required to this point. We have dealt with ACHD and we understand that
there has been some conflicts about classification and different streets in the past. I guess
we can investigate what that would require of us but at this point we are required to
construct a 24 foot wide street section from the center line of Pine Street for that portion
we are taking access from. I don't know at this point that we would have plans or that we
have adequate room or how ACHD would respond to a bike lane in this area and I would
hate to be caught in the middle of a tussle on that. We can certainly provide edequate
right of way for that construct the road as required by ACHD and then allow you folks to
negotiate that with the Highway District.
Corrie: Of course this is not the first time we have had soma problems with ACHD and our
CJ
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 16
comp plan and we are having a discussion with them next month. I guess it is the Council's
decision on how they want to handle this.
Morrow: Well Mr. Mayor I would think the resolution to that would be between us and
ACHD. Obviously we have a difference of opinion as to what the status of that road is and
under one scenario there is not a bike lane and under another there is. Our comp plan
clearly calls for an arterial and bike lane so I think it is up to us to resolve that whether who
prevails at this point I don't know. I would think it would be in our best interest to press
ahead with the bike lane there. Because if I remember correctly that is a corridor, Pine
Street is a corridor that ultimately ties us to West Boise and there has been a lot of
thought given to making that whole system work. So I think we will take that and handle
that.
Elg: Thank you
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Gemtone Center No.
2 subject to al staff, ACRD, Irrigation conditions with the exception that the City of Meridian
and ACHD will resolve the difference of opinion concerning the bike lane and the
classification of the street.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All
those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR COVE MEADOWS NO. 2
SUBDIVISION BY DAVE LEADER:
Corrie: Mr. Leader or your representative like to come forward please.
Ted Hutchinson, Tealeys Land Surveying, 109 S. 4th St, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Hutchinson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we are seeking a variance of the
street frontage requirements for two lots in the second phase of Dove Meadows No. 2.
These lots are located on a curve that affects our ability to provide adequate frontage for
these. This is also affected by the street location which was predicated by the platting of
Dove Meadows No. 1. The change in the street layout with the development of the Avest
property there were some changes in the street layout which would have affected
• •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 17
ultimately out of Dove Meadows No. 2. These lots exceed the minimum lot size in the R-8
zone and in fact the two lots, one of the lots is 8594 square feet in size, the other lot is
9062 square feet in size. This is considerably larger than the 6500 square feet required
by the R-4 zone. We are seeking a variance brought down to approximately 50 feet for Lot
3 and to 54 feet for lot 4 on Block 1 of this subdivision proposed. Excuse me that is Block
3 of Dove Meadows No. 2. We believe that with the constraints and the size of the lots that
is appropriate for this variance to be approved. The letter that I submitted with the
application I outline the findings that must be made by the Council when they are
reviewing the variance request. In that letter I also tried to address those findings to
provide the evidence and the information that you would need to be able to support this
variance request. With that 1 would answer any questions the Council would have at this
time.
Corrie: Council any questions? Anybody else from the audience that would like to give
testimony on this variance request? Council any discussion here? I will close the public
hearing.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact
and conclusions of law for the variance request for Dove Meadows No. 2 subdivision.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Moved by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the variance request to have
the city attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO NEW
HORIZON CHILD CARE BY TRUDY CUMBA:
Corrie: Is Trudy or anybody here for this? I will open the public hearing at this time.
Penny Madrid, 5510 South Beaver Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Corrie: Is this the one for 1830 North Meridian Road?
Madrid: Yes
Corrie: Do you have anything you want to say? Any questions for Council?
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 18
Morrow: I guess my only questions would be Bruce Freckleton has indicated that the water
and sewer from existing lines have past water meter records from this facility indicating the
usage is heavier than that anticipated when assessments were calculated and additional
2 equivalent residential units should be assessed against the account number 33-196.
Applicant will be required to enter into a reassessment agreement with the City. You are
aware of what that means?
Madrid: No
Morrow: Gary, would you explain for her what that requirement will be?
Smith: Yes sir, each time a use changes or ownership changes on a commercial property
we go through a reassessment calculation and we check to see what water has been used
and we compare that with what the original assessments that were made on the property.
By using a single family unit as a basis for 7500 gallons per month equal to one
assessment one equivalent residential unit. In this case your water usage is greater than
what was originally assessed under your original permit. So we would go back and make
the adjustment in this case it would be an additional assessment to you. I think in this
case the sewer usage or the sewer assessment is $1370 for each assessment and the
water is $500 for each assessment. So there would be a factor of two times each one of
those numbers, $2740 for sewer, and $1000 for water. I will check with Bruce Freckleton
to make sure that is the calculations that he has done are correct but I would say at this
point that is the case. At the same time as he mentioned we would enter into a
reassessment agreement with you so that after 12 months of continued usage we would
look at it again if that assessment is greater than what you actually use over the next 12
months then we would reimburse you for a portion of that assessment that you paid. But
at this point that is what our records show and so your assessment would be shown
accordingly.
Madrid: As of when, as of when Trudy built it or now? (Inaudible)
Smith: At this point in time.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Crookston: I just have one, do you have your state day care license?
Madrid: Do I, yes everybody does.
Corrie: Thank you, anybody else from the audience that would like to issue testimony on
this transfer of conditional use permit? Counselor would this require, this is new to me,
i •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 19
do we need findings of fact or can we just.
Crookston: No, it can be transferred as long as it is in the same place as it always has
been it can be transferred.
Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, this is the first time that we have gone through this and it
was my understanding that conditional uses went with the owner, are you saying that it
can be transferred with all the same conditions in place as long as there is not request for
a change of any of the conditions it was originally approved under than it can be
transferred?
Crookston: It can be transferred at the request of the person to which the initial day care
conditional use was granted to and that the proposed new applicant agrees with that and
agrees to be bound by what was done?
Morrow: I see thank you.
Corrie: Any further discussion? I will close the public hearing for the transfer of conditional
use to New Horizon Child Care by Trudy Cumba. Council?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the transfer of conditional use permit.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we approve the transfer
of conditional use permit from New Horizon Child Care by Trudy Cumba, any further
discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO NEW
HORIZON CHILD CARE BY CHRIS WILSON:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the public who wish to testify
on this? Council any questions or discussion?
Morrow: The only question and discussion I had was on Bruce Freckleton's comments
from the City Engineer's department he talked about the water to this facility is from an
existing service line that connects Ponderosa Paint store and this facility together. With
this arrangement it is impossible to know whether the assessments collected by the City
are within reason or not. A solution to this problem would be if there were a separate
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 20
•
service line installed for this facility. There aren't any problems to mention with the
existing sewer service line. And then the applicant be required to enter into a
reassessment agreement with the City. I think from my perspective it makes good sense
to have those on separate services so I would offer that as a point of discussion to the
Council.
Corrie: Council discussion?
Tolsma: I agree with Walter, it would be a lot easier to (inaudible).
Rountree: I agree also, would that be another condition we would add onto this permit?
Morrow: That would
Rountree: Or is it a condition of approval?
Morrow: Condition of approval.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, I think when this was originally done by Mr. Ross the owner of the
building that the day care will be, I think he is still the owner of the building that the
Ponderosa Paint store is located in. He was assessed for both of those building and I
believe it is under one meter account. If he is still the owner of each building then I would
assessment would go to Mr. Ross and if it is not if the assessment at this point is not
concurrent with the water usage than we would need to upgrade his assessment. I agree
that it would be nice to know how much each facility is using and perhaps he would want
to know that also in order to retrieve the monies that he would be assessed. So I guess
Bruce's comment about a separate service would be very appropriate if the buildings are
under separate ownerships. However, I wonder if they are still under one ownership and
the assessment was to Mr. Ross than and we have one meter serving both facilities and
I believe that was at his request when it happened originally. That we can reassess him
as the owner of both buildings and he can pay the difference, How he collects it from his
tenants I guess would be up to him if that makes sense. Because they are assessed
sewer based on their water bill too. And again it is up to him as the owner to decide how
much he is going to charge each one of the building users. If he feels comfortable with the
arrangement that he has right now I don't know that we would have any different concerns
about it.
Morrow: But do we know that?
Smith: I do not know that he is the owner of both buildings no sir.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 21
(Inaudible)
Smith: I think this would be similar to a four plex living unit that had a single water meter
which we have a number of. The land lord just decides, well it is a little different because
you have different uses here but the land lord would decide how much he is going to
charge each building user. It is up to him to split that out. Unless he can't make that
decision and he would opt on his own to have a separate service for each building. But
in summary we definitely need to bring the assessments up to date as far as the amount
of water he has been using. If there is a disparity there it needs to be corrected.
Cowie: Any further discussion from Council? If not I will close the public hearing. Council
your decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the transfer of the conditional use
permit. I would like to subject that to the, as long as the building remains under common
ownership with the paint store that one water service line will be fine should they be sold
it would be mandatory for another water service line to be installed to the day care center.
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion has been made and seconded we approve the transfer of the conditional
use permit subject to the common user pay separate line charges if necessary, any further
discussion? Alt those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK NO.6 (REPEAT) BY BOB NAHAS:
Cowie: I will now open the public hearing.
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: Mr. Mayor and City Council as I stated my name is Dave Roylance I am a civil
engineer and land planner representing the applicant Central Valley Corporate Park No.
6 is a replat of a portion of Central Valley Corporate Park No. 2, 3 and 4. That is it is
already platted ground and we are changing the lot lines over the top of the other recorded
plats. For the most part the improvements are in place the sewer, water, streets, sewer
mains I should say, water mains and the public streets are constructed and already in
place as part of the earlier plats. Headway Court is a short culdesac street, public street
that is being vacated as part of this process and that is underway now at ACRD, it isn't
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 22
completed but it is underway. As far as we can tell our discussions with them there won't
be any opposition at least from ACHD in vacating that street. We do have Ada County
Highway District's comments and we can comply with their requirements along with the
requirements we believe of the City Engineer. Can I answer any questions?
Corrie: Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, Dave you have no problem with the conditions of staff with respect to
this?
Roylance: No I don't.
Tolsma: Is this the project that (inaudible)
Roylance: Yes that is part of the reason, this is where the Sandpiper is going and when
that came along and because of a couple other transactions that were in the wind
construction of the street was not necessary and that is what triggered this plat in part.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Roylance: No, you said McDonald's did you, Mr. Nahas has been in touch with McDonald's
and apparently they are aware of that and don't have a problem with that, that is my
understanding.
Tolsma: That is all I had.
Corrie: Any further comments?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I know Larry is here too and he can address part of this, the extending
of the median down 150, feet, have these people out there been made aware of that on
Central?
Roylance: I don't really know if they have or not, we don't, I don't think it impacts their
access but I don't think it is negotiable either. We discussed that at length with ACHD and
that was a requirement. Those approaches were just too close to the main street and there
is just a big traffic jam there. So those, that median is required. I don't think even if they are
I don't think it is negotiable I guess, but I can't say that they have been notified.
Corrie: Any further questions or comments? Thank you, anybody else from the public that
would like to issue testimony? Comments from Council or staff? I will close the public
hearing. Council, your pleasure?
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 23
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Central Valley
Corporate Park No. 6 subject to all staff and ACHD conditions.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the
preliminary plat for Central Valley Corporate Park No. 6 subject to staff and ACHD
conditions, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF .48
ACRES TO R-4 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: I will now open the public hearing.
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: This is an annexation request for a little piece that inadvertently left out of the
annexation request that was approved in connection with the subdivision called Lake at
Chevy Lane No. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission I think recognized that it was
simply and inadvertent mistake and needed to be included in order to complete the
process on that application. That is all I am prepared to talk to you about, if you have any
questions I will do my best to answer them.
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Crookston: Excuse me, did I hear you say this was a part of the Lake at Cherry Lane No.
3 or Cherry Lane No. 3?
Bradbury: The Lake at Cheny Lane No. 3 or Cherry Lane No. 3. I am not sure I even knew
there was a difference so I apologize for looking bewildered and confused.
Corrie: Thank you, anybody else from the public that would like to give testimony on this?
Council any discussion or questions? Hearing none I shall close the public hearing. I think
you have findings of fact .and conclusions of law, counselor is there any change in the
testimony?
Crookston: There could be but I don't think think there is.
Corrie: I will entertain a motion.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 24
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as
written for P & Z.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: The recommendation?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City
Council of Meridian that we approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the
property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The applicant be specifically required to the all ditches, canals,
waterways as a condition of annexation and the applicant meet all the ordinances of the
City of Meridian and if the conditions are not met the property be deannexed.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the
recommendation, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an annexation
ordinance.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we have the City
Attorney draw up the ordinance, any further discussion, ali those in favor say aye?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION ANp ZONING OF .95
ACRES TO R-4 BY KENT AND MARY BARNEY:
~- i
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 25
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: This is another, it is just an infill piece that probably should have been included
in a previous annexation request and I think it was just inadvertently left out. It is near to
the other fill piece that you just approved for annexation. Essentially it is just an infill to fill
up everything out there. If you have any questions I will try to answer them, as long as you
don't ask me if it is Cherry Lane or the Lake at Cherry Lane.
Corrie: Any questions of Steve by Council or Staff? Thank you Steve; any further
testimony by anybody in the public that would like to give at this time? Any further
comments from the Council? I will close the public hearing. Council your pleasure?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor I think we are going to have to change the findings.
Corrie: I didn't even ask you on this one.
(Inaudible)
Morrow: I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions pf law as
prepared for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the findings of
fact and conclusions of law prepared by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission,
roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Tolsma -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Morrow -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Is there a motion for recommendation?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as
stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions. set forth. in
the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the applicant and owners be
specifically required to the all ditches and canals and waterways as a condition of
annexation. That the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian and if the
conditions are not met that the property be deannexed.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 26
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the recommendation, any
further discussion? All those in favor of the recommendation say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Entertain a motion for an ordinance?
Morrow: So moved
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to direct the attorney to draw
up an ordinance, all those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, on the next two items I have a conflict of interest because (inaudible)
Corrie: Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, we have allowed Councilman Tolsma to stand down before, I guess
from my perspective I don't have a problem with that conflict, I don't believe it to be a major
conflict so I would leave the decision to him.
Corrie: Do you still wish to stand down?
Tolsma: I would like to stay.
Morrow: I would so move
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that Mr. Tolsma allowed to stay on
the Council for these two public hearings. You have heard the motion, all those in favor
say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 52
u
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 27
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SENIOR/ADULT LIVING, 1 LOT RECREATION CENTER
FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 6:
Corrie: I will now open the public hearing, is there a representative on that?
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council you have before you an application for
a conditional use permit and a planned unit development. The agenda item we are on at
the moment of course is the conditional use permit my thinking is that I will just make one
presentation and perhaps when we open the next public hearing I will say ditto or
something like that so you only have to listen to me one time. What we have as the Mayor
indicated is 52 unit senior citizen community. By way of background just to bring you back
up to speed, last October I believe it was the Council had before it considered the
preliminary plat for what we were calling the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivisions No. 5 and
6. At that time the Council approved the preliminary plat for No. 5 and 6 and zoned
portions of the property R-4, portions of the property R-8 and portions of the property R-15.
Do you folks have a book something like this in front of you? I f you look behind tab four,
a couple pages in, you will find a map that looks something like that. This was the entire
40 and we had an R-4 portion over on the westerly side an R-8 portion in the north central
side and an R-15 in the eastern portion. When that preliminary plat and those rezones
were approved the Council conditioned that on a separate application be made for the R-
15portion of the property. That is you wanted to see a separate preliminary plat and a
conditional use permit. The application that you have before you tonight is for the
southeasterly ten acres approximately ten acres that was proposed and shown to you in
a conceptual plan as the senior citizen complex. That, this lot was shown on the
preliminary plat which was previously approved as Lot 10, block 11, so the action you
would have before you at the preliminary plat stage would be to redivide lot 10 block 11
into 52 smaller individual building lots. I am going to go through the book in a little more
detail as we go along. Now there was some confusion prior to the meeting with the
Planning and Zoning Commission as to which one is the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 and
which one is the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. So prior to meeting with the Planning and
Zoning Commission Mr. Campbell and I mgt with City staff and decided that we needed
to clear up that confusion and make it clear what the plan was. To make it clear to you
folks in the event it is not the proposal is to develop the south half of the property first. I
will look again at this map, the south half of the property would be developed first and that
would the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 and the north half second will be the Lake at Cherry
Lane No. 6. I think that is what we agreed to some time ago. Mr. Smith is nodding his
head yes. Okay, for the booklet, behind tab one we have a narrative, it describes in
summary form what it is the application is about and I am not going to go through that right
now. I will let you look at that. Behind tab two you. have the application materials that were
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 28
submitted along with our written responses to staffs comments they fall behind the
application materials that were submitted just prior to the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting of a couple of months ago. Behind tab three are the findings of fact
and conclusions of law which were issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommending approval of the project that you have before you. Also is the minutes of
their meeting where they did recommend that approval because there were some
modifications that were made on the floor that night to the findings and conclusions so
those are found in the minutes. Also behind tab three in case you needed some
background reading which I suspect that you probably don't but it is there anyway are the
findings of fact and conclusions of law that Council approved last October which got this
process started. Behind tab four there is a blue piece of paper that says new revised -plat
we hoped that were going to be able to hand you a new revised plat and unfortunately the
engineers were unable to get that completed in time so we don't have that to hand to you.
We have shown Mr. Smith what we think that plat is going to look like and discussed it
with him and of course you will have an opportunity to address any questions you may
have with respect to how that affects his thinking a little bit later on. You also have the
proposed plat, the next page would be the proposed plat which was presented at the
Planning and Zoning Commission which is in essence the plat you have before you tonight
but I will show you, talk to you about how it changes. The next page behind that you have
the conceptual layout that was presented to you folks in October and you will that there
are some differences between what you have before you tonight and I will talk to you a
little bit about that to get you an' idea of what the concept was. The next tab shows what
this new concept looks like for the most part with some minor modifications to it and it also
shows the different zoning designations and what they are, color coded. Behind tab five
is a list of the amenities that are proposed to be included with the project, the senior
citizens portion of the project was the one that you have tonight and I will go over that a
little bit more. The site plan for the rec center that is proposed to be constructed on Lot
52 in the subdivision and a rendering of the building elevation for the rec center. That is
behind tab five. Behind tab six are the floor plans and the elevation options that would be
offered throughout the subdivision there are four different floor plans, two elevations each
so a total of eight different models if you will. Each of the four floor plans is a different size
and I will talk a little bit more about that too. Behind tab seven is what I am going to refer
to as the new site plan, this is the one that we are asking approval for tonight, it is the first
page behind tab seven. This is slightly modified from what P & Z saw and the modifications
are made as a result of the recommendations that the Planning and Zoning Commission
has made to you folks. I will described those in just a little bit more detail as we go along
as well. Also behind tab seven is a drawing where you see a yellow marker around the site
plan that is the proposed sidewalk plan which was seen by and approved or recommended
for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. And then you also have a third map
which is a color coded map which showed the variance setbacks which were being
proposed at the Planning and Zoning Commission. We included this in this booklet not
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 29
because we are asking approval of these setback (End of Tape) in order to get away from
the need to deal with all of these setback concerns that is what drove the need to make
a few modifications to the plat that I will talk about. Behind tab eight are some proposed
building materials which would be used in the project we are talking about stucco and brick
and roofing materials. You have some literature that describes the type of building
materials that are proposed to be used. That is just a quick overview. As I indicated a few
moments ago this is a proposed senior citizen complex the theory is we will try to create
a complex for persons 55 years of age or older as permitted under Federal law. The
project consists of 52 lots and they are for single family detached dwellings. It is on
approximately ten acres so that brings us to a density of about 5.2 units per acre. Now
from what, the change from what you say in October as the concept plan is that is
essentially there are no multi-family or duplex or tri-plex buildings proposed at this point
in time, they are all single family detached. The reason for the change was that since the
last time we were here the applicant conducted a more thorough market research study
and concluded that it is more likely to be able to market the single family detached than
the duplex and triplex type units. The result of all of that is that you end up with a reduction
in the number of units being proposed. The concept plan that you had before you in
October had a total of 63 units proposed this one has a total of 52 so you have fewer units
by 11. If you wanted to see a comparison between, I showed you before but between the
old concept and the new concept just look behind tab four, you- see the old and the new
and you can see the density has been reduced. The lot sizes proposed here range from
approximately 4400 square feet up to 8000 square feet. The 4400 square feet of course
exceeds the minimum dimensional standards for an 15 zone which my recollection tells
me is 2000 square feet. Of course the 8000 square foot lots are the ones that are
bordering the southern portion of the property in the area the Council determined should
be zoned R-4 so that would meet the R-4 requirements of the zone. As I indicated before
there are four floor plans be proposed and in round numbers we are talking about a floor
plan of about 1400 square feet, another one of about 1500 square feet, let me do it this
way, 1400 square feet we are proposing 12 of those units. Another one of approximately
1500 square feet we are proposing 16 of those units, and the 1600 square foot size we are
proposing 14 of those units and then the 1800 square foot size we are proposing 10 of
those units. Now I wanted to point something out so that you don't get confused, let' see
if I can find it without too much trouble. Behind tab eight you have a product mix chart, it
is wrong, you should either just pull it out and throw it away and rely on the map that is
behind tab seven or just change the numbers so that under number of units it says for
1440 it says 15 that should be 12, for 1541 it says 13 that should be 16, for 1620 that
should be 14, and for 1827 it says 9 that should be 10. So that the difference is we have
increased the larger units, the number of larger units in the project. I told you about the
elevations behind tab six, if you want to get an idea of where they are located in the
project, I am all turned around here. If you look behind tab seven and look at the layout
plan the number, the square footage numbers are included in the building inside the
i
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 30
building depiction so you have an idea of where each of the various sized units are. They
are pretty well spread out through the project. All of the units would be single story, all of
the units would have a two car garage except for some of the units along the southerly
boundary here in the R-4 zone and then there would be an option for a third stall down
here. I indicated that behind tab eight you can see the building materials and some of the
choices, the idea is to have stucco or siding as a choice to include brick as an accent on
some of the buildings and then there will be a color choice and a roofing choice and things
like that. Other features, you may recall having seen this drawing before this is still the
plan, this is the entry off of Ten Mile Road that will come into the project and then the
senior citizens project is beyond so this would be the main entry to the project site. All that
we talked about when we were here last year with respect to the landscaping and all of
the exterior amenities remain the same, we are not proposing any, changes to that. We still
have the perimeter wall that goes around the project, we still have the 20 foot landscape
strip on Ten Mile Road. There is still the golf cart access point and this one is going to
come across lot 14 in this vicinity here. The applicant still intends to donate to the City the
fire station site which is shown down here in the southeast corner of the project, there is
one thing you should note one change as originally proposed the dimensions of that site
were 160 feet by 160 feet, that has not been the proposal has changed to 148 feet in width
and 170 feet in depth well I guess it depends on how you look at it, 148 feet this way and
170 feet north to south. The reason for that dimensional change was in order to meet the
R-4 dimensional requirement that the Council imposad on the southerly lots just shorten
down that fire station site. Conversations with the fire Chief have indicated that dimension
is acceptable to the fire department. There is the rec center that was proposed it was at
one time the concept was to have it centrally located it is still centrally located but off set
instead of the circular pattern you are seeing. The proposal is as depicted behind tab five
with that sort of a site plan. That is found on Lot #52, swimming pool, parking spaces, club
house, kitchen facilities, storage spaces, essentially, hopefully a space that can be used
by the residents that will be living there. As you know under the planned development
provisions the applicant is entitled to seek exceptions from the standard district
regulations. And this application comes to you with some request for exceptions. One of
those is that the applicant be permitted to construct private streets as opposed to public
streets. The proposal is for the private streets to have 40 feet of right of way and a five foot
sidewalk on one side as shown on the map that 1 showed you a little while ago. There
would be a private security gate installed at the entrance to this portion of the project in
order to provide a little extra measure of security for the people that are living there. There
had been some concern expressed about parking on these private streets and whether or
not that would create interference with the emergency vehicles. Our discussions with the
fire chief I think you may have a letter in your materials and if you don't we can certainly
get one for you. The fire chief has apparently indicated that he feels it is perfectly
adequate as long as there is parking restricted to one side only, that is no parking on one
side of the street and of course the applicant is willing to comply with that requirement and
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 31
that restriction. We will place whatever signs the fire chief desires and we will set up a
mechanism to enforce the no parking requirements through the restrictive covenants in the
homeowners association. The Planning and Zoning Commission passed a favorable
recommendation onto you to approve the private streets for this project. That was one of
the things that I was telling you was not in their findings but was a change they made
during the meeting whey they approved the findings: If you need to find where they said
that, look in the minutes of their meeting. Another exception that we are asking in order
to make this project work for us this picture is a little bit tough to see from the distance, if
you look behind tab four and find the plat, the standard frontage, lot frontage in an R-15
zones requires I believe 40 feet of frontage. We have some problems in some of the
corners making the 40 feet. So we are asking for a reduction as dimensioned on the plat.
It is really easy to find them they are right here in these corners like this. The reduction
down to approximately 25 feet in order to make those lots fit. That too the Planning and
Zoning Commission is passing on a favorable recommendation to yau. For the rec center,
#here is your ordinance requires a four foot separation between a street which would be
here and a parking area. In order to get these parking spaces in we needed to ask for an
exception from that four foot separation that is that the parking spaces be permitted to be
located immediately adjacent to street. Our argument to the Planning and Zoning
Commission was that since these are private streets and we are not expecting them to
bare a great deal of traffic we shouldn't have too much of a conflict between the parking
spaces and the street. Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission has. passed on
a favorable recommendation to allow that exception as well. Now the other issue is
setbacks, the reductions in setbacks. We propose a number of setback reductions to the
Planning and Zoning Commission front yard, back yard and side yard. The Planning and
Zoning Commission and that was this color coded map that I showed you a little while ago,
lined out. It showed some of those changes. I guess that is behind tab seven.. The
Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that they could recommehd a, to reduce the front
yard set back from the required 20 feet to 15 feet.. But all other setbacks would remain the
same. It was this issue with the setbacks that caused the applicant to have to go back and
do a little redesign work and to try and find a way to get those setbacks taken care of. We
have done a redesign in an effort to meet those requirements and it has resulted in a
couple of changes. Let me see what the best way to show these to you are. If you look
at the plat behind tab four you will see that there are some little landscape islands in these
corners here, here and here, those we had to eliminate in order to make some room. In
addition the westerly boundary you might notice is not straight so the proposal is to make
that westerly boundary straight. What it does, the result of straightening that line is that it
adds a little bit more area to this lot, to this portion of the project. Let me put it this way to
this R-15 portion of the project. By eliminating those landscaped areas and straightening
that line and adding a little bit of distance we are able to deal with most of but not all of the
set back problems. What we would like to propose and have the Council consider is
agreeing to permit an exception for the front set back to 15 feet as opposed to the
C~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 32
ordinances that require 20 feet that is what the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended for approval. We will have 15 feet rear yard set backs and that is in
accordance with the ordinance. We would have five feet side yard setbacks which is also
in accordance with the ordinance except for street side set backs which are required under
the ordinance to be 20 and our proposal, is that those be changed be reduced to 15 feet.
So what we are talking about are these corner lots here and here and here. We are
asking that there be 15 feet on the side yard set backs on those corners and that way we
can get everything to fit in except again one more exception. These two lots at the entry
were proposed at the Planning and Zoning Commission to have five foot side yard set.
backs and the reason for that, what seems like maybe it not very much room there is
because we are building a really fairly large entry road here. It is 80 feet of right of way,
the reason for that big entry road is to make sure there is plenty of room for people to
maneuver since there is going to be that private security gate. The Planning and Zoning
Commission suggested that 80 foot right of way be reduced down to 70 feet so that we
could get at least 10 feet in the side yards on those lots. We were able to get the ten feet
through the other redesign that we did without reducing that right of way down. Our
proposal would be to permit us to retain the 80 foot right of way there and allow ten foot
sideyard setbacks, street side yard set backs on these two lots on the entry way here and
here. We have met with staff a number of times; we are certainly willing to comply with
all of the staff s recommendations and their comments. You have in your packages our
written which were previously submitted. We think that for the most part all of those issues
are worked out and there may be a couple of the details that we will need to get into staff
and we are certainly willing to do that as maybe necessary. If you are inclined to approve
this project as proposed you need to do so by and imposing a number of conditions and
I will try to go through them quickly. First that the eastern boundary of the property be
straightened and we, which would result in an expansion of the R-15 area and we will
submit a legal description showing the precise dimensions of that expansion. And a new
drawing showing exactly where that goes.. That will require that the City adopt an
amendment to the previously adopted ordinance setting, out the zones in this area. Of
course we will provide you with the necessary information in order to accomplish that.
That is to realign the boundary between what was approved for R-4 and what was
approved for R-15, that will have to be amended. A second condition to be imposed would
be the set back proposals that I have made tonight. That is 15 foot front, 15 foot rear, five
foot side and then a 15 foot street Side except these entry lots and in that case they would
be 10 feet. The third condition that you should consider is permitting the elimination of
these landscaped islands, these four landscaped islands in the corners that was shown
on the preliminary plat and unfortunately the need to redesign. We are asking that we are
permitted to eliminate those. The fourth condition that you should, you need to consider
is whether you would permit private streets as the Planning and Zoning Commission has
that would be 40 foot right of way sidewalks one side in accordance with the drawing that
is in your materials and no parking restrictions as required by the fire chief. The fifth
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 33
condition would be permit reduced frontages as shown on the drawing from the required
40 feet down to I think the smallest is 25 but we will have to get a more precise
measurement for you. The sixth exception for condition would be with respect to the
parking areas and the rec center allowing that exception from the requirement that it be
4 feet separation from the roadway. And then finally the seventh condition would be with
respect to the fire station our proposal would be to provide the City with a deed to the fire
station at the time that the final plat is submitted for approval. That is all that I have to
present to you at this point. I am pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question with respect to the, you talked about the lot size and
the fire station site. Obviously that deed or title to that ground is not in the hands of the
City of Meridian. You are proposing to deed that at the point in time that the final plat is
approved?
Bradbury: AT the time, our proposal and obviously we will work with you if that is
uncomfortable for you for one reason or another. The proposal is when we present the
final plat we will have a deed in our hand ready to hand it to you.
Morrow: Approximately when would that be?
Bradbury: Boy I am not sure I can tell you, do you have an idea Doug?
(Inaudible)
Bradbury: Mr. Campbell indicates that he thinks we could have a final plat to you within
60 to 90 days.
Rountree: What would be the timing sequence for the club house?
Bradbury: That project or that stnacture would be built immediately, that is upfront with the
subdivision improvements. In other words we are not going to build the project, sell the lots
and then build the rec center. The rec center would be built up front.
Rountree: (Inaudible)
Bradbury: Yes absolutely, all of the improvements would be constructed up front.
Rountree: One thing that you point out in here is (inaudible)
Bradbury: What we have is there would be a pathway connected here into the adjacent
subdivision which would be, it is not shown on here
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 34
Crookston: Cherry Lane No. 5
•
Bradbury: Right, the proposal is to connect to a previously proposed and approved golf
cart path so that there is a direct access. I can't say that path goes all the way to the golf
course, I think that there are portions of it where they are required to go onto public
streets. At least we keep them off the main thoroughfare there and that is the idea.
Rountree: You have indicated there would be 40 foot of right of way, what is the roadway
typical section?
Bradbury: I don't know the answer to that, Mr. Campbell tells me 50 feet, it is 40 feet of
right of way, it has to be less.
(Inaudible)
Bradbury: You are asking what the proposed improved section would be
(Ina~idible)
Bradbury: 28 feet of pavement
Rountree: Curb and gutter on both sides?
Bradbury: Maybe Doug you can come up and put it on tape.
Doug Campbell, 19 East Fairview, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Campbell: The street section should be 38 feet of pavement, 2 feet of gutter on each side
and five foot sidewalk on the one side.
Rountree: What is going to be done with the drainage?
Campbell: It would be all underground retention.
Rountree: And that would have a provision in the CC&R's for the homeowners to maintain?
Corrie: Any further questions for Steve or Doug? Thank you, is there anyone from the
public that would like to enter testimony ors this? Council, any further discussion, Staff?
Rountree: I have a question for staff? Gary, it is my understanding from what has been
presented tonight that we have not been presented with a preliminary plat.
~ i
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 35
Smith: We have not seen a preliminary plat yet that shows the changes that Mr. Bradbury
has got, they have been in my office and met with me concerning the changes that they
were proposing.
(Inaudible)
Corrie: Those would work together.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) 28 feet of pavement and 2 foot of gutter on both sides of street and
five foot sidewalk on one side is that right? That is only 37 feet.
Campbell: We have sidewalks on one side of the street ar~d there are some areas where
it is double, two sides. If you look at, I am not sure what section it is in the book where the
rec .center is. Right off hand I am almost positive it is 28, 2, 2 and five and then where
there is sidewalk on the other side of the street is another five feet.
Tolsma: Well we are three feet short on part of the street, on the (inaudible)
Campbell: I don't have a street section but I am close, I am pretty close it is right there. I
am not looking at a street section so I am shooting off the top of my head.
Rountree: In the situation of private streets I don't think the right of way is an issue it is
how much street structure is there.
Campbell: Like I say you have 28 feet of pavement for emergency vehicles. I think on a
typical 50 foot private streets you have 32 feet of pavement right off the top of my head.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Campbell: That is a mechanism that we are going to develop and hopefully we can
enforce. I don't see a problem, we are providing two car garages, we are providing they
can park 2 cars on their driveway so there shouldn't be too much off street parking. There
are eight stall in the rec center that they can park in.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Campbell: Well I guess that is something if they are going to have a party or something
they will have to go and arrange a with the whoever handles the homeowners association
and tell them what they are doing and make sure it is enforced that night.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 36
r
Campbell: Which this isn't, this is nothing new it happens in other cities. I know where you
are coming from and I think it has to be a function or mechanism that the homeowners
association has to handle and if there is a big function then they are going to have to
handle it the best way they can. Even if they did double park the ideal situation, like I said
we have the ideal situation with the one street parking even if someone did park on the
other side there is still enough room for a fire truck to get through. It is just, the fire chief
felt more comfortable going with the parking on one side and posting on the other side. We
have agreed to that.
Corrie: Any further questions for Doug or Steve? If there is no more public testimony I will
close the public hearing, Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think from my perspective in terms of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law that we have before us that were approved by P & Z there have been
substantial changes or alterations to those findings of fact as proposed before us tonight
and apparently some of which were discussed with P & Z by virtue of the minutes but are
not part of the findings of fact. I would move then that we instruct the City Attorney to
prepare new findings of fact and conclusions.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that the City Attorney do
findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion? All those approved say
aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE
AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing. Steve do you have anything else you want to cover
on that one?
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor I would simply ask that my testimony from the previous item be
incorporated into the record for this item. I would be pleased to respond to any additional
questions you may have. Perhaps one item and it may be just thinking that there might be
concern in your minds with respect to do you have a preliminary plat before you or don't
you. You do have a preliminary plat before that we are asking. you to approve but with
some changes as we have discussed them. Granted you do not have a drawing of those
proposed changes that is true. The changes as we have discussed I think you could if you
were inclined could approve the preliminary plat which is before you subject to those
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 37
changes be made. That is what we would like to request that you do this evening. If you
have any questions of course I will.
Corrie: Any questions for Steve? Staff? Thank you Steve.
Rountree: I have one Mr. Mayor, when will the City be in receipt of a new preliminary plat?
Bradbury: We hoped you would receive it today, unfortunately you did not. Doug do you
have an idea from Keith about what the timing is going to be?
(Inaudible)
Campbell: We are trying to get the preliminary plat back here today with all of the changes
that the P & Z requested. I don't think that we have made that many changes on the
preliminary plat to where it is not a significant change but a few alterations that we have
had to make to, for P & Z's recommendations. We just ran out of time, but we felt that we
could work off of what you have here in front of you and then bring all of the corrections
in and let the staff handle it at their level. Which I don't think I even answered your
question, we will have it around this week.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess a comment here for our staff and Attorney, the Council and
Mr. Campbell is that in the chain of events the preliminary plat is the most important
document. I have a great reluctance to move forward with this until we have a corrected
preliminary plat in front of us. So as a point of discussion I believe my position here will be
on item 13 that it goes no further until we have a valid preliminary plat in hand and address
those issues at that point in time.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table action on this item until our next regularly
scheduled meeting and we are in receipt of a preliminary plat.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: I will close the public hearing, a motion was made that we table the request for
preliminary plat for the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 until the April 2nd meeting, all those in
favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I will entertain a motion for a five minute recess.
Morrow: So moved
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 38
Rountree: Second
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
74 UNIT PUD WITH DETACHE[~ SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS FOR ASHFORD
GREENS NO.2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE):
Corrie: I wi11 now open the public hearing Mr. Wardle.
Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue, Suite D, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, this project is similar in some respects
to that that you just reviewed but substantially different in the planned character. I want to
spend just a few minutes if we possible can so we don't belabor this evening. It is a little
background, the location of this project for Ashford No. 2 is in the center part of the
conditional use permit that the Council approved in December of 1994. This is actually the
first of two medium density parcels. The parcel in the center was approved at that point
conceptually for up to 8 units to the acre. Overall density of the project at that time as
originally approved was 3.55 units to the acre including the medium density parcels. With
this change as submitted this property is coming in at a density of approximately 4.9 units
to the acre. We are going to show you a detached dwelling concept. So the overall density
of the project is as a result also reduced. I guess there is probably nothing more on the
overall site but this one simply shows the location and a layout that, I want to just quickly
go through the fact that what we are going to talk about are again detached dwellings.
The proposal as submitted to the Commission and as discussed and as recommended for
approval both as a conditional use permit and as a preliminary plat accommodates five
different dwelling units ranging from 1225 square feet up to 1881 square feet. All of the
information that was presented is in the packet that you received last week so I am trusting
you will have read that if you have questions specifically we can go through but generally
we are talking about just a variety of fairly traditional appearing dwellings, lap siding,
shake roofs, and the floor plans. all of these floor plans and elevations are in blue print
form in the files in your planning department. In addition these boards have been retained
here during the hearing process and were there for review. I think it is probably more
appropriate to look at the cluster concept that is being proposed. I would like to provide
to the Council two different renderings. These are actually copies of the renderings that
were submitted to and reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. (Inaudible)
Believe it or not through the modem technology the exact duplication of what we show as
kind of a salmon pink here is kind of a faded out yellowish green on your copies. This is
the technical site plan and I want to emphasize the fact that the architectural firm that
designed the units has also designed the layout. They have placed the buildings they have
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 39
•
put the configuration of these dwellings together to meet the way the architectural plans
would work best. The technical site plan identifies the proposed setbacks, the size of the
parcels which typically would be 46 by 100 or 4600 square foot. There are some of the
parcels that in fact it is interesting I did a count the other day and there are only 12 of the
units that will actually take frontage from the loop street that goes through the project.
Others are clustered on culdesacs, and some private drives which in some cases
accommodate access for up to four units instead of taking frontage on the street they have
those little private cluster drives. As we originally propose the project we submitted it to
be a public street system. The standards that were proposed and also detailed on the
preliminary plat and this technical site plan by the architect indicated that we were
proposing to build the streets to ACRD standard of 29 foot back to back that is back of
curb, that is the standard, minimum standard for ACHD. It fits all of their criteria for the
culdesac areas, bt~t ACHD felt that it would be appropriate for the loop street to be
expanded to their full 50 foot right of way which is a 37 foot back to back standard. So at
the second there were actually two hearings on this issue before the Planning
Commission, the original meeting in December, there was a second meeting in January
because there was some concern about the street system. At the original hearing ACHD
had not yet had the opportunity to review or discuss the concept, they had done so by the
second meeting. So at the second meeting it became apparent that if in fact we had to
meet the standards of the expanded right of way on the loop street system that it would
have an impact on the site plan from a couple of stand points. You can see this is similar
to what you had just heard that we have a system of basically a one sidewalk system along
the streets and then we have an extensive internal circulation system that provides access
from the main boulevard leading back to the golf course club house area to the recreation
center that would be constructed in this area. In addition there then would be a pathway
that would lead off to the area toward the golf course club house and provide access for
those in the project that chose to go to the club house for either golfing or social purposes.
The Planning Commission in its recommendation actually agreed with the sidewalk and
the pathway system. What they did recommend to the Council was that the roadway be
public and that it conform to ACHD standards or they put a caveat in their
recommendation. That statement was that the road shall be public and meet ACHD
requirements unless ACHD allows a variance from its requirements and that variance
should also be approvad by the City. Now in as much as the process has gone forward
before the ACRD had a chance to review a request for a variance actually has not been
submitted to ACHD. So I think the commission realized there was an opportunity to do
something a little more sensitive than just a standard full bore street system. I want to
pass an item that shows photographs of a variety of different private drive accesses and
public streets as well as entry monuments for a public street system because our proposal
to you this evening will be to act upon the request with the stipulation that we be allowed
to do private streets unless ACHD grants a variance. Before I hand this to the Clerk what
we have on the top of this page above this first red line are private streets in a variety of
# ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 40
projects throughout the area, some down in the vicinity, well it is the Riverside Village area
of Garden City, Wood Duck Island in East Boise along the river, then there is a series of
interesting private driveways and streets in the area of Mountain View Drive in Boise. The
one that I want you to particularly look at is the one marked with the red asterisk on this
private drive situation. This is exactly what we would be talking about for these little private
drive stubs that would provide access only to just a couple of homes or up to four. This
is a roadway called North Cole Lane. It lies just north of Mountain View Drive east of Cole
Road. It is 18 foot wide and serves 9 fairly expensive single family dwellings.. We are not
proposing anything of that number we are simply saying that this particular section is what
would be consistent with these little private drive stubs that are shown in various places
on the plat. The second issue, we do intend even with a private street system if we have
to go that way we still intend to build streets, they would look like ACRD roadways. This
second set of photos shows three existing public streets. One is 27 feet wide back to back
and was obviously constructed before some recent standard changes at ACHD. The
second to and including the one that has the red asterisk on this side this is actually a 29
foot back to back street section it is a public street, it is what we propose here. It is
interesting when you look at that and you see the width of the pavement but there are
actually, even though we realize this would be a one side only parking situation for fire
access there is still room enough on that street for the parking and. this in a public situation
is not restricted. (End of Tape) revised preliminary plat and I want to put a caveat we are
not talking about a lot of changes we are talking only about the provision of islands for
gated entry at both ends of this project. (Inaudible) in the revised preliminary plat we had
to reverse these two lots so that the private drive was on this end rather than on the north
end so that there was room up here and then we had to do a similar situation to turn these
two lots 90 degrees and put a private drive stub here. You will be able to see that in a
moment wh"en I have passed that to the Council as well. All other elements of the project
that were reviewed by the Planning Commission the setbacks, all of the issues are the
same. We are not asking for any differences on that. I want to stress the fact that the
character of this project provides enclaves for the residences rather than lining up the
streets with the units so that you have total street frontages that are identified by garages.
You have a cluster of dwellings on this small culdesac, you have a cluster in here, cluster,
cluster, then you do have a few units here but then with the use of those little private stubs
it helps soften the impact. There is a significant amount of open space, 19% of the area
in fact is and would be privately owned and maintained open space. The project with
public streets would also have the necessary funding mechanism set up in the bylaws,
covenants and restrictions for operation and maintenance of the roadway system down the
years. So we are talking about something that is very harmonious in the sense that we are
looking at detached single family dwellings. They would probably be more toward the
empty nester professionals. We anticipate that a dumber of people that want the golf
course relationship since this is surrounded literally on three sides by golf course would
provide a very good option for lifestyle differences from those that would probably choose
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 41
the larger lots in the subdivision itself. I do have one hand out that identifies what would
necessitate a modification of the findings and conclusions. Mr. Mayor, the change in
findings and conclusions would relate to condition no. 1 coming from page 13 of the
findings and conclusions. Wherein the Commission had stated the road should be public,
we are requesting that it be modified to state that the road shall be private but shall meet
ACHD construction standards. And then the same terminology unless ACHD allows a
variance from its public street requirement which variance shall also be received by the
City. Condition No. 2 by the Planning Commission doesn't require any change of findings,
we simply believe in as much as all of the units are proposed to ,have a use easement or
a zero lot line arrangement where they would be a minimum of 10 feet of separation
between units but that 10 feet would be used by one of the dwellings instead of split
between the two. We believe that condition number two could be modified to state that
all setback and yard requirements shall be in conformance with standards submitted in the
project application and detailed in the technical site plan that I am holding in my hands. No
change in condition number three. Condition number four we believe should, it did have
a percentage of the front setbacks of the lots may not be 20% less than required or wasn't
exactly certain but in order to be consistent with what is actually on the technical site plan
where if it was a side entry garage instead of a 20 foot setback it would be a 15, that would
be a 25% reduction rather than 20%. Then finally condition number 5 it did in the Planning
Commission findings state that there may be five foot sidewalks on one side only and then
it got some other wording that was a Little hard to understand. We are simply asking them
to state that street sidewalks and internal pathway systems shall be in accordance with the
technical site plan and preliminary plat submitted with the project application. Finally Mr.
Mayor, Council members, I am going to give you a tissue overlay that shows what, the
way we would add entrance islands with absolutely no change on the lots on this end but
does necessitate as I pointed out earlier that the private driveway access on these would
be reversed from the north to the south and then the two lots on the other side be turned
90 degrees from what they were shown. We do have a preliminary plat modification that
shows that. In conclusion Mr. Mayor in as much as the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the conditional use permit and the preliminary plat and did
extensively discuss the issue of private versus public streets and the only way to
accommodate a private street system is the inclusion of these entry facilities for gating
purposes we would ask that the Council proceed to approve the conditional use permit to
modify the findings and conclusions that would allow the private street and make these
other modifications that I believe are minor in character but are helpful in clarifying the
issue before the Council. I would stop there and answer any questions that you have. Mr.
Turnbull the developer is here if you have any specific items for him.
Corrie: Council any questions?
Morrow: I have a question with respect to those elevations, did you indicate that on the
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 42
homes there as masonry involved on the front of the elevations? (Inaudible)
Wardle: I did not so indicate Mr. Morrow because I hdve not really been involved in that
part of it, Mr. Turnbull might be able to answer that question.
David Turnbull, 12301 W. Explored Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, these plans here are the preliminary plans
that were developed that are going, once we have approval on the concept or the
conditional use permit we are going into full working drawings. I would anticipate that there
would be some masonry probably not stucco. I prefer the lap siding for dimensional
character.
Morrow: So you are proposing siding and brick then?
Turnbull: Correct, brick or stone.
Morrow: Thank you
Rountree: One of the issues that was discussed at length in the Planning and Zoning
session was the square footage of the homes. Is it your understanding that issue was
resolved at Planning and Zoning? prat least with them?
Wardle: That is a good question because it was discussed and yet they didn't actually
put what the number would be. There was discussion by Mr. Hepper specifically and I
believe he was going toward like a 25% factor for that that would be at the 1225 square
foot limit which is below what the normal R-4 standard is. But it did not come out in the
findings and conclusions.
Corrie: Any further questions from Council?
Tolsma: (Inaudible) now you are speaking strictly the private drives and not the (inaudible)
Wardle: No Mr. Tolsma I am speaking of the .loop system in that context. Let me just
restate what was discussed with the Planning Commission. The culdesac streets these
three facilities all meet ACHD standards as drawn. These could be constructed today and
meet their standards period. They were simply talking about this one, they had no issue
at all with these little private stubs that serve one or two homes that was not their concern.
But it was their recommendation that this loop street only be expanded to the 37 foot
section with sidewalks on both sides. That does impact the system. We believe that this
at the 29 foot section which is also ACHD standard but it is the smaller standard works.
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 43
This is not a heavy, it doesn't go through to any other facility it splits fairly well between
the two entrances but we did not submit it to them in a request for a variance. It was only
submitted to be considered as public in the context of these drawings.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) you are not going to have 8000 square foot lots (inaudible)
Wardle: That is correct, the Planning Commission recommended that this site plan be
approved, they approved the concept of a 4600 square foot minimum size. That is what
the conditional use permit allows, it allows waivers for all of those normal standards in the
R-4 and when we were here about a year and a half ago going through the approval
process it was apparent that if we were to do something of a higher density it could be an
8000 square foot lot. We had to come back and show you and that is what this does.
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, just to follow up on Councilman Rountree's question on these housing
sizes. We had prepared five plans ranging from 1200 to 1800 square feet. Our testimony
and position before the Planning and Zoning Commission was that and Commissioner
Hepper did talk about something like a 25% restriction on the homes under 1400 square
feet. Our testimony at that point was simply that we didn't necessarily want to limit options
for empty nest professionals. Our experience would be that it would probably be less than
the 25% that is why we prepared five plans and only one of those falls under that 1400
square foot level. But again on the conditional use permit and also pertaining to the lot
sizes it is fairly, we had a conditional use conceptual approval of 8 units per acre we are
down to less than 5 units per acre it is quite obvious that you can't accomplish any of those
things on a standard R-4 8000 square foot lot and all of those requirements which is right
through the conditional use process and the PUD process we have asked for these
exceptions. Thank you.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree are you satisfied with that?
Rountree: Yes, I understand his response.
Corrie: Any further questions from Council?
Morrow: Yes, I have one question, 29 foot section of private road that you are discussing
how much asphalt is that? You are talking about 2 feet and 2 feet of curb for (inaudible)
Wardle: Is that correct Mr. Sale, I haven't measured ACHD's, 25 foot of asphalt yes.
Corrie: Any further questions of these two?
Turnbull: Mr. Mayor could I make one more comment again? One of the pictures that Mr.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 44
u
Wardle has submitted to you fog a private drive access is in my neighborhood where I live
in the Hickories. There are three homes, fairly large homes with families that access off
that street. I drive by it four times everyday and I have yet to see a car parked on that
private drive it works and functions very well.
Corrie: Is there anybody else from the public that would like to give testimony on the
request for conditional use permit? Any further discussion, questions from Council or
staff?
Morrow: I have some questions for Shari if I might Mr. Mayor. Shari in your letter on
December 8, 1995, which is I think a preliminary analysis of this proposal you had several
items and points that you were making there to and including something about the
applicant needs to submit the following additional information. I guess I am asking you
know were all of your conditions and concerns met through the P & Z process and to this
point where we are at now?
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, I would have to go in the file to see if we
have received anything as far as architectural style and building design. That was a
presentation during a meeting it is likely that I was not able to see it when it was
presented. Are you referring to item one on page two?
Morrow: Well the entire letter has several things, I guess my primary concern was the
modification of district regulations (inaudible) some of which we talked about here in terms
of the square footage sizes. You talked about frontages, roadway requirements, sidewalks
and so on and so forth. Then you went into specifics in terms of additional comments
such as the golf course deed the property to the City and connection of Dawson and
Interlachen and so on and so forth. My question to you is that in these presentations have
all those issues and at least addressed to your satisfaction?
Stiles: Mr. Morrow, I am not, I couldn't say definitively that all. of these items have been
addressed no. The first page was just a section out of the ordinance that shows what can
be done with the planned development and the first list of items are all of the things which
could be granted by the Council if they wanted to grant variances on those items any, for
all or none of those items could be approved as part of a planned development but that
would be up to Council. As far as the rest of it perhaps Mr. Wardle could expound on
whether we have received the architectural style and building design, the building
materials and color, we have not received the landscaping plan except a concept that is
shown. If they want to submit that is the plan that they will be required to bond for that
would be acceptable provided there are some species and sizes determined. Screening
is one of the items that is required under the PUD process. I don't think in this case there
is anything that needs to be screened out. I don't think the garbage areas has been
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 45
addressed as far as how they expect garbage trucks to pick up in these private driveways.
The parking and open space has been zoned. One of the comments in the findings for the
initial application prior Mayor Kingsford was very adamant that Interlachen connect to that
Dawson Drive and the clubhouse. I am not sure it met the intent of what he wanted at that
time. We have yet to receive covenants. The street drainage plan I don't know if that has
been addressed. Basically that is, I don't know if this new plan that we have shows the
pressurized irrigation and fire hydrants and street lights but I am assuming we will be
provided a revised plat prior to your action on the plat.
Wardle: Mr. Morrow I will respond, we wrote a letter to the Planning Commission in
response to Shari's comments that letter was dated the 12th of December and it is in your
packet.. In some respects the issues that were presented were conceptual. In other words
the renderings that Mr. Turnbull talked about and the renderings and floor plans are in the
planning staff file in blue print form. So there was a concept of the intent it is not finished
drawings. The one primary issue that we didn't feel and I appreciate this coming up, the
question on Interlachen does not relate to this parcel. The parcel we are talking about this
evening is up in the center of the area. Interlachen is down here and when we actually
come in with a development proposal for this parcel we realize that we have to deal with
that issue: So that, it is premature to deal with even though we know that is one of the
conditions of the overall project has to deal with it does not relate to this one. I have no
problem with City Council stipulating in fact the recommendation the findings and
conclusions from the planning commission do state that we have to address both Mr,
Freckleton and Shari Stiles comments. We will provide all of that as we get down to more
detail. But this is still conditional use not all of those issues have been related. But please
I would ask specifically that the question of Interlachen not be applied to this parcel but
that it be applied to the appropriate parcel the second medium density tract that will be
presented some time in the future.
Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Any further comments from the public on the
hearing? Council any further questions? I will close the public hearing. Counselor, where
are we on this? There have been changes.
Crookston: There are changes, yes there are.
Corrie: Recommendation?
Crookston: I think that there needs to be new findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Morrow: So moved
Rountree: Second
~ ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 46
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that new findings of fact and
conclusions of law be written, any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say
aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Rountree: Let me point out here Mr. Mayor that on the existing findings of fact, page 6,
there is a statement that I believe is in error. It is a minor change that I think needs to be
made. Fourth line down, Highlands project and the Lake at Cherry lane No. 5 and 6 to and
you should insert the word "not" allow housing sizes less than 1400 square feet. I believe
that is what was said by Ms. Stiles.
Crookston: That is correct.
ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD
GREENS NO.2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE) BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Wardle.
Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Ave. Suite D, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor in as much as you will draw up new findings and conclusions it would
be appropriate to retain this item for that next meeting when you have that before you. I
have nothing further.
Corrie: Any further testimony from the public on this public hearing for the preliminary plat
for Ashford Greens? Hearing none any further discussion from the Council? I will close
the public hearing. Entertain a motion.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move we table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second. by Mr. Tolsma that we table the public, I
guess we have to continue.
Crookston: We the public hearing in effect you would need to continue it.
Corrie: Charlie was that your motion to continue the public hearing?
Rountree: I think my motion was to table but if we need to continue it I will withdraw my
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 47
motion.
Tolsma: Withdraw the second
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we continue the hearing on this item until our regularly
scheduled meeting.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma that we continue the public
hearing until April 2, on the Ashford Greens No. 2 preliminary plat, all those in favor say
aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF 8.34 ACRES TO C-N BY
SMITHS FOOD AND DRUG CENTER INC.:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing.
Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue, Suite D, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wardle: I first want to chastise Will for not giving me time to change thought patterns in
the set up of the agenda. I would like to introduce individuals here this evening not all will
speak by any means but they would be available to answer questions. David Nielson with
Smith's out of Salt Lake City, all of the other members of our team are local, Doug
Kowallis, of Questin Company handling real estate issues. Terry Scoffield our architect,
Joann Butler, legal counsel, Gary Funkhouser of Bell Walker handling traffic issues, and
I don't see Gene Smith of Hubble Engineering here. As I indicated two will offer brief
testimony after I conclude my comments but all are available to answer specific questions.
The process we have gone through to get to this point started .last October when we met
with City staff to talk about issues related to the project. We had a meeting in November
with area residents, we sent out notices or delivered notices to a fairly wide area, had
approximately 80 people at the Assembly of God church on Linder road for a very lively
discussion. They thanked us for the opportunity to be aware of the fact that an application
was forthcoming, it had not yet been submitted at that point. Many issues discussed then
and they were also discussed at the previous hearing. Those issues, in fact the hearing
that was held in January was really a very good hearing, it offered an opportunity for all
of the area residents that were in favor as well as opposed to express valid concerns and
seek ways to mitigate those concerns. Two primary issues were raised during those
discussions one was concern for traffic and related safety issues. The second related to
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 48
property values and especially the impacts that might be felt by those that lived in the
Linder Falls I believe the technical name of the recorded plat is Valeri Place subdivision
but nevertheless one identified as Linder Falls as well as those that live to the north in
Glennfield. Just for reference this is an aerial photo taken just a few .months ago of the
site. What we are talking about is the parcel that the rezone actually would be in extension
of the center line of Emerald Falls Drive out to Linder Road southerly to Cherry lane and
back and would include parcels that has previously been rezoned to L0. One interesting
thing that comes from the minutes that you read of that Planning Commission hearing is
that even though there was a lot of opposition there as actually a fair amount of support
but certainly a great deal of opposition. Nobody was opposed to Smith's coming well
maybe there was one, I did read one letter that was submitted it wasn't in public testimony
but there was one letter in the packet that basically said we don't need. anymore. But
generally the support for Smith's entry into the market was apparent if concerns could be
addressed satisfactorily. Several suggested that we find another commercially zoned piece
of ground. In fact that search for a commercially zoned piece of ground is what lead to this
proposal. This zoning map shows all, well it doesn show some of the commercial much
rather to the south but this shows essentially all of the commercial north of the interstate
and in and around the City. It shows limited office, professional land uses as well. It shows
church locations and it shows the schools out on the vicinity. The parcel. that we are talking
about this evening is shown in pink. Something that hopes to become a blushing red as
a result of your actions. Anyway it is that parcel at the northwest corner. Across the street
from existing CN zoning where there is the beginning of a small strip center detached strip
center but there is a Maverik, pizza and a car wash currently to the south of the parcel.
There is some other CN zoned land that is not large enough to accommodate a store on
the opposite corner. The only parcel that is zoned commercial in the westerly,
neighborhood of Meridian is that that has the big, blue A already on it out at Ten Mile and
Cherry. Lane. Everything else is either zoned or residential or has not yet been presented.
Very interesting thing occurs when you read the comprehensive plan, now if we had the
comp plan map in front of us, it is on the wall and I think you can refer to that but there is
a mass of land that kind of shows up as a brown through the heart of that comprehensive
plan map. That is identified as the urbanized area of Meridian. It is silent with respect to
where within that urbanized area certain things must occur or should occur. But it is not
silent to the effect that certain things will occur or need to occur. I would like to read one
statement from the Comprehensive Plan. This comes on page six and in fact let me pass
out the item that I gave to the Commission, I believe it is also in the packet but this is the
reference that I am referring to. I did an extensive analysis of the comprehensive plan
policies and goals for the Planning Commission and was part of that hearing record. But
t simply want to read the statement that I highlighted from page six, "within the community
there are unique neighborhoods which comprise the Meridian urbanized area." Again
referring to that brownish mass in the community. "Only a few of those areas have
traditional neighborhood characteristics, others are essentially developing districts and
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 49
contain some elements of traditional neighborhoods but at present they lack nearby parks,
schools, churches and commercial support services. In time the. developing districts will
become neighborhoods as the community continues to expand and develop neighborhood
facilities and services." The comprehensive plan identifies the expectation of these it
simply does not put a dot on the map to state where. We believe that when you look at
the map of Meridian on the west side that you will see actually the beginnings of a
neighborhood complex more here than would be achieved or his proposed currently a mile
to the west where the Albertsons is supposed to be constructed. You already have some
established commercial areas but they are more convenience sized than neighborhood
sized. You have some limited office uses within the vicinity. You have the Linder
elementary school, the Meridian Middle school and the Meridian High School. You have
all of the facilities but you don't have the services yet to service that bedroom community
of Meridian. It needs to happen and it is appropriate that the Planning Commission
recognize that after listening to all of the testimony that they concluded that it should
happen. The question of how to place that facility there so that it works for the benefit of
everybody has been the discussion of extensive meetings with the neighbors. This was
the exhibit that was provided at the Planning Commission hearing. We showed a concept
of either an additional culdesac which was (inaudible) slightly different alignment but still
a part of the original Valeri Place subdivision that there would be a culdesac extension
behind the existing homes. We showed that as an option, we also showed an option that
could be a park but it was concluded in discussions with City staff that a park of that size
was not conceived to be in the interest of the community. It would be hard to maintain in
terms of having to take equipment around could not, it would not justify keeping equipment
on site. That being the case the Planning Commission actually recommended in their
findings and conclusions that the Smith's develop it and the homeowners maintain it. But
the homeowners have looked at that and we provided some information to them to talk
about cost of maintenance and for the 34 homes that would be in the subdivision to
maintain a park of that size would be fairly substantial expense it would be a range of
$11,000 to $12,000 a year just to maintain something that would probably have appeal for
a much larger area than just the subdivision. It would be hard to keep kids from coming
and using something of that size of a facility. So as a result we have had subsequent
meetings with the neighbors, the proposal that I believe has been validated and will be
presented to you in a few moments actually I have lost one set of drawings, (inaudible) I
think I can just tissue on. This is a record of the tissue that I have taped up and I will
present it to the Clerk for (inaudible). Smith's and the homeowners in the Valeri Place
Subdivision have agreed that there will be a culdesac developed between the existing
homes and the Smith's site. The park will be expanded a bit so that what was shown on
that drawing as a new lot would actually not become a lot, this lot here would be expanded
a little bit to include that. But the park would be expanded there would be a turn around,
either a culdesac form or a stub form. The street that had been proposed originally to go
through would be culdesaced on the other end so there would not be thru traffic. There
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 50
would be a continuation of the meandering wall along Cherry lane and then a new wall
constructed to the north and then the question of this homeowner of whether or not they
would want that wall between them and potentially new dwellings to be constructed at the
back of the Smith's store. Then there would be a wall constructed down the north
boundary between Glennfield Manor Subdivision Unit No. 7 and potential new residences
here. I met with the fire chief the morning after we had the meeting with the Valeri Place
homeowners and the concern that he had was that there be a provision either a grass
(inaudible) or a paved with (inaudible) some means of making a physical connection for
emergency vehicle access and that can be worked out through design. We will continue
the process as we develop the plans for architectural and construction purposes to work
with the homeowners to make certain that not only the walls but the landscaping and the
access issues be addressed. There is precedent for the concept of having these some
additional lots behind the Glennfield Manor that would face the back of the store. I have
got these are site photos taken a month or two ago but these photos are of the Walmart
wall, excuse me the Waremart wall there is not Walmart here yet. Waremart in Boise
constructed there at the back of their store and I was not here at the time they constructed
but apparently acquired some residential units, removed those and placed a buffer strip
and a wall between them and the adjacent dwellings. It is not a blight neighborhood,
probably is a very peaceful place in a sense that there is no commotion going do across
the street from them. I can't speak to them didn't do a survey. But it is an older
neighborhood but it is well kept and shows a care level that surprised me frankly for
something that was right behind a store. The Planning Commission after consideration
of all of the testimony and of the concerns concluded that the rezone complies with the
comprehensive plan that the design could be harmonious with the neighborhood and
would not be detrimental to the property values. I would like to have Gary Funkhouser talk
for just a brief moment about traffic issues and then Joann Butler I think will address the
negotiation aspects with the neighbors and then we can respond to any questions. In fact
we do have architectural plans that Mr. Scoffield can address if the Council desires to.
This is the concept of the building as it would appear firom Cherry Lane the other drawing
is what would be taking place at the back of the store. (End of Tape)
Gary Funkhouser, 827 LaCassia, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Funkhouser: Mayor and Council as I stated by name is Gary Funkhouser I am a
transportation engineer with Bell Walker engineers. I just wanted to present a few brief
facts that were contained in our traffic impact analysis. We did prepare the traffic impact
analysis fora 60,000 square foot Smith's Food King store with one out parcel at this site.
The trip generation for an operation such as this will be in the neighborhood of 6600 trips
per day and the trip making for this type of site is, there are three basic ones, primary trip
is a trip from the home going direct to the site for the purpose of shopping or going to the
out parcel. Then there is a diverted link trip that is a trip that is travelling to another
~ ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 51
location down such a street as Pine Street and would turn down Linder and come into the
site and return back to Pine to continue on to whatever trip was intended for the final
location. Then there is the pass by trip and that is the trip that is on Cherry Lane or on
Linder headed for a final destination and will pull into the site, db the shopping and
continue on. So it is not a new trip to that roadway. Pass by trip for an operation such as
this is in the neighborhood of 50% of the total trips so approximately 3300 of the trips
going to this will already be on Linder or on Cherry Lane in other words they are not new
trips they are added to any congestion that may be in the area. When I am talking trips
this is not cars, a trip has a beginning point and ending point in other words a beginning
point at Smith's going back to the home or starting at another place and ending there so
we are talking about 1650 new cars to this area. As far as the distribution where they are
going to be heading and entering and exiting to the site approximately 11 % will be going
to the west on Cherry Lane, 58% will be either coming or going back to the east on Cherry,
16.5% on Linder to the north, 14.5% on Linder to the south. This doesn't totally give a true
picture of the traffic in this area because trips are already being made on this street to do
the same type of purposes. In other words you have a Albertson's store here now and its
location down at Meridian requires the people in this area to be travelling on Linder and
Cherry to get to that site to do their shopping. So the total 3300 new trips or even the
3300 pass bys are already making some of that trip making going down to the Meridian
street site. We cannot estimate those at this time so some of the numbers we are
presenting here will actually be less impact to the roadway than stated. Even with if we
take it all into account the intersection where your primary problem areas occur in
congestion at signalized intersections it is currently operating at service level C and will
continue to operate at service level C once the site is in full operation. The level service
C is the planning capacity that has been adopted by the Ada Planning Association for the
County. It is a goal they are trying to achieve. With that (inaudible) I would be willing to
answer any questions at this time.
Joann Butler, 607 N. 8th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Butler: Just briefly, as Mike has mentioned, the Planning and Zoning Commission did find
that each of the comprehensive plan goals and objectives did support this rezoning. The
passage that Mike provided the Council underscore the comprehensive plan's concept that
developing neighborhood areas can only become identifiable neighborhoods when the
City neighborhood oriented facilities such as Smiths. Each of the findings that the
Commission and that the Council must make in order to make this rezone the Commission
clearly did make in its findings in connection with this rezoning application the findings and
conclusions that the Commission provided the Council actually beginning on page 16 of
those findings allow the City Council to rezone this site to neighborhood business or CN.
However the last recommendation that the Commission provided Mike alluded to and that
was a recommendation that a park be provided just west of the Smith's site and maintained
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 52
by the Valeri Place Homeowners Association. The Commissioned that in their findings
and as Mike mentioned we had ongoing meetings with the neighbors of Valeri Place trying
to identify various options that would work for them and for the City. Clearly the park at
least for the Commission did not work and given the comments by staff in which they found
the park would be too small to economically maintain by the City which is why it was
recommended the Valeri Place maintain that park. That in our meetings with the neighbors
was found to be not acceptable and found those costs too high to maintain what probably
would wind up to be a public park. Once it became clear that the neighbors could not
accept that particular option we worked again on the other options that Mike pointed out,
providing homes both at the north and over to the west end of the site. We met with the
neighbors again last week at the Cheny Lane church and .reviewed this options and came
to the final agreement with the neighbors today. We do have a private agreement between
the Valeri Place Subdivision homeowners association and Smith's. Sharon Litzbauer the
representative of the neighborhood association will be before you in a moment to provide
the Council with a copy of that agreement that we have reached. Mike has already talked
about some of the details so 1 won't go into more detail than that. With that the
Commission has unequivocally recommended to the Council that the site be zoned CN or
neighborhood business. We have worked diligently with the City and staff and Commission
and our neighbors to mitigate the concerns that were raised both in our meetings, our
private meetings and in public testimony. So we are respectfully asking the Council tonight
to adopt the recommendation of the Commission hopefully at its next available hearing and
approve this site for CN or neighborhood business zoning. If there are no questions of the
Council.
Corrie: Council, any questions for the attorney? This is a public hearing is there anybody
from the public that would like to testify?
Jack Muldoon, 2080 N. Nyborg, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Muldoon: Mr. Mayor and Council, members, I am just here to ask you to stop the onslaught
on Cheny Lane. We have lived here now five years we came here, I am one of those silent
people and their plan is very well done and we are not here against Smith's either because
we would like to see Smith's some place in Meridian but again Cherry, you can what is
happening right here tonight. Everything is going on Cherry Lane there is so much
planning out here. If we could have had a green line from Meridian Road through Black
Cat saying that is residential, I worked in the Twin Falls Gounty Planning and Zoning for
seven years and lived in Twin Falls County for three years and we were able to set a
section of that town that all people moving in that was residential they could depend on
it. Your comprehensive plan won't be worth much unless you can do that. It will protect
the residents, it will protect the schools. (Inaudible) wonderful proposal but this is not
protecting that neighborhood, those three schools there will be four schools soon. Pull on
~ •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 53
Linder about 7:30 in the morning at that intersection. We didn't cover the delivery trucks
and many other things that will be there. I just ask you tonight really consider this, Cherry
Lane will be a City of Meridian if we don't. It is residential now and I ask that you keep it
residential. Thank you very much.
Corrie: Any questions from Council? Thank you, anyone else from the public?
Larry Wolf, 960 Broadway, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wolf: We have an interest in a lot that would be in the house, I have a builder that I talked
into building this. On the proposal I would just like to address that it is of a concern to us.
The block fence that was proposed to come up the back side here would actually really
put a shadow on this particular house right at this point. I sell real estate and I am a
partner with the builder on this particular house. We have an opportunity to sell the house
and it is a deal maker if there is some additional space between the block wall and the
house. So it is Something that we would like, this hadn't come to light, the builder, to tell
you a little bit on that. We are not opposed to Smith's, the builder has had a real
nightmare on the house, it is an extremely nice 2200 square foot house. It has an appraisal
value of $188,000 on it and he is at $161,000 to get this offer and that would with working
out with whatever with Smith's if there was some additional space. So it is a concern with
us and I just wanted to go on record that we do have that concern.
Sharon Litzbauer, 1922 W. Kastle Falls Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Litzbauer: First I would like to hand these out. That is the agreement that Joann Butler just
spoke of between Smith's and the homeowners. I would just like to say briefly that I am
prepared to speak on behalf of the homeowners in Valeri Place Subdivision No. 1 and at
this time we are not here tonight to oppose the Smith's development at the location of
Linder and Cherry Lane instead so far we have entered into the agreement with Smith's
provided that each early fulfills (inaudible) on their behalf. So we would just like you to put
that into the record make it a part of your facts and findings for your conclusion on this
development. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Corrie: Any questions? Any further public testimony from this side of the room?
Georgia Markley, 1287 Santa ,Rosa, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Markley: I just want to go on record that I am in favor of the Smith's Food King at the
corner of Linder and Cherry Lane. I do live in the Vineyards Subdivision and I drive the
intersection of Linder and Cherry Lane anywhere from 7:30 to 8:30 in the morning. I think
that this corner and the traffic would accommodate a Smith's Food King and I don't see
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 54
any impact or very much of an impact that Smith's will have in that area. Thank you.
Paula Devaney, 1703 W. Sunny Slope Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Devaney: Mr. Mayor and City Council I am very much in favor of Smith's coming to this
location also. I live in the Vineyards Subdivision which is just a short distance from the
proposed site. It think this is a good opportunity to bring additional services into my
neighborhood. The City's comprehensive Plan states that the City will promote the
development of high quality and environmentally compatible residential areas that contain
the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable
neighborhoods. Smith's has presented a plan which fits this criteria. I would however like
to address the City's reluctance to accept the area on the west end of the project as a
park. While it has been noted that the City is not interested in parks which are less than
5 acres there was just recently an article in the Idaho Statesman regarding the Police
Activities League and Capital Youth Soccer feuding over the few soccer fields available.
This land could be developed into two or three additional soccer fields which we need
much more than we need nine more houses. Having one large park facility at the end of
town does not meet the needs of neighborhood parks. We need soccer and football fields
or softball fields that residents can walk to. This will form identifiable neighborhoods that
the Comprehensive Plan refers to. As more commercial development comes into
neighborhoods we should not be passing up a golden opportunity to partner with the
developers and building park facilities such as these playing fields. The City could most
likely get help in maintaining them from the soccer leagues or softball leagues or other
leagues who would be using them. The City has a long way to go in developing the 50
plus acres that we are currently looking at for a park. In the meantime these smaller areas
can and should be developed especially when the developer is willing and able to do more
than simply set the land aside and actually develop it. I hope you will approve Smith's Plan
regardless of what you do with the park area. But I would like to see you reevaluate the
idea of putting in a park that would contain soccer or some other playing field.
Corrie: Any questions of Paula? Any further testimony from this side? Over here now.
Dan Bachini, 1745 W. McGlinchey, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bachini: First is Smith's going to be here to stay? I will quote Dow Jones news retrieval,
it says, "the company comparable store sales for the full year fell 3.4% of those last year.
In a press release the company contributed the weakness in fourth quarter sales to a
significant number of competitive store openings in most marketing areas." So we have
an Albertsons, Fred Meyer and possibly a Waremart going in here. In addition to
aggressive price competition in the company's southern California region where they are
closing I believe 33 or 34 stores. And I think it was the Idaho Statesman that said that only
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 55
one was sold the rest were going to be closed. Then I haven't seen these before these
pictures and we live just north, there is the vacant lot now and we live right there, our
fence is right on that lot. So we haven't seen these drawings at all, we haven't talked to
Mike recently at all in these newest negotiations. I have a few questions for you and some
of these pictures that I saw earlier. (Inaudible) is that, I think what Shari Stiles said, is that
a concept or a plan of the landscaping in the back? What type of trees, the size, the
quantity of the (inaudible) back here. Are they going to make it beautiful or just put a few
trees and they will maybe mature in about 15 or 20 years. There was another one there
when they had a drawing of the building when they first brought it up they said there was
no, all the deliveries were to the front. One of the pictures they had side deliveries and
there is a big difference between the side and the front because of the noise. There the
wind blows east to west or west to east. So I am worried about .noise. Does the City have
an ordinance for noise, tike if it is above a certain decibel for the air conditioner, freezer
compressors, what is an acceptable level?
Corrie: We don't don't have one of those.
Bachini: You don't have one of those so they could say it is not too noisy. And who is to
say? And then what happens if the truck deliveries and street sweepers I think they said
at 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., if they don't abide by that, is there anything that can be done about
that? How can it be enforced. Behind the store are they going to make it a dead end with
this nice park back here. I brought this up before, it is a perfect place to go and drink beer,
have sandwiches or chips after work and how is that to be policed. What about the trash
from that. Then the lots that they are talking about there six or seven lots what type of
houses are going to go there. Are they going to be single family or are they going to be
apartment houses or duplexes? That is all I have to say.
Corrie: Any questions from Council?
Mary Ann Christman, 3416 Emerald Creek, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Christman: I am here for a couple of purposes, number one I do represent the two people
that own the properties on the comer of Linder and Cherry Lane so there is an interest in
that respect that the deal goes through. However I have a greater interest and that is the
fact that I am a resident of the Meridian area. I live right now in Parkside Creek
Subdivision. I am a real estate agent and have been here for a couple of years also
licensed in Arizona. So I have been selling real estate for quite some time. My concern
is I do a considerable amount of business in the Meridian area and I am getting
consistently comments over and over again from people who are looking to move into the
Meridian area and people who are currently living in the Meridian area that there is no
good support in the way of shopping. I here this almost on daily basis. I have currently ten
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 56
lots in Parkside Creek that I have optioned. So I do quite a bit of business in the Meridian
area. They are glad to see that the Albertson's is coming into better location for them being
out in the Cherry Lane and Ten Mile area. However that doesn't appeal to them as much
as the Smith's simply because it is not a competitive shopping situation. Two Albertson's
is not really what they are happy about, they would much prefer to see the Smith's in the
area because that offers the competitive situation. They really do like the location of where
the Smith's is going because they do feel that Cherry Lane is a street that they travel
frequently as it is and that is going to be more or less a stopping point for them. Right now
they are travelling Cherry Lane to go to the Albertsons and they are kind of tired- of
traveling that distance. When I am saying them I am talking about quite a few people that
I talk to on a daily basis. There is really a major concern about no competitive shopping
and the location of Smith's is something that they would very much like to see happen and
myself as living in that area and, having to travel to Albertsons myself. So I just wanted to
convey that I hear almost on a daily basis at this point. That is all I have to say.
Corrie: Thank you very much, any further testimony?
Charles Kline, 1722 W. McGlinchey Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kline: I just moved recently into the area and I have only lived in the area about a month.
I grew up in Michigan and recently where I grew up we had a grocery store area on the
comer of our, basically in the same situation that we are in now with Smith's. The major
concern that we had was the maintaining of the grounds there was always a lot of trash
and from people going into the store, buying can of coke and throwing them on the ground
as they walked home or whatever. Smith's is saying they are putting the trees up in the
back of the store to help maintain to beautify the area but who is going to, my concern is
who is going to be maintaining this area to make sure it stays clean and not become full
of trash. Right now that is my major concern. That is all I have, thank you.
Corrie: Anybody else on this side of the room?
Marceda Bachini, 1745 W. McGlinchey, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bachini: I would like to know about the truck traffic and when those trucks are going to be
coming because if they are coming in the dark at 7:30 in the morning when the dark
bicycles are being ridden by dark clothed middle school kids I don't think it is very good
for the City of Meridian. We have had a traffic count as far as trucks coming but nothing
on trucks.
Corrie: Thank you, any further testimony over here? Who would like to answer that?
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 57
Wardle: Mr. Mayor and Council members I will probably ask Mr. Nielson of Smith's to get
up and address one or two of the issues but there are a few that have been raised that do
merit response. The delivery schedule and I do need to have that site plan, Terry would
you bring that one back up to me please. The delivery schedule as been committed to
being not earlier than 7 a.m. and not later than 10 p.m. I didn't particularly address this but
Mr. Bachini did talk about the fact that it is a front load store, there is no service of any sort
at the back. There is emergency personnel egress in the case of some kind of emergency
or fire that would allow people to escape. There are those doors but those are not
routinely used and to my knowledge there would be no Smith's people that would go out
those doors to take their coffee breaks or sandwich breaks and do anything at the back
of the store. The access that is provided for the vendors is done within wells that have 14
foot tall screening walls and the truck traffic does actually come in and back into these
ramps. This is consistent with what Smith's does in virtually of all of their stores. This is
a concept that I have even seen Albertsons in Boise does extensively. The same thing
with respect to delivery and Mr. Nielson can talk about how often those trucks come is the
same with regard to any sweeping, 7 a.m. at the earliest, 10 p.m. at the latest but chances
are they will control that to even a more moderate time. The only thing that they can't
control is snow removal under conditions that would require vehicles to come in during the
night to do that. There were a couple of comments that Mr. Bachini made concerning the
drawings that he had not seen before. I called and talked with Mr. Bachini before the
Planning Commission meeting in fact I hand delivered to his home along with all of the
others on McGlinchey information with an invitation if they wanted it individually or a
neighborhood to get together and talk with us. We had no response from them we did hear
from the Valeri Place neighbors. The question about the landscaping, this is actually the
landscaping plan and this was part of the exhibit that was presented to the Commission
at the earlier hearing and has been in you files for safe keeping. This is a plan that shows
what was being approved at the back of the store at 36th and Good Street in Boise which
is an older neighborhood but there are existing residences that the City Council in Boise
wanted to protect. So the concept that is shown here with the landscaping at the back is
not just a loose scheme this is the actual landscape plan that has all the plant materials
and shows exactly what was done. This is part of the hearing file that has been in your
possession for the last month or so and it will remain so. The noise, compressors all of
the mechanical equipment is internal to the building and all of the fans are within
compressor or fan wells. So that there is nothing that actually sites totally on the top that
would be exposed. The noise and essentially all of the draft go straight up and Terry
S~eld the architect could address that if you have a very specific question. The question
then was what type of homes would be proposed for the area north of the store. I think
you will find that there is a difference in probably the value of the homes of the Valeri
Place versus the Glenfield Manor that backs right up to this there is a difference in size.
Several of these homes are single level, well single store buildings. We would be working
with the homeowners in both areas if the Valeri Place Subdivision felt that needed to be
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 58
annexed into their area which they are not indicating at this point they it would have to
conform with the standards and conditions that would be applicable to them. It would
certainly be compatible to what the Glennfield Manor homes are. These lots in fact are
larger than the Glenfield Manor lots that back up to it. We will work with those folks to
assure that some of the same concerns of the Valeri Place Subdivision people have
addressed or taken care of. As far as the maintenance and trash that is a problem with
any commercial area. In fact if you go up and down the vicinity now you would find that
there is a certain amount of that that occurs from the students that are going past the
Maverik and picking things up and dropping them. That is something that has to be policed
and Smith's does, in fact I lived for nine years in very close proximity to a Smith's store
before I returned to Boise three years ago and they did a good job. They controlled all of
their trash is actually internal to the building so the compactors are alt inside and when a
truck comes to take the trash away they are not out at the back of the building and nothing
is loose, they pull those out of the building and take them away and return and place
another unit into the building. So I will stop there, David, if you have anything that you
feel you need to address on the way the stores operate or Terry on the architectural and
if the Council has any questions you would respond I trust.
Corrie; Does the Council have any questions?
Crookston: I just have one, Mike, there already is for tack of a better name there is a park
like setting that has a structure in it like a gazebo. Is that still going to be there, what is
going to happen with that lot?
Wardle: Yes in fact that is the homeowners have requested that it be expanded slightly.
Right now it is in kind of a half crescent shape. There is a volleyball field, a gazebo and
a playground unit. They would like that to be expanded so that remains, that is
Homeowners Association owned and operated.
Bentley: On Lot 29, the gentleman addressed the issue of moving the wall.
Wardle: We actually had not proposed a wall in that location. The homeowners raised the
question and then left it, in the agreement I believe it leaves it up to that homeowner as
to whether or not there would be a wall and what size it should be. Our original discussion
with the homeowners suggested that the wall come up to this location and then tie back
to the building so that you have not a street connection but a visual connection of
residential to residential. And certainly if that homeowner I think Smith's would be willing
I think the gentleman is suggesting they would like to move that property line a Kittle bit
more they don't want a ten foot wall but something, if there was a wall with a little more
space on that side we are willing to work with them on that.
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 59
Bentely: Also, along the top between Glenfield and there is that a wall in there too?
Wardle: It is shown as a masonry wall. What was again, the homeowners in Valeri Place
even though that is not their property line did request that the materials be the same all the
way through and including down that line. We would like to work with the Glennfield Manor
people to make certain that their interests and what character that wall would have would
be met. We offer that opportunity.
Bentley: You haven't had any negotiations or agreements made with Glennfield have you?
Crookston: Mike, I certainly may be wrong but I am recalling that it was indicated that the
store would be a front loading store and now it is a side loading is that what you are, it
appears to me that could be called front but it is from the side.
Wardle: This is the same site plan that is folded up in the file and also presented earlier.
Front loading in the context that there is no service access at the back, yes you are correct
it is side but it is all within walls that project down the side of that building so that from the
side it would not looking like, you would not see the trucks they would all be behind that
wall. So front loading but on the ends.
Rountree: Just for the record, the lots that you would be proposing in the culdesac behind
the store would meet the minimums for R-4 correct?
Wardle: Correct which is a minimum of 80 foot of width and 8000 square feet.
Rountree: It was mentioned that the trips to the site and out parcel and I think my question
is answered when you flipped up the tissue paper, I see a future pad there on the corner.
The question came up about Muck traffic can you address that?
Wardle: I am going to have Mr. Nielsen address that, I don't know.
Rountree: I have one other one for you. Sequence of construction, if this were approved
specifically the residential?
Wardle: I didn't work on the details of the agreement but my understanding is that we
would proceed with applications whoever, it could be the existing land owner or Smith's
would proceed with residential applications so that there would be activity taking place on
the residential development and that the wall would be constructed either before or
concurrently with the store so that would take place at the beginning of the cycle and not
the last thing that is done.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 60
David Nielsen, 1550 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Nielsen: Smith's will typically have around 12 to 15 semis per week that will come in and
service the store which averages out to about 2 a day. Which again would be limited from
7 a. m. to 10 p.m. for the unloading.
Corrie: I have a question on the residential, you have six lots, will Smith's be the developer
of those lots then with a homeowners association and the whole ,program?
Nielsen: I think Smith's would try to sell those to a developer.
Corrie: Any further questions? Thank you, Council any i:urther questions of the Council
to anyone?
Bachini: Okay, the question of the compressors even though they are recessed how much
noise do they emit anyway when they all kick on because you are talking about major
sized compressors for the freezers, refrigerators and air conditioning. And the trucks you
said, if there are 12 to 15 semis a week, we had a business by a grocery store and they
also have size of semis that are beer trucks, coke, Pepsi, chips, milk, bread, that type of
truck, how many of those a day. Bread trucks come daily, coke comes daily I believe,
Pepsi, in the summer they really come often. How many of those a day are there going to
be. The other thing is how can they prove to us that there is not going to be a decrease
in property value, they won't decrease that is what everybody is saying but how do we
really know that. Nobody has checked with appraisers, other places where they
comparable studies. You can't compare Fred Meyer because those houses are 200 to 300
feet behind the store. So that is just a concern, we have owned a lot of property and I
definitely would never get anywhere near a grocery store after being near one and to see
what happens. Oh, another thing about the trucks I forgot, when they go down are they
completely (inaudible) 13, 14 foot high but when they release their brakes or drop in
trailers transferring trailers they come in with a set of doubles they drop trailers and pick
them up again. So there is noise pollution there too. (Inaudible) backwards and forwards
and I am just (inaudible) the noise is really major along with the lights because now we can
see the stars but once they turn those lights on I doubt it. It is going to be pretty bad.
Corrie: Does Council have any further questions of anybody at this point?
Crookston: I have one, of Joann Butler. This is totally just a question, I thought there was
more than 2.698 acres that is going to be developed as the Smith's shopping store.
Butler: I am going to have to have Mike tell you exactly the size of the site.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 61
Crookston: The reason I ask about the 2.69 that is in your letter to Steven R. (inaudible)
person in connection with this development of approximately 2.69 acres adjacent to and
east of the Valeri Place Subdivision.
Butler: That would be this area right here in the area directly east of Valeri Place and west
of Smiths.
Corrie: Alright, any further discussion Council? Did you get your answer to your question?
Wolf: My predicament is I have to have some kind of answer for this person who wants to
make an offer on the property. We have had a hard time selling the property. We have.
rented it and put a renter in there temporarily to kind of soft it. We got a builder that is a
small time builder that has a $1200 month construction loan and nqt knowing what is going
is what is killing it. If the store existed and everything was there I think would have no
impact. I think it would be minimal as far as the impact that it would have. But the fear of
somebody not knowing what is going to go on you have a predicament that the person, I
just want to know that we have an open door on figuring out what we are going to do with
that wall along side. If she buys another house and that customer goes away it has been
(End of Tape)
Butler: Just to clarify and contained in the letter that I sent to Steve Weeks who was
representing the homeowners association what we talked about was the owner of Lot 28,
Block 2 would have the option to decide whether or not they wanted that wall behind their
home. In talking to Sharon Litzbauer earlier this evening she was of the opinion that this
should be a decision made of the Homeowners Association. I don't want to get into what
is up between the homeowners association and the individual lot owners. As far as we are
concerned if that particular lot owner wants the option of putting that wall behind the house
or not it would be up to them. It may be something that the association and the particular
owner want to work out themselves too. As far as Smith's is concerned that option is there
for that particular owner.
Crookston: The City does have a restriction on the height of fence.
Butler: Con-ect, originally when we talked to the owners of the association that had thought
about putting a ten foot wall and we did remind them of the height restriction on 8 foot in
the zone and also wanting to try and make that wall compatible to what is existing there
along Cherry Lane which is from the front of the wall six feet at grade it goes up to 6 1 /2
feet to the pillars and then behind the wall would be 7 to 7 1/2 feet. So what we are going
to attempt to do is make that compatible within that range.
Crookston: Is that where the wall would be constructed, is that part of the CN zone?
! ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 62
Because the height in residential is 6 feet.
Butler: It would be in the CN zone on the Smith's site itself.
Corrie: Any further comments from the Council? I will close the public hearing at this point.
Counselor, comments as far as new material?
Crookston: I think we had some new material plus we have some new evidence. We need
to have new findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Morrow: So moved
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded by Mr. Morrow and Mr. Rountree that we prepare new
findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: I want to thank everybody that did testify tonight.
Crookston: 1 think that, I would just make a statement, at this juncture Smith's should be
congratulated on working with the neighbors.
ITEM #17: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE
BY KATHLEEN LAWRENCE:
Lawrence: I have read the facts and findings that I received yesterday and I just wanted
to request an exception to the restriction of the hours that were placed in the facts and
findings. I have a letter here from one of my mothers. I am working full time presently and
I have a very probability of three children to start my child care out with. Unfortunately
those three parents work swing shifts and with the r-estrictions of hours that were in the
facts and findings I would have to start the child care facility out with zero children. May
families today are looking for after hours care, it is very hard to find it in a child care center
or a home care center. I preferably like to work 9 to 5. In enclosed a daily schedule to
show that I do plan to be very considerate of my neighbors as far as after they come home
from work I don't want the child care center to be obnoxious or not to be harmonious with
the neighborhood.
Corrie: Anything further?
~ ~..
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 63
Lawrence: Well I don't really know where it goes from here. There are a couple other
things. If it is a concern to you I am willing to set up an ongoing neighborhood feedback
program I could have them directly mail their comments or complaints to you as far as
extending the hours. Thank you.
Corrie: Council any questions? Okay, we are going to have to, Counselor see if we are
right on this, we are going to have to either approve of amend the findings of fact and
conclusions of law first and then the conditional use permit second is that correct?
Crookston: That is correct.
Rountree: I have a question for counsel also, the findings indicate that there was testimony
that the hours would be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. I assume that is why (inaudible)
Crookston: That is correct.
Rountree: (inaudible)
Crookston: I think that is what
Rountree: Page 3, item 7, applicant stated the hours of operation she would like to have
be from 7 a.m. tq 6 p.m. and then that is reflected.
Crookston: That would be what I had down in my notes as to what the hours were stated,
the requested hours.
Corrie: Would you like that clarification?
Rountree: No I think we now have a request that you would like to extend that.
Lawrence: I did ask, well Johnson answered my question, I said I have one more question
as far as hours go, I want to be flexible because I knew of these parents that I had talked
to letting them know I was trying to open the day care. And he said we would just do that
in consideration of your neighbors. So I wanted to be considerate of my neighbors, I didn't
realize the permit would only be operational during those hours. I would have tried to
make it more, I would have stressed it more.
Crookston: It is a Council decision.
Come: The Council can amend that. To what hours are you looking did you say you were
looking at?
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 65
Crookston: Meridian does not allow that Meridian allows a total of 12 children in a 24 hour
period.
Rountree: Would you explain to me a little bit of what you propose in terms of a monitoring
program or neighborhood coordination effort?
Lawrence: I thought that I could send out quarterly comment forms to everyone in 300
square feet of my house with a returned stamped envelope wherever Council desires.
Rountree: And you would provide that information to the City?
Lawrence: I would have them direct it back to you.
Rountree: On a quarterly basis?
Lawrence: Yes, I could do that every quarter along with the taxes.
Cgrrie: Any further comments Council?
Morrow: I have a question for the Counselor, historically in terms of these types of
applications what have the hours of operation been set at?
Crookston: Generally they have been set, limited to approximately 6 a.m. until I believe the
longest one I can think of was until 7:30 p. m. I think what the concern is what kind of
distraction is there going to be in the neighborhood caused by the day care.
Morrow: Meaning the comings and goings and so on and so forth.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor my question with regards to that is would it be proper to notify these
people of the possible change in pending hours and see if they have any input on this?
Crookston: The people have been notified of the hearing. I don't recall that notice pf
hearing stated any hours.
Bentley: But under the normal assumption of the day care one would think it would run
from 6 to 7 or something of that nature.
Crookston: That would probably be very likely that be assumed because that is the hours
of most day cares.
(Inaudible)
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 66
Crookston: If the Council decided to allow the hours for the, let's put it this way allow the
non hours I think the Council would have to or pay attention to specifically what is going
on with the hours and if there are any problems which the Council does not normally do
unless there are people coming to the City and objecting than it gets to be a matter of
coming back to the Council.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: Yes but Ron you take out your hearing aids and you can't tell.
(Inaudible)
Lawrence: One thing I would like to address is my curriculum I would try to be very
conscious of my neighbors and keep the children quiet. We would not have outside time
after 6 p.m. and also another issue I would like to bring up is me myself having to work at
10 o'clock at night. I was never able to find licensed child care for my children after that
time. I left them with neighbors most of the time and I don't think that, I think that parents
should be able to have an alternative to that.
Rountree: Would restrictions to pick up and delivery be an issue?
Lawrence: I don't think that would be an issue for me, the parents might not like it because
then they are going to say I want to be able to come check on my child any time that I feel
like. The traffic that I can see is going to be a problem late at night and I can replace
restrictions on the parents as far as you are quiet, you come get your children in the back.
Corrie: I think there is probably some (inaudible)
Rountree: Well we certainly have a changing workforce, I don't' think this is the last time
we are going to hear this.
Lawrence: Well most o the day cares out there are not restricted to any hours, most of
them choose those hours. But because I had to go through a conditional use permit, most
of the day cares do not have to go through this process. So they are never forced with the
issue they get to choose their hours.
Rountree: Actually they are all supposed to go through this process.
Lawrence: No they don't' have to, none of the day cares have to go through a conditional
use permit if they are in a home like mine.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 67
Rountree: Accessory don't but if it is this size then they would have to.
Morrow: Point of discussion, it seems to me that we could make some of these things kind
of conditions of approval and we have a P & Z ordinance ofFcer (inaudible) back to certain
time frames. (Inaudible)
Corrie: We can review it in six months or whatever you want.
Morrow: (Inaudible) we have the right of option in a conditional use permit to review on an
annual basis.
(Inaudible)
Corrie: I agree with Charlie I think this is going to be one thing we are going to be
addressing again.
Rountree: I like the idea of getting some information about it, I appreciate your offer to do
that I think it will be very valuable in the future to do that.
Morrow: I know that we have findings of fact before us as prepared by P & Z it seems to
me that there are several issues here that we talked about and I would like to from my
perspective have some time to put them in a format as to how we (inaudible) suggestion
to do quarterly feed backs and how we set up conditions as to what we are approving
here and then the format should there be some violation (inaudible). I think the concept
of in home care for young people at night (inaudible)
Lawrence: There are no centers that offer over night child care.
Morrow: With a lot of shift work and single parents (inaudible) and we have to take a look
at this and explore the area and (inaudible) things that don't work we throw out and go on.
I guess what I am saying is I am not sure the findings of fact I know that we can amend
them but I don't know exactly what format tonight to put those amendments into is what I
am suggesting to you.
Corrie: We can certainly order new findings of fact and conclusions for the next meeting
if you think that is enough time.
Morrow: I think that is more than enough time Mr. Mayor I think the issue here is that we
need to kind of just work our way through it and then (inaudible) I am prepared to move
that we order new findings of fact and conclusions.
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 68
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that new findings of fact and
conclusions of law be prepared for the meeting on April 2, any further discussion? All
those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: We will have the new findings for you on the April 2.
Lawrence: Do you want me to get you more information or send it to your office, I have had
absolutely no contact or, I could have had these to you guys before.
Morrow: I think anything you submit helps.
(Inaudible)
Tolsma: (Inaudible) does the State have any guidelines (inaudible)
Lawrence: They do and they are a lot stricter for having children sleep over they are very
strict as far as bedding, as far as the fire alarms, the fire extinguishers, as far as the
children sanitary conditions.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Lawrence: Central District Health yes, and Central District Health can also come out at any
time day or night and come into your day care and police you.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Corrie: If you would bring that information so we can incorporate that into the findings.
ITEM #18: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE,
FUEL ISLANDS, CAR WASH, AND DRIVE THRU WINDOW BY AVEST:
Durkin: I wanted to clarify two statements that I made that are included in the findings of
fact of the public hearing and I wanted to point out a matter and an item in the findings of
fact that conflicts with my understanding of the ordinance and what our application has
included. First of all when I talked about this convenience store, this to refresh your
memory is going on the east end of the Fred Meyer project at Fairview and Locust Grove
this will be along Fairview. I said that it was going to be a typical convenience store of
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 69
4000 square feet which it is but my thinking was typical convenience stores in the travels
and the other developments we are doing in other areas. But it really isn't typical for the
Boise area. It is a trend, there is a drive thru window on the back left hand corner of that
building and the convenience store the Chevron station will have 3 different food items that
they are offering in their store. They have no inside seating but they offer cinnamon rolls,
submarine sandwiches and pizzas. This is a plan that was presented last time. There is
a menu board identified here and these people can look if they want to order sweet rolls
or whatever they going to order. There is no signage along the back of the building they
drive over to this drive thru window and pick up and leave. I think when I was reading the
findings of fact my statements in there were not real clear and I wanted to clarify that point.
The plan that was submitted with your earlier packets included a small area of seating in
the front of the store and that was an error on the architects part from confusion with a
different plan. There is no seating, the plan has been revised and resubmitted to the City
with the seating gone so that was another clarification I wanted to make. Then in the
conclusion section of the findings of fact item 7 which is on page 8 that a conditional use
for a drive thru window must be applied for and obtained. It was my understanding that is
what we were doing with this conditional use process. We are obligated in our
development agreement and platting agreements and everything with the City to go for a
conditional use permit for each building that we build. But in this application we are hoping
to cover all of that. In the beginning of the findings of fact it tells what we are trying to do
that we are seeking a conditional use permit for a convenience store for the drive thru
window. I was a little, I don't know if that was an error we did discuss that at the meeting
but I didn't think it was going to be necessary for us to seek a conditional use for the drive
thru after we, if we were successful in getting the conditional use for this.
Corrie: I guess I have a question, the pizzas being made on the premises or are they
frozen and you just have them delivered and are the sandwiches the same way?
Durkin: I am not the operator of the center or convenience store so I am going to tell you
what is being represented to me. This is a new concept for the Chevron's in this area
although Chevron is doing this in other areas. They have a package that they buy from a
food vendor and there is an oven and a mix program for the cinnamon rolls, they dump the
mix in and throw it in the oven. They have the sub sandwiches are basically ready made
and I am not aware of any cooking. They have I think three different convection ovens and
then the pizzas, I have been told two different things. They have a machine which I have
seen it is probably the size of this podium and the ingredients are mixed and it is cooked
and the pizza comes out of the machine. Now, that is what they have used in a number of
their stores with the mixing and oven in one. Now they are also considering going to a
frozen pizza and getting away from that mixing. So it will be one of the two processes but
I am not sure which one they are going to end up with here. There are plans that the file
plans we have submitted are just ovens so there are no griddles of hood fans or anything
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 70
like that.
Corrie: Is there going to be a speaker system where you like McDonalds you tell them
what you want and they come around and pick it up?
(Inaudible)
Morrow: My question would be what we have seen similar to this would be at the Maverik
stores now where they have an in store bakery that bakes cinnamon rolls and then they
also prepare sandwiches and other pastries (inaudible) pre made and it is simply a matter
of putting it in the oven and baking it and then offering it for sale, is that the concept?
Durkin: That is the concept Councilman but I want to distinguish that it is much more
similar to what you just described that it is to the Jackson station that is out where this is
actually a Taco Bell in the store, it is not that type of a store. t happen to be a real estate
developer and I am also in the food business, I have nothing to do with this but I go to food
conventions that is where I have gotten to see, I have seen the different units that they are
having at a couple of conventions recently, in fact they are having one today in Seattle on
this new food concept. It, the drive thru window I would just have to tell you from my
experience and what I have see would be extremely limited. The bulk of their business is
definitely going to be in store compared to that of McDonalds where about half their
business is in the drive thru. They don't have the speed and convenience that it takes with
this system a drive thru to do substantial amount of volume. But it, the convenience stores
are changing and some of them are offering dry cleaning and some are offering different
things. The food package like you are describing at Maverik is definitely the trend. This
is the same operator, Steve Eddy is the Chevron operator who operates the Chevron in
Meridian and operates them throughout the Treasure Valley.
Corrie: Any further questions? Thank you, Counselor, that item 7 on page 8 would they
have to do another conditional use permit for that drive up window as well?
Crookston: I believe that why I put that in there is because I looked in their application and
it doesn't state that there is a request for a conditional use for a drive thru window.
Corrie: Did their application say that Shari (inaudible)
Crookston: Under our ordinance it says that a drive through window requires a conditional
use permit. That is why I put it in there.
Morrow: Well it seems to me you are double conditional use permit. So do you have to
apply for every potential conditional use permit that you might have at one site in one
~ ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 71
project?
Crookston: No I don't think you do, you apply per all the conditional use permits that you
need.
Stiles: Mayor and Council, although the cover sheet and the application page did not
include that, the letter included with the application did provide for a drive thru window and
also their site plan clearly depicts a drive thru.
Come: Counselor any comment on that one?
Crookston: Well it would be fine with me if you want to grant a conditional use for it. But
it was not stated in the application.
Durkin: I don't know if it is appropriate to turn this into Will this is the letter with, the cover
letter of the application dated January 10. It says conditional use
Crookston: I am not sure I ended up with that.
Durkin: Conditional uses will (inaudible) drive thru window located along the north side
and generally accessed from the southeast.
Crookston: I have no problem with that.
Corrie: You can strike that from number 7 on page 8.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we accept the findings ofi fact and conclusions of
law as prepared for P & Z striking item 7 on page 8 of the conclusions.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to approve of the findings of
fact. and conclusions of law as prepared by the Planning and Zoning and striking item 7
that reads a conditional use for a drive through window must be applied for and obtained,
any further discussion? 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 or recommendation.
~ ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 72
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City
County that they approve 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.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision and
recommendation, all those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Crookston: I would just reference for the Council's information that when the Texaco drive
thru window on Eagle road that they had not applied for that and the Council told them
they had to apply for that. They had made no reference whatsoever to the drive thru. That
is different from this, but that is why that was in there because it was not in their
application.
ITEM #19: REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF RAVEN HILL
SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT:
Corrie: Anybody here representing Raven Hill subdivision? It is just a request, Council are
you ready to act on that one? Shari any comments that you want to make at this time?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council the date that final plat was approved was April 4, 1995.
Corrie: Thank you, Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we grant the one year time extension from April 4,
1996 to April 4, 1997.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree the request for a one year
time extension for Raven Hill Subdivision be extended from April 4, 1996 to April 4, 1997,
any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #20: REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION ON THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.
4:
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 73
Corrie: I think Doug went home so let's go on by that one.
Morrow: What is the date on that one, is that April?
Stiles: That is April 18.
Campbell: (Inaudible) basically we are waiting for Turnbull to find out if this next year they
are going to go with their Ashford Greens 1 and if they do they have to put the lift station
in on Black Cat. If that is the case we are going to wait and that is why we are asking for
the extension. If not if he doesn't' go this year and the subdivision No. 3 warrants if the
sales warrant we will start with number 4 with a temporary lift station that has been
approved by the City of Meridian.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we grant a one year time extension to April 18, 1997
for the Lake At Cherry Lane No. 4.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the request for a time
extension for the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 4 be extended from April 18, 1996 to April 18,
1997, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: REQUEST TO REVOKE THE FINCH CREEK NON-DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT:
Corrie: Shari, Gary any help on that one here?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council t believe that at your last meeting you voted to allow them
to go ahead and pipe the Onweiller lateral and apparently they are ready to go forward
and develop the subdivision.
Morrow: So then what they are asking of us is to move the whole thing off the non-
development agreement and activate the entire subdivision or at least this phase so they
can press forward with construction.
Stiles: Yes
Morrow: I guess my question to the attorney is revoke the proper word?
CJ
IUleridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 74
Crookston: It certainly is.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we revoke the Finch Creek Non-Development
agreement.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that Finch Creek Subdivision
No. 2 that we hereby revoke the non-development agreement, any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #22: HEARING REQUESTED BY PAUL CONSTRUCTION REGARDING
GREGORY LIFT STATION BID:
Corrie: Counselor is there swearing in since this is a hearing?
Crookston: Yes there is.
Peggy Paul, 16429 McDermott Road, Nampa, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Paul: This is about the lift station, it was brought up at the bid opening for the Gregory
Subdivision lift station project that the City officials did not recognize who Paul
Construction was. We have been continually licensed by the State Public Works Board
since 1978. Every bidding contractor may not be known by all officials, there are several
contractors who are qualified but do not bid all public entity projects. In order to be a
contractor in the State of Idaho with a publics works license your record of projects are
constantly updating on a yearly basis. If the board does not feel that you meet these
qualification areas your license covers you will not have your license renewed. In order
to bid on public entity projects you are required to have a surety company backing" you with
a bid bond and performance bond. If the bonding company does not feel that you are
capable in the capacity of experience but also financially then you cannot get the bonding.
The bond qualifies you at that time. We have never been questioned as to our qualification
in 18 years and being licensed in Idaho, Oregon, Washington and California. It was
brought up to us after the bid opening that the City of Meridian as to be conscious in
awarding the contract if the unsuccessful bidders have doubts as the qualification of the
low bidders. The other bidders did know us they have worked in conjunction with us in the
past and have no doubt as to our capability and performance. We are not new to the area
and feel we have been unjustifiably discredited. If our low responsive bid is not awarded
then it will cost the City of Meridian $3300 to give it to the next bidder if not more. Our bid
Meridian City Council
March 1 ~, 1996
Page 75
is backed by United Reliance Surety Company and they have no doubt that we can do the
work for the lift station. We submitted the form with projects given to Gary Smith the day
after the bid at that time we did not feel like there was going to be any problem with the
bid. If you wanted additional information we would have gladly given it to you. We are
qualified to do the lift station. That is our case.
Corrie: Gary any comments? Counselor?
Crookston: I think it is appropriate that I address the Council on this. In the bid contract
document it states that on page 1 under invitation to bid states the owner will conduct such
an investigation as is necessary to determine the performance record and ability of the
apparent low bidder to perform the work specified under this contract. It further states the
owner reserves the right to reject all bids or any bid not conforming to the intent of the
contract documents. Under instructions to bidders it states in 1 B, separate sections
contained within these contract documents are intended to be mutually cooperative and
to provide all details reasonably required for the construction and completion of the
proposed project. It further states that should there be any doubt as to the meaning or
intent of said contract documents the bidder should request of the engineer in writing an
interpretation thereof. And further under qualification of bidders which is in 3, states that
to demonstrate qualifications to perform the work each bidder must submit such data as
called for in the bid proposal. Each bid must contain evidence of bidders qualification to
do business in the state where the project is located. (End of Tape) The bidder shall have
at least five years experience in the installation of sewage pumps and associated piping
and shall have completed at least five municipal installation projects. Under C it states
that the bidder shall complete and submit the following bids with the bid. It says bid
security which was submitted says construction qualification submittal form which is
addressed later on, on page 4 under 11 it states award of contract in this second
paragraph it says the owner reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids and to
waive any informalities and irregularities in said bids. It goes on in 12 basis of awards, the
award shall be made by the owner on the basis of that bid from the lowest responsible
bidder which in the owner's sole and absolute judgement best serve the interest of the
owner. All bids will be considered on the following basis. A, conformance with the
contract documents, B, conformance with required qualifications as requested on
contractors qualification submittal form, C, construction time, D, bid price, E, suitability to
project requirements. It goes on and says the owner reserves the right to reject all bids
or any bid not in conformance with the intent of the contract document and to waive any
informalities and irregularities of the bids. On the, it is in the contract document, under bid,
under submittal material, it states contractors bidding this project as specified here in shall
submit the following information with their bids. Number two is completed contractor
qualifications submittal form the contract construction qualification submittal form is in the
contract, this is a copy of the document. It requires the bidder to submit five projects under
• •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 76
which he has performed the work. That is the basis upon which the engineers determined
whether or not the bidder is qualified, the project submitted with Paul Construction on their
bid lists a job at from the City of (inaudible) Washington, states that the name of the project
is Water improvement and project. Under the second project submitted it location Chinden
Blvd. Boise, Idaho, size of project $323,000, it says name of project Fred Meyer Shopping
Center. The third project listed by Paul Construction was the City of Rigby, reconstruction
of main line water. The fourth one is listed as Ada County Highway District, location is
Overland Road, name of the project is Bridge reconstruction. I can't read the, the fifth one
is City of Boise, name of project it says CSP-332
Paul: City sewer project.
Crookston: Sewer rehab line replacement and I don't know what those initials, what are
those initials next to it and then it says replacement?
Paul: Probably the replacement of sewer line, I don't know it is not in front of me.
Crookston: The bids were reviewed by Gary Smith, he determined that, excuse me I am
looking for a document here, what I am looking for Gary is a copy of your letter that you
submitted to me, do you have that with you by chance?
(Inaudible)
Crookston: What I am looking for when you called the City of Moscow.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: On Gary Smith's report as to looking into the projects that had been submitted
as to show the qualifications of all of the construction, Gary Smith's states (inaudible)
regarding the City of (inaudible) Washington the comment was, stated by Dick Wyatt, he
says did a good job, gave a good reference. That was for a water improvement project, for
the Fred Meyer job in Portland, excuse me location Chinden Blvd, Boise, Idaho, name of
project Shipping Center, the comment was no longer doing Fred Meyer references, hasn't
heard of Paul Construction. On the third one for the City of Rigby, it was a discussion with
John (inaudible) says 10 to 12 years ago, no problems that they can remember.
Paul: May I make a comment please therefore maybe you don't have to go into.
Crookston: Let me just finish these comments here. Ada County Highway District, they
stated cannot recall Paul Construction and City of Boise said, City sewer project rehab line
replacement, they state can't recall any red flags, account done, no memorable problems,
• •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 77
2 to 4 years ago. He says haven't heard of him lately. Those are the comments that were
achieved from contacting the project jobs that were listed by Paul Construction on their list
of qualifications and projects that they had done. Gary, from the comment that you and
your office had you made a decision on the qualifications that were shown by Paul
Construction on their bid documents, on their construction qualifications?
Smith: Mayor and Council, when I brought the bid results to the Council I can't remember
what night it was the 5th I guess, I believe it was the 5th my comments to the Council were
that the reference that Paul Construction had provided did not provide the experience that
was requested. I was looking for your comments as far as what I had been provided and
the information that I had been able to find out in making phone calls to the references that
were provided. Mrs: Paul was right when we opened the bid Friday on the 1st of March
I did not know who Paul Construction was. I had not heard their name before, but that had
no effect on it, the only thing I had to go by was what was submitted in the bid and that is
what we tried to check out.
Paul: May I say something now, when you are a contractor in Idaho as read to you, you
have to tum out a bid on a public entity project whether it be a water project, sewer project
as long as it is publicly funded you have to have a public works license. Which means you
have to go before the board and you have to get your license reinstated on a yearly basis
and they check your work record, they make sure that you have done these project and
you are capable. You cannot get a license for carpentry if you are a sewer contractor
because they are going to check your experience. A public works license shows that you
are qualified to do the categories that you are licensed in. A bid bond and a performance
bond by a surety company guarantees that that contractor is capable and has the
experience financially and qualified in their line of work to fulfill that projects needs. Why
is it that this is the very first time that we have done projects. I will be honest, I messed. up
because when I had those qualification sheets handed to me by Jim Paul the other owner
of the company I just wrote down the past good sized five projects that we completed in
the past. I did not at that time realize that he was handing me one for, a lift station which
we both messed up on that. We have done numerous lift stations not only in Idaho but in
Califomia and failed to put our Califomia experience. I have my reasons for that which Mr.
Morrow and I discussed and I made the mistake of not putting them down but we have
done numerous lift stations. And believe me if you can do a lift station in California you can
do a lift station in Meridian, Idaho. We have done a lot of work in Meridian. The name of
the company used to be Jim Paul Backhoe Service, so if you called the City of Rigby and
they said they didn't know us it is because we were going under Jim Paul Backhoe Service
at that time. The City sewer project, a lot of the City people aren't still around at that time.
The same as when we did some bid work, I am sure that Mayor Corrie wasn't in at that
time because Mayor Storey and Gary Smith wasn't in his position. It is not like we are not
a qualified contractor. The thing is it is a project that instead of it being just constantly
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 78
C~
J
battle back and forth it is contract that you just get an award and get it done and then it can
all be over and said and done. Our bonding company has no problem with it they know
we are qualified to do it otherwise they wouldn't have given us this bond to even bid it.
Unidentified Speaker: (Inaudible) Don't matter whether the God Damn City Engineer
knows you or not, you are qualified. To get an Idaho license you have a bonding company
behind you. This is bullshit, all it is is bullshit political shit, is all it is.
Corrie: Let's keep the
Paul: You will have to give our estimator because he is the one that worked for the City
of Moscow and if you asked the City of Moscow for Paul Construction qualifications, jim
gave to Gary on the lift station for Moscow was when Rick was working for Don (inaudible)
so he does have the experience. We feel like we should be given the job.
Corrie: Just a minute, if you want to say anything else you had better say it up here and
not back there or I will take you out of here. Thank you.
Paul: Anyway that is what we have to say.
Corrie: Anybody from the Council have any questions?
Paul: I am sorry about the
Jim Paul: I gave Gary a couple of projects that I had personally ,been involved with. One
was the Harmony School project down just outside Santa Rosa, California. And what we
did there was put a lift station in for a new school that they were building. It went into a
collection system and we pumped it on top of a couple of mountains that were on both
sides of the school down there and mounted to several thousand feet of pressure line plus
the lift stations, septic systems and leech fields on top of the mountain. I also gave him
the name of an architect and a phone number for him to get in contact with this architect
down there. I also explained to him that my estimator and foreman was involved with this
Hope Arms apartment as far as the lift station down there, he got involved with it. He did
that, Peggy told you about that City of Moscow project. That Moscow project was almost
identical to the type lift station you are asking to get installed here. So I really feel like we
have the qualifications, (think that if we were given an opportunity at the last meeting with
the City Council that we could have probably came up here and explained everything to
you and tried to defend ourselves at that point. But I was not aware of the City Council
meeting, maybe that was our fault we were not aware of it. If we had been aware of it we
would have come down at that time and discussed it then. I guess that is all I have to say.
• •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 79
Crookston: This has not been on the agenda for the City Council until tonight. I would just
reference to the Council that I have already stated it, it states in the contract instructions
to bidders it says that the separate sections contained within these contract documents are
intended to be mutually cooperative and to provide all details reasonably required for the
construction and completion of the proposed project. You have to look at, the engineers
have to look at everything in there and they are intended to be documents that complete
the whole project and give an accurate picture of the bidder. That is all I can represent to
the Council is that is what is done. From what in my estimation is as to what was provided
on the contract documents there may not have been and probably was not enough
information for the engineer to make a decision. Let me ask you one question, what you
referenced Mr. Paul, when did you deliver those to Gary?
Paul: Two days after it was bid, it was the day that Gary called me.
Smith: The day of the Council meeting.
Crookston: So it was not in the contract?
Paul: No, what we tried to do with the jobs that we listed was to give you a broad base of
the type of work that we are involved with. We did not get specific and that was probably
our fault we did not get specific at that time.
Crookston: Thank you
Paul: But I think by explaining to you the type of work we have been involved with, the type
of work that we did, I can give you more references if you wanted it, I tried to give you an
example of everything we have been involved with.
Crookston: I can understand that, the problem is that the engineers have to compare bid
to bid and can't rely on submittals that are after the bid is required to be submitted.
Paul: Did Gary make a recommendation on what to do with this?
Crookston: He had a letter, I will just read it for the record, with the bid amounts it lists your
bid Paul Construction $29,300, the next low bidder was Bitterroot Construction, $32,600
so there is a $3300 difference. It says Paul Construction was a contractor in the Meridian
area from 1972 to 1978 according to the owner Mr. Jim Paul. In 1987 he left this are
because of a work slow down and went to work for a large general contractor in Santa
Rosa, California area. According to Mr. Paul, he became disenchanted with the travelling
he needed to do with the general contractor and came back to the Meridian to get back
into sewer and water line work. Mr. Paul doesn't have much experience in lift station
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 80
construction. The bid documents requested that he have at least 5 years experience in the
installation of sewage pumps and associated piping and shall have completed at least five
municipal installation projects. The references he has submitted do not provide this kind
of experience. His proposed project superintendent reportedly was involved in the
installation of a lift station in Moscow, Idaho. I was not able to contact anyone in Moscow
to substantiate this. The difference between the low and second low bidder is $3300. The
second low bidder is well known in the Meridian area for their quality of work and provided
some references of lift station projects they have done. The project is or can be a difficult
one because of the limited space in which to work. I would appreciate your thoughts on
the award of this bid. This is to the Council. I think that we need to reference what is stated
on the low bidders construction of qualifications submittal form it talks, the first one says
lift station #2 rehabilitation project, at Nampa Idaho. The second one is for owner of Boise
City location Kathryn Albertson Park, name of project sewer lift station. The third one is
Payette Lakes water, excuse me the owner is Payette Lakes water and sewer district. The
name of the project is Payette Lake sewer collection system. The fourth project owner is
Shopko Dis#ribution center, name of project is pressure sewer system. The fifth project is
Seventh Day Adventist Church and school and the project is pressure sewer system.
Those are projects that are dealing with pressure systems. On here it also says has
installed municipal sewage pump stations in the following other cities in years 1978 though
1985, Klammath Falls, Eugene, Oregon, McCall, Idaho.
Peggy Paul: Like I stated a while ago I made the mistake of not listing our sewage projects
and to correct something that you said Gary, Jim was only employed with the general
contractor in California from 1987 to 1988 and he got his California License in 1988 and
he was doing numerous sewage and treatment plants in California from 1988 to 1995. So
we will have to correct that I am sorry that was a misunderstanding on your part there. But
we just felt like we needed to state our case and when obviously there will be a few other
lift station projects coming up in Meridian, if you look at the program tonight as many
subdivisions and everything else that seem to be coming out and around here that we will
have our qualification sheet completely filled out for you at that time and you can check
all the references and you will find out that Paul Construction if very reputable and we do
have the capabilities. We always have had.
Jim Paul: With that conversation that I had with Gary I did explain to him that I did go to
work for a general contractor down there in 1987 but I did break away and pick my public
works license up down there and did projects in the State of California. One thing he did
say to me which. I am kind of surprised that he told me he did not make any
recommendations to the City Council as far as this bid goes. I think this letter here that I
wished I would have had a copy of kind of rebuttals that.
Crookston: This is not a recommendation.
•
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 81
Paul: Well it sounds like a recommendation to me.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might I want to address two issues here. One is that (inaudible) and
so I am familiar with her families background in construction and so on and so forth. I think
the issue here boils down to is that in the construction business and particularly within the
governmental sector the contract documents are designed to be blind. What that means
very simply is that you fill out the forms you follow the ins#ructions, there is a bid opening
with all of those documents there so that the governmental entity that is taking the bid can
be blind and based on those documents make a decision. I have told my own
superintendent and I have talked with Peggy concerning this that if I was making that
decision based on a submittal that my superintendent had made I would still declare it non-
responsive and I would declare it non-responsive because the bid instructions were not
followed. The difference between public work and private work is that on a private work
bid we can talk about qualifications after the fact or during the bid and say okay fine we
need to do that. In public work we can't do that. At the moment in time that the bid
submittal was required that was the picture that was taken, that was the instructions that
were given and so everybody that wishes to bid whether it is two people or 20 people all
of those and if all things are equal then it is a question of price and only price because that
is the requirement of govem~mental bidding. Rick is wrong, his behavior is out of order for
one thing, his method is wrong also because there is nothing political about it. It is the
method that is required by State code ordinances, city codes and ordinances. So what Mr.
Smith did in terms of assembling the package was done properly, what the bidders did with
the exception of this and I have made those mistakes myself and not completely read or
understood the instructions, given the wrong information and that is what happens.
Unfortunately with governmental stuff that is the way it has to be. So, I am sympathetic
to the problem, I understand the qualifications are more than there, I know all of that. But
the issue still boils down to be when the picture was taken the instructions weren't
followed.
Paul: Our main thing Walt was to come in here and meet with everybody and say we have
been around, we have been in the construction industry for 20 years we can do this stuff.
We have already admitted to you that we didn't fill the form out properly and I think that
is the main issue here is to come in here and say hey look if we get a chance where we
are a low bidder with the City of Meridian again then we want to get a chance to come in
here to talk about it and discuss it. I didn't think we got this last meeting here with this bid
got rejected or awarded to the other contractor I don't think we had a chance to voice
ourselves at that point. That was the reason for us to come in here now.
Morrow: I don'Y have any problem with that, from my perspective I am glad you came I also
have to say is this doesn't in my mind or I am sure speaking for the other Council and
Mayor, Public Works Department doesn't prejudice anything. It is simply one of the deals
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 82
C~
that happens. I admire you and Peggy for coming forward and wanting to discuss it. It is
a fair deal. You are right there are a bunch of projects coming up bid them all.
Paul: We are going to be around, planning to stay around and that is what we want to do
get known back in with the City Council. We are (inaudible) City of Nampa, City of
Caldwell and the City of Boise, we are just trying to (inaudible).
Cowie: And I think we understand that and I appreciate your coming here and I think you
have established yourself. Just fill them out and right and you won't have a problem I don't
think.
ITEM #23: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Cowie: Mr. Smith, City Engineer, water meter fees.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members I think you have a copy of a memo attached to
that transmittal sheet. We haven't changed our water meter fees for quite some time and
I am not sure how the fee structure was ever established in the beginning. We haven't
been able to resurrect a resolution and it is not part of the ordinance. So I was, by this
memorandum, requesting that the City Attorney be allowed to draft a resolution that would
establish a fee schedule for water meters. The size of the meters on the left hand side of
the page the existing meter charge is adjacent to that and the next column is what we call
a remote meter cost. Now the remote meter cost will allow us to read the meter without
taking the top off the meter pit. There would be a little sensor in the lid, in the meter pit lid
and this would be touched by a wand that would extract the reading from the meter
electronically. There wouldn't be any necessity to open the meter pit, We started to use
these on the bigger meters because the manhole lids are regular, the meter lids are
regular manhole lids and they are difficult to remove and replace. That remote meter cost
is what the cost would be to the City of Meridian. The user meter charge which is proposed
is what we would charge the user. The only other thing I would say is this remote meter
reading device is being used by Garden City, Caldwell and the United Water, 3 local
entities that are beginning to use the remotes.
Mon-ow: Are you suggesting that I guess in the bigger picture here we are looking at doing
the water and sewer hook ups and fees are you suggesting that this be done
independently or in conjunction with the resolution that adjusts those (inaudible)?
Smith: I don't recall, I know that the connection fees are done by ordinance, I don't know
about the user fees whether that was an ordinance or a resolution I can't recall.
(Inaudible)
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 83
Morrow: And this is an ordinance or resolution?
Smith: I am proposing this be a resolution and the only reason I am proposing that is
resolutions are easier to modify.
Berg: The fee schedules are easier to do by resolution.
Corrie: You can modify it a lot easier than you can an ordinance.
Morrow: So what do you want now?
Smith: I am just asking if you would direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for this
item.
Berg: Do you know what the other cities charge for these type of (inaudible).
Morrow: I have a question, in terms of these fees is it advisable for us to do a public
hearing before we issue instructions to draft a resolution?
Crookston: We have not done that before and I don't think that is a bad idea though. Just
to give people a chance to give input.
Rountree: Wouldn't they have the same opportunity of input on a resolution?
Crookston: No, a resolution is quicker to adopt and if there is necessity for change they
are much easier to change. They are just easier to deal with, there is no problem with
treating the resolution in the same fashion you do an ordinance. And then I think it would
be appropriate as an ordinance is done is to publish it. But if you have to change it
immediately a resolution is much easier to deal with.
Berg: This is based on cost, that is why I would recommend as far as a resolution
(inaudible) and you are all of the sudden ordering a bunch of these (inaudible) need to
have that flexibility to increase that price (inaudible).
Morrow: I don't have a problem with the resolution at all what I am suggesting here is that
it seems fair that we give the public an opportunity to comment.
Berg: Initially that is probably the best (inaudible)
Morrow: That is what I am saying, let's have a public hearing on resolution #2010 or
whatever it is. If the public doesn't wish to participate at least we have (inaudible) and we
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 84
are on down the road.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) find out what other cities are charging for (inaudible)
Morrow: And Ron I think that makes sense I don't disagree with that either. A public
hearing in my mind is designed to bring together all the players who want any input in and
all the facts and then what we do is we sort (inaudible).
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Okay, you have heard the motion, (inaudible) I can let Anna take it and run with
it, but are you asking that we on the motion that we check with other cities first and then
bring this up at that time and make it into a resolution form and have a public hearing?
Morrow: No, what we are doing is we are having a public hearing on this proposed
resolution on the April 2nd meeting and that we will have all the available information from
staff at that time and their presentation.
Corrie: Is that going to give you enough time Gary to get the information from other cities?
Smith: Yes sir I think so.
Corrie: That was the original motion, I had a second, and a third and a fourth, so you have
heard the original motion, any further discussion?
Berg: I would like to ask a question to the City Attorney, do I have to have so many days
before a hearing on an ordinance or a public hearing I have to have 15 days notice.
Crookston: That is correct but we do not on this.
Berg: So if I only get it in
Crookston: I would get it in as soon as you can but there is no necessity that we give 15
days notice which if we are going to have on the 2nd of April we can't meet anyway.
Berg: Thank you
Come: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 85
Smith: I need a clarification I guess, on the Paul Construction issue I have not issued the
paperwork to Bitterroot Construction. Based on the testimony tonight it is my direction to
issue the notice of award to Bitterroot Construction, is that correct?
Morrow: I think the motion from last meeting stands.
Corrie: Unless the Council decides to make a change that is where it is.
Morrow: Would you feel more comfortable if we re-made the motion?
Crookston: It never hurts.
Morrow: I would move we award the bid for the Gregory Lift Station to the #2 bidder
Bitterroot Construction having declared the #1 bid Paul Construction as non-responsive.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that the Bitterroot
Construction be awarded the bid for $32,600 and the Paul Construction bid be disqualified
because of not following the bid rules, all those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Is there any problem with the requirements as they were established in the bid
document from your standpoint Wayne?
Crookston: I had a discussion with Paul's attorney yesterday and he said that he thought
the problem with the way it was done was that the list of the previous projects that you
have done should state on there list the previous projects that you .have done that are as
similar to this project as possible.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: Because they read it as it was appropriate, the contract says that the contract
documents are to be compatible.
Corrie: So there is no excuse for not 'reading it.
Crookston: That is part of it.
Smith: 1 don't want to take any more of your time, I can make that addition to future
• •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 86
documents as long as we can request the references if that is not.
Morrow: We have to, that is the way it has to be.
Corrie: And the references here show that it wasn't what we were asking for. Shari, sorry
to keep you up all night but you are on.
Stiles: Mayor and Council I guess we can do this one of two ways, you can take this home
and look at it and call me and tell me what you think about it or go through each item.
Morrow: Can you give us the Reader's Digest version of these?
Stiles: D & B the little paragraph is just a basic update on what has happened since our
last report which is not a whole lot but I will follow up on that because we have a letter
from Dan Steenson. Copper Top Cab Company, we had a couple of complaints about
them operating there. Basically he has been operating since 1992 when he said he called
City Hall and someone at City Hall told him that Meridian needed a cab company and they
didn't need any license or anything else. Jim Rabbitt has been corresponding with them
told them they needed a conditional use permit. They are concerned that they might have
to pave or screen or do something. I basically would like to ask your support to require
that a conditional use permit be obtained for this and that we continue to work with Mr.
Daley.
Morrow: So moved
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Yo1a heard the motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that Council
support that requires a conditional use permit be obtained and that we work with him, any
further discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Stiles: The third item as you know the Meridian Ford the old site was sold to Zamzows
now they have apparently leased the property to a used car group called Advantage
Automotive. Larry Chetwood was operating sometime in the late 1970's and no
improvements were required to be made at that time. Also Les Migneault who had applied
for the conditional use permit for the car auto repair shop at the northwest corner of
Franklin and Meridian Road is also considering working with advantage automotive at that
site. Our ordinance does state that any change in ownership does not transfer grandfather
rights. I would like to ask your support to require that a conditional use permit be obtained
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 87
for this new owner prior to occupancy.
Bentley: So moved
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that a conditional use permit (End of Tape)
Morrow: Point of clarification from Shari, clearly it has been an automobile usage and so
the conditional use permit process that we would go through there would be I guess I
don't' want to see us trying to institute major changes in the usage that is already there
meaning what do you visualize doing in the conditional use process?
Stiles: Requiring some landscaping, ensuring that disabled vehicles or wrecked vehicles
aren't on display on the corridor. Nothing really major.
Corrie: I think we need a handle on it.
Morrow: I agree with that, I just didn't want to see some thing come along and say we have
to (inaudible) new construction. And sometimes that can happen.
Stiles: Kind of the same way as we would not want Best Western to sell that and have
another gravel operation move in because they never had a conditional use permit. So
therefore it is a permitted use. Englewood Creek plat, Englewood has always had its fair
share of problems, they got an extension then they got an appeal on the 1800 square foot
homes and then they obtained a variance to the requirement to record the final plat within
one year. Their year is up April 5th, they are working with someone to buy the project.
They say they are real close and I asked that you consider giving them an additional 3
months and if the plat is not recorded and they haven't begun construction send them
down the road and tell them to start over. Unless Gary has got some problems with
Englewood.
Corrie: Gary, I guess that one area was responsible for someone else's sewage, it had to
go through, if I remember correctly, is that all taken care, (inaudible).
Morrow: Alright, I would move that we grant a three month extension to July 5, 1996 for
Englewood Creek plat.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Okay, motion is made that we extend an additional three months until July 5, 1996
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 88
to record the final plat and begin construction otherwise the project is null and void, all
those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Stiles: The Berner's and Paisano's they realize that the City owns a lot across the street
from them they have asked if they could assist in gravel the lot and use it for parking. I
think this is not a good idea, I can sympathize with their need for parking but if the City
doesn't follow the rules how can we expect anybody else to. I think there is a liability
problem, we have a screening problem for adjacent residential properties. There would be
no lighting. I think if they park there unbeknownst to us that is one thing but for us to
sanction it is a problem:
Berg: I have a comment, we still have residents living there, it is kind of a (inaudible) right
next to a residence so I think we have to be careful in how we proceed with the parking
lot. (Inaudible)
Stiles: Another thing is that when the E. 1st Street project was done as part of the block
grant application $180,000 was programmed into that budget to be received from a BID.
Zero money was received from a BID and the City basically ate that plus additional
overruns. I think I know we have talked about this before and it has kind of gone from me
to Wayne and back. I think if we could get Terry Smith on line and I am sure he would be
willing to do it to get that BID in place as soon as possible to recoup some of the cost that
were already spent and which are owed the City. We could pave that parking lot and
probably pay for most of the plaza too.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: That was in the project but the Department of Commerce won't allow funds to be
used on private property. Now if they had given us that property that would be another
matter but you cannot use public funds or federal funds to go on private property when it
is part of a block grant project.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: The Department of Commerce didn't know anything about it and they were very
shocked when they heard that.
Morrow: Let me ask you this then, what it amounts to is that we form this BID and then we
apply for the $180,000?
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 89
Stiles: No, the $180,000 supposedly was already agreed to by the Downtown merchants
is that correct?
Morrow: And they have never paid?
Stiles: There is a reference to an LID, several references to an LID even a number
assigned to it but an LID was never formed. In going back to find the paperwork I don't
think Wayne has found it or I have found it or anything else. Improvements were made to
their properties that they agreed to pay for that they never paid a dime on.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: LID #1 is done on East 1st.
Stiles: What is #2 then?
Crookston: Number two is down East on Idaho and around on parts of Broadway.
Stiles: But there were improvements made that they agreed to pay for that were not paid
for is that right as part of that LID or was that just money to be put into a pot or something
for future.
Crookston: A lot of that was roadwork, I can't recall right now how much the property
owners where, I can't recall how much (inaudible)
Stiles: But you have the trees and planters and all of that.
Crookston: The phase 2 LID still needs to be done.
Stiles: Now that you are working full time you have more time to do that.
Crookston: Would you look into that tomorrow morning.
(Inaudible)
Corrie: Playground driving range?
Stiles: What about the gravel parking lot?
Corrie: I don't think we need to do that, I agree with you. What I am doing, it is you guys
not me.
• •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 90
Morrow: I think that we want to stay away from that in the short term, I think we want to
explore this LID thing get it straightened around and then maybe in the course of that we
can hear suggestions (inaudible) make it a parking lot. I agree with your analysis from my
perspective. (Inaudible)
Corrie: Okay, the last item the Playground.
Stiles: Okay, the playground, that property was annexed in September 1993 when they
annexed the property they were very specific about their plans for the property in the
findings of fact and conclusions of law they said the development shall meet the
representations of the applicant and his agents included in the application and quote "that
the property shall be subject to deannexation if the conditions are not met and strictly
adhered to." The Clark's have now subdivided that property, the driving range is one
parcel. They are apparently finalizing a sale of that parcel to a heavy equipment sales and
repair company. Even though that is a permitted use in the CG zone where it is there is
a development agreement that currently exists with the Clarks' for that property that says
that will be a driving range and I think at that very least the surrounding property owners
are entitled to a public hearing regarding the change in use arld that conditional use permit
should be required.
Morrow: I don't have a problem with that I guess.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: In CG it would be like Arnolds.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: Because when they were annexed they specifically said that was their
representation this will be a driving range and a miniature golf and an RV park. ,That is
what all the surrounding property owners were told when they came to a public hearing.
Morrow: I guess the other side of that in the public hearing it was stated that it was going
to be a CG zone and this was going to be the usage.
Crookston: (Inaudible)
Stiles: The only thing the findings said was the development of the property shall meet the
representations of the applicant and his agents. That is the hard part.
Corrie: Probably should be subject to deannexation if the conditions are not met or strictly
• ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 91
adhered to so we could de-annex that and start again and no CG if you wanted.
Morrow: If that is what she is saying.
Corrie: Sounds like it.
Stiles: And the Clarks would be required to amend their development agreement and the
new tenant would have to have a development agreement as well because that is a
condition of the annexation.
Morrow: Well it appears we have (inaudible) I don't personally have a problem with
another public hearing for a changed use but by the same token if we haven't said that
they need to do that the zoning is such that it is an allowed use.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: The development agreement is recorded, it goes with the property. They are well
aware, if they have done the title search.
Morrow: That would be part of the title report she is right. They would be on notice to the
whole world that is the point of having that stuff recorded.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: Right next door to Transport Truck and Trailer. I don't want to be the one to say
sure go ahead.
Rountree: One parcel
Corrie: It is about one parcel away, one or two away to the west. Council any suggestion
on what you want to do with this one?
Morrow: I think from my perspective we have Wayne or Shari research the findings of fact
and conclusions and see where we are at with that and then that lays out the format for
what we had in mind.
Corrie: Okay, does Council agree? Let's do that. Okay, Wayne will be here tomorrow
morning. at 8:00 to meet with me. Chief do you have anything?
Gordon: Nothing your honor.
• •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 92
Corrie: Mr. Crookston?
Crookston: I just wanted to bring the Council up to speed on the Otter property, we did
have a little difficulty about how much land was there. They had submitted documents
indicating the land was that there would be 58.86 acres. I looked at my maps that Bruce
Fredcleton and I had worked with which is roughly this map, this is how the whole problem
started in the first place. We bought these two pieces of property. This strip of land here
Mr. Otter indicated that he could quiet title to that that he had always farmed it that there
was a ditch line that ran across here and that was atl his property. He did not show title
ownership of that strip. That is how even at closing in fact in September that I said we
can't close on that because there is no showing of title ownership (inaudible) so we didn't
close on that we withheld $69,980 that was held until this amount of land was determined
and Mr. Otter cleared title he actually quiet titled to it. Filed a lawsuit in court entered an
order quieting title to that to Mr. Otter. So that was included. -This was determined to be
1.86 acres and Mr. Otter's attorney sent me a letter saying this is 1.86 acres and I looked
at is and said okay I multiplied 20,000 times 1.86 and it was not $68,930 so I sent him a
letter saying we were more than happy to take the property and you deed it to us and we
will pay you approximately $37,000. I got a letter back saying but the 1.86 and what you
paid for then totaled approximately 58.86 acres. I said it doesn't show that to me on the
maps that we. So we went a little bit around and around and finally figured out what the
problem was is that these figures are not exactly correct. Bruce figured them somewhat
wrong and me being a fine attorney but a terrible engineer I thought they were wrong but
I didn't know why. So we finally got it figured out and they owe us $860 out of the
$1,178,060 that we paid for the land. So we are going to tell them to (inaudible) or we will
exchange the deed and you give us the money. But Bruce Freckleton, and Bruce wrote
a memo to you guys. That is all I have.
Corrie: So what would the Council like to do?
Morrow: We want our $800.
Rountree: Proceed as explained.
Crookston: It has already been approved by the Council I just wanted to bring it to you
attention.
Morrow: So we will get our $800 and we are down the road.
Corrie: Anything else? Walt?
Morrow: Three things, one you had in your box the first specs in terms of advertisement
~ ~
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 93
for bids for the golf course stuff. I would like you to move through those and check them
and out and see (inaudible) we could do better and get some feedback so we could get
the documents crafted up (inaudible) these items and press on. The second thing is there
is a copy of the corporate membership contract review it and same thing if you have any
input or anything that you want to see changed or done differently. The third item would
be to review what we are going to be covering in the strategic planning meeting on
Tuesday the 26th. We will be dealing with sewer and water hook up fees, status report
on that, 90 days to the 60 days on the billing trash charges. We will have a presentation
by Mr. Alidjani concerning trash items and we will be talking about the little park across the
street at the 7:30 portion is that correct as advertised in the paper?
Corrie: That is Ron's if you want to sit through that that is fine. There are only going to be
three of you here. I won't be here and neither will Glenn, he has that meeting at 7:30.
Berg: In all reality that hasn't got anything to do with-the workshop.
Morrow: I understand that but we can make it part of the workshop and (inaudible)
Berg: I would just assume that you get your workshop done and then close the meeting
and then go involve yourself with the public hearing.
Morrow: Whatever then we can open back up. let `s start the workshop at what 6:00, you
will provide eats. Hey, great one the deal was you were supposed to be holding this
meeting in the Cayman Islands on your ticket for all five of us. I think that is everything.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley?
Bentley: Good night.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: (Inaudible) I met with the Cherry Lane Subdivisions 1, 2, 3 4, 5 associations as
well as the Golf View Subdivision homeowners association about the status of Cherry
Lane no man's land or everybody's land on Cherry Lane and the fence problem. I asked
the neighborhood association to take action themselves I have (inaudible) of what is being
discussed and (inaudible) address the problem themselves. before they come to the City
and seek (inaudible) I suspect that is what is going to happen (inaudible) proceed with the
LID. There was lots of discussion about multiple issues and took some time and effort to
keep them on task (inaudible). They did point out some interesting potentials of (inaudible)
ultimate maintenance people for that piece of property that they would like to pursue as
well as opposed to each individual homeowner (inaudible). I will maintain contact with that
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 94
group and when they get through their (inaudible) they will probably be coming back to the
City. They were also going to formally request Jim Rabitt to come out and look at the weed
problem and have him take some action against some folks out there. That is all I have
got. Questions?
Morrow: Sounds to me like you are getting your job done.
Corrie: Ron?
Tolsma: Nothing
Corrie: I have one thing gentlemen, this Joint Powers Agreement that was in your box, we
need to do a new one for the Motor Vehicle Division so they pay us our money. We have
increased that to $147,979 was $103,000 and something. This is the same format we used
earlier the other year. I guess if you want to look at it and see that it is in proper order,. it
is the same one we have used in previous years. If that be the case then we can get our
money from those people.
Morrow: Don't we have and I guess this is probably a great time to maybe talk about this
(inaudible) don't we need to make some decisions in terms of a large part of our strategic
planning process for the last couple of years is determining space and so on and so forth
is this the year that we make the determination of how long this stays in this location is that
(inaudible) think in terms of that?
Corrie: Not on this one I think we will for next year, this is October that we are in now.
Morrow: October 1 to October 1, So we are not reviewing it on (inaudible) so we ere
already under construction on this?
Corrie: Yes, we need to get
Berg: I will just. tell him something, this agreement kind of fell through the cracks. Bill
Schroeder f am sure prepared these every year and gave them to us. This year it wasn't
prepared, I was told-that the City does it all the time. So I just did it.
Morrow: Did that fall through the cracks because Bill Schroeder left?
Berg: Yes
Corrie: We have had the people come in and talk to us, Will and I and they said (inaudible)
get this so we can get those back (inaudible) and get us paid and we will address the next
t •
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 95
one on the October (inaudible)
Morrow: So we are going to address this particular issue on the budget process.
Berg: But this is for this kind of (inaudible) these are the amounts that we approved, this
pays for the whole
Morrow: These were approved in the last budget process?
Berg: Yes this amount.
Morrow: So I guess the question in my mind is what is to think about?
Berg: Well, it is just an agreement, we have to have the Mayor sign it.
Morrow: I understand that.
Berg: The only other thing is I know Wayne's looked at this every year probably for the last
how many years but he needed to look at it for some odd reason again. It is a ~7 split
between the Sheriff and the Assessors office and you have new figures and a new name
and that is about all there is to it.
Corrie: We haven't been paid yet.
Berg: We don't have this agreement, so they won't give us vouchers so we don't get
money.
Morrow: I guess from my perspective unless you can give me an outstanding reason that
we need to wait until April 2nd I am prepared to authorize tonight.
Berg: (Inaudible) there is really
Crookston: The question I have is whether we request the principle (inaudible)
Berg: I don't think we do, in good faith they are not going to (inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Crookston: They haven't paid it in so many months and any amount is obligated to accrue
interest.
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 96
Berg: I understand that but that is what it is going to come down to, who's fault is it and
they are going to point to us and I am going to say I never prepared this before.
(Inaudible)
Berg: Not when you have three commissioners, assessor and sheriff that signs this
document.
Corrie: You get to tie it up with those guys (Inaudible)
Morrow: I would move that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest the Joint
Powers Agreement do we have a number?
Berg: They stamp it now, I would just say current agreement with Ada County for.
Morrow: Let me restate the motion, I would move that we authorize the Mayor to sign and
the Clerk to attest the Joint Powers Agreement with Ada County for the continuation from
October 1, 1995 to October 1, 1996 for the License Division.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: You have heard the motion, any further discussion? Second by Charlie, motion by
Walt, all those in favor say aye? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Okay, anything else? Hearing none I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Bentley: So moved
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Thank you gentlemen thank you for being here.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:45 A. M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
Meridian City Council
March 19, 1996
Page 97
ATTEST:
~~C
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CLERK
C]
APPROVED:
OVERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
• ~
52 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SENIOR/ADULT LIVING; 1 LOT
RECREATION CENTER FOR THE LA AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5:
~1~~yat~~y ~~repa-t.~ rrew G~~~c~c
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. S BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
~e ~~r ~7 ~ N~ m~e~s~~
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A 74 UNIT PUD WITH DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
FOR ASHFORD GREENS NO.2 (FO~M~RLY JAMES PLACE):
C'i`~ a lfa~~ ~o p r~2~wc.e {~cec~l ,G ~- ~/G
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD
GREENS NO.2 (FORMERLY JAMES PLACE) BY BRIGHTON CORP.:
L'a-r~,fi Puce ~0/%~ %%n-~`-~ i~j,7~t-~-~ v~ ^`~ /~'if~
16. PUBLIC HEARING:. REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF 8.34 ACRES TO C-N
BY SMITHS FOOD AND DRUG CENTER INC.:
C~i ~ tea i-n e~ ~ prep ~ ~'~~ ~ ~'lC (n PaJ~
17. REQUEST~OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE
BY KATHLEEN LAWRENCE:
Lei a~f f~~P~ ~~w`~/~`~~/~
18. REQUEST~OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE,
FUEL ISLANDS, CAR WASH AND DRIVE THRU WINDOW BY AVEST:
l~,o/~rv/e ~~ eve~;(ed ~/~ ~ C/( apPrb/.e ~ena~i~-idn-~c-f' uJ`e-
19. REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF RAVEN HILL
SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT:
20. REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION ON THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
N0.4:
21. REQUEST TO REVOKE OF FINCH CREEK NON-DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT: Q~~~ vv'P ~ f-i2 ~%o,(~e- ~zvr~-a'P~~e%pyaz~'t-~~ ~~r~P~-~e~
22. HEARING REQUESTED BY PAUL CONSTRUCTION REGARDING GREGORY
LIFT STATION BID:
23. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. WATER METER FEES:
B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. D & B SUPPLY UPDATE:
2. COPPER TOP CAB COMPANY: need to a//'% ~f ~oh~i~ibna~ Ccfe ~O~~ryzic'
3. USE OF MERIDIAN FORD SITE FOR USED CAR LOT:
4. ENGLEWOOD CREEK PLAT:
C. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CIT`( ATTORNEY:
1. APPROVAL OF CLOSING OF THE OTTER PROPERTY:
• •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 29, 1996: cc~p~`-ov~GG
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD MARCH 1, 1996: Qp~ravP~
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 5, 1996: aPj»v~~
1. APA: TREASURE VALLEY ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS:
L'l~cirs /~ocvrna~i. -,orerxn.tuti~-.J
2. TABLED FEBRUARY 20, 1996: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD
GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTO CORPORATION:
ci~j af{~he~ z'~rJre~OU re ~~ 8`"e%
3. TABLED MARCH 5, 1996: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON
RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY MARTY GOLDSMITH:
tx-6le u. ~+.-trY ~ l 2-~~- nzee ~~
4. TABLED MARCH 5, 1996: COVENANTS, COND IONS AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR GEMTONE CENTER:
Q~~D`'D!!~ ~Yt e ~ f7 -'~ ~i ~ 6Lt~ i r/.~v1 ~j~/~ i'r v ~ ~ ~r ~G'iv~z-~ ~n ~~Lf3"
5. FINAL PLAT FOR GEMTONE CENTER NO.2 BY G/EMTO~ INC.:
6. PUBLIC H ARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DOVE MEADOWS NO.2
SUBDIVISION BY DAVE LEADER:
7. PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE BY TRUDY CUMBA:
C~~pro~e ~J-a'nr~e~ o ~ Co>'td/~i~a~'~uz-e ~22r~~f"
8. PUBLIC HEARING: TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE BY CHRIS WILSON:
~p~rn ~.e ~y-a~z~. ~,~ L'Jndi~-i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~-.=f ~- w/c-ona'rl~b~
9. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK N0.6 (REPEAT) BY BOB NAHAS:
~~~Jr~v~ ~,.i,~h.~,~.eef,~ ~a~~l~°~i~rnr
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF .48
ACRES TO R-4 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: ~pro~P ~~~ ~~~/~ _
aPProY~ ~2Lm lry, h~znlCa~i ~ a~~/2~/~ C i ~ R fi~G/-n~~ ~ ~~ ~ ;h~r--ce1
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF .95
ACRES TO R-4 BY KENT ~ MARY BARNEY: ~,~~r~ ~~e ~%~ ~~1~
~p~rmv~e r-.~c~+~~cdafi~ ~-,~j~praGe ~~~a~~a2~.~~ f~~re~a~e.
6'? 6~nv~rc cep
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME PHONE NUMBER
~~-~~d~ ~~~~'~ ~~~
~~ U ~ ~~7-~~f
~~a r~ i a ~1a~ l P~ ~y -- /~~~
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE
889 N. FILLMORE WAY
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF-FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come-on for public hearing
March 19, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner,
Kathleen Lawrence, appearing in person, the CITY COUNCIL of the
City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter
makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit before the City Council is not required but Notice of the
Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was
published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the Planning and
Zoning Meeting and Public Hearing held on February 19, 1996, the
first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 19,
1996, 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;
that the Commission adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
that were presented to the City Council.
2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and the Applicant is the owner of the property; that the property
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 1.
is currently zoned I-L Light Industrial District; that in the
ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, Section 11-2-409 A., Residential,
Group Child Care Home is not listed as a conditional use in the I-L
District and therefore in the I-L District a conditional use permit
is not allowed as a permitted use or a conditional use for the
operation of a Group Child Care Home.
3. That the Light Industrial District is defined in the
Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. as follows:'
(I-L) 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.
4. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning Ordinance
as follows: "Permit allowing an exception to the uses authorized
by this Ordinance in a zoning district."
5. That the property is located in CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION,
Block 5, Lot 6, which is zoned Light Industrial; that the land
where Crossroads Subdivision is located is all zoned I-L but the
land was also later given the right to be developed in a planned
unit development fashion; that Crossroads Subdivision, an R-4 or R-
8 residential development was allowed to locate in the I-L zone
even though residences are not permitted in the I-L zone.
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 2.
6. That the Applicant wishes to operate a group day care for
up to twelve (12) children in her home.
7. The Applicant testified at the Commission hearing that
she has just moved into the new built home on December 5, 1995;
that a fence will be erected as soon as the yard is fine graded;
that the fence will be built with six (6) foot, 4X4 boards with
hopefully a self locking gate; that the 2 car garage will not be
part of the day care; that the Applicant stated that the hours of
operation she would like to have, be from .7:00 a.m. until 6:00
p.m. ; that her preference would be preschool age children, but will
not be limited to just that age group; that there will be no sign
or outside lighting other than what is allowed by the covenants of
the subdivision; that the driveway will be open for parking, and
Applicant agrees to pay any additional fees for sewer, water and
trash.
That before the City Council the Applicant stated basically as
follows:
That she had read the facts and findings, wanted to
request an exception to the restriction of the hours, that she
has a letter from one of the mothers which desires to use her
day care which she submitted to the City Clerk, that she is
working full time presently and she has a probability of
having three children to start the child care with, that those
three parents work swing shifts and with the restrictions she
would have to start the child care facility with no children,
that many families today are looking for-after hours care it
is very hard to find such in child care centers or a home care
center, that she would prefer to work 9 to 5, she submitted a
daily schedule to show that she plans to be very considerate
of her neighbors as far as after they come home from work and
that she does not the child care center to be obnoxious or not
to be harmonious with the neighborhood.
If it is a concern to the Council, she is willing to set
up an ongoing neighborhood feedback. program with the people
directly mailing their comments or complaints to the Council
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 3.
as far as extending the hours.
She later basically stated that one thing she would like
to address is her curriculum;. she .would try to be very
conscious of her neighbors and keep the children quiet; she
would not have outside time after 6 p.m and also another issue
she would like to bring up is herself having to work at 10
o'clock at night; she was never able to find licensed child
care for her children after that time. I left them with
neighbors most of the time and I do not think that parents
should be able to have an alternative to that.
8. Councilman Rountree stated that the P & Z Findings
indicate there was testimony by the Applicant that the hours would
be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and I assume that that recommendation was to
restrict the hours of operation to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and the City
Attorney affirmed that; that Mr. Rountree stated that the City now
has a request to extend those hours.
9. Applicant then stated:
That she had a question as to how far the hours go,
because she wanted to be flexible; that she did not realize
the permit would only be operational during those-hours and
that she did not want any time restrictions because she did
not know what hours parents would need; that she knows of a
nurse that works from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.; her drop off would
probably be 6 p. m. and pick up would probably be 8 a. 'm. and
she would have the child in her home throughout the night;
that the children staying like that would be sleeping at
night; that she would prefer to be allowed to have no time
restrictions for 6 months then to have the Council consider
whether that could continue or whether she would have to limit
her hours to the ones she specified at P & Z.
10. Councilman Morrow stated that in the findings of fact it
calls for 12 children throughout the day, and questioned, that in
terms of extended hours, how many children do you visualize that to
be? -The Applicant responded that as far as she could tell she
would probably have five with the three children that I do .know the
parents work extended hours, would probably be there until 10 p.m.
11. Councilman Rountree questioned what the proposed in terms
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 4.
•
of a monitoring program or neighborhood co-ordination effort that
she had mentioned? Applicant stated basically as follows:
She could send out quarterly comment forms to everyone in 300
square feet of her house with a returned stamped envelope
wherever Council desires; that she would have them direct it
back to the Council.
12. Councilman Bentley had the question, with regard to the
hours, whether it would it be proper to notify people of the
possible change hours of operation and see if they have any input
on this, as under the normal assumption of a day care, people think
it would run from 6 a. m. to 7 p. m., or something of that nature?
Which was responded to by the City Attorney that that would be very
likely assumed because those are the hours of most day cares; that
if the Council decided to allow "non" hours, the Council would have
to pay attention, specifically, to the day care and what is going
on with the hours and if there are any problems with the hours that
the Council does not normally allow; are there people coming to the
City and objecting; then it gets to be a matter the Council
bringing the matter back up for attention.
13. Councilman Rountree questioned whether restrictions to
pick up and delivery be an issue; the Applicant basically
responded:
She does not think that would be an issue for her; the parents
might -not like it because then they are going to say they want
to be able to come to the day care and check on their child
any time they I feel like it; that traffic is going to be a
problem late at night and she can place restrictions on the
parents as far being quiet.
14. That the Applicant is aware that the zoning is Light
Industrial.
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 5.
~J
15. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton,
submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full. herein; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so
as to not .direct illumination on any nearby residences; that all
signage shall be in accordance with Meridian City Ordinances; that
off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-
2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance
and/or as detailed in the site-specific requirements; that sewer
and water to this facility would be by means of existing service
lines; that assessments for service will be reviewed during the
building plan review process.
16. The Planning. and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles, may
submit comments at a later date which will be incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
17. Central District Health Department, Meridian Fire
Department, Meridian City Police Department, Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, and the Sewer Department submitted comments
and they are hereby incorporated herein.
18. That Commissioner MacCoy submitted statements regarding
this application. and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that a fence type and height with child proof gate
locking devices be in place to comply with Meridian City Codes;
that the home is to have code approved smoke/fire detectors in
place prior to approval of accepting children; that the hours of
operation be stated; that adequate lavatory facilities per existing
codes and ordinances be required and be there at a site visit; the
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 6.
•
vehicle drop-off/pick-up of children appears to be acceptable.
19. That there was no other testimony given at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
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 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
3. That the City has the authority to .take judicial notice
of its own ordinances and proceedings, other governmental statues
and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City
and state.
4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to that section
conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development,
controlling the duration of development, assuring ,the development
is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site. facilities, may be
attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to
prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in
existence.
5. That Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 7.
"In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council
may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in
conformity with- this- Ordinance. Violations of such
conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms
under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a
violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the
Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a
set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in
existence."
6. That the City has judged this Application for a
conditional use upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975,
Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of Meridian, the record submitted to it, and the things of which it
may take judicial notice.
7. That the conditional use permit shall be treated as being
conducted in an R-8 Residential District and not the Light
Industrial District since the land is developed and used as a
residential subdivision.
8. That 11-2-418 (C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits;
that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts
presented and the conditions of the area and assuming that the
above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the
conditional use, the City Council concludes as .follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use
and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance..
b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance
with the. Comprehensive Plan -but the Zoning Ordinance
requires a conditional use permit to allow the use.
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 8.
c. The use is designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the character of the
general vicinity; if the conditions set forth herein are
complied-with the use should be operated and maintained
to be harmonious with the intended character of the
general vicinity and should not change the essential
character of the area.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses if the
conditions are met; that traffic will increase some but
not in any .fashion substantially; that drop-off and pick-
up shall be off the street and such should not be a
problem.
e. The property has sewer and water service already
connected, but Applicant may have to pay additional fees
for the use.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the .use-would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. If the conditions stated below, are met, the use
should not involve a use, activity, process, material,
equipment or conditions of operation that would be
detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke,
fumes, glare or odors.
h. That sufficient parking for the proposed use will be
required to meet the requirements of the City ordinance.
i. The development and use will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
9. That since conditions may be placed upon the granting of
a conditional use permit to minimize adverse impact on other
development, it is decided that the following conditions are a
condition of granting the conditional are required, to wit:
a) There shall be no restricted hours of operation for six
months from the date of approval of the conditional use,
except for the below stated hours for Pick and delivery
of children; that if there are complaints to the City the
Applicant shall be informed of them and if the complaints
are not resolved by the Applicant the City shall bring
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 9.
the matter back for consideration in the fashiion for
terminating the conditional use; the conditions may,
however, only be altered, but the Council retains the
right and ability to consider and act on termination.
b) The children, if outside, shall be maintained in the
fenced area, as required below.
c) That the Applicant shall meet the State of Idaho Health
and Welfare requirements for staff to children ratio and
shall meet all requirements of the Health and Welfare for
caring for children from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p. m. , or such
other similars hours that the Department of Health and
Welfare has adopted; that there shall be no drop-off or
pick-up of children between the hours of 11:00 p. m. and
5:00 a. m.
d) That there shall be fencing, gates, and locks for the
outside play area such that no children can leave the
property without an adult; no children shall be allowed
outside of the play area or the home without an adult
being present and with the child at all times; the fence
shall be maintained in good repair and the children, when
outside, shall stay in the fenced area and not be allowed
outside of the fenced area or the home, except for drop-
off and pick-up times, but an adult shall be with them at
all times if the child or children are waiting to be
picked up.
e) That the Applicant shall hold and maintain a State of
Idaho Day Care License for a group day care.
f ) That the conditional use shall be reviewed upon the lapse
of six month from the date of approval and the
conditional use may be annually reviewed upon notice to
the Applicant.
g) That the conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance, shall not be transferable to another owner of
the property or to another property.
h) That the Applicant must meet the requirements of the
Central District Health Department and the State of Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare.
i) That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the
City Engineer's office, including the re-assessment
agreement, Planning Director, and other governmental
agencies submitting comments.
10. That there shall be no more than twelve (12) children
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 10.
• •
be required to meet the requirements stated in these Conclusions
of Law, the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety
Code, Uniform Fire Code and other Ordinances of the City of
Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon
notice to the Applicant by the City.
MOTION:
APPROVE _ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT - LAWRENCE - Page 12.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF DAVE LEADER
FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE R-4 STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT OF 65 FEET
FINDINGS. OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above- entitled variance request having come on for hearing
on March 19, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date,
at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho,
Ted Hutchinson appearing for the Applicant, 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 19, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen ( 15 )
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the March 19, 1995, 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. l.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-8 Residential; that. the
Zoning Ordinance., 11-2-410 A, requires that the street frontage in
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1
the R-8 zone for single-family subdivisions be 65 feet.
4. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a
variance from the minimum street frontage requirement for R-8 zoned
lots for Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, of Dove Meadows No. 2 Subdivision,
and be allowed to have street frontage of 50.00 feet in Lot 3 and
54.00 feet in Lot 4 in lieu of the required minimum of sixty-five
(65) feet of street frontage.
5. That Ted Hutchinson, representing the Applicant,
testified as follows:
"We are seeking a variance of the street frontage requirements
for two lots in the second phase of Dove Meadows No. 2. These
lots are located- on a curve that affects our ability to
provide adequate frontage for these. This is also affected by
the street location which was predicated by the platting of
Dove Meadows No. 1. The change in the street layout with the
development of the Avest property there were some changes in
the street layout which would have affected, ultimately, the
lay out of Dove Meadows No. 2. These lots exceed the minimum
lot size in the R-8 zone and in fact the two lots, one of the
lots is 8,594 square feet in size, the other lot is 9,062
square feet in size. This is considerably larger than the
6,500 square feet required by the R-4 [R-8] zone. We .are
seeking a variance brought down to approximately 50 feet for
Lot 3 and to 54 feet for lot 4 on Block 1 of this subdivision
proposed. Excuse me that is Block 3 of Dove Meadows No. 2. We
believe that with the constraints and the size of the lots
that is appropriate for this variance to be approved. The
letter that I submitted with the application I outlined the
findings that must be made by the Council when they are
reviewing the variance request. In that letter I also tried to
address those findings to provide the evidence and the
information that you would need to be able to support this
variance request. With that I would answer any questions the
Council would have at this time."
6. That the Applicant is the owner of record of the
property.
7. That Applicant developed Dove Meadows No. 1 prior to
developing Dove Meadows No. 2, which is where these lots that he is
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2
requesting the variance for are located; that Dove Meadows No. 2 is
in the preliminary plat stage of development, which has not yet
been approved and was before the City Council on March 19, 1996.
8. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles,
commented on the proposed plat of Dove Meadows No. 2 that all lots
must have a minimum frontage of 65 feet unless on a cul-de-sac and
must have minimum square footage of 6,500 square feet.
9. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
commented on the preliminary plat that the minimum street frontage
for Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, and Lots 21 and 29, Block 2, shall be
sixty-five (54) feet, measured at the arc for the curved portion,
per City Ordinance.
10. That no people appeared at the hearing objecting to the
variance application.
CONCLUSIONS
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 of the proposed
subdivision to owners of property within 300 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.
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
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3
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 Planning and Zoning Commission,
governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual
conditions existing within the City and the State.
5. That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of
the Zoning Ordinance, is noted which is pertinent to the
Application:
11-2-419 A.
The Council may authorize in specific eases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision
and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the
public interest where,, owing to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming
use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of
lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
Variances shall be granted only where strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go
to the Commission unless directed by the Council.
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-2-419 C. FINDINGS
A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a
public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exist:
1. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4
application of the provisions of this Ordinance
would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would result in extraordinary
hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer
because of unusual topography, other physical
conditions or other conditions which are not self-
inflicted, or that these conditions will result in
inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of
this Ordinance;.
3. That the granting of the specified variance will
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated;
4. That such variance will not have the effect of
altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
8. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or
profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant in that the
Applicant would not have to meet the ordinance requirements that
other developers of R-8 subdivisions have to meet, particularly in
near and adjacent areas.
9. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That there are. no special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
application of the provisions of the set back
Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable, since
other developers are being asked to do the same
thing as the Applicant and Applicant had the
ability to design the lots to meet the street
frontage requirement and still has the ability to
change the layout of the lots, in that the
subdivision is in the preliminary plat stage.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the
65 foot street frontage requirement would not
result in extraordinary hardship to the applicant
as a result of factors not self-inflicted, in that
he is designing the subdivision and the subdivision
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5
•
is only in the preliminary plat stage, which has
not been approved.
c. That the granting of the specified variance would
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated, but the Applicant has the
ability and the land to provide these lots with the
required street frontage.
d. That such variance would have the effect of
altering the interests and purposes of the 65 foot
street frontage requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance.
10. That in regard to the first paragraph of 11-2-419 A,
which is quoted above, it is specifically noted that it states in
part, as follows:
"No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or
buildings in the same district and no permitted or non-
conforming use of lands, structures or buildings in other
districts shall be considered grounds for issuance of a
variance."
11. That it is specifically concluded the Application for a
variance should not be granted because the Applicant could design
the subdivision so that each lot, and particularly these two lots
for which the Application has been requested, would have 65 feet of
street frontage; there are no geographic or topographical reasons
why the 65 foot frontage could not be met, and that the only
reasons presented for the variance were that design of Dove Meadows
No. 1 and that the Avest development caused these lots to be laid
out as they have been shown on the preliminary plat, if that in
fact is a reason.
12. The City has in the past granted similar variances as
requested by the Applicant but has also denied such variances; each
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6
application must stand on its own merits and the granting of one
variance is not a precedent for granting others.
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 VOTED
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION
That it is decided the variance from the R-4 street frontage
requirement of sixty-five feet is hereby denied.
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 3, T.3N., R.1W.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing,
March 19, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, the
Applicant appearing through attorney Steve Bradbury, spokes person
for Steiner Development, the Meridian City Council having duly
considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings
of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
public hearing scheduled for March 19, 1996, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said .hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the March 19, 1996, 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.
2. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property,
but the owner of record, William E. Teeter, consented to the
annexation and zoning application, which is on file, but no consent
to the conditional use permit, as the Applicant requests, is on
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
file by the owner, Mr. Teeter. That Steiner Development asserts
that it has an option to buy from the record owner of the land
described; that the property is described in the application which
description is incorporated herein.
3. That the land is zoned R-15, Medium High Density
Residential District, and R-4, Low Density Residential District.
4. That the property included in the application for
conditional use is described in the application and booklet
submitted as a part thereof as are all of the documents, drawings,
representations, and testimony submitted by the Applicant, and by
this reference all are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
5. That the property was a portion of Mr. Teeter's 40 acre
farm; that the property is on the west side of Ten Mile Road
between Ustick and Cherry Lane; that the adjacent property to the
east is a residential subdivision across Ten Mile Road which is
zoned R-4; that the adjacent property to the south is a portion of
Cherry Lane Village No. 5, which is zoned R-4 Residential; that the
adjacent property to the West is a portion of The Lake at Cherry
Lane Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 5, which is zoned R-4; that the
adjacent property to the north is land which has been annexed and
is known by the name Englewood Estates.
6. That on November 9, 1994, at a City Council meeting, but
not a public hearing, the Applicant presented a concept plan for
development; Applicants's representative stated that there would be
20 acres of R-4 and 20 acres of R-15; that there would be elderly
garden one level homes with gated, high security clusters with
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
liberal common area and private roads to the Garden homes and to
the town .houses; that there would be restrictions on children
living there; it would be for people of 55 years and older; that
the homes would be of high quality; that they were donating a fire
station and that they were working on a school site; that there
would be 20 acres in phase one.
7. That at the September 15, 1995, City Council meeting, the
Applicant presented a new concept for the development; the
Applicant's representative, Steve Bradbury, stated the request is
to have a portion of the land zoned R-4, a portion zoned R-8, and
a portion zoned R-15; that the R-4 and R-8 portions were done as a
preliminary plat with the R-15 done as a concept plan; the R-15 was
broken into two portions, with the northern portion being developed
as a condominium/town house project and the southern portion being
developed as a single family detached and single family attached
dwelling project; that a part of the southern portion of the R-15
area abuts the R-4 Cherry Lane Village Subdivision; the Applicant
presented a preliminary plat, a colored drawing and an 8 1/2 X 11
rendering of the preliminary plat; it is the southern portion that
is now being presented with all homes being single-family detached
homes; that a preliminary plat was submitted.
8. That the Applicant's representative, Steve Bradbury,
testified before the Commission regarding this application,
basically as follows:
Applicant is attempting to re-divide the southeasterly portion
of the property which consists of approximately 10 acres and
is zoned R-15; that the developing will be done in phases;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
that the south half of the property will be developed first,
as The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5, and the north half of the
property developed second, as The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6;
that this project is contemplated as a senior citizens complex
comprising 52 single family detached dwellings, about 5.2
units per acre, all homes were now going to exceed 1,400
square feet, as presented by Mr. Bradbury in a drawing or
partial plat, and include 2 car garages, with the option for
a three car garage on the units in the R-4 zone designation on
the larger lots to the south; that the dwellings will be
single story. Mr. Bradbury added that the developer, Steiner,
Inc., intends to do a great deal of landscaping both on the
perimeter of this project and at the entrances and within,
which would be the proposed recreation center and club house;
that the developer still intends to donate to the City a fire
station site, however the dimensions of that fire station site
have changed from what was previously proposed as 160 by 160
square, to now being 148 by 170 feet as a result of the re-
design for the R-4 lots along the south boundary with 80 foot
frontages.
Mr. Bradbury stated that as a planned development, some
exceptions from the standard district regulations are
permitted; he stated that the developer is seeking some
exceptions; that on the interior of this portion of the
subdivision, private streets would be a provision; that a
private security gate would be installed at this location;
that the right of way widths which are proposed are 40 feet
and they would include a 5 foot sidewalk on one side of each
of the street in the subdivision, so each street within the
project will have sidewalk on at least one side, and in some
places both sides; that the Applicant is willing to handle
parking or no parking as the City or the Fire Chief sees fit
and will abide by placing no parking signs and include, in the
restrictive covenants, prohibitions against parking and
require the homeowners association to enforce the no parking
requirements.
That another exception the developer is seeking relief
from is the minimum street frontage requirement on a few lots;
that primarily the lots that are on the four corners, the
outside corner of the subdivision where the roads turn, would
be reduced to 25 feet of frontage, as opposed to the required
40 feet; that the Developer was requesting that the
requirement that the parking spaces provided for the
recreation center be separated from the road right-of-way by
four feet (4'), be reduced since the road is a private road
and not likely to be too heavily travelled; that more parking
spaces than are minimally required by the ordinance-are being
provided; that he requests that some consideration be given to
reducing the minimum front setbacks on a fair number of the
lots; that the smallest front yard setback that is being
proposed is 12 feet, with a few at 14 feet, some at 15 feet,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
and one is proposed at 16 foot front yard setback.
Mr. Bradbury went on to say that the developer has a few
rear yard setbacks that the Developer would request be reduced
from the standard of 15 feet to a couple of 13's, a 14, a 12,
a 10 and an 8 foot rear yard setback; that the designations of
requested set-back variations are set forth in section 7 of
the Applicant's Application booklet, which is incorporated
herein as if set forth in full; that this request is largely
due to the re-design of the subdivision because of the R-4
sized lots being added on southern portion; that pressurized
irrigation will be provided and would be provided from the
same source as it is proposed for the Lake at Cherry Lane
Subdivisions No. 3 and 4; that a contract with the Nampa and
Meridian Irrigation District will be secured providing,
titling and maintaining the system in the future.
That Applicant's representative and Commissioner Oslund
had discussion about the front set-backs for Lots 8 to 13,
Block 11, with the Commissioner stating that the requested 12
foot set-back appeared to be too small and that it appeared
that they could have 18 foot front set-backs if the garage was
not six feet from the face of the house and if Applicant
changed that they could have 18 feet for the front set-back
and as a minimum distance from the garage door to the back of
the sidewalk; Mr Bradbury agreed that could be done and they
would be will to comply with that condition.
The two also spoke about Lots 2 to 6, Block 11, having
double frontages and Commissioner Oslund stated that there
needs to ber~t'ome kind of special treatment; Mr. Bradbury
stated that they could address some of those concerns with
landscaping such as berming, trees and shrubs.
They also discussed the 80 feet of roadway in the
entrance road; Commissioner Oslund stating that it could be
lowered to 60 feet so that Lot 35, Block 11, would. be allowed
to have more of a backyard and Lot 1 and 35, Block 11, could
have more than a five foot side yard and closer to 20 feet,
which is required on a corner lot. Mr. Bradbury stated that
they would be pleased to work these problems with the City
staff .
Commissioner Hepper then asked if the number shown on
each lot in the plat-type drawing was the livable space, not
counting the garage; Mr. Bradbury stated that Mr. Hepper's
question and basic response was correct that those numbers
represented the total living. space in the home that would be
constructed on that lot.
9. The project was changed somewhat to meet many of the
Planning and Zoning Commission comments and Mr. Bradbury testified
before the City Council basically as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
• i
We have a 52 unit senior citizen community. Portions of
it is zoned R-4, R-8 and portions R-15. The Council
conditioned the R-15 that a separate application be made for
it as you wanted to see a separate preliminary plat and a
conditional use permit. This application is for the
southeasterly ten acres that was proposed to you in a
conceptual plan as the senior citizen complex. The action you
would have before you at the preliminary plat stage would be
to redivide Lot 10, Block 11, into 52 smaller individual
building lots. He explained what was behind each tab in the
booklet that had been submitted; tab one is a summary
statement of how the property would be developed; tab two is
the subdivision application; tab three is the P & Z findings
of fact and conclusions of law which recommended approval of
the project; tab four is new revised plat we had hoped to be
able to present but unfortunately it was not completed but we
have it to shown the City Engineer and the next page behind
that tab four is the plat presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission; behind tab five is a list of amenities that are
proposed to be included and the site plan for the recreation
center that is proposed to be constructed and a rendering of
it building elevation; behind tab six are the available floor
plans and elevation options and there are four different floor
plans, two elevations each so there is a total of eight
different models and each four floor plan is a different size;
behind tab seven is the new site plan that we are asking
approval of tonight and also behind tab seven is a drawing
that is the proposed sidewalk plan approved or recommended for
approval by the P. and Z. Commission, and then there is a
third map which shows the requested variance setbacks which
were being proposed before P. & Z. which is included this in
this booklet not because we are asking approval of these
setbacks but in order to get away from the need to deal with
all of these setback concerns; behind tab eight are some
proposed building materials which would be used in the project
such as stucco, brick and roofing materials and we have
submitted literature that describes- the type of building
materials that are proposed to be used.
The theory is to create a complex for persons 55 years of
age or older as permitted under Federal law. The project
consists of 52 lots for single family detached dwellings. It
is on approximately ten acres with a density of about 5.2
units per acre. Now from what was presented there are no
multi-family, duplex or triplex buildings, they are all single
family detached; the reason for the change was that a more
thorough market research study concluded single family
detached homes were preferable to duplex and triplex type
units. There thus is a reduction in the number of units being
proposed. There was 63 units proposed but this is a total of
52, a reduction of 11 .units. Behind tab four is the old and
the new and you can see the density has been reduced. The lot
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
! ~
sizes proposed here range from approximately 4400 square feet
up to 8000 square feet. The 4400 square feet exceeds the
minimum dimensional standards for the R-1; the 8000 square
foot. lots bordering the southern portion of the property in
the area the Council determined should be zoned R-4 and we are
talking about a floor plan of about 1,400 to 1,800 square
feet; for the 1, 400 square feet we are proposing 12 units, for
1, 500 square feet 16 units, for 1, 600 square foot 14 units and
for the 1,800 square foot size 10 units.
Behind tab seven it says for 1,440 it should say 12, for
1,541 it should be 16, f or 1,620 it should be 14, and for
1,827 it should be 10. We have increased the number of larger
units in the project. If you look behind tab seven the square
footage numbers are included inside the building depiction so
you have an idea of where each of the various sized units are.
All of the units would be single story, all of the units would
have a two car garage except for some of the units along the
southerly boundary in the R-4 zone and they would have an
option for a third stall.
We still have the entry off of Ten Mile Road. The
landscaping and all exterior amenities remain the same; we are
not proposing any changes to that. We still have the perimeter
wall that goes around the project; we still have the 20 foot
landscape-strip on Ten Mile Road; the golf cart access point
is still shown and one is come across lot 14. The Applicant
still intends to donate the fire station site to the City. The
dimensions of fire site were 160 feet by 160 feet which has
been changed to 148 feet in width X 170 feet in depth. The
reason for that dimensional change was to meet the R-4
dimensional requirements that the Council imposed on the R-r
zoned by the fire station site. The rec center is still
centrally located and is depicted behind tab five and is on
Lot #52 with swimming pool, parking spaces, club house,
kitchen facilities, storage spaces, and hopefully a space that
can be used by the residents that will be living there.
As you know under the planned development provisions the
applicant may seek exceptions from the standard district
regulations and we request some, one of which is that the
applicant be permitted to construct,~private streets. The
proposal private streets is to have A~r(jj feet of right of way
and a five foot sidewalk on one side of the street; there
would be a private security gate installed at the entrance to
this portion of the project to provide a little extra measure
of security for the people living there. There has been some
concern about parking on the private streets and whether or
not that would create interference for emergency vehicles. The
fire chief has apparently indicated that he feels it is
perfectly adequate as long as parking- is restricted to one
side only and the Applicant is willing to comply with that.
restriction and signs the fire chief desires will set be up to
enforce the no parking requirements and through the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
restrictive covenants of the homeowners association.
The Planning and Zoning Commission passed a favorable
recommendation for you to approve the private .streets for this
project. That was one of the things that I was telling you was
not in their findings but was a change they made during the
meeting when they approved the findings.
Another exception is that the standard lot frontage
requires 40 feet of frontage. We are asking for a reduction as
dimensioned on the plat. The reduction is down to
approximately 25 feet to make the lots fit; the Commission
passed on a favorable recommendation on that.
For the rec center the ordinance requires a four foot
separation between the street and a parking area. To get the
parking space in we ask for an exception from that four foot
separation and that the parking spaces be permitted to be
located immediately adjacent to street. Our argument is that
since the streets are requested to be private streets, with
hopefully little traffic, we should not have a conflict
between the parking spaces and the street. The Commission
passed on a recommendation to allow that exception.
Another issue is smaller front yard, back yard and side
yard setbacks. Behind tab seven those are shown. The
Commission agreed it could be recommended to reduce the front
yard set back from 20 feet to 15 feet, but all other setbacks
would be by Ordinance. This issue caused the applicant to go
back and do redesign work find a way to get those setbacks
taken care of. We have done a redesign in an effort to meet
those requirements. It has resulted in a couple of changes.
Behind tab four you see some landscape islands in the corners
in various places. We had to eliminate those in order to make
some room. In addition the westerly boundary is not straight
and we propose to make it straight which results in it-adds
more area to this portion of the project. By eliminating
those landscaped areas, straightening that line, and adding
some distance we are able to deal with most of but not all of
the set back problems.
We propose to have the Council is agree to permit an
exception on the-front set back to 15 feet instead of the
required 20 feet, which change ,the Commission recommended for
approval. We will have 15 foot rear yard set backs in
accordance with the ordinance. We would have five foot side
yard setbacks except for street side yard set backs which are
required to be 20 feet. Our proposal that be changed to 15
feet. The change is for a few corner lots. We are asking for
15 foot setbacks on the side yard set backs on those corners
There is one more exception. The two lots at the entry
were proposed before Commission to have five foot side yard
set backs because we are building a fairly large entry road
there. It is 80 feet and the reason is to make sure there is
room for people to manoeuver since there is going to be-that
private security gate. The Commission suggested the 80 foot
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
•
right of way be reduced to 70
more feet for the side yards ~
get the ten feet through the
right of way down. Our propc
retain the 80 foot right of wa
yard street setbacks for the
have met with staff a number
comply with all staff's r~
submitted written comments. W
all of the issues are worked
details still need to get sta:
to do that as maybe necessary
If you are inclined to a~
feet so that we would have 10
~n those lots. We were able to
redesign without reducing that
sal would be to permit us to
there and allow ten foot side
two lots on the entry way. We
of times and are willing to
commendations. You have our
think that for the most part
out . There may be a couple of
'f and we are certainly willing
prove this project as proposed
you need to do so by and imposing a number of conditions and
I will try to go through them quickly. First, the eastern
boundary be straightened, realign the boundary between the R-4
and the R-15, and we will submit a legal for that and the City
needs to adopt an ordinance amendment.
Second, the 15 foot front setback [ instead of required 20
feet ] , 15 foot rear [ as required by Ordinance ] , five foot side
yard and a 15 foot street side [20 feet required], except the
entry lots and in that case they would be 10 feet [20 feet
required].
Third, consider permitting elimination of the landscaped
islands . The four corner landscaped islands that were shown on
the preliminary plat. We are ask to eliminate those.
Fourth, consider private streets; that would be a 40 foot
right of way,Jr~sidewalks one side, and no [c~] parking
restrictions, as required by the fire chief.
Fifth, reduced [street] frontages from the required 40
feet down to, I think the smallest is 25.
Sixth, regarding the parking areas and the rec center,
allowing exception from the requirement that they be separated
4 feet from the roadway.
Seventh, provide the City with a deed to the fire station
[site] at the time that the final plat is submitted for
approval [instead of 160' by 160' to 148' by 170 feet'].
That is all that I have to present to you at this point.
I am pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
10. That the Applicant submitted its conditional use
application in booklet form, which is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full, and shall herein be referred to as "Booklet".
11. That 11-2-410 A requires the following yard setbacks when
there is a single-family .structure and the house is on a local
road:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
Minimum front yard set-back
Minimum rear yard set-back
Minimum side yard set-back
20 feet
15 feet
5 feet per story;
requires the following minimum lot sizes:
Lots in the R-4 District
Lots in the R-5 District
8,000 square feet
2,400 square feet/per
dwelling unit;
and requires the following minimum street frontage for each zone,
to wit:
Lots in the R-4 District
Lots in the R-5 District
80 .feet
50 feet.
12. That the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce
Freckleton, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, the
Meridian City Police and Fire Departments, Central District Health
Department and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted
comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
13. That the comments submitted by Bruce Freckleton,
Assistant to the City Engineer, are as follows:
a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the
property shall be tiled;
b. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
within this project will have to be removed from their
domestic service per City Ordinance, but wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation;
c. That a drainage plan designed by an architect or an
engineer shall be submitted for all off-street parking
areas and that off-street parking shall be provided in
accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian
Zoning .and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in
site-specific requirements;
d. That outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as
to not direct illumination on any nearby residences;
e. That all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
•
City Ordinances;
f. That the paving and striping shall be in accordance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act;
g. That a master street drainage plan be submitted,
including the method of disposal & approval from the Ada
County Highway District, and the affected
irrigation/drainage districts(s);
h. That determination of the seasonal high groundwater
elevation and profile of the subsurface soil conditions,
shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or soil
scientists;
i. That a copy of the proposed restrictive covenants and/or
deed restrictions be submitted for review;
j. That 5 foot wide sidewalks shall. be provided in
accordance with City Ordinance;
k. That placement of the fire hydrants be coordinated with
the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent;
1. That a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee
be submitted, approving the subdivision and street names,
making any necessary corrections to the Preliminary Plat
map prior to re-submittal to the City; and
m. Indicate any existing FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries on the
Preliminary Plat Map, and/or any plans to reduce said
boundaries.
That Mr. Freckleton submitted site specific comments which are
as follows:
a. That revision to the Preliminary Plat needs to include
the source for the pressurized irrigation system; that
the system shall be designed such that no lateral lines
run parallel within the street right-of-ways; that
crossing from block to block will be allowed; 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 the Applicant shall
provide a statement as to the ownership of and
operation/maintenance of the pressurized irrigation
system will be;
b. That 100 watt high pressure sodium street lights will be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
required at locations designated by the Meridian Public
Works Department; that all street lights shall be
installed at subdivider's expense;
c. That the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School
District need to review and approve of the travel way
widths but a concern about the narrower width of the
roadways making navigating for school busses. and
emergency vehicles more difficult; that as an absolute
minimum, "No Parking" signs should be posted along one
side of the street;
d. That the treatment capacity of Meridian's Waste Water
Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated and that
approval of this application needs to be contingent upon
our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage
generated by this proposed development; and
e. That a condition of this application, the Applicant
address all of the previous comments from the Meridian
City Engineers office and submit a Preliminary Plat Map
that represents the current development proposal.
14. That comments were submitted by Shari Stiles, Planning
and Zoning Administrator, stating that it is common in a Planned
Unit Development that exceptions can be made by the Council to
district regulations when they are desirable to achieve the
objectives of the proposed planned development; that- other
variances/exceptions that would need to be approved to grant this
conditional use permit in the R-4 and R-15 zones and the Planned
Unit Development, as presented, would be:
1. Minimum lot sizes
2. Frontages
3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives
4. Parking areas closer than 4' from road right-of-way;
depths less than Ordinance requires
5. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of the roadway in
accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606, B, 11.
6. Front and side yard setbacks (5' per story on side)
That the Applicant shall submit the following additional
information:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
•
1. A colored rendering of adequate scale to show the
completed development that will include at least the
following items:
a. Architectural style and building design;
b. Building materials and color;
c. Detailed landscape plan showing sizes and species,
particularly for 20' planting strip along Ten Mile
Road;
d. Screening; and
e. Garbage areas.
2. That an Ada County Street Name Committee approval needs
to be obtained.
3. Proposed. restrictive covenants and deed restrictions
submitted.
4. Master street drainage plan submitted.
5. Ada County Highway District Technical Review Committee
approval.
6. Indicate minimum house size on plat.
7. Permanent perimeter fencing to be in place prior to
obtaining building permits.
8. Recreation center to be completed as part of initial
development.
9. Submit approval from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District/Ada County Highway District for pressurized
irrigation/drainage plan. (Will ACHD take responsibility
for proposed drainage pond, or will this be maintained by
the Homeowners Association?)
10. Provide detail of pedestrian walkway/golf cart access
currently shown on Lot 14, Block 11, as well as gates
proposed with the development; and
11. No Parking areas to be enforced by Homeowners
Association; that parking may need to be prohibited
adjacent to landscape islands and allowed on one side of
street only in other areas.
15. That the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Central
District Health Department, and the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District, did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
•
if set forth in full.
16. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential
Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 zone; that the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to planned unit
developments in 11-9-607 and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that section 11-9-607 E states as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of
the district or districts in which said PD is located. The
approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide
for such exceptions from the district regulations governing
use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other
regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this section.";
Section 11-9-607 G. 8. also provides that all Planned Development
shall be subject to design review by the City staff and Council;
that Sections 11-9-607 A through H are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full; that 11-9-607 E states that a PD shall be
allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district, shall be
governed by the regulations of the district in which it is located,
that a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district
.regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, sign, and
other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the
standards and criteria contained in this Section; Section 11-9-607
D. states that the developer shall- provide the Council with a
colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed
development that will include at least the following: architectural
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .Page 14
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
style and building design, building materials and color,
landscaping screening, garbage area, parking, and open space.
That Section 11-9-607 F 3. states that the Owner's Association
Bylaws, and other similar deed restrictions, shall meet with the
approval of the Council; that Applicant has not submitted bylaws or
covenants, conditions and restrictions to the City.
17. That any comments from the Ada County Highway District,
not yet received, will be incorporated as if set forth in full.
18. Applicant has indicated that the streets within the
subdivision will be private but will meet all standards. Applicant
has requested that several Ordinance requirements not be required,
which is allowed in a Planned Unit Development; it specifically
requested the following exceptions:
1. Private streets.
2. 5 foot sidewalks only on one side of the roadway, in
accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606, B, 11.
3. Street frontages of only 25 foot street frontage for four
outside corner lots rather than 40 feet.
4. Smaller minimum roadway widths.
5. Parking areas closer than 4' to the road right-of-way.
6. Front setbacks of only 15 feet rather than 20 feet. QS ~~Pec~ ~~'
7. Side yard setbacks for lots on corners be reduced and 1~~~
ten foot side yard setbacks on the two lots on the south
side of intersection of W. Teeter Boulevard and N. Kirkam
Way.
8. Smaller lot sizes.
9. And others.
19. That sewer and water is available to the property and is
required.
20. That the R-4 and R-15 Residential Districts are described
in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. and 5. as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 15
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four ( 4 ) dwellings units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.
jR-15) Medium High Density Residential District - The purpose
of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of
medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family
dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling
units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to
a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct
access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to
the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian.
The predominant housing types in this district will be patio
homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses,
apartment buildings and condominiums.
21. That the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400
square feet to be included in houses in that zone and houses of
1,301 square feet are required in the R-15 zone, unless there are
dispersed among the development houses of varying size as allowed
in 11-4-411 d 2.
22. That Section 11-2-411 B states as follows:
"All new residential housing developments in the City of
Meridian shall be designed to insure compatibility with
adjacent existing and/or proposed developments."
23. That Mr. Bradbury responded to questions from the City
Council; he responded that the deed to the fire station site would
be handed to the City at the time that the final plat is in our
hands, which he thought would be in 60 to 90 days; on the timing
sequence for the club house he stated that that structure would be
built immediately, up front with the subdivision improvements and
they are not going to build the project, sell the lots and then
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 16
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
•
build the recreation center and the rec center would be built up
front; that there would be a pathway connected into the adjacent
subdivision; that the proposal is to connect to a previously
proposed and approved golf cart path so that there is direct access
to the golf course but he could not say that path goes all the way
to the golf course and stated that there are portions of it where
they are required to go onto public streets; in response to a
~2
question about a ,Q~ foot of road right of way and the roadway
typical section, he responded that, Mr. Campbell tells me it is ~ ~F-2
feet of right of way with 28-feet of pavement. Mr. Campbell
responded that the street section should be 28 feet of pavement, 2
feet of gutter on each side and five foot sidewalk on the one side;
in regard to drainage, Mr. Campbell responded it would be all
underground retention; with regard to CC & R's he responded that
the homeowners would.
24. In response to a question about the preliminary plat,
Gary Smith, City Engineer responded that the City has not seen a
preliminary plat yet that shows the changes that Mr. Bradbury has
got, they have been in my office and met with me concerning the
changes that they were proposing.
25. Councilman Tolsma questioned again about the roadway and
its width stating he understood them to say it would be 28 feet of
pavement, 2 feet of gutter on both sides of street and five foot.
sidewalk on one side, and in that case there is only 37 feet. Mr.
Campbell responded that they have sidewalks on one side of the
street, but there are some areas where it is on two sides but he
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS- OF LAW Page 17
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
was not looking at a street section drawing, but he thought there
was 40 feet as had been stated.
26. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the City Council have been given and
followed.
27. There was no public testimony.
CONCLUSIONS
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 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional-uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
4. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and state.
5. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential
Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 and R-15 zones; that
the Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to planned unit
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 18
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
developments in 11-9-607 and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that section 11-9-607 E states as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district. subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of
the district or districts in which said PD is located. The
approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide
for such exceptions from the district regulations governing
use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other
regulations as may be desireable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this section.";
6. That on the first page of tab number 1 of Applicant's
Booklet states that the size of the homes would be a minimum of
1,301 square feet, however the square footage of the homes was
represented during the public hearings, and submitted on a plat-
like drawing, as all being 1,400 square feet or in excess thereof;
that all of the square footages on the drawing exceed 1,400 square
feet and it was represented that all homes would at least be that
size; that since the square footages of the homes were represented
as being 1,400 square feet, or larger, it is concluded that all of
the homes constructed in the subdivision shall exceed 1,400 square
feet.
7. That at the public hearing Mr. Bradbury stated that most
of the streets would be private with 40 feet of private road right-
of-way; that he also stated that Applicant desired less setback
than was required by the Ordinances and that there were other
Ordinance requirements that they were requesting; that in Finding
of Fact No. 13. the desired exceptions from Meridian Ordinances
that the Applicant desired are stated; from the above Findings of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 19
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
Fact, the documents submitted, the testimony, the record, and all
representations, it is concluded that since this application is a
planned unit development and that under 11-9-607 E the City has the
ability to grant requests for changes from the Ordinances of the
City without requiring a variance, that the action on the requested
exceptions should be as follows:
1. That the streets may be private but shall be constructed
to meet ACHD construction standards and requirements and
the Applicant shall establish, in the CC & R's, a means
of collecting, each year, a depreciation fund sufficient
to build a fund to maintain the streets at any and all
times of the year such maintenance is required, and to
totally reconstruct them in twenty (20) years.
2. That 5 foot sidewalks may be constructed only on one side
of the roadway, and the Applicant shall establish, in the
CC & R's, a means of collecting, each year, a
depreciation fund sufficient to build a fund to maintain
the sidewalks at any and all times of the year such
maintenance is required, and to totally reconstruct them
in twenty (.2rfl) years .
20
3. That street frontage of only 25 feet, rather than 40
feet, is allowed for the four outside corner lots rather
than the 40 feet requirement.
4. That the street right-of-way may be 40 feet, but not less
than that.
5. The parking area next to the recreation center may be
closer than 4' to the road right-of-way.
6. Front setbacks of only 15 feet, rather than 20 feet, are
allowed, but not less than that, and no other reductions
in the setbacks are. allowed,, except as stated herein.
~,.~ed on lisf
7. Side-yard setbacks for lots on corners may be reduced for
the lots that are on W. Teeter Boulevard, but not on
other lots.
8. There shall be no lots smaller than allowed by Ordinance.
9. That the two lots on the south side of the intersection
of W. Teeter Boulevard and Kirkam Way may have ten foot
side yard setbacks, .but all other side yard setbacks
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 20
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
shall be met on other lots whether they are located on
corners or not.
8. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of
the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the City
Council and the City Council shall review applications for
Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements
and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area,
the City Council concludes as follows:
a. The Planned Unit Development use, would in fact,
constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit
is required by ordinance.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance and
the Subdivision and Development Ordinance require a
conditional use permit to allow the use.
c. The Applicant did not specifically state that the
development would be designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the intended character of
the general vicinity, which is the Cherry Lane Village,
The Lake at Cherry Lane, Golf View, and Golf View Estates
Subdivisions; however, the Applicant represented the
exact square footage requirements on each lot, all which
meet the square footage requirement for the R-4 district,
represented what the roofing, sideboard, brick,
subdivision layout, and most of the floor plans that
would be constructed.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service available
and will have to be installed and connected by the
Applicant.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would
be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 21
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
~.
by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the
proposed use will be required.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
9. That regarding the conditional use finding that must be
addressed pursuant to 11-2-418 C 3. as to the harmony of the
project to the general vicinity, it is concluded that the harmony
must be with the general vicinity, which is the entire golf course
area, including Cherry Lane Subdivision, Golf View, The Lake at
Cherry Lane and Golf View Estates; that by making this proposed
subdivision for a senior citizen living complex does not remove the
conditional use requirement that the proposed use be harmonious
with the general vicinity.
10. That Section 11-9-607 G. 8. provides that all planned
development shall be subject to design review by the City staff and
Council; that it is concluded that design review should be a
requirement and Applicant required to comply with it.
11. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian should be
met, including but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance and the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance, both as modified by Section
11-9-607 of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code,
the Fire and Life Safety Code, and all parking and landscaping
requirements.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 22
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
i ~
12. That it is concluded that the Applicant should be
required to meet, and comply with,. the requirements of Bruce
Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, Shari Stiles, City
Planning and Zoning Administrator.
13. That the Applicant and its agents made representations
regarding the Application and the development of the property to
achieve approval of the Application, or parts thereof, many of
which are in these Findings and Conclusions, but all of which are
in the record; that all representations made, as they pertain to
what the City Council may ultimately approve and in meeting the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian and these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, should be met; that if the representations are
not met the approvals made shall be subject to cancellation and the
property subject to de-annexation.
14. That the representations made by Applicant or its agents
or requirements of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian which
should be met and complied with include, but are not limited to,
the following, unless the request or application for a change in a
City requirement, or variance therefrom, was denied by the City:
1. All Ordinances of the City.
2. Meeting the requirements of City Staff.
3. Meeting all representations in the "Booklet" and included
in the testimony.
4. Construction of 1,400 square foot single story homes with
at least two car garages.
5. Donate to the City the fire station land prior to final
.plat approval of this subdivision.
6. Constructing and placing the recreation and club house
and all amenities thereto, including the swimming pool.C(P~ront
7. Constructing, planting and placing all landscaping at,the
perimeter, entrance and within the subdivision. u~G'f~o/'~-z"
8. Meet the comments of the Fire Chief regarding parking.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 23
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
9. Tile all waterways and construct and supply pressurized
irrigation.
10. Construct and have substantially more parking that
required by Ordinance.
11. Construct, comply and/or perform with the comments made.
in Conclusion No. 7., particularly including establishing
in the CC & R's, a means of collecting, each year, a
depreciation fund sufficient to build a fund to maintain
the streets at any and all times of the year such
maintenance is required, and to totally reconstruct them
in twenty (20) years and establishing a similar means of
collecting, each year, a depreciation fund sufficient to
build a fund to maintain the sidewalks, at any and all
times of the year such maintenance is required, and to
totally reconstruct them in twenty (,~'6) years.
~O
or obtain written permission from the City to meet, and meet, the
applicable City Ordinance or ACRD requirement.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN BENTLY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
Page 24
DECISION
The Meridian City Council hereby decides that this Application
for Conditional Use is approved under the conditions stated above
in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that the
Conditional- Use approval is subject to all City Ordinances,
specifically including, but not limited to, 11-9-607, design
review, plat approval under the procedures of the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance, and if all requirements or representations
made are not met this approval shall be subject to cancellation and
the property subject to de-annexation.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 25
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5
1. A colored rendering of adequate scale to show the
completed development that will include at least the
following items:
a. Architectural style and building design;
b. Building materials and color;
c. Landscaping (is submittal showing actual or
conceptual landscaping? Sizes and species need to
be detailed);
d. Screening;
e. Garbage areas (or to be provided by each individual
homeowner?);
f. Parking (shown); and
g. Open space (shown)
2. That an Ada County Street Name Committee approval needs
to be obtained and the numbering of lots and blocks,
needs to be approved.
3. That a plan for the connection of Interlachen to Dawson
Drive and the clubhouse connection be submitted
4. Golf Course property deeded to the City in a manner
acceptable to Council prior to final plat approval.
5. Proposed restrictive covenants and deed restrictions
submitted.
6. Approval of the Ada County Highway District Technical
Review Committee.
7. Master street drainage plan submitted.
8. Indicate the minimum house sizes on the plat.
9. Pressurized irrigation, fire hydrants and street lights
shown on the plat.
12. That the Meridian Fire Chief commented; he stated that
all common areas will need to be kept clean of ,trash and weeds; all
street name signs need to be up and in place before building is
started; that he does not like the private drives because there
will be vehicles parked on the private drives; that there can be
"No Parking" in the cul-de-sacs and there needs to be "No Parking"
signs posted; that he does not like the narrow streets; that there
can be "No Parking" on both sides of the street and he questioned
who could enforce this; and he attached a document on Water Fire
Flow.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 10
13. That the Meridian School District commented that it had
a problem with the amount of students that would be generated by
this development; that a school site was needed in this section,
and the cost to the District for educating them asking for help in
dealing with the impact of growth on schools; the Central District
Health Department commented that high ground water has been
observed at less than six feet below grade at this proposed
project; that Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that
all laterals and waste ways must be protected and that municipal
surface drainage must be retained on site; that Idaho Power Company
commented that a permanent 10 foot wide public utilities easement
along all lots adjacent to the road right-of-way be dedicated to
public or private use; that all of the above comments are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential
Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 zone; that the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to planned unit
developments in 11-9-607 and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that section 11-9-607 E states as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of
the district or districts in which said PD is located. The
approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide
for such exceptions from the district regulations governing
use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other
regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this section.";
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 11
15. That Section 11-9-607 G. 8. also provides that all
Planned Developments shall be subject to design review by the City
staff and Council; that 11-9-607 E states that a PD shall be
allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district, shall be
governed by the regulations of the district in which it is located,
that a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district
regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, sign, and
other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the
standards and criteria contained in this Section; Section 11-9-607
D. states that the developer shall provide the Council with a
colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed
development that will include at least the architectural style and
building design, building materials and color, landscaping,
screening, garbage area, parking, and open space.
That Section 11-9-607 F 3. states that the Owner's Association
Bylaws, and other similar deed restrictions, shall meet with the
approval of the Council; that Applicant has not submitted bylaws or
covenants, conditions and restrictions to the City.
16. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential which is
described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four ( 4 ) dwellings units per acre and. requires
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 12
~ i
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.
That the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400
square feet to be included in houses in that zone.
17. That Section 11-2-411 B states as follows:
"All new residential housing developments in the City of
Meridian shall be designed to insure compatibility with
adjacent existing and/or proposed developments.";
that regarding the conditional use finding that must be addressed
pursuant to 11-2-418 C 3., as to the harmony of the project to the
general vicinity, it is concluded that the harmony must be with the
general vicinity, which is the entire golf course area, including
Cherry Lane Subdivision, The Lake at Cherry Lane and Golf View
Estates; that by making this proposed subdivision for a senior
citizen living complex does not remove the conditional use
requirement that the proposed use be harmonious with the general.
vicinity.
18. That any comments from the Ada County Highway District
not yet received will be incorporated as if set forth in full.
19. That sewer and water is available to the property and is
required.
20. That Larry Sale, from the Ada County Highway District,
commented during the Ashford Greens conditional use process,
regarding the linkage between Interlachen Way and Dawson Lane; he
-did not desire Interlachen Way to connect to this development,
stating that Interlachen was only a connector road from Cherry Lane
to where it ends now and should not be continued as a collector.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 13
21. That 11-2-410 A requires the following yard setbacks when
there is a single-family structure and the house is on a local
road:
Minimum front yard set-back 20 feet
Minimum rear yard set-back 15 feet
Minimum side yard set-back 5 feet per story;
requires the following minimum lot sizes:
Lots in the R-4 District
Lots in the R-15 District
8,000 square feet
2,400 square feet/per
dwelling unit;
and requires the following minimum street frontage for each zone,
to wit:
Lots in the R-4 District 80 feet
Lots in the R-15 District 50 feet. [5 to 15]
[Mr. Wardle requested that the R-15 designation be
completely excluded since the property is R-4. This was
not done because it is only a listing of what the
Ordinance says the R-15 requirements are.]
22. That the City Council previously adopted a motion
approving the residential concept plan for Ashford Greens Planned
Development, which plan included the concept of this medium density
area; that the motion of approval stated, in part, pertaining to
this medium density parcel, as follows, to wit:
"That the Meridian City Council hereby accepts the
recommendation of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
as supported by the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
adopted 12-2-94 and approves the Ashford Greens Planned
Development Residential Concept Plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. The maximum gross density concept of the entire project
represented to be 3.59 units per acre (444 units) is
approved.
[Mr. Wardle requested that the
numbering be changed because it was
confusing. Since it is from a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF I,AW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 14
quotation the numbering cannot be
changed.]
5. The City reserves the right to place appropriate
conditions on the single family lots .and areas in
accordance with Ordinance requirements, for the
following, including but not limited to: streets,
pedestrian walkways, planting and reserve strips, public
sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors,
pedestrian and bike pathways, piping of ditches,
pressurized irrigation, access, parking, paving,
striping, utilities, landscaping, screening, drainage,
and so forth, including provisions for golf cart and
pedestrian access to the club house from the existing
subdivisions.
7. The concept of "medium density" parcels is approved,
conceptually only. [ It is noted that the Site Plan showed
the Rear Yard set back as being 20 feet but it is now
requested that it be 15 feet.]
8. The maximum gross density of the "medium density" parcels
shall not exceed 8 units per acre.
9. Prior to any development of the medium density parcels,
the developer shall submit a detailed application and
site plan for review and approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council.
10. The City reserves the right to place appropriate
conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with
Ordinance requirements for the following, including but
not limited to: streets, pedestrian, walkways, planting
and reserve strips, public sites and open. spaces, lineal
open space corridors, pedestrian and bike pathways,
piping of ditches, pressurized irrigation, access,
parking, paving, striping, utilities, landscaping,
screening, drainage, and so forth, including provisions
for golf cart and pedestrian access to the club house
from the existing subdivisions.
11. The applicant shall work with City staff and ACHD to
address the connection of Interlachen to Dawson Drive.
Said connection, if required, shall be designed to
minimize speed and shall be included in any consideration
for development of the medium density parcel, shown as
Lot 5, Block 22. Upon approval of the connection by the
City, the applicant shall provide a revised overall
Master Plan/Preliminary Plat incorporating that revision.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 15
•
12. Section 11-9-607 G. 8. provides that all Planned
Developments shall be subject to design review by the
City staff and Council and therefore this section is
required to be met.
13. Section 11-9-607 D, PROCEDURES FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
states:
"All applicants shall follow the procedures as provided
in Section 9-604 of this Ordinance, PROCEDURES FOR
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. In addition, the developer shall
provide the Council with a colored rendering of adequate
scale to show the completed development that will include
at least the following:
1. Architectural style and building design;
2. Building materials and color;
3. Landscaping;
4. Screening;
5. Garbage areas;
6. Parking; and
7. Open space."
The Applicant has not submitted this rendering. As a
condition of this concept approval, this Section shall be
met by the Applicant for the medium density parcels.
14. Section 11-9-607 E, MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS,
states:
"A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the
district or districts in which said PD is located.
The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD
may provide for such exceptions from the district
regulations governing use, density, area, bulk,
parking, signs, and other regulations as may be
desirable to achieve the objectives of the. proposed
PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with
the standards and criteria contained in this
Section."
Since the property is in an R-4 district, the Applicant
and the City shall be guided by the R-4 requirements.
The density of the entire project is within the four
units per acre requirement of the R-4 district even
though there is a medium density provision in the
development of the entire area. The other requirements
of the R-4 district may be varied to meet the objectives
of this proposed planned development, as long as they are
desireable. A detailed development plan for the medium
density and a new preliminary plat of the single family
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 16
~J
•
layout is necessary so that they can be reviewed to
determine if the exceptions to the R-4 requirements are
desireable.
15. site plan for the medium density parcels shall be
reviewed and approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council, meeting all required
procedures.
16. the Applicant deed the golf course property,
included as part of the residential planned development
immediately, to the City.
23. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Meridian City Council have been given and
followed.
24. That there was no testimony objecting to the application.
25. That any and all Applications, maps, drawings, documents,
testimony, and statements, made by Applicant or its representatives
at public hearings or meetings, and all other items, writings, and
documents made or given as a part of this Application, are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
26. That the Applicant filed a request for reconsideration
which was heard on June 18, 1996; that Applicant's representative,
Mike Wardle, testified; he stated that he believed that the intent
of the Council was to approve the Application as submitted; Mr.
Wardle submitted a letter dated April 26, 1996, which was received
by the City on April 29, 1996; that April 26, 1996, letter is
incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the letter states
requested changes to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law;
that many of the requested changes or comments were as follow
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 17
1. That the entire project is based on a zero-lot line
concept.
2. That it is not a "senior citizen living complex", which
was referred to in the Conditional Use Application, but
is "an adult-oriented lifestyle" use.
3. The word "public" needs to be changed to "private" when
referring to the streets.
4. References to specific requirements for R-15 lots should
be deleted.
5. Delete, "if allowed by ACHD", because the streets are
private.
6. That lots are typically 46 feet wide, but as the
Technical Site Plan and preliminary plat show, many of
the lots having direct access to a street do not have 46
feet of frontage. That Applicant desired the following
~~
language: Street frontages shall be in accordance with
those depicted on the approved Technical Site Plan and
Preliminary Plat."
7. That Ashford 2 is designed as a zero-lot-line project and
the Technical Site Plan clearly identifies the setbacks
and yard requirements necessary to achieve the desired
goal. ,That Applicant desired a complete replacement of
paragraph 4 in paragraph 10 of the Conclusions , on page
19 and set forth what Applicant's desired requirements
should be. [It is noted that the Site Plan showed the
Rear Yard set back as being 20 feet but it is now
requested that it be 15 feet.]
8. That relating to Interlachen Way, paragraph 15 of
paragraph 10 on page 20 be changed to not require that it
be shown how Interlachen Way and Dawson Drive will
connect.
9. That "Planning and Zoning Commission" should be changed
in paragraph 13 on Page 21.
10. That paragraph 13 c. on pages 21 and 22 of the
Conclusions should be changed in that the Applicant did
state at the public hearings that the development would
be harmonious in design and construction with the general
vicinity, that the density for Ashford 2 would be 4.9
units to the acre, and, again, that the entire project is
designed to be 0-lot line.
CONCLUSIONS
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 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 18
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the .City of
Meridian.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
4. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and state.
5. That Section 11-2-409 A lists Planned Residential
Developments as a conditional use in the R-4 District.
6. That the Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to
planned unit developments in 11-9-607 and such has been
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
7. That Section 11-9-607 E states that a PD shall be allowed
only as a Conditional Use in each district, subject to the
standards and procedures set forth in section 11-9-607; that a PD
shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts
in which said PD is located; the approval for a PD may provide for
such exceptions from the district regulations governing use,
density,. area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may
be desireable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD,
provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and
criteria contained in this section. It is therefore concluded that
this Application for a Planned Unit Development should be approved
under the conditions and requirements stated herein.
8. That Section 11-9-607 G. 8. provides that all Planned
Developments shall be subject to design review by the City staff
and Council; that it is concluded that the above section shall be
a requirement and Applicant required to comply with it.
9. That it is concluded that the Applicant shall be required
to meet, and comply with, the requirements of Bruce Freckleton,
Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, City Planning and
Zoning Administrator.
10. That it is concluded the City reserves the right to place
appropriate conditions on this medium density application, in
accordance with Ordinance requirements, and the City has the right
and duty to place conditions when the application is for a
conditional use; it is further concluded that if Applicant obtains
approval from Shari Stiles, the Planning and Zoning Administrator
and/or from Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, it
may receive the following changes to the Ordinance requirements, to
wit:
1. That the streets may be private but shall be constructed
to meet ACHD construction standards and requirements; if
the streets are private they must be 29 feet back-to-back
and if they are public they must meet ACRD standards and
requirement; if the streets are. private that the
Applicant shall establish, in the Covenants, Conditions
and Restriction's (CC & R's), a means.. of collecting, each
year, a depreciation fund sufficient to build a fund to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 19
•
maintain the streets at any and all times of the year
such maintenance is required and to totally reconstruct
them in twenty (20) years.
2. That 5 foot sidewalks may be constructed only on one side
of the roadway [". if allowed by ACHD;" deleted.];
Applicant shall place and construct the internal
pedestrian system represented; and the Applicant shall
establish, in the CC & R's, a means of collecting, each
year, a depreciation fund sufficient to build a fund to
maintain the sidewalks at any and all times of the year
such maintenance is required, and to totally reconstruct
them in thirty (30) years.
3. That street frontage of 46 feet is allowed for all lots
and all lots having direct access to a street must have
that amount of frontage; that for those lots that do not
have direct access to a street and have access by means
of an easement, the street frontages shall be in
accordance with those depicted on the approved Technical
Site Plan and Preliminary Plat. [This was changed,
basically, to meet the suggested change by the
Applicant.]
4. That setbacks shall be in accordance with the Development
Standards listed on the approved Technical Site Plan, to
wit:
Front Yard - Front-on Garage 20'
Side-on Garage 15'
Livable Area 15'
5'
Side Yard - Interior Lots 15'
Corner Lots, adjacent to street 10'
Corner Lots, adjacent to driveway
Rear Yard 15'
Minimum Building Separation 10'
Minimum Building Height 35'
5. That the minimum lot size required in the R-4 District,
of 8,000 square feet, need not be met for all homes
because this is a planned unit development, but the lot
sizes shall not be smaller than 4,600 square feet.
6. That no more than 74 lots shall be allowed in the
development of the parcel and the .density shall not be
more than 4.87 dwelling units per acre.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 20
i ~
7. There must be parking pods, as shown on the submitted
plats and drawings, only for guests, scattered throughout
the subdivision and there shall be signs placed showing
that they are for guests only and a means of enforcing
that requirement in the CC & R's must be established and
adopted.
8. That the minimum lot size required in the R-4 District,
of 8,000 square feet, need not be met for all homes
because this is a planned unit development, but the lot
sizes shall not be smaller than as shown on the
preliminary plat submitted for approval along with this
application for a conditional use.
9. That only one-fifth of the homes constructed may be less
than 1,400 square feet, but there shall be no .homes
smaller than 1, 225 square feet; that all other homes must
be 1,400 square feet or larger, as represented.
10.
That the club house/recreation center represented t
in the subdivision must be constructed; that it mus
constructed on or before the first twenty-five lots
sold. That the parking areas for the
house/recreation center may be closer than 4' from
right-of-way.
11. That both street entries into the subdivision shall be
gated.
12. That the residents should be "seniors" as represented and
all laws, federal or state, pertaining to a senior
citizens residential area must be met.
13. That only single-family detached homes may be
constructed.
14. That Applicant shall present CC & R's to the City showing
compliance with the terms of these Findings and
Conclusions, but the City of Meridian shall not enforce
them but compliance must be shown
15. That it must be shown how Interlachen and Dawson Drive
will connect; that it need not be shown on a plat for
this subdivision but it must be shown prior to submittal
of any additional development application involved in
Ashford Greens. [This Conclusion is not changed or
modified since it the Applicant has not addressed the
question and it is concluded that it is a matter that
must be addressed for any development in Ashford Greens
and that it must be presented.]
o be
t be
are
club
road
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 21
11. That the Applicant and its agents made representations
regarding the Application and the development of the property to
achieve approval of the Application, or parts thereof, many of
which are in these Findings and Conclusions, but all of which are
in the record and have been, or are hereby, incorporated herein;
that- all representations made and the requirements of these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, shall be met; that if the
above are not met the approvals made shall be subject to
cancellation and the property subject to de-annexation.
12. That all Ordinances of the City of Meridian shall be met,
including but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance and the,
Subdivision and Development Ordinance, both as modified by Section
11-9-607 of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, and the
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code,
Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, and all
parking and landscaping requirements.
13. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of
the City of Meridian sets forth the standards. under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, the City Council [Planning and Zoning
Commission was deleted.] concludes as follows:
a. The Planned Development use, would in fact,
constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit
is required by ordinance.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 22
•
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance and
the Subdivision and Development Ordinance require a
conditional use permit to allow the use.
c. The Applicant did not specifically state that the
development would be designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the intended character of
the general vicinity, which is the Cherry Lane Village
Subdivision, The Lake at Cherry Lane, and Golf View
Estates; Applicant did, however, state that the character
of the homes would comport to existing homes, that they
would have only detached single-family dwellings, two-car
garages, gross density would be 4.9 units to the acre,
some 0-lot line development, shake roofs, and discussed
the square footages of some of the proposed homes.
[That Applicant in its request for consideration
did state that it had represented that its density
would be 4.9 units per acre, which it did and that
has been put into the Conclusions.
It further requested that the Conclusions be
changed to reflect that it stated that"development
would be harmonious in design and construction with
the general vicinity". That all of the minutes of
the Planning and Zoning hearing and meetings were
not checked, but it is concluded that the record
was checked at the time of the initial preparation
of the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
that representation and that representation .was not
noted. Since the Applicant's Application has .been
approved it is further concluded that that
representation is not material.
It is further concluded that the Applicant did
not specifically state that the entire project was
a 0-lot line project and that was not represented
on the site plan, preliminary plat, and was not
specifically stated. That such representation was
not made to the Planning and Zoning Commission or
the City Council is the recollection of the
Planning and Zoning Administrator and the City
Attorney. However, it is further concluded that
since the Applicant's project is now approved as an
entire 0-lot line project, whether Applicant, or
its representative's, specifically represented
whether or not the project was an entire 0-lot line
project is immaterial.]
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 23
•
e. The property has sewer and water service available
and, such, will have to be installed and connected by the
Applicant.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would
be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the
proposed use will be required.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
14. That regarding the conditional use finding that must be
addressed pursuant to 11-2-418 C 3. as to the harmony of the
project to the general vicinity, it is concluded that the harmony
must be with the general vicinity, which is the entire golf course
area, including Cherry Lane Subdivision, Golf View, The Lake at
Cherry Lane and Golf View Estates; that by making this proposed
subdivision for a senior citizen living complex does not remove the
conditional use requirement that the proposed use be harmonious
with the general vicinity.
15. That the representations made by Applicant,, or its
agents, have been filed with the City or stated at the meetings and
public hearings, and such are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that if Applicant does not comply with those
representations the approvals given to the Applicant and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 24
property shall be subject to revocation and the property subject to
de-annexation.
16. That the representations made by Applicant, or its
agents, and the requirements of the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian shall be met and complied with, these representations and
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. All Ordinances of the City, except which are allowed not
to be complied with herein.
2. Meeting the requirements of City Staff.
3. Meeting all of Applicant's representations regarding
development, included in the testimony,. the applications,
in, or on, the plats and drawings, or in any way made a
part of the application.
4. Construction of not more than one-fifth of the homes in
the subdivision at 1,225 square feet to 1,400 square feet
single story homes;all other homes shall be 1.400 square.
feet or larger; all homes, regardless of their size,
shall have at least a two car garage.
5. Constructing and placing the recreation/club house and
all amenities thereto on or before 25 lots are sold.
6. Constructing, planting and placing all landscaping at the
perimeter, entrance and within the subdivision.
7. Construct entry gates into the subdivision,
8. Meet the comments of the Fire Chief regarding parking and
the placing of signs to reflect the parking restrictions.
9. Tile all waterways, unless a variance is applied for and
granted, and construct and supply pressurized irrigation.
10. Construct and place the parking pods as shown.
17. That the Applicant shall meet and perform all of the
requirements of the Motion passed and approved for the entire
Planned Unit Development which Motion is stated in Finding Number
22.
18. That a warranty deed for the golf course property,
included in any of the land owned or being developed by Applicant,
by David Turnbull, or any entity in which David Turnbull has an
interest in, shall be delivered to the City on or before May 16,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 25
•
1996; that if such deed is not delivered on or before that date
procedures to revoke all approvals of development on the property
surrounding the back nine of the golf course shall be instituted.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
The Meridian City Council hereby approves and grants this
Conditional Use Application for a Planned Unit Development under
the conditions stated above in these Findings of Fact and.
Conclusions of Law; that this approval is subject to all City
Ordinances, except as allowed not to be met as stated herein, but
specifically including design review and plat approval under the
procedures of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
MOTION:
APPROVED DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 26
•
sales for the full year fell 3.4$ of those last year;
that the City has an Albertson's, Fred Meyer and possibly
a Waremart going in; that he had not seen the pictures
before and he had not seen the drawings and they had not
talked to Mike Wardle recently; that he questioned if
what had been shown was a concept or a plan of the
landscaping in the back, what type of trees, the size,
the quantity back here, are they going to make it
beautiful or just put a few trees in and those would
maybe mature in about 15 or 20 years; he also questioned
if all deliveries were to the front; that he was worried
about noise and wondered if the City has an ordinance for
noise for when a certain decibel for the air conditioner,
freezer compressors is at an acceptable level; he
questioned what happens if the truck deliveries and
street sweepers do not abide by a noise ordinance; he
question if behind the store they are going to make it a
dead end with the nice park back there; that he had
brought this up before; that it was a perfect place to go
and drink beer, have sandwiches or chips after work and
how is that to be policed; he wanted to know about the
trash from that; he wanted to know what type of houses
are going to go in there and if they were going to be
single family or are they going to be apartment houses or
duplexes?
g. Mary Ann Christman testified that she was there for a
couple of purposes; number one, she does represent the
two people who own the properties on the corner of Linder
and Cherry Lane; however she had a greater interest in
the fact that she was a resident of the Meridian area;
she lives in Parkside Creek Subdivision; she is a real
estate agent; her concern was that she was getting
comments from people who were looking to move into the
Meridian area and people who are currently living in the
Meridian area, that there is no good support for
shopping; people are glad to see that the Albertson's is
coming into better location for them being out in the
Cherry Lane and Ten Mile area, but that does not appeal
to them as much as Smith's because it is not a
competitive shopping situation; two Albertson's is not
what they are happy about; there is a major concern about
no competitive shopping and the location of Smith's is
something that they would very much like to see happen;
I just wanted to convey that I hear what I have said
almost on a daily basis.
h. Charles Kline testified that his major concern was that
the maintaining of the grounds there was always a lot of
trash from people going into the store, buying a can of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 13
•
coke and throwing them on the ground as they walked home
or whatever; Smith's is saying they are putting the trees
up in the back of the store to help maintain and beautify
the area but who is going to be maintaining this area to
make sure it stays clean and not become full of trash.
i. Marceda Bachini testified that he would like to know
about the truck traffic and when those trucks are going
to be coming because if they are coming in the dark at
7:30 in the morning when bicycles are being ridden by
dark clothed middle school kids I do not think it is very
good for the City of Meridian.
15. That Mike Wardle, before the Commission, submitted draft
minutes of the Boise City Council hearing testimony by Bev
Stoddard, representative of the Meridian School District, in which
Ms. Stoddard made the following comment: "We are welcoming Smith's
for their other location they have chosen at Cherry and Linder. It
is half a mile away from any of our schools and we have absolutely
no problem with that."
16. That written testimony was submitted, before the
Commission, some of which was not timely submitted and some of
which was; the following is a summary of each persons written
testimony if it was timely submitted:
1. W. Roy Brown, 1701 W. Cherry Lane, stated that this store
is badly needed to service the fast growing population in
this area; that having shopped the Smith's in the Utah
area, he found them to be clean, progressive, well-
stocked operation and believes they provide good service
to the community; that he recommends the C-N zoning.
2. Glenn R. Bentley, Meridian City Councilman, submitted
written comment, which is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; he stated that the people who bought lots
in Glennfield Manor with the knowledge that the remainder
of the vacant land was in the plat for residential; he
questioned how many people are willing to buy houses
knowing their view out their picture window is the back
of a grocery store; that with this store there would be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITS'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 14
four stores in a three mile stretch; and that drivers
would use the Castle Falls street as a by-pass of the
traffic light at Linder Road and Cherry Lane.
17. That at the Commission hearing Doug Kowallis, of Crest
and Company, a real estate representative from Boise, addressed the
Commission and testified that three (3) other sites besides this
one at Linder and Cherry Lane had analysis done as possible
locations; that the hours of operation is 24 hours with parking
stalls for approximately 363 cars; that deliveries will be confined
to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. as well as the
sweeping of the parking lot.
18. That, also before the Commission, Terry Schofield, the
architect for this project, testified that all of the equipment and
compressors for the refrigeration is included inside a penthouse
with a mechanical well for the air handler sitting next to it; that
this well is pressed down into the store so it is actually sitting
at the same height as the mezzanine of the compressor well but is
open on all four sides to allow the sound to escape directly
upward.
19. That the Assistant to the Meridian City Engineer, Bruce
Freckleton, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles,
Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Central District Health
Department and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, submitted
comments .
20. That the comments submitted by Bruce Freckleton,
Assistant to the City Engineer are as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 15
! ~
a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the
property shall be tiled;
b. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
within this project will have to be removed from their
domestic service per City Ordinance, but wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation;
c. That a drainage plan designed by an architect or an
engineer shall be submitted for all off-street parking
areas and that off-street parking shall be provided in
accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian
Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in
site-specific requirements;
d. That outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as
to not direct illumination on any nearby residences;
e. That all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian
City Ordinances;
f. That the paving and striping shall be in accordance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
g. That the treatment capacity of Meridian's Waste Water
Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated and that
approval of this application needs to be contingent upon
our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage
generated by this proposed development.
21. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Director,
submitted comments regarding this request by Smith's Food & Drug
Center, Inc.; that the majority of the property at the northwest
corner of Linder Road and Cherry Lane is zoned R-4 and had been
platted as Valeri Place (aka Kastle/Emerald/Cinder Falls)
Subdivision; that Valeri Place Subdivision No. 1 has been recorded;
that the final plat of Valeri Place Subdivision Nol 2 was approved
on 8/3/93 and a one-year extension granted on 7/5/94 and that this
plat is now null and void; that a portion of the site was rezoned
on 3/15/94 to L-O, Limited Office to allow a low impact buffer
between the intersection and anticipated residential development
and that the applicants for the rezone to L-O were Glenn and Millie
Vyborg; that the Generalized Land Use Map from the Comprehensive
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 16
Plan shows this parcel as being Existing Urban and existing uses of
a type similar to this are or will be located at Locust Grove Road,
Meridian Road, and Ten Mile Road, all on Fairview Avenue/Cherry
Lane.
Ms. Stiles commented further that if this rezoning if
approved, the Developer should provide the following:
1. A minimum 35-foot landscape buffer on Cherry Lane as well
as details for approval prior to obtaining building
permit;
2. Minimum 20-foot landscaped buffers on Linder Road and
adjacent to residential uses (including across the road),
with details for approval;
3. Complete site plan for review and approval prior to
submitting for building permits to assure compliance with
City ordinances and staff and agency requirements;
4. One (1) three-inch (3") caliper tree for each 1,500
square feet of paving;
5. Construction in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act;
6. Extension and hookup of sewer and water lines to serve
project; and
7. Application for conditional use permit for any further
development (future pad site).
22. That comments submitted by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department and
Central District Health Department are incorporated herein as if
set forth in herein.
23. That all representations in the Application, all
documents submitted as part of this Application, all
representations made by the Applicant, and Applicant's agents, are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full, whether stated herein
or not.
24. The following statements are made in Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 17
•
Comprehensive Plan, to wit:
"Economic Development Goal Statement
Meridian seeks to stimulate, encourage and give
preference to those types of economic activities and
developments which provide for the employment of Meridian
citizens and area residents, and reduce the need for people to
commute to neighboring cities for work.
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.
1.4 Positive programs should be undertaken to
support existing industrial and commercial
areas to ensure their continued vitality, such
as:
c.• .Zoning changes to assure desired economic
development.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
support shopping facilities which are
effectively integrated into new or existing
residential areas, and plan for new shopping
centers as growth and development warrant."
CONCLUSIONS
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 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants'
property.
2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and state.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 18
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions upon granting a zoning amendment.
4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning
amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-
416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67
Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it
can take judicial notice.
5. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City
shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review
of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and
conditions of the area, the City Council specifically concludes as
follows:
(a ) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan
amendment is required.
(b) The area is in the CINDER DISTRICT neighborhood and is
along Cherry Lane, and which is designed for commercial and
retail uses and a rezone of the subject property is in line
with that designation.
(c) The area around in the proposed zoning amendment is
developed in a retail and commercial fashion that would be
allowed under the new zoning and the new zoning would not be
contrary to the allowed uses in the area and would be in line
with existing developments in the area.
(d) There has been some change in the area which may dictate
that the property should be rezoned, the change from
residential zoning to Limited Office zoning for the property
and house which fronts on Cherry Lane and the property is to
be developed in a fashion which comports with other
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 19
development in the area and existing zoning is probably out of
line with the existing uses, particularly on the south side of
Cherry Lane.
(e) That it is unknown, specifically, that the property is
proposed to be designed and constructed to be harmonious with
the surrounding area, but the Applicant specifically aware
that he is proposing to place a grocery and drug store amongst
residential neighbors.
(f) The proposed uses should not be hazardous or disturbing
to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood, and the
Applicant will be instructed and required to have its store as
unimposing as possible.
(g) The property will be able to be adequately served with
public facilities, and connection to municipal sewer and water
is required.
(h) The proposed use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and services
and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
(i) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental
activity to any person's property or the general welfare.
(j) Development will cause a significant increase in
vehicular traffic but it should not interfere with surrounding
traffic patterns.
(k) That this rezone will not result in the destruction, loss
or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major
importance.
(1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of
City of Meridian.
6. That as a condition of granting this rezone, the
Applicant shall meet, perform, and comply with all of the
representations made in the Application, all documents submitted as
part of this Application, all representations made by the
Applicant, and Applicant's agents; that if the representations are
not met, performed, and complied with; that as set forth in 11-2-
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 20
•
416 J., violations of the conditions of this rezone shall b, and
are, violations of the Zoning Ordinance, and may be violations of
other ordinances of the City of Meridian.
7. It is further concluded that the comments,
recommendations and requirements of the other governmental agencies
shall have to be met and complied with.
8. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire
and Life Safety Code, Mechanical Code, and all parking, lighting
and landscaping requirements, and the lighting shall be done so
that the adjacent residential structures are not effected.
9. That all requirements of these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law shall be met, including entering into a
development agreement, which shall address the comments and
concerns of City Staff, the representations of the Applicant and
its agents, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
10. It is further concluded that the comments,
recommendations and requirements of all the other governmental
agencies shall have to be met and complied with.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 21
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED d
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
~fne~~~'~e~~-f Tu G~PciJi'm
DECISION ~Ul'~C~'!-vl/y c~ Q~cf~i,~tCr
The Meridian City Council decides that the requested/re/zone of...•`'
the land to Neighborhood Business District (C-N), is hereby
granted; that as a condition of the rezone that the Applicant meet
the terms and conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law, the comments and requirements of the City Staff, the water
and sewer ordinance requirements, the Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code,
the Fire and Life Safety Code, Mechanical Code, and all parking,
lighting and landscaping requirements. If there are irrigation
canals, drainages or other means of conveying water, located on the
property, they shall be tiled.
MOTION:
APPROVED: ~ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 22
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC
REZONE APPLICATION
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2 T 3N R 1W B M
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
March 19 at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing
through its representative, Mike Wardle, the City Council of the
City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the
matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone
Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for March 19, 1996, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 19, 1996 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;
2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and the owners of record are James Huarte, of Shingle Springs,
California, Dorothy L. Manning, Boise, Idaho, and Richard A. Baer,
Meridian, Idaho, which property is described in the application
which description is incorporated herein; that the owners have
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Pave 1
consented to this application; that the property is presently zoned
R-4, Low Density Residential and L-O, Limited Office; that the
Applicant requests a rezone of the 8.34 acres to C-N, Neighborhood
Business, to allow construction of a Smith's Food and Drug Center.
3. The present land use is currently two dwellings at the
corner, one owner occupied and the other a rental; that the balance
of the property is vacant and formerly proposed to be an extension
of Valeri Place Subdivision.
4. That the surrounding property consists of residential to
the North; bare ground to the West and further west and abutting
the bare ground is Valeri Place No. 1 Subdivision; to the South,
across Cherry Lane, there are three developed parcels, including
Domino's Pizza, a car wash and a Maverik Convenience Store; to the
East, across Linder Road, is vacant land and three single family
homes fronting Cherry Lane; and to the Southeast is undeveloped
land with C-N and R-8 zoning.
5. That the Applicant proposes to construct a 60,000 square
foot front-loading food and drug store on a 7.24 acre parcel.
6. That the Applicant stated in the application that it
proposes to buffer the North; that a row of single family lots on
an extension of Kastle Falls Way would buffer the existing homes in
Glennfield Manor Subdivision; that a 25 foot setback at the rear of
the store facing the new residences will be intensely landscaped
with only wall mounted, down-cast security lighting; that there
will be no service access at the rear of the store; that to the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 2
West, there are two (2) options possible; that a cul-de-sac be
developed in the subdivision preliminary plat or provide the 2.69
acre parcel for a public city park; that the frontage of both
Cherry Lane and Linder Road will be bermed and extensively
landscaped; that on a plat drawing submitted with the rezone
application the applicant showed the approximate 2.69 acres that
Applicant's representative mentioned as being a park area and on
the plat drawing it states "For Future Residential or Recreational
Use".
7. That a traffic study has been conducted by Bell-Walker
Engineers and submitted with this application, as well as to the
Ada County Highway District for their review; that the traffic
study is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
8. That the C-N District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 2 as follows:
(C-N) Community Business District: The purpose of the
(C-N) District is to permit the establishment of small
scale convenience business uses which are intended to
meet the daily needs of the residents of an immediate
neighborhood (as defined by the policies of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan); to encourage clustering and
strategic siting of such businesses to provide service to
the neighborhood and avoid intrusion of such uses into
the adjoining residential districts. All such districts
shall give direct access to transportation arterials or
collectors, be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer
systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute
all or any part of a strip development concept.
9. That in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan neighborhoods are
defined in the Plan at Page 6 as follows:
"Definition: The neighborhood is a residential area with
uniform characteristics of a size comparable to that usually
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 3
served by an elementary school or a small business convenience
center or a local park. Although neighborhoods occur in
various shapes and sizes, a section of the City measuring one-
half to one and one-half miles across is usually used for
planning purposes. It has facilities within easy walking
distances and provides the basis for community
identification."
10. That Ordinance 11-2-410 ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND
COVERAGE CONTROLS, A, for the C-N District, requires that there be
a ten (10) foot side yard setback.
11. Mike Wardle, the Applicant's representative, testified
before the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission that the parcel
in question lies north of Cherry Lane, West of Linder Road, and is
approximately 7.25 acres in size; that the proposed change is from
the existing R-4, single family residential and L-O, limited office
zones, to a C-N, Neighborhood Business District; that Smith's has
met with the residents in an October 1995 meeting and a November 9,
1995 meeting, expressly to deal with the concerns of the residents
affected by this rezone; that originally the store was to be built
to the north with just a buffer between the store and the existing
Glennfield Manor; that the Applicant has since changed its proposal
and moved the store southerly and proposed an extension of the
public street, to develop an additional six (6) lots that would
provide the buffer between the store and the existing residents to
the north; that the buffer at the back of the store then would be
a 25 foot landscaped area, again with no service activity at the
back; that the building height of 26 feet with a berm going up the
back and landscaping both in sod, ground treatment, and a lot of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 4
•
vertical growing bushes would provide a buffer.
That for the residents affected in the Linder Falls
Subdivision area, two (2) options were proposed; one being a cul-
de-sac, which is close to what was originally proposed in the
preliminary plat, and the second being a 2.7 acre park; the first
option being two (2) additional rows of houses, and the second
option would be the possible dedication to Meridian of that space
as a park; that Smith's will work with the residents to resolve
concerns regarding screening, landscaping and control of lighting
and signage.
Mr. Wardle also submitted written comment pertaining to the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan which is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full. Additionally, a STATEMENT OF SUPPORT, signed by 16
people was submitted the night of the hearing is incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
Mr. Wardle submitted additional comments after the public had
given testimony; he stated that Smith's will work with Meridian and
residents to resolve concerns, to mitigate problems, to provide
appropriate screening, landscaping and to control lighting and
signage; that the commission must deal with the factual issues and
not the emotional issues; and that the Meridian Comprehensive plan
is silent with respect to where these types of facilities should be
located.
That before the Meridian City Council he testified what the
development would be, as he did before the Commission, but he also
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 5
•
stated that they had subsequent meetings with the neighbors, the
proposal that I believe has been validated and will be presented to
you in a few moments actually; his testimony before the City
Council is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
12. Gary Funkhouse, transportation engineer with Bell-Walker
Engineers, testified before the Commission as follows regarding the
traffic impact analysis prepared for this proposed development;
that the estimated trip generation for this site will be 6600 trips
per day; that three (3) types of trips make up this analysis:
1. Primary trip--a trip from a residence that is heading
directly for this site.
2. Diverted link trip--a trip where by you are travelling
down another roadway and you divert over to this site and
then head back to your next destination you were headed.
3. Pass by trips--a trip where you are currently on the
existing roadway and you turn into the site and turn out
and continue on your trip you were already on.
That new trips to the site are primary trips and diverted link
trips, that being trips where the initial goal was not grocery
shopping; that 'pass by' trips are estimated for this type of
development, or that are already on the system on Linder and Cherry
Lane; pass by trips are estimated for this type of development at
approximately 50~ of the 6600, or approximately 3300; that less
than 2.2$, or 120 trips, of the trips are generated during the time
frame of 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. when children are going to school and
about 6.5~ of the trips are heading for this site when children are
going to and from their dismissal time of 3:00 p.m. ; that "diverted
trips" were not calculated; that the roadways that are serving the
site are both arterial roadways, minor arterials; that one is five
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 6
(5) lane and the other three (3) lane and that this intersection of
Cherry Lane and Linder Road is a level of service "C" which is
desirable by the Ada County Highway District and which will remain
a level "C" when this project is completed; that the change in
average delay by the addition of this site is one (1) extra second
per vehicle, on an average; that the normal zone that you analyze
is two to three miles from this site as the normal drawing area for
this type of store.
He also testified before the City Council and his testimony
before the City Council is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
13. Joann Butler, Boise attorney, representing Smith's,
testified that the rezone will implement what the Comprehensive
Plan desires and she presented a set of FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL for
the Commission, which are incorporated as if set forth in herein
she also testified before the City Council and her testimony is
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. There were several property owners in the immediate area
who testified regarding the application; their testimony is
summarized as follows:
a. Paula Devaney testified that she is in favor this
proposal; that two (2) things this City needs are
additional neighborhood services and additional parks and
recreation; the more residential, the more houses which
equates to more burden on schools and well as increase
the traffic; that here is an opportunity for the City to
set a precedence to start doing some partnering with
developers and getting wheat the City wants as well as
what the City needs.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. page ~
b. That Pam Bennett testified she and 160 signatures of
people in the area oppose Smith's moving into this
location; that they are opposed to the rezoning and there
is no need for another grocery store within a three (3)
mile radius; that the subdivision of Linder Falls,
formerly known as Kastle Falls, has strict CC&R's which
speak to nuisances and offensive activities and no
commercial activity, in addition to no exterior or
interior lighting being placed to cause glare, excessive
light spillage onto neighboring lots; that she and the
resident's concerned with this proposal are an organized
and serious taxpaying group of homeowners prepared to
fight Smith's rezoning proposal.
c. Bonnie Bradshaw testified that being just new to the area
and not familiar with the comprehensive plan, wishes a
different location be found by Smith's but is not opposed
to Smith's coming to the area.
d. That Shelly Monks testified that she has collected within
her block alone, 14 names of homeowners in support of
Smith's; that this is a growing community and like it or
not it is happening.
e. Dee Ray Olsen testified that she is excited with the
prospect of this application and the choice of location;
that it will be convenient and Smith's in the past was a
good neighbor.
f. Kristen Miller testified that considering what is good
for the children and for their parents should be
recognized; that the traffic now is hectic and to add a
grocery store in the mix would created a congested
traffic mess; that she and her neighbors should not be
forced to have Smith's in their neighborhood.
g. That Dan Barkini testified that he is not opposed to the
food store chain and that he welcomes the competition;
that he is opposed to the rezoning of the northwest
corner of Linder and Cherry Lane to anything except
single family residences; that with the market comes
noise, smell, lights and raises the safety issue, making
the area a less desirable area to live in.
h. Lisa Johnson testified that she is also opposed to this
application; that it is too close to the subdivision
which has strict restrictive covenants and the risk it
has of devaluing her property.
i. That Sharon Litzbauer offered testimony stating that she
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. page g
sees by Smith's plans to bring in off of Linder two (2)
streets creating a through street; that now safety become
an issue as cars use the street as a short cut to the new
store; that the deterrent of speed bumps won't hinder the
traffic increase through the neighborhood.
Commissioner Oslund pointed out that regardless of the
corner development, whether residential or commercial,
the potential for cut through exists either way.
j . Brent Perkins testified that a store in that proximity to
a subdivision of that nature is bound to affect the
property values; that to put another grocery store in
this tight of an area where already the available space
for shopping is tripling, is definitely going to impact
some of the residents of this community.
k. Leslie Peters offered testimony stating her concerns of
safety; whether sidewalks would be required on both sides
of Linder Road and added that speed bumps is not going to
slow traffic down and whether the speed limits would be
more monitored.
1. Mary Ann Christman, of the Parkside Creek Subdivision,
testified she is in favor of Smith's and the location
chosen; that her lot backs up to the new Albertson's
location and bought the lot knowing that the food chain
was going to be building a new store; that she has
shopped at Smith's in their other locations and found
Smith's to be very competitive; that she understands the
feelings of the neighbors to this proposed location, but
that Smith's, in considering the people in the area, are
proposing a park, planning berms, lots of landscaping,
something she wishes she would have at her location; that
being a realtor in the area she has heard a lot of
comments about the fact there is not enough grocery
stores or amenities in the area; that Smith's will bring
convenience and competition to shoppers.
m. Brendon Johnson, 1970 Emerald Falls Court, testified that
he is opposed to this proposal of taking residential
space to build a store on when there is commercial space
out there that would serve Smith's just as well; that
this is going to hurt the value of his home; that the
concept of building one row of houses as a buffer in his
opinion, will not solve the problem; that he is opposed
in merging commercial that closely with residential and
that he did not purchase his home knowing that commercial
zoning was going to be his neighbor.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 9
•
n. That Marvin Bodine testified that Meridian will never get
a big park if it gets many more little parks, which are
a detriment and don't do Meridian any good.
o. Terri Maupin, 1672 North Kastle Falls Avenue, offered
testimony opposing this application, stating that while
unpacking moving boxes she received information regarding
this application by Smith's; that the maps she viewed at
the time she was interested in purchasing the home showed
the area as residential, being the next phase of the
subdivision; that her realtor got the information from
the realtor representing the building stating the same;
that she didn't think she paid a reduced price, but
received what she thought was a good deal being in
Meridian.
p. Chris Jacks testified that he applauds Smith's coming to
Meridian but does not approve of the location; that the
increased traffic and safety of his children is of
concern.
q. That Randy Nash testified he purchased his home in good
faith in an upscale neighborhood with further plans for
residential development and not commercial; that this
proposed development is going to devalue his home
dramatically; that this will downscale the neighborhood
and also increase traffic and he opposes this
application.
r. Wanda Lansbury, 1383 Storey Street, testified that she is
in favor of this proposed development; that if it wasn't
developed for a market, it could be something worse like
a dog kennel, bar or drive-in.
s. Georgia Mackly, 1287 North Santa Rosa, testified that she
was hired by Mr. Jim Huarte, who inherited this property,
to clean up phase 1 of Linder Falls; that the houses were
not selling in Linder Falls and nothing affects
homeowners value more than houses not selling; that since
Smith's announcement, there has been one (1) spec house
sold and two (2) options on two (2) more lots; that as a
citizen of Meridian, she approves of the Smith's
application and also knowing Mr. Heward's good faith
effort is and trying to do the best thing with the
property on the corner.
t. Kelly Maupin, testified, commenting that he will be
looking at the parking lot and the lights on the light
towers and that there is nothing that can block that.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 10
• .
u. Elizabeth Goon, 1862 Emerald Falls Drive, testified that
she lives right across from the proposed Smith's in lot
26; that she brought in 160 signatures from folks living
on all sides of Linder and Cherry Lane; folks who do not
want a grocery store that close or the traffic that comes
with it.
v. Mary Lou Bower testified that she lives in a house which
would be three doors away from the proposed Smith's
store; that this property should remain residential and
that Smith's find some commercially zoned property; that
she is not opposed to Smith's except that they want to
come in at this location and that it will hurt her
property value.
That there were people testifying before the City Council and
their testimony was as follows:
a. Jack Muldoon testified that he was there to ask the
Council to stop the onslaught on Cherry Lane; that he was
testifying not against Smith's but because he would like
to see Smith's some place in Meridian but not on Cherry
Lane; that the comprehensive plan would not be worth much
unless you can do that; it will protect the residents and
the schools, but it is not protecting this neighborhood
or the three schools there, which will soon be four
schools; Cherry Lane will be a City of Meridian if it is
not protect it; the are is residential now and he asked
that it be kept residential.
b. Larry Wolf testified that he has an interest in a lot
that would be in the house; the block fence that was
proposed to come up the back side would actually really
put a shadow on the house; he stated that he was a
partner with the builder; that if he has an opportunity
to sell the house it is a deal maker if there is some
additional space between the block wall and the house; it
is a concern with us and I just wanted to go on record
that we do have that concern.
c. Sharon Litzbauer testified that desired to submit a
document, which she did; it was the agreement that Joann
Butler just spoke of between Smith's and the homeowners;
that she just wanted to say that she was prepared to
speak on behalf of the homeowners in Valeri Place
Subdivision No. 1 and at this time they were not there
tonight to oppose the Smith's development at the location
of Linder and Cherry Lane, instead that they have entered
into the agreement with Smith's provided that each party
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 11
• •
fulfills it on their behalf; she to put that into the
record and make it a part of the facts and findings for
your conclusion on this development.
d. Georgia Mackley testified that she just wanted to go on
record that she is in favor of the Smith's Food King at
the corner of Linder and Cherry Lane; she lives in the
Vineyards Subdivision and drives through the intersection
of Linder and Cherry Lane anywhere from 7:30 to 8:30 in
the morning; she thinks that this corner and the traffic
would accommodate Smith's Food King and she does not see
any impact or very much of an impact that Smith's will
have in that area.
e. Puala Devaney testified that she was very much in favor
of Smith's coming to this location; she lives in the
Vineyards Subdivision; she thinks it is a good
opportunity to bring additional services into her
neighborhood; that the City's comprehensive Plan states
that the City will promote the development of high
quality and environmentally compatible residential areas
that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial
facilities to maintain and form identifiable
neighborhood; that Smith's has presented a plan which
fits this criteria; that she would, however, like to
address the City's reluctance to accept the area on the
west end of the project as a park; it has been noted that
the City is not interested in parks which are less than
5 acres there was just recently an article in the Idaho
Statesman regarding the Police Activities League and
Capital Youth Soccer feuding over the few soccer fields
available; this land could be developed into two or three
additional soccer fields which we need much more than we
need nine more houses; we need soccer and football fields
or softball fields that residents can walk to; it would
form an identifiable neighborhood that the Comprehensive
Plan refers to; that the City has a long way to go in
developing the 50 plus acres that it has for a park; that
in the meantime these smaller areas can, and should be,
developed, especially when the developer is willing and
able to do more than simply set the land aside, but
actually develop it; she hoped Smith's would be approved
regardless of what it done with the park area, but stated
that she would like to see the City reevaluate the idea
of putting in a park that would contain soccer or some
other playing field.
f. Dan Bachini testified that he questioned whether Smith's
was going to be here to stay?; he quoted a Dow Jones News
Retrieval, which stated the company comparable store
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTER, INC. Page 12
~ ~ ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF DAVE LEADER
FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE R-4 STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT OF 65 FEET
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for hearing
on March 19, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date,
at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho,
Ted Hutchinson appearing for the Applicant, 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 19, 1995, the first publication of which. was fifteen (15 )
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the March 19, 1995, 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. l.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-8 Residential; that the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-410 A, requires that the street frontage in
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1
~ ~
the R-8 zone for single-family subdivisions be 65 feet.
4. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a
variance from the minimum street frontage requirement for R-8 zoned
lots for Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, of Dove Meadows No. 2 Subdivision,
and be allowed to have street frontage of 50.00 feet in Lot 3 and
54.00 feet in Lot 4 in lieu of the required minimum of sixty-five
(65) feet of street frontage.
5. That Ted Hutchinson, representing the Applicant,
testified as follows:
"We are seeking a variance of the street frontage requirements
for two lots in the second phase of Dove Meadows No. 2. These
lots are located on a curve that affects our ability to
provide adequate frontage for these. This is also affected by
the street location which was predicated by the platting of
Dove Meadows No. 1. The change in the street layout with the
development of the Avest property there were some changes in
the street layout which would have affected, ultimately, the
lay out of Dove Meadows No. 2. These lots exceed the minimum
lot size in the R-8 zone and in fact the two lots, one of the
lots is 8,594 square feet in size, the other lot is 9,062
square feet in size. This is considerably larger than the
6,500 square feet required by the R-4 [R-8] zone. We are
seeking a variance brought down to approximately 50 feet for
Lot 3 and to 54 feet for lot 4 on Block 1 of this subdivision
proposed. Excuse me that is Block 3 of Dove Meadows No. 2. We
believe that with the constraints and the size of the lots
that is appropriate for this variance to be approved. The
letter that I submitted with the application I outlined the
findings that must be made by the Council when they are
reviewing the variance request. In that letter I also tried to
address those findings to provide the evidence and the
information that you would need to be able to support this
variance request. With that I would answer any questions the
Council would have at this time."
6. That the Applicant is the owner of record of the
property.
7. That Applicant developed Dove Meadows No. 1 prior to
developing Dove Meadows No. 2, which is where these lots that he is
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2
•
requesting the variance for are located; that Dove Meadows No. 2 is
in the preliminary plat stage of development, which has not yet
been approved and was before the City Council on March 19, 1996.
8. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles,
commented on the proposed plat of Dove Meadows No. 2 that all lots
must have a minimum frontage of 65 feet unless on a cul-de-sac and
must have minimum square footage of 6,500 square feet.
9. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
commented on the preliminary plat that the minimum street frontage
for Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, and Lots 21 and 29, Block 2, shall be
sixty-five (54) feet, measured at the arc for the curved portion,
per City Ordinance.
10. That no people appeared at the hearing objecting to the
variance application.
CONCLUSIONS
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 of the proposed
subdivision to owners of property within 300 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.
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
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3
•
•
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 Planning and Zoning Commission,
governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual
conditions existing within the City and the State.
5. That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of
the Zoning Ordinance, is noted which is pertinent to the
Application:
11-2-419 A.
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision
and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the
public interest where, owing to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming
use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of
lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
Variances shall be granted only where strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go
to the Commission unless directed by the Council.
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-2-419 C. FINDIAiQrB
A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a
public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exist:
1. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4
•
application of the provisions of this Ordinance
would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would result in extraordinary
hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer
because of unusual topography, other physical
conditions or other conditions which are not self-
inflicted, or that these conditions will result in
inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of
this Ordinance;
3. That the granting of the specified variance will
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated;
4. That such variance will not have the effect of
altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
8. That there would be a be a specific benefit or profit,
economic gain or convenience to the Applicant, if the Application
is granted, in that the Applicant would not have to meet the
ordinance requirements that other developers of R-8 subdivisions
have to meet, particularly in near and adjacent areas.
9. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application
of the provisions of the set back Ordinance would
clearly be unreasonable, in that the lots have more,
square footage than required for R-8 lots, the
requested deviation from the Ordinance is not
substantial, and the only Ordinance not being
complied with is the R-8 Street frontage
requirement and the request pertains only to two
lots.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the
65 foot street frontage requirement would result in
extraordinary hardship to the applicant.
c. That the granting of the. specified variance would
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated.
d. That such variance would not have the effect of
altering the interests and purposes of the 65 foot
street frontage requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance, in that there would be sufficient
frontage.
10. That in regard to the first paragraph of 11-2-419 A,
which is quoted above, it is specifically noted that it states, in
part, as follows:
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from
the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision and
Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the public
interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result
in unnecessary hardship.
11. That it is specifically concluded the Application for a
variance should be granted because the for only two lots it is
concluded that there is sufficient street frontage.
12. The City has in the past granted similar variances as
requested by the Applicant but has also denied such variances; each
application must stand on its own merits and the granting of one
variance is not a precedent for granting others.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6
• •
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
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN
MAYOR CORR
MORROW VOTED
BENTLEY VOTED
ROUNTREE VOTED v
TOLSMA VOTED
IE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION
That it is decided the variance from the R-4 street frontage
requi~ ~~yf six y-five ~ et is hereby gran ed.
APPROVED~~~ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7
~CTTY OF MERIDIA
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-HEET
NAME PHONE NUMBER
I~~J ~ Az i~ ~~r/i ~k~- 7~ "? v
~~
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BF_RG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, 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
MEMORANDUM:
- HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY - couNCIL MEMBERs
A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALD R. TOLSMA
CITY OF MERIDIAN E
C
GLENN R. BENTLEY
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P & Z COMMISSION
Phone (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211 TIM HEPPER
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER
GREG OSLUND
ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOY
Mayor
March 16, 1996
To; Mayor, City Council
From; Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to City Engineer(~~?~
Re; OTTER PROPERTY ACQUISITION
During the negotiation period for the purchase of the Otter property, I calculated for Wayne
Crookston the area of the parcels that make up the whole. The legal descriptions that these areas
were calculated from were supplied to us by the seller through his representative council. I believe
that these legal descriptions were taken from some very old deeds. One of the parcels was
described by means of a fractional description (the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4, SE 1/4), from this
information the only thing you can assume is that the parcel is ± 20 acres in size.
Last Tuesday the 14th., Wayne and I met with Mr. Otter, his Attorney, and Land Surveyor to
discuss the accuracy of the overall acreage. On November 1, 1995 Porter's Land Surveying
recorded a Record of Survey of the subject land. A copy of their survey and field measurements
for the breakdown were supplied to me after our meeting. From the supplied information, I would
agree that the area (58.86 Acres), as determined by Porter's Land Surveying is far more accurate
than the areas I calculated from the original legal descriptions.
Attached for your information is a copy of the property from the Record of Survey map.
C: \ OFFI CE1 W PW IN\GENERAL\ OTPER. C-C
A ~ ~ I
7
Ra~.~+
r.
?lam S
Z a;w
~
S 00' 26' 40" W 2657.96'
,
° ~ ~ ,' _
1328.98' +\
vo wo
~
~ \
\
~' ~ ~
W „ ~ i
~
'~ \
1
o =
W I
I ,sz
ro I
I
I
I
~ I
I
I
I rn
N ~
~
N m ~ # A
O M1
A
Z
o
N° ~
w
a
g N N 00' 47~ 45" E
u
m a 416.52' o ~ "
N 01' 24 08 E ;
886 62
N
0
0
°o
0
fn
n
rD
m
z o
rn
0
0
~~ z
oA
7:.
b ~
I b ~
~ .~ O
LJ
- ~
I ~ ~~
I to i tb
~ ~
~_ w
~. ~
~ ~ ~.
N
O
C
~ In In
' ~ t ~
m ~ co
N
~ N
O
D
~
~
~
N
o a
fT1 ~ ~
~ °.
°
a
-
i
I
-~
~ ~
I
i (D
~ N m
o
Gn ~ m
J
CO o ~,
w
v
cn o
ao ~
Wm
Ol N
W O D
jl ~
O I w
Z
U~ ~
I ~
~~
I W
l m
\ ~.
\ a
C'7 \
~ C N \
~ o o ~
~a~.c \
?~D~ J \---"--
c ~ o
Z ^ w
O = O ~
C ~ (7
N3 m3
A' n' ~
W G
O~ ~
m
v
~ ~ ~
n Q7 Q7
N I
Z ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ +
~ ~
~
~ N
J
~
I
~
_
I
I
~
W I
~
O I
I
Z
O
N ~
O
•O 0
I._.
UI ~ w
m '
N 00' ?~
A
w ~ \ ~ \
b
A ~ Z n
`I
M1y CO
c0
~~ ~ W A
N (1i z o
N ~ N ~ ao I
W ~~ I
a oN I
- \~ , ~¢
N 00' S0' 16" E 1074.05' \
1 123.99' +~ / _-
201.03'
-----N 00' 50' 16" E 2650.04'----
Baetia o~ Bea~i.:ng
~ MERIDIAN ROAD
W
_ _ W
S 00' 32' 33" W 1302.98'
cn
v ~ ~
N N ~
in p y ~ U1 i
~~ i ~ I I
o" \ ~ ~
~~ ~, m ~ Z
00
\ ~
East 1 /16 section Iine
N 00' 38' 27" E 1326.99'
-._.
DBiB SUPPLY UPDATE:
D&cB's counsel has indicated that plans for piping of the drainage ditch adjacent to the Myall's
property have been submitted to Larry Sale at ACHD but have not yet been approved. This
ditch needs to he tiled before the irrigation season begins. Screening of the outdoor storage
areas has been accomplished. The landscaping that did not survive has not yet been replaced.
I will follow up on this with ACHD and the owner to ensure improvements are made. This
report is to update you in response to Dan Steenson's (the Myall's attorney) letter recently sent
to the Council.
COPPER TOP CAB COMPANY:
There have been complaints received about the property at 711 W . Pine Avenue and its use as
a cab company. The cabs are parked on the street and in front of the residence, in an R-15
zone. Upon investigation, Jim Rabbitt learned from the operator, Mike Daly, that he has been
operating since 1992, after he allegedly called City Hall and was told that Meridian needed a
cab company and no license was needed. Jim Rabbitt informed Mr. Daly that a conditional
use permit was needed for a taxicab company and that conforming to our Ordinance would
probably require that his driveway be paved and that the commercial vehicles be beyond the
setback of the residence and screened from view. There is a garage that has been
built/enclosed without a building permit that is yet unfinished and of questionable construction.
I ask Council's support to require that a conditional use permit be obtained and that we work
with Mr. Daly to bring the property up to a reasonable standard.
USE OF MERIDIAN FORD S1TE FOR USED CAR LOT:
A group called Advantage Automotive has apparently leased the old Meridian Ford site from
Zamzow's for the purpose of operating a used car lot/automotive repair shop. Since Larry
Chetwood opened Meridian Ford sometime in the late 1970's, the present zoning and
development ordinance did not exist. Therefore, improvements to the standard we currently
require were never made. Les Migneault, the person who applied for a conditional use permit
for an auto repair shop at the northwest corner of Franklin/Meridian Road, is also apparently
considering establishing a business in conjunction with Advantage Automotive. The following
section of the ordinance applies to this situation:
11-2-405 B SCOPE OF REGULATIONS
Changes in Structure or Use: Within the corporate limits of the City of
Meridian, except as may otherwise be provided in this Ordinance, all
uses of land or buildings established hereafter, and all structural
alterations or relocation of existing buildings occurring hereafter, shall
be subject to all regulations herein which are applicable to the districts in
which such buildings, uses or land shall be located.
2. 1`lon-Conforming Buildings, Structures and Uses: Buildings, lands, uses
or structures which are non-conforming uses lose their status as non-
conforming uses when ownership, or legal or equitable interest, is
conveyed, transferred, or deeded, such that the owner of the non-
conforming use at the time that the non-conforming status was initially
determined to be a valid non-conforming use no longer resides in or on
the land or structure. ~his~~~mQans_ that _grand~athQr_ rights may not
~Ze lians~Prred. (Emphasis added)
I would like to ask Council's support to require that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained for
this new owner prior to occupancy.
ENGLEWOOD CREEK PLAT:
Most of you are aware of the ongoing saga of Englewood Creek and the numerous delays to
this project. These delays were not in any way caused by the City. After a request for
extension and an appeal of the requirement to build only 1,800-square-foot homes, they
obtained a variance to the requirement to record the final plat of the subdivision within one
year. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law granted them until April S, 1996, to
record the final plat. The' owners of the property are now in the process of selling the project
to another party. 1 ask Council's consideration of giving them an additional three months,
until July 5, 1996, to record the final plat and begin construction. If the plat is not recorded
by then, the plat should definitely be considered null and void and no further consideration of
the project be given.
AL AND SD~.AIYIVE BEItNER - PAISANU'S RESTAURANT PARICINC::
The Berners have requested that the City consider allowing them to assist with graveling of the
City's vacant lot on Pine fbr use as a parking lot. While I can sympathize with their need for
parking and willingness to assist, I do not think it sets a good precedence or example to allow
parking on this lot without meeting drdinance requirements. With only gravel on the lot, there
would be no security lighting, no screening of adjacent properties, and I believe the City would be
liable for crimes and accidents as a result of allowing this use. I would appreciate your input and
possible solutions to the parking problem.
If the City cannot budget funds for completion ofthis parking lot, the Business Improvement
District (BID) should be formed as soon as possible to recoup costs from overruns of the East
First Street Project that were never collected. In the Idaho Community Development Block
•
Grant Project, $180,000 in funds were to be provided by the formation of a BID; no such BID
was ever formed, and the City ended up "eating" all additional costs for the project. The
$180,000 would go a long way toward not only completing the parking lot, but also toward
completion of the proposed plaza at East First Street and Idaho.
T>FIE )PLA~GI~OUND - DRIVING 1EtAlVGE SALE TO GES(:O:
The property where The Playground (RV Park/Driving Range) is located was annexed by Mary
Moon/Westpark Company under Ordinance No. 615 on September 7, 1993. A development
agreement was required as a condition of annexation. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law were very specific about the proposed development of this property and stated in Item 12 of
the Conclusions " ...that the development of the property shall meet the representations of the
Applicant and his agents and included in the Application, ... "and " ...that the property shall be
subject to de-annexation if the conditions are not met and strictly adhered to."
The Clarks have recently subdivided their property into three parcels, one of which is the driving
range. They are apparently finalizing the sale of the driving range portion to CESCO
(Consolidated Equipment Supply Co.), a heavy equipment sales company. I believe CESCO sells
a variety of John Deere products and had previously planned to open their business at Waltman
Lane/Meridian Road until delayed correction of the traffic problem in the area forced them to seek
other locations. Although heavy equipment sales/repair is listed as a permitted use in the C-G
zone, I believe that the surrounding property owners are entitled to a public hearing regarding the
change in use and that a conditional use permit should be required.
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
BILLY OUINN
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on November 21, 1995, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having heard and taken
oral and written testimony and the Applicant, Billy Quinn,
appearing in person, and having duly considered the matter, the
Meridian City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for November 21, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter .was duly considered at the November 21, 1995,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
made available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
QUINN - FF/CL Page 1
• •
approximately 2.3 acres in size; it is in Section 6, Township 3
North, Range 1 East of J.E. Pfost's Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant has. requested that the
property be zoned R-40 High Density Residential and light
commercial usage, with a density of forty (40) units per acre.
That adjacent to this property to the south is the boundary line
for the City of Meridian; that the property surrounding this
property in all directions, except the Cunningham and Knapp land to
the east lies in the City of Meridian.
4. The Applicant, Billy Quinn, stated in his application
that this property is surrounded by property within the city limits
of Meridian; that city water and sewer are trunked to the edge of
the property along Meridian Road; that he would like to hook up to
Meridian water and sewer enabling him to apply for government
insured financing to accomplish a "one time only" lot split between
house on a lot of approximately 9000 foot square; that his plans
would be to develop the 2.3 acre portion, to include limited office
usage and four-plexes, but that these plans do not include
immediate development; that the concept of a combination
office/resident townhouses fronting Meridian Road with some other
residential usage further to the east.
5. The Applicant, Billy Quinn, is the owner of record of the
property and has requested this annexation and zoning and the
application is not at the request of the City of Meridian..
6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
QUINN - F'F/CL Page 2
•
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
7. That the parcel of ground is included within the Meridian
Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is
defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
8. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can
be provided.
9. That Mr. Quinn testified before. the Planning and Zoning
Commission that in his discussions with the City Planner that it
was arrived at that the R-40 zoning versus an R-15 zoning was a
reasonable request; that compared to neighbors and the surrounding
zoning he might have moderated it a little bit; that he is
surrounded by some pretty dense zoning; he stated that he was not
ready to develop at this time; he stated that he desired to split
his off of this property and use the rest for development; at the
City Council public hearing he stated that he would have no problem
with the land being zoned R-40 but have a development restriction
of R-20; that R-40 is described in the Zoning Ordinance,, 11-2-408
B. 6. as follows:
(R-401 High Density Residential District: The purpose of
the (R-40) District is to permit the establishment of
high density residential uses at density not exceeding
forty (40) dwelling units per acre. Connection to the
Municipal Water and Sewer Systems of the City of Meridian
is required.
and R-15 is defined as follows:
LR-15) Medium High Density Residential District - The
purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the
QUINN - FF/CL Page 3
•
establishment of medium-high density single-family
attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not
exceeding fifteen (15 ) dwelling units per acre . All such
districts must have direct access to a transportation
arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a
park or open space corridor, and be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of
Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district
will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family
dwellings, townhouses, apartment buildings and
condominiums.
that Meridian has no zoning district of R-20, but that designation
would refer to 20 units per acre; that the City has previously
annexed property and zoned it R-40 but has restricted development
to not more than 20 units per acres, one of which properties was
the Wolfe property which is to the north of this Applicant's land.,
10. That at the Planning and Zoning public hearing, Shari
Stiles, Meridian City Planner, stated that in helping Mr. Quinn
with his application the purpose was to get hooked up to sewer and
water and split his lot, have development of either tri-plexes or
multi-family, allow his present single family dwelling that he
intends to remain there, and also offices; that all of those uses
fell under the R-40 zoning without having to go for a variance
which the City ran into with the Sciscoe's which lasted for months
and months because they wanted to have this little office and then
it ended up they had to have a variance to live in the home that
was already there as a single family residence; that he has R-40 to
the north of him, general commercial to the south and Shari Stiles
felt that the R-40 was not an inappropriate zone for the property
as long as the R-4 properties across Meridian Road were buffered
appropriately; that the requirement in the R-15 district it is
QUINN - 1~F/CL Page 4
required that it adjacent to a park or an open space corridor and
that is unlikely with the size of this piece of property.
11. For the Planning and Zoning public hearing, Doris Barrett
submitted written testimony; that she lives at 2250 N. Meridian
Road and although her property is zoned commercial she is being
surrounded by high density zoning; that this application of R-40 be
reduced to single family dwellings with a maximum of 5 units per
acre so that it would compliment those across the street on
Meridian Road.
12. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, the
Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, the Meridian
School District and the Meridian Planning Director, submitted
comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
13. That the Meridian City Engineer specifically commented as
follows:
a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing
the property to be included in this project, shall
be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M.; 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;
b. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
shall 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;
c. That water service to this development is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic
analysis by computer model;
d. Water service to the proposed site could be via the
existing water line stub installed in Blue Heron
Lane directly adjacent to the north.
QUINN - FF/CL Page 5
•
e. That a legal description for the proposed site
shall be submitted of the annexation perimeter;
that it shall be prepared by a Registered Land
Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho and shall
include all those portions of adjacent Right-of-
Ways contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the
City of Meridian; that the legal description. must
place this parcel contiguous to the existing city
limit boundary.
f. That assessment fees for water and sewer service
are determined during the building plan review
process; that in addition to these assessments,
water and sewer "Late Comers" fees will also be
charges against this parcel to help reimburse the
parties responsible for installing the water and
sewer mains to their current points.'
14. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator
specifically commented stating as follows:
a. That Blue Heron Road, which runs along the northern
boundary of this property, was dedicated to the
public in J. E. Pfost's Subdivision plat recorded
in 1908; that the strip is 33 feet in width; that
this road should be improved to ACRD standards at
the time of development of the property.
b. Meridian Road is identified as an entrance corridor
in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that a
landscape setback of 35 feet beyond required ACHD
right-of-way should be provided.
c. That detailed landscape plans will be required
under the conditional use process.
d. That a development agreement is required as a
condition of annexation.
e. That although Applicant's concept plan does not
indicate a density to R-40, it was determined this
zoning was necessary to allow the variety of uses
proposed without requiring a variance (i.e.,
single-family, tri-plex, office).
15. That the Ada County Highway District submitted site
specific comments; ,that the Applicant dedicate 45 feet of right-of-
way from the centerline of Meridian Road abutting the parcel (15
QUINN - FF/CL Page 6
•
additional feet) prior to issuance of building permit or other
required permits; that restrictions on the width, number and
locations of driveways, as required by the District policy, shall
be places on future development of this parcel; that direct lot or
parcel access to Meridian Road is prohibited and that lot access
1 restrictions shall be stated on the final plat; that if the private
road will be graveled, pave, (a minimum of 20 feet wide), at least
20 feet beyond the edge of pavement of Meridian Road; install
pavement tapers abutting the existing curb returns on Blue Herron
Lane.
16. The Meridian School District submitted comments; that
there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District; that
the School District asked for support for a development fee or a
transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional
schools.
17. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc. ) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided .
.'
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
QUINN - FF/CL Page 7
•
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and High density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the. other
appropriate sections of this plan."
20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile.
homes, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
21. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is continuing; that the land is relatively close to Meridian
and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming
in the area.
22. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
QUINN - FF/CL Page 8
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
.sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
23. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which if
possible would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in
the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
24. That Section 11-9-605 C states as .follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
25. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20' ) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
QUINN - FF/CL page 9
•
C~
26. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
°'Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
27. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
28. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
QUINN - FF/CL Page 10
CJ
29. That the proposed Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land
Use, Mixed-Planned Use Development, Mixed-Use Area at Locust Grove.
Road and Fairview Avenue Plus Areas North of Fairview Avenue, at
page 28, 5.16U, it states as follows:
"All Development requests will be subject to development
review and conditional use permit processing to ensure
neighborhood compatibility."
30. That the City has rezoned property in the vicinity of
Applicant's property to R-40 but has restricted development to an
R-20 standard, because of what that applicant stated.
31. That the Zoning Administrator commented that a
development agreement is required as a condition of annexation;
that a previous Zoning Administrator commented that an impact fee,
to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area,
should be required on annexation, and that annexations should be
subject to impact fees for police and fire services as determined
by the City and designated in an approved development agreement;
that such comment is equally applicable to this Application.
32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
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 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
QUINN - FF/CL Page 11
•
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2--417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City~of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the.
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That 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. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the
present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation
is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions.
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105.
Idaho 65, 6~5 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
QUINN - FF/CL Page 12
n..Y. `... - -~---~~---,..-
•
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and waterways.
10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer's
office, including those specifically stated in its comments and
those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the
Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District,
Meridian Fire Department, U. S. West, and the comments of the
Meridian Planning Director shall be met and addressed in a
development Agreement.
12. That 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.
13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance except as otherwise required herein; that, as a condition
of annexation, the Applicant shall be require#d to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L, M
QUINN - FF/CL Page 13
and the comments of the Planning Director, Shari Stiles; that the
development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require
that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors
or personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact,
development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall
be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are. met
or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation
and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph
are not met.
14. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
16. That it is concluded that the. Applicant did not have
specific plans for development; that the request for R-40 zoning
was not made in consideration of specific plans but to avoid the
requirement in the R-15 zone that the land have access to a park or
open space corridor.
17. That since the City has previously zoned property in the
area to R-40 but restricted to development of 20 units per acre, it
is concluded. that the City may take similar action in similar
cases; the City may also do this because it is an annexation
request, which is a legislative action; the Applicant did not
request any limitation on the density, but he also did not have any
determined plans for development; since it has been done for other
land in the area, it is concluded to make logical sense to do that
QUINN - FF/CL Page 14
with this property.
18. That it is concluded that since the property is 2.3 acres
in size, to zone the property R-15 requiring a park or open space
corridor, would be impractical.
19. That the Applicant shall be required to enter into a
Development Agreement.
20. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and
of the Ada County Highway District, Piampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of
the Meridian Planning Director, would have to be met and addressed
in a development Agreement, if the property is annexed.
21. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled,
if the land were annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not
so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the
Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation
system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-
annexation.
22. That if the property is annexed and zoned the Applicant,
and the property, shall meet all of the Ordinances of the City.
23. That with compliance of the conditions contained herein,
annexation and zoning of R-40 Residential but not developed at more
than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre, would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian; since that Applicant desired to
split off his house, he shall a provide separate legal description
for his house and that property should be zoned R-4.
24. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
QUINN - FF/CL Page 15
•
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED
COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian City Council hereby approves the annexation and
zoning as stated above for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law, including R-4 for Applicant's land that he
desires to split off for his present single family dwelling and
including R-40 for the land, other than the property for his house,
and he shall provide separate legal descriptions for his house and
the property to be zoned R-4; that on the property to be zoned R-40
development shall not occur at a density greater than 20 units per
acre; that the Applicant and owners are specifically required to
the all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation
QUINN - FF/CL Page 16
and that the Applicant and owners meet all of the Ordinances of the
City of Meridian, specifically including the development time
requirements and entering into the required development agreement,
and the conditions of these Findings and Conclusions of Law, and
that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED : ____~~
DISAPPROVED:
QUINN - FF/CL Page 17
~~ ~ ~
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
BRIGHTON CORPORATIpN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
EAST OF BLACK CAT ROAD
BETWEEN USTICR AND CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
March 19, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., which was tabled
and continued to April 2, 1996, but was .not brought on for
consideration on that date because the Council did not have these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Petitioner appearing
through the project's engineer, Mike Wardle, the City Council of
the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the
matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for March 19, 1996, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said. hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 19, 1996, 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\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 1
2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian;
it is located on the east side of Black Cat Road between Ustick and
Cherry Lane; the parcel is part of a parcel of property that was
.annexed by the City over fourteen years ago and part of a parcel
that has recently been annexed; the property is zoned R-4, Low
Density Residential.
3. The application for conditional use permit stated that
this proposal presents the first of two (2) medium density parcels
approved in the Ashford Green PUD (Planned Unit Development), that
the land is intended to be developed into 74 detached single family
dwellings on 15.2 acres, at a density of 4.87 dwellings per acre,
that the Applicant stated that the square footage of homes range
from 1,200 square feet and above.
4. That at the P & Z hearing Mike Wardle testified and his
testimony is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; he
basically stated, in part, as follows:
The Application is for approval of 74 dwelling units, the
density would be 4.9 units per acre; that the homes would be
detached single family dwellings with living space to the rear
and side, that there would be a recreational building, that
the roads would be private, that there would be two car
garages, that there would be parking islands that augment the
roadways, that drainage would feed into the adjacent lakes,
there would be five foot wide sidewalks but only on one side
of the road, that there would be some 0-lot lines, [Mr. Wardle
asserted in the request for reconsideration that the concept
for the project was 0-lot line] that street setbacks would be
met, that the house size of 1,400 would not' be met in all
cases but the City can grant waivers or accept smaller house
sizes in a planned unit development, and that the house sizes
would vary from 1,225 square feet up to 1,881. --
square feet.
He further testified that they would present a
landscape plan and that the landscaping would be commonly
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 2
maintained, that this proposed development offers the
opportunity for a life-style choice, smaller dwellings in a
clustered configuration with open space and home owner's
association maintained common areas; that the project will be
an "enclave", surrounded on three sides by the golf course,
providing a physical and visual connection to the. golf course
open space and water amenities and will fit well with the
Ashford Greens and Cherry Lane Golf Course community.
Mr. Wardle also stated that the carefully designed site
plan incorporates "patio home" architecture; that indoor views
and outdoor .spaces off the patios are expanded five (5)-feet
beyond the property line with a "use easement" to the adjacent
wall of the neighbor's home; that this development is a 15
acre parcel within the Planned Residential Community of
Ashford Greens; that it is surrounded on three sides by the
Cherry Lane Golf Course; that it features small-lot single-
family homes designed for active, adult families; [Mr. Wardle
Mr. Wardle asserted in the request for reconsideration that
the "active, adult families" language was asserted by the
architect's description of the project in the conditional use
application which the City changed that to "senior citizen
living complex.] that the houses are clustered around cul-de-
sacs and meaningful common open-space amenities; that green
belts extend throughout the development ,providing pedestrian
and golf cart access.
Mr. Wardle stated at the January 9, 1996, meeting that
the homes would range from 1,225 to 1,886 square feet. Mr.
David Turnbull also stated at that meeting that 4 out of 5
homes would be 1,400 square feet or larger and 1 out of 5
would be smaller than 1,400 square feet, down to 1,225 square
feet, but he did not state particular percentages for the
different size homes. In regards to the streets being public
or private, it was stated that initially the streets were to
be public streets but that it was Meridian's choice. Mr.
Wardle finally stated that they were now proposing that as a
result of ACHD's input, that Meridian consider approving the
street system as a private street system.
Mike Wardle submitted a letter dated January 17, 1996,
concerning fencing, which is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
5. That at the City Council hearing the following, basic,
testimony was given:
Mr. Wardle testified that the parcel in the center was
approved, conceptually, for up to 8 units to the acre.,
Overall density of the entire project was originally approved
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 3
• ~~
was 3.55 units to the acre. This parcel is submitted at a
density of 4.9 with a detached dwelling concept. The proposal
submitted to the Commission as they recommended for approval
accommodated five different dwelling units ranging from 1225
square feet up to 1881 square feet. Dwellings would have lap
siding and shake roofs. He showed a technical site plan which
identified the proposed setbacks and the size of the parcels,
which typically would be 46 by 100 or 4600 square foot. There
are only 12 units that take frontage from the loop street that
goes through the project. Others are clustered on cul-de-sacs,
and some private drives which may in some cases accommodate
access for up to four units.
As we originally submitted the project it had a public
street system with streets to ACHD standard of 29 feet back to
back, that is back of curb. ACHD felt that it would be
appropriate for the loop street to be expanded to its full 50
foot right of way which is a 37 foot back to back standard. We.
have a system with a one sidewalk system along the streets and
extensive internal circulation system that provides access the
golf course club house area and to the recreation center to be
constructed in this area. The Planning Commission actually
agreed with the sidewalk and the pathway system. But they
recommended to the Council that the roadway be public and
conform to ACHD standards and there was a caveat in their
recommendation, which was that the road be public and meet
ACHD requirements, unless ACHD allowed a variance from its
requirements. A variance has not been submitted to ACHD. Our
proposal to you this evening is to act upon the request with
the stipulation that we be allowed to do private streets
unless ACRD grants a variance. [Mr. Wardle asserted in the
request for reconsideration that the word "public" should be.
changed to "private" when the Findings of Fact discusses the
street.]
He submitted some photographs that showed existing public
streets with a street 29 foot back to back street section;
which is what we propose here and there is still room for
parking. There is a provision for islands and gated entry at
both ends of the project. The project provides enclaves for
the residences rather than lining up streets with garages
frontages. There is a significant amount of open space, 19$ of
the area in fact is and would be privately owned and
maintained open space. The project with public streets would
also have the necessary funding mechanism set up in the
.bylaws, covenants and restrictions for operation and
maintenance of the roadway system.
The change in findings .and conclusions we requests
[changed] is as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 4
~~
No. 1, be modified to state that the road shall be
private, but shall meet ACHD construction standards. And
then the same terminology unless ACHD allows a variance
from its public street requirement City.
No. 2, be modified to state that all setback. and
yard requirements shall be in conformance with standards
submitted in the project application and detailed in the
technical site plan.
No. 3, not be changed.
No. 4, regarding set backs that they be changed to
require a 25~ reduction, and not 20~.
No. 5, regarding sidewalks, that it be changed to
state that street sidewalks and internal pathway systems
be in accordance with the technical site plan and
preliminary plat.
Mr. Wardle showed a tissue overlay that showed the
way they would add entrance islands with no change on the lots
at one end but change to the private driveway access on the
other end. He stated they have a preliminary plat modification
that shows the change. In conclusion Mr. Mayor in as much. as
the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
conditional use permit and the preliminary plat and did
extensively discuss it.
In concluding, he discussed private versus public
streets, and stated the only way to accommodate a private
street system is the inclusion of these entry facilities for
gating purposes we would ask that the Council proceed to
approve the conditional use permit to modify the findings and
conclusions that would allow private street and make these
other modifications.
6. Discussion was had at the hearing with Mr. Wardle and
with Mr. Turnbull, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full, and related to the size of the lots; Mr. Wardle stated that
P & Z had approved 4,600 square foot lots and approved a waiver of
the R-4 requirements; Mr. Turnbull then stated that they had
prepared five house plans ranging from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet
and stated that Commissioner Hepper talked about a 25$ restriction
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 5
on the homes under 1,400 square feet and that he, Mr. Turnbull, did
not desire to limit his options.
He also testified that he would anticipate that there would be
some masonry, probably not stucco but would prefer the lap siding
for dimensional character, brick or stone; .that the testimony
before the Planning and Zoning Commission stated the sizes; that
Commissioner Hepper did talk about something like a 25$ restriction
on the homes under 1,400 square feet; that the Applicant's
testimony at that point was simply that they didn't necessarily
want to limit options for empty nest professionals; that
Applicant's experience would be that it would probably be less than
the 25$ and that only one of the five plans falls under that 1,400
square foot level; that a conditional use conceptual approval of 8
units per acre was approved and that it is now down to less than 5
units per acre. However, the Mixed Density parcels were only
conceptually approved.
7. Mr. Morrow asked Shari Stiles if all her conditions and
concerns were met through the P & Z process and she stated that she
did not know if they had submitted things on the architectural
style and building design. 'She stated in response to the question
that she could not definitely say that all the items of frontages,
roadway requirements, sidewalks, and the deed to the golf course
property had not been addressed and perhaps Mr. Wardle could
expound on whether the City had received the architectural style,
building design, building materials and color. She also stated
that the City had not received the landscaping plan and one of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 6
Findings on the initial application related to prior Mayor
Kingsford being adamant that Interlachen connect to Dawson Drive.
Mr. Wardle testified that Interlachen Drive. did not relate to this
parcel.
8. That the owner of record is Brighton Corporation/Boise
Research Center, Inc.; that it is stated in the proposal that the
density would be 4..87 dwellings units per acre, there would be
public streets with a waiver of the requirement of sidewalks on
both sides of the street, there would be streets of 29 feet back-
to-back, private access drives for some parcels, a waiver of set-
back provisions is requested, dwellings would be from 1,200 square
feet and above, and zero-lot-line development was desired; that at
the public hearing the Applicant's representative stated that the
main loop road is only 45 feet in comparison to ACHD's 50 foot
section; that the initial application stated that the streets would
be public, which was changed during the proceedings on the
Application that they were going to be public, if the City
consented.
9. Under 11-2-409 ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, A, a
Planned Development Residential (PD-R) requires a conditional use
permit; that a conditional use permit was applied 'for but only
conceptually approved for the medium density development to be
developed as a planned unit development. (See the Finding 22. below
dealing with this approval.)
10. That the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce
Freckleton, submitted comments; that any existing irrigation and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 7
drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled; that any
existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project
will have to be removed from their domestic service per City
Ordinance, but wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation; that a master street drainage plan be
submitted, including the method of disposal and approval from the
Ada County Highway District and the affected .irrigation/drainage
districts(s); that determination of the seasonal high groundwater
elevation and profile of the subsurface soil conditions, shall be
prepared by a qualified Engineer or soil scientists; that a copy of
the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions be
submitted by review; that 5 foot wide sidewalks shall be provided
in accordance with City Ordinance; that water service to this
development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic
analysis by the City's computer model; and that placement of the
fire hydrants be coordinated with the City of Meridian's Water
Works Superintendent.
That Mr. Freckleton submitted site specific comments which are
as follows:
a. That the sanitary sewer service and water service to this
site will be via an extension of proposed sewer mains to be
installed as part of the Ashford Greens Development; that the
Applicant will be responsible to construct;
b. That 100 watt high pressure sodium street lights will be
required at locations designated by the Meridian public Works
Department; that all street lights shall be installed at
subdivider's expense;
c. That the Meridian Fire Department and Meridian School
District need to review and approve of the travel way. widths;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2
PAGE 8
that as an absolute minimum, "No Parking" signs should be
posted along one side of the street;
d. That the Applicant shall provide a statement as to who
the ownership, and operation and maintenance of the
pressurized irrigation system will be, and;
e. That Hubble Engineering shall submit lot closure/area
calculations for all lots within this development for the
verification of minimum square footage standards.
11. That comments were submitted by Shari Stiles, Planning
and Zoning Administrator, stating that it is common in a Planned
Unit Development that exceptions can be made by Council to district
regulations when they are desirable to achieve the objectives of
the proposed planned development; that to be consistent, this
project should either be held to the same requirements as required
for with the Highlands project and The Lake at Cherry Lane Nos. 5
& 6, which were not allowed housing sizes less than 1,400 square
feet, or the other projects should be allowed to have housing sizes
of less than 1,400 square feet; that other variances/exceptions
that would need to be approved to grant this conditional use permit
in an R-4 zone as presented, would be of the following:
1. Minimum lot sizes
2. Frontages
3. Minimum roadway widths/private drives/lots not fronting
on roadway
4. Parking areas closer than 4' from road right-of-way;
depths less than Ordinance requires
5. Ditches remaining open
6. Provision of 5' sidewalks on each side of roadway in
accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B.
7. Front and side yard setbacks (5' per story on side)
Mrs. Stiles additionally commented that the Applicant shall
submit the following additional information:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~ASHFORD GREENS #2.
PAGE 9