HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 06-07~ ~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNGL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1994:
(APPROVED)
1. TABLED AT MAY 3, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE NO. 4 FINAL PLAT WITH
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
2. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH KEN
HAMILTON PRESENTATIONS: (TABLED UNTtL JUNE 21, 1994
MEETING)
3. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISON FINAL
PLAT: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
4. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION FINAL
PLAT: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
5. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: AMENDED ORDINANCE #630:
(APPROVED)
6. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
7. ORDINANCE #648 - PARKING ORDINANCE: (APPROVED)
8. ORDINANCE #649 - NOISE ORDINANCE: (APPROVED; CHANGED TIME TO
11:00 P.M. TO 6:00 A.M.)
9. RESOLUTION NO. 155: FAIR HOUSING: (APPROVE~)
10. AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 153: NON-DlSCRlMlNATION: (APPROVEDj
11. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: (APPROVED)
12. GARY KUHN: MERRYWOOD SUBDIVISION CONCERNS:
13. E.E. BRINEGAR - REQUEST APPROVAL FOR WATER HOOK UP: (APPROVED
WITH DOUBLE FEE)
a
~
14. McALVAiN/ NELSOM - REQUEST APPROVAL FOR WATER HOOK UP:
(APPROVED WITH DOUBLE FEE~
15. FINAL PLAT: DANBURY ~AtR SUBDIVISION NO. 4, G6 LOTS BY DENNIS
BAKER: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
16. FINAL PLAT: SPQRTSMAN POINT SUBDIVISION NO. ~, 36 LOTS BY THE
WESTPARK Ct?MPANY: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
17. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CERAMIC AND GIFT
SHOP BY MELODY ~ARNSWORTH: (APPROVEDj
18. PUBLIC HEARtNG: ANNEXATiON AND ZONING BY BRIGHTON CORP.:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
19. PUBLIC HEARIPIG: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR DAKOTA RtDGE ESTATES, 135 LOTS BY AVENUE
ONE AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: (APPROVED; CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDINANCE)
20. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDfV1SION, 20 LOTS BY KEVIN HOWELL AND
HUBBLE ENGINEERING: (APPROVED; CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE ORDINANCE)
21. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR WESTDALE PARK NO. 2, 39 LOTS BY MAX BOESIGER AND
HUBBLE ENGINEERING: (APPROVED; CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE ORDINANCE)
22. PUBLiC HEARING: ANNEXATION ANp ZONING BY ROBERT GLENN,
(APPROVED)
23. WATER/ SEWER/ TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVEDj
24. APPRQ~/E BILLS: {APPROVED)
25. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. SHARI ST{LES:
1. DEVE~OPMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT
B. WAYNE FORREY
1. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
2. APPLICATION FEES
~ ~
C. WALT MORROW
1. RECYCLING PROGRAM
2. SEWER INSPECTION FEES (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
RESOLUTI~N)
D. RON TOLSMA
1. NOISE ORDiNANCE - FARMING?
E. MAYOR KINGSFORD:
1. LID FOR GL~NFIELD AND DOWNTOWN PHASE 2(CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDiNANCE)
2. SPECiAL MEETiNG JUNE 28TH AT 7:30 P.M.
~ •
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 7, 1994
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
Members Present: Max Yerringt4n, Ron Tolsma, Wait Morrow:
Members Absent: Bob Corrie:
~thers Present: Will Berg, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Chief Gordon, Bob Jones, Marty
Goldsmith, David Couch, Joan Priest, Michael Wardle, Tina Morris, Janet Amos, Wayne
Forrey, Sandi English, Mike English, poug Mcr4lvain, Melody Farnsworth, Kenneth
Tetrault, Dan torFin, Greg Johnson, David Turr~bull, Don Brian, Steve Bradbury, Dave
Roylance, Jim Merkte, Ted Hutchinson:
MINUTES QF PREVIOUS MEETING HE~D MAY 17, 1994:
Kingsford: Are there any correction, additions, deletions to those minutes?
Tolsma: Mayor, I move they be approved as written.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the May 17, 1994 minutes, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Y~a
ITEM #1: TABLED AT MAY 3, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN CQVE NO. 4 FINAL PLAT WITH
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS:
Kingsford: Does Council have any questions of staff on that issue?
Morraw: Have the reasons for tabling been resolved?
Kingsford: I can't remember what those were, were those your list Gary? Do you
remember the reasons for tabte was that your list on Haven Cove?
Yerrington: ! have a note down here that it was because of a sewer problem Mayor.
Kingsford: Was that the one the sewer was across the property tine?
Smith: It might have been, that is in the process of being so{ved.
Morrow: The question maybe was the sewer easement hadn't been (inaudible) and we
C~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 2
were waiting for that in number .
•
Smith: Right, it is in the process of being taken care of. That is not a problem anymore.
Morrow: I might ask the Counselor, are you satisfied with Haven Cove restrictive
covenants.
Crookston: I have not seen any changes.
Morrow: There needed to be some changes?
Crookston: As I remember.
Kingsford: Those are issues subject to Counsefor's review.
Mon-ow: So at this point all the staff is sati~ed that everything is ready to go except of the
exception of the, what about Shari's? As far as ( know i have no further questions.
Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council. The sewer issue is the only problem we
found in the minutes.
Morrow: That being the case then I would move that we approve the restrictive covenants
and the Haven Cove No. 4 final plat.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Is it in your interest to have the Counselor review those?
Yerrington: I withdraw my motion.
Morrow: i'm sorry I would amend my motion to reflect the Counselor's approval of the
restrictive covenants.
Yerrington: Second
Kings#ord: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the final plat of Haven Cove No. 4
and the restrictive covenants pending Counselor's review and acceptance of those, all
those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 3
•
1TEM #2: TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: LEASE ACREEMENT W1TH KEN
HAMfLTON PRESENTATtONS:
Kingsford: Has that been resolved Counselor?
Crookston: No it has not, because we can't locate the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation that
the City had. And Will is still looking for that as best he can.
Yerringtor~: t move we table #his until the next meeting.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to tabie that issue until the next meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION FINAL
PLAT:
Kingsford: Questions of the Council with that? Shari, has that deveiopment agreement
been completed with Salmon Rapids?
Stiles: We have received (inaudible)
Kingsford: Would you mind maybe coming up and discussing this one since that is one
of the issues pending.
Stiles: Mayor and Council members, we have had some meeti~gs with Marty Goldsmith,
he has submi#ted a development memorandum. I'm not sure if you have these in your
packet, it is signed by Marty. He has indicated his willingness to do whatever he needs
to da as far as a development agreement goes. What i wanted to tatk about tonight was
the possibility of placing the burden of getting those development agreements done back
vn the developer. Wayne Crookston has finalized his draft, so we have a good base
there. Arid have them address the findings ofi fact and all the minutes, agency comments.
it started out with the developers being required to do it and it has shifted back to us. I
think it is pretty staff intensive assignment. Taking my time and Wayne's time and Gary
Smith's time and I think to put that burden back on the devefopers would be more
accep#abte and there would be no doubt they would understand those requirements then
and then they would have to be approved by the Council. I ask that you consider that, I
haven't finished the Summerfield Development agreement which is the item on the
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 4
agenda. Wayne Forrey and I have discussed this and he mentioned it previously about
having a compliance report from the developer. And if you think that is appropriate to
make that change and put that burden back on them it would certainly help staff.
Kingsford: Thoughts or comments frqm the Council?
Morrow: I think my question would be is obviously we are going to put that burden back
on the development community then partially what happens is that we will still have the 3
departments. And being somewhat labor intensive in terms of cross checking all the
statements they have made as opposed from the input from staff, Planning & Zoning and
City Council. My question to you is are we going to be less labor intensive doing the cross
checking process then we woufd be in structuring the development to begin with?
Stiles: I think it wowld be less staff intensive because currently I am having to go back and
compile all of the minutes of every meeting ever held, the findings, which aren't readily
available in cane spot. And when you are going back over a year in some cases it is getting
to be an insurmountable task. And to get anything else done during the day. What I was
proposing is that we use Wayne's base and then the developer would provide a cover
letter stating that they read and understand the hearing minutes, the findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The annexation ordinance and they specifically address all agency
and city conditions. Those are documents that are available to them and I think it would
be less staff intensive. 1 don't know how Gary feels about it. They are more familiar with
the land, we do go out and look at all these properties but they know the specific ditches
they are going to have to take care and can mention those directly. What plans they have
for those, address the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District license agreements. I am looking
at 20 to 25 uncompleted development agreements and I think by having them compile that
and submit it for your approval there can be no question that I get now, they say now well
I didn't know that or where was that written, I had no idea that was part of the deal. They
can cfaim ignorance a lot of the time, but when they have it all in one packet and submit
to the City I don't think there will be any basis for misunderstanding.
Morrow: With your proposal, at what point in the process would that come to us to see?
Stiles: At the final plat, it speaks of the development agreement at the time of annexation.
That is real difficutt to do at that time because you don't know what the conditions are
going to be. You may not have even seen the plat or they may annex and zone it and
submit a plat 6 months later. That doesn't happen very often but it could. I think that if we
got that at the final plat stage they are not going to get any building permits prior to that
point and 1 don't know Wayne what do you think about that?
Crookston: Certainly it would be more comfortable for me to have that development
~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 5
•
agreement done prior #o annexation because it is upon annexation when the City as the
most control over the land. I certainly understand the difficultly in getting it done before
the annexa#ion is completed. It might be that we could work out a situation where the
annexation doesn't u{timate{y comptete it, an ordinance passed until that process is done.
And basically the ordinance for annexation could be passed when the final plat is
approved. That is off the top of my head, 1 haven't thought about it. And I don't know in
my own right how that would effect the developers.
Kingsford: As I look in the audience I can #hir~k o# one pie~e of property that was annexed
in 1977.
Croo#cston: That is true, it is not going to work for every parcel. But recently, far and away
the majority of our development agreements, the ones that we have asked for, some
property has been previously annexed, there is the condition that they enter into the
development agreement with the City or if they don't they be de-annexed. And there is
some property as you mentioned that is already annexed and has been for numerous
years and so it is a littfe more difficult in that situation, but we are going to have to dea(
with those on a case by case basis. But since most of our development now is arising as
a result of immediate annexation. I am setting forth that I think we can do it, but I will have
to look in it a little more.
Kingsford: I am sensitive to your situation Shari, I know you are inundated with paper
work. I guess my immedia#e thought is we still have an obligation to make sure they have
included all the things in there that we placed on them. At some point in time some one
from the City is going to have to see what that is to see what took place. 1 like the concept
that Mr. Forrey came up with for example certificate of compliance type of a thing. But
somehaw we have to generate that list of a minimum of things that are acceptabte to the
City. Without us researching how we could necessarily, Council deals with so many things
that you guys do that I don't think there is any way we could all remember just from their
list. Maybe it is that we need to have a person in that just does that while we are
inundated.
Stiles: Mayor and Council members maybe it is that we could generate a master list as
the developments vome through we could keep some kind of a record to kno~v that this is
a rec}uirement or that was a requirement. And some plat comes up and there is a bike
path involved that would be part af the master list, well lots, pedestrian access, any of
those items that would be, that could be on any development. But at least we woutd get
the packet complete and have read fhat and understand it. And even though we would be
providing them with that information at #irst it would alleviate som~ of the problems i'm
having in getting some of that information from years ago.
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 6
Kingsford: Well, the issue
comfortable with what Mr.
memorandum understanding %
Stiles: Yes
r 1
U
at hand, item #3, Salmon Rapids, are you reasonably
Goldsmith has submitted in terms of tha# issue. His
Kingsford: Other questions the Councii might have of staff or M~rty.
Morraw: I guess for City Engineer Smith, you are satisfied with the documents provided
by Mr. Goldsmith with respe~t to all of our engineering issues. It appears to me that in
terms of reading all of the memorandum from his group on both of these proposals that
they are prepared to meet all the a-iteria that I have notes on or that I am familiar with that
we have discussed over the last couple of months. So if Gary is satisfied and Shari is
satisfied ! think that pretty much I am satisfied.
Kingsford: For the record Mr. Smith's non-verbal communication was in the affirmative.
Is the Counci! prepared to take action?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I make a mo#ion that we approve the final plat for Salmon Rapids
and the development agreement.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve the Salmon Rapids final plat, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION FINAL
PLAT:
Kingsford: It is basically the same thing, does Council have any questions specific to that?
Morrow: Same questions of both Shari and Gary, you are both sa#isfied with respect to
he has complied with what we were after'?
Kingsford: Again notation in the positive from both.
Morrow: I would move that we approve the Los Alamitos subdivision subje~t to the
development agreement.
~ ~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 7
Tofsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the finai plat of Los Alamitos
Subdivisior~ conditioned upon the development agreement, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Marty, I want ta thank you for coming in and working with Staff on that. 1 know
you spent a lot of time in here.
Goldsmith: Thank you Mr. Mayor, shatl I take the base that Wayne Forrey has prepared
and #hen add the guts to it. Is fihat where we are at.
Kingsford: What does the Couneil want to do with that, Shari spoke to that specifically
with item #6, but would that be a preference.
Morrow: I think my personal preference would be that we need to discuss some things
{a#er with some department reports with respect to this issue. But 1 think let's work them
together between the 2 of us and see if we can struggle through this thing so we can get
a d~nite path going. And if you can Marty, work with Wayne Forrey and Shari and Gary
we wiN make it work and get it done.
ITEM #5: TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: AMENDED ORDINANCE #630:
Kingsford: AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 630, AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MEFttDIAN ANIdEXtNG AND Z4NING CERTAIIV REAL PROPERTY WHICH !S
DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5 OF SECTION 6, T. 3N, R. 1 E,
B.M., ADA COUNTY, ~DAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DAT~. !s there anyone
from the public that would like Amended Ordinance #630 read in its entirety?
Tolsma: Mayor, I would move we approve Amended Ordinance #630 with suspension of
the rules.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve Amended Ordinance #630 with
suspension of the rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 8
•
1TEM #6: TABLED FROM MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Council you have heard from Shari, do you have any further discussion?
Morror+v: Mr. Mayor, the specific issues with respect to the tabling have been resolved?
Kingsford: I think that is true with exception of the development agreement specifically,
would that be true Shari?
Morrow: Gary is satisfied and Wayne is satisfied? Okay
Kingsfard: Are you saying yes on that Gary, are you satisfied with Summerfield
subdivision? I think the only thing we have left basically on that is the field and the
development agreement. Any other questions of the council? Is there a motion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the Summerfield subdivision subject
to the development agreement.
Kingsford: That is all that is on there the development agreement.
Morrow: That is all we are approving.
Yerrington: That is afl I am seconding.
Kingsford: t think what you need to do guys is to approve of that once it is put together.
Staff is saying the kinks are owt of it and not waiting 2 weeks to approve that to their
getting it ironed out then we could sign it.
Morrow: t wiil rephrase the motion, I move that we approve the development agreement
of Summertieid subdivision subject to staff and Summerfield Reps coming to a consensus.
Yerrington: Second
Kirtgsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the development agreement subject
to staff and Summe~eld rep~esentatives coming to agreement, question Counselor on
that, do we need to have authorization from myself and the Clerk to sign that in this
motion?
Crookston: Yes
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 9
Kingsford: Will you withdraw the second.
Ysrrington: Yes
•
Morrow: I will amend the motion to with the approval of the Mayor and City Clerk
authorized to sign that agreement.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign
the development agreement subject to the staff and the folks from Summe~eld agreeing,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #648 - PARKING ORDINANCE:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE Z,
CHAPTER 3, OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN ADDING A NEW SECTION, 10-302A, TO BE KNOWN AS "ADDITIONAL
PARKING REGULATIONS," GOVERNING PARKING TO THE SIDE OF THE STREET,
PROVIDING FOR AIdGLE PARKING, AND DIRECTING THAT VEHICIES PARK FACING
THE CURB AND NOT THE STREET; AND AMENDING SECTION 10-309 (B)1. (a) (1) TO
ADD SECTION 10-302A AS A SECTION THE VtOLATOR OF WHICH WILL BE FINED
$25.00; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Counselor, would you give us a brief
synopsis of what that is.
Crookston: What it does add it specificalfy the parking provisions that you have just
mentioned. Specifically delineating that on a two way road the vehicles must park on the
right hand side of the road and face the direction from which they entered, facing the
direction of traffic. On a one way road, you have to park either on the left or the right side.
Also it stresses that in situa#ions where there is head on parking rather than parallel
parking the vehicle must point to the direction of the curb rather than face out to the street
where the driver has backed in. The parking provisions are set forth as having $25.00
violations for those types of violations. These are public streets.
Kingsford: Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance #648 read
in its entire#y? Is there a motion?
Yerrington: Yes, Mr. Mayor, 1 move that we approve #648 with suspension of the rules.
• •
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 10
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve Ordinance #648 with suspension
of the rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Totsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: Of2DINANCE #649 - NOtSE ORDINANCE:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE 8,
CHAPTER 16, OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDtNANCES OF THE CITY OF
MERiDiAN BY THE ADDITION THERETO 0~ A NEW SECTION TO BE KNOWN AS
SECTION 1642A, PUBUC DfSTURBANCE NOISES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. Is there anyone from the pubtic that would like to have Ordinance #649 read in its
entirety? Counselor, wou{d you maybe give us a brief synopsis of that.
Crookston: That is an ordinance designed to control outlandish noise from property. It is
also designed for noises that are emitted from other pfaces other than on praperty such
as vehicles driving by. It carries a penalty af a misdemeanor, there are requirements that
in ihe event of first violation the violator will be fined. The maximum penalty is up ta
$300.00 or six months in jail, it doeg state that for the first event the violator will be fned
at lease $100.00 on th~ second offense they will be fined at least $150.00.
Kingsford: Any discussion from the Council?
Yerrington: It was brought to my attention Mr. Mayor that somebody, will you please read
Mr. Counselor, Letter C, about the time.
Croo~CSton: Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets,
particularty betvveen the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or at any time and place so as
to unreasonable disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort, and repose of owners or
possessors of real property;
Yerrington: Why shauld there be a time?
Crooks#on: Well, this is taken from another jurisdiction. i don't know why the time
restriction is in there. But it may fall within another portion. This is dealing specifical(y
with that time period.
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1954
Page 11
Yerringtor~: As long as you feel like we are covered. it is something that i have not faoked
at, Max. Because we took it from an ordinance from another jurisdiction.
Kingsford: Somebody jog my memory at to what the motivation, I agree we need to have
a noise ordinance, I have some probtems, I know some people will be offended, if you
don't have a decibef level or something, neighborhood squabbles, if one person goes out
there and says something they are going to say they are loud and obnoxious. So it gets
to be rufFarine battfe.
Crookston: This was instituted at the request of Mr. Yerrington and Chief of Police Bitl
Gordon.
Kingsford: Chief, do you want to speak to how you are going to potice that. This had
better not be a request for 20 more officers.
Gordon: The code was originally located because of the problem we are having with loud
radios in the cars. The ones where ya.~ can feel them coming before yau see them coming
and we have been receiving numerous complaints one right after another for probably the
last year on this particular situation. Boise presently has a decibe! reading which requires
the officers be trained on the meter and we have to obtain the meter and at present their
ordinance is almost null and void and they don't enforce it anymore because of the
decibels. The ord~nance that we have here was obtained from Yakima or Tacoma
Washington. They instituted this approximately a year ago, they have had absolutely no
challenge in this partic~lar area. And #his is what they are using, as far as enforcing it the
time limit, disorderfy conduct in this particuiar area between 1~:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. is
what the ~ourts recognize as unreasonable. The 11:00 and 7:00 that slipped by me. To
fit with Ada Gounty jurisdiction I would say 1 Q to 6 is what they wilt a(low. As far as
neighbor disputes, those are areas that we deal with on a regular basis presently. This
ordinance here gives a little more area to use discre#ion rather than go in and not have
anything at all. It is a good ordinance.
Morrow: When we pass #his does it mean when we get the Meridian 49'ers that we can't
celebrate the super bowt win all night.
Gordon: Well if you are yelling and hooting and whistling after 10 and before 6. Here
again the disturbing the peace that we do have where it comes into play and where we are
having problems at times is houses that abut commercial properties. Especially in the
winter when they are plowing snow. Because they will plvw snow alt hours of the night
and we get calls from those general areas. The transition from commercial to residenfiial
in some areas has caused us some problems, but we fall back on the time and snow
removal people and the parking lot sweepers that comply in those particu(ar areas so we
• •
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 12
have been able to seft(e those outside of court. Like I say it is a reasonable agreement
that we use in law enforCement. It is not a black and white enforcement. This gives us a
little leeway.
Tolsma: You won't be using decibel meters.
Gordon: No, this code daes nofi require that. I believe that it gives us anything tha# you
can hear within 50 feet is eligible for us to go talk to. This alsa deals with s#ructures, we
have had a problem with loud parties on private property. This allows us to go up there
and get them to turn it down. The time, ! wouldn't have a problem with changing those
times from 10 to 6 whiGh would comply with the local Ada County.
Morrow: Let me ask you this, if it is 11 to 7, if 7 is the time written here, does this preclude
people working in subdivisions prior to 7:00 in the summer time hours.
Crookston: It could and tha# is why f say 10 to 6, because our longesf day is usuaily to 10
or 10:30 and normally (inaudible) it is usually the moming hours, 6:00 in the summertime
it is tight (inaudible). 6:00 is not unreasonable I think for (inaudible) so the time change
I would agree, that was my fault because the Counselor gave it to me to approve prior to
(inaudible).
Kingsford: We just have to pencil that in so that is changed before publication is that right
Wayne?
Crookston: Yes
Kingsford: Any other ques#ions or comments ofi the ordinance for the Counci!?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I woutd move we approve Ordinance #649 subject to changing the
hours from 7 to 6 with suspension of the rules.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: From 10 to 6?
Morrow: No I meant 11 p, m. to 6 a. m.
Kingsford: You don't want to change it from 11 back to 10. Is there a second?
Yerrington: Second
~ •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 13
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ma~c to approve Ordinance #649 changing the times
in item C#rom 11 to 6, roll call vote.
R~LL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTIOPI CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: RESOLUTION #155: FAIR HOUSING:
Kingsford: A RES~LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,
IDAHO ADOPTING A POLICY OF FAIR HOUSING. LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL
PERSONS of the City of Meridian that discrimination in the sate, rental, leasing, financing
of housing or land to be used for constru~tion of housing, or in the provision of brokerage
services because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin is prohibited by Title VII(
of the 1968 Civil Rights Act (Federa! Fair Housing Law). Is Council satisfied with
Resolution #155?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt Reso{ution #155.
Totsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to adopt Resolution #155, all those in favor?
Clpposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 153: NON-DISCRIMINATION:
Kingsford: AN AMENDED RESOLUTiON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C!T'Y OF
MERIDIAN, IDAHO ADOPTING A POLICY OF NON-DISCRIMINATION ON TNE BASIS
OF DISABILlTY. Does Council have any question about Amended Resolution #153?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, 1 move we adopt Amended Resolution #153.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to adopt Amended Reso(ution #153, alf those
in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
C~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 14
•
Kingsford: For the public's information that is required that the City do this annually so
reviewed our audit for a grant and called to our attention that we had not done it yet this
year. The city also needs to designate an employee for non-discriminatory grievance
procedures, note this in the minutes.
ITEM #11: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE:
Kings#ord: RESOLUTION NO. 156, IDAHO DERARTMENT OF COMMERCE SECTION
504 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FOR IDAHO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT RECIPIENTS 1991 - 1992. Does Council have any question about Resolution
156 Grievance Procedure?
Yerrington: I move that we adopt Resolution No. 156.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to adopt Resolution No. 156, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All yea
ITEM #12: GARY KUHN: MERRYWOOD SUBDIVISION CONCERNS:
Kingsford: He is not here, Council members you have that letter, any questions or
comments directed to either Mr. Berg or myself?
Morrow: My only comment would be that I know that we recognize the letter and as per
Mr. Kuhn's suggestion we put it in the Merrywood Subdivision file, if no action is
forthcoming and they bring this back before the Council there will be a record that they
were here once already.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt second by Ron to acknowledge receipt and put it in the file if
it comes back again that we will have knowledge of it and will be so noted, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: E.E. BRINEGAR - REQUEST APPROVAL FOR WATER HOOK UP:
• ~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 15
Kingsford: Is a representative here? You have the letter in front of you, any questions an
that?
Tolsma: Gary (inaudible)
Kingsford: Will just noted on there that you would give some names to help him
accomp(ish that hook up. He thought it was most appropriate that we approve of it before
you send him names.
Tolsma: Is this in the City or outside the City?
Smith: 1 don't know where 2740 is.
Yerrington: I'm not sure i# is in the City.
Kingsford: It is not, that is way he asked to be hovked up.
Tolsma: He is on the comer of Locust Grove and (inaudibte).
Kingsford: When Sud was in we discussed the possibilities of annexing it versus the
double haok up and he said he would at this point at (east be interested, he needs to get
water to it and would prefer to pay the double hook up and move forward with it.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we a{low Mr. Brinegar to hook to the City water line
with the doubte hook up fee and any of the City's costs.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to allow Bud Brinegar to hook up to the City
water main and that a double hook up fee charge and any of the City's costs, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: McALVAIN/ NELSON - REQUEST APPROVAL FOR WATER HOOK UP:
Kingsford: Anyone here representing him this evening? Do you have any questions
Council?
Morrow: Could we have Mr. Jones come forward and brietly explain the project io us, what
they are asking for and the reasons and so on and so forth.
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 16
~
Jones: This is a proposed (End of Tape) 12 inch water line along the west side of Eagle,
south of Fairview. It connects (inaudibfe) and goes south down to Commercial Court, east
on the north side of Commercial to a building that is being constructed there. 1ts abou#
4,000 or 42~0 (inaudible). We have submitted some preliminary pians to Gary.
Kingsford: Questions of Mr. Jones?
Morrow: You are installing this, you are requesting a hook up and install this all at your
request. You are requesting to do this at your expense.
Jones: As 1 appreciate it, yes sir.
Morrow: I don't think I have any questions of these 2 guys, ! have a question of Gary
Smith if he would bring us up to speed.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Morrow, I am not aware of ihe reasons
for the request other than they are constructing a building out there on Commerce Court
and there is something about the water system that exists out there that serves those
buildings presently and I don't know why it is not available for use, but there has been a
request to connect to the water system.
Kingsford: Is that primarily water stand buy line?
(Inaudible)
Jones: The Albertson's system is currently in place is not adequate to cover the building
plus their system deteriorated and it is just not possible (inaudible) and have fire protection
that is necessary. And this would be no cost to #he City.
Smith: One thing if I may inject is that we would need to know and we have reviewed the
plans that have been submitted to us and I will give these to Mr. Jon~s (inaudible). One
of the things tttat I don't know and I guess 1 have asked the question on the final review
is how much water demand is required for this building. And we are going to have to
ascertain whether or not we have the facilities #o serve that demand based on our
computer model. So we will have to run that through the process to make sure that is
there.
Morrow: Point of clarification Gary, I must have misunderstood Mr. Jones, I though# he
was talking about the west side of Eagfe Road, this in on the east side of Eagle Road.
Smith: The property is on the east side, the water line is on the west side of Eagle Road.
• .
Meridian City Councif
June 7, 1994
Page 17
Morrow: And we are ta~king about the cufdesac down on the end where Albertson's is and
Coors.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) What are you estimating for fire flow?
Jones: Well we c2lted today about that, Treasure Valley, I am not sure what it is, I can just
tell you it is a 3200 square foot building, warehouse type storage, not a great amount.
Morrow: And #he 12 inch sizing is sufficisnt for when tney have (inaudible) that are along
Commerce or Commercial.
SmitM: It should be yes, that 12 inch size is our standard se~tion line road. So it might be
a little bit oversized but in talking to Mr. Nelson who i~ involved with Mr. McAlvain on this
proje~t he had no problem with extending a 12 inch down Commerce Court.
Morrow: And that siaing is sufficient #hat will give us enough fire flow for any type of
commerciat project that is done along there, is that what we are after?
Smith: I can't answer that quesfiion until tomorrow. When you say any kind that really
throws it open but, I would say that most likely that is the case.
Morrow: I guess my concern here was is as long as we are not under sized, I don't wan#
to see it done twice.
Smith: And I don't think from a pipe standpoint that it will be undersized, 1 am sure that it
won't. My only concem right now is fhe quantity of water available. And as you know we
have a project that has been on the edge of getting out the door here for Well No. 16
which is in that area, Treasure Valiey Business Park.
Morrow: I have no further questions.
Kingsford: It would seem that it would be an approval conditioned upon you telling us how
much your needs are and running it against the model.
Jones: Yes I will get that amount (inaudible)
Tolsma: (lnaudible)
Smith: 1 don't know number wise the lots, it depends on what kind of pressure you have
behind it of course. We are pumping out of Well No. 15, we are pumping 2,000 gallons
a minute throwgh a 10 inch pipe. Your limiting factor realiy in pressure lines are your
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 18
velocities. You don't want to exceed a certain velocity to slow down wear and tear on your
fittings and so forth.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) That is max, (inaudible).
Smith: I dpubt very seriously if we are ta{king about 1500 GPM, if you kick that up to 3000
or 325~ then without that well in production there could be a little short.
Jones: I know the engineer had a 6 inch main (inaudible).
Yerrington: How soon would this well be built?
Smith: Well it is a summer project.
Kingsford: Certainly it would be 4 months to be in production.
Smith: I have the water rights license or the righ#s to appropriate the water, I have the
sight and 1 have the speci#ications rough draft and in the process of being typed. We are
just on #he edge of putting out for bid. I guess I might through something out for the
Council to get some thought to and that is we have that water line down there and
Albertson's system is deteriorating t would expect that within the very near future we are
going to get a lot more requests to connect. I know that your policy in tMe past has been
to connect the facilities outside the City fimits and it has been kind of in an isolated basis
and on a needed basis also. So, I am just assuming this is where it is heading.
Tolsma: (inaudibie)
Morrow: Gary, bring me up to speed, you said that connect facilities outside fhe Ci#y limits.
Smith: Yes, that would requires Special Council approval which is what they are
requesting of you tonight and the double assessment fee, double connection fee, but I
don't know that if you are looking at a large area this requesting connection to the City
syst~m if there shouldn't be an annexation involved in order to be in the City. I am just
throwing that out on the table.
Morrow: I think that would be my feeling.
Smith: I just have a feeling that maybe this ~s what is going to happen and I can't say for
certain, but if Albertson's water system is to a point where it is not dependable they are
going to be looking at. Well, there is another parcel o# land that has recently been
purchased that I understand that has beer~ purchased out there that will be built upon
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 19
soon. I don't know what the water supply system if like for TEC or Coors, but they are all
on the same road, Commerce Court.
Morrow: f guess another question would be here is if there are requests by other
companies that are between where we are now and where this one terminates. What
about late c~mers fees and so on and so forth, is that appropriate in this type of situation
to reimburse the folk that originally put it in?
Kingsford: That has~ typically been at their request. My comment was going to be that I
would encourage you to try and work with people on Commercial Court to be annexed.
I know when Albertson's added to their sundries area they had concems as did their
underwriters about fire flow. And certainly with our limited commercial tax base in the City
of Meridian, I am not a greedy person but I would like to balance that off a little bit.
Jones: We own approximately 10 acres in that area on that street and we have no
problem with annexing into the City at all, we can't speak for the neighbors though.
Kingsford: I would like to see you pursue that and would encourage the Council that if you
do that in the reasonable that we refund the double hook up and just go with a simple hook
up.
Jones: That is our intent.
Kingsford: If you would again I would encourage you to work with those people since you
are close by and see if the wouldn't be interested in annexation as well. We would like to
h~ve those kind of be a little cleaner than what some of them look to be.
Jones: We will work towards that for you no problem.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think I would like to move that we grant the approval for the water
hook up for McAlvain/ Nelson venture subject to the conditions that no one else be allowed
to tie onto that water line without the proper annexation into the City of Meridian and that
within a 24 month period if that entire area is annexed that we refund the single hook
portion of the fees to the McAlvain/ Nelson project.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: It is moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the water hook up for
McAlvain/ Nelson conditioned that there will be no one else allowed unless they are in the
City and that the City will refund one hook fee to McAlvain/ Netson if they are annexed
within 24 months, all those in favor? Opposed?
. •
Meridian C~ty Council
June 7, 1994
Page 20
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #94: FINAL PLAT: DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVISION NO. 4, 66 LOTS BY DENNIS
BAKER:
Kingsford: Does Council have any questions of either the engineer or the staff?
Morrow: t would ask Gary and Shari if they have any comments?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, have you seen my camments Dan? l was a little late
in getting my comments out to Wili Berg. There isn't anything of any major significance
here, most of them are just housekeeping items that, and Mr. Tortin has always been good
to work with. i did have some concerns, he has always followed through and taken care
of things that 1 have requested. 1 did h~ave one comment, comments #14 if you have it in
front of you deals with storm drainage facilities and maintenance by the Highway District
as compared to a hvmeowners association. I#hink this is something that ! as the City
Engineer or we as a City need to take up with the Highway District. They have been
agreeable to maintaining facilities outside of the right of w~y. But recently we have
received correspondence from them stating that they would only maintain a facilify if it is
within 7 feet of the public r+ght of way fine. A lot of the development that we are seeing
now are praposing subsurface disposal beds for s#orm water that is coming off of the
streets. And it is my attitude that this is the Highway Districts responsibility and if the
attemative of disposing of the storm water in subsurface disposa! beds is acceptable then
they should be responsible for that system and not a homeowners association. Running
one of these subsurface disposal systems down a side lot line and then expe~ting that to
run for years to come and having fenced and shrubbery planted over the top of it I think
is an unreasonable situation for a homeowner to handle. So, I am making that comment
here and I will be in touch with the Highway Qistrict to discuss that. And that is something
we can deal ~nrith that is part of the development plans although there are easements
shown on the plat for th~t. My proposal to them would be not to locate the drainage facility
within the street right of way but to put it off to the side but in a common lot area that is
avicessible to the highway district for maintenance. Perhaps the homeowners could mow
if it is grass to maintain it that way. But the actual maintenance of the pipe, subsurface
drain rock and filter fabric and that sort of thing in my opinion should stay with the highway
district. As 1 say after all it is their water coming off their street they should be responsible
for taking care of it.
Morrow: I have a q~.iestion, they have this same basic design they just want it closer to the
stceet is that the issue?
Smith: Well, some development has put that under the sidewalk for example, they have
~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 21
•
para{leled the s#reet wifih the subsurface disposal bed under the sidewalk. And in talking
to some design engineers a little bit contrary to maintaining stability of a road bed by
putting water badc underneath it.
Morrow: That close it makes a certain amount of sense.
Smith: So, it has been moving away from the roadway and into easements normally down
side lot lines. The Highway District has said we will maintain it but you can't build a fence
over it, you can't plant any shrubbery over it, you can't put any outbuildings over it. Well
that third item is probably manageable but the first 2 will never happen. There will be a
fence planted over it, there will be shrubbery planted over it. You just don't have that much
control.
Morrow: 1A~at is the life expectancy ofi a system if it is constructed properly and how often
would they have to be repaired?
Smith: It is kind of a tough question, it goes back to how often the sand and grease and
trap, how often is that material pumped out. If that sand and grease trap isn't maintained
than any silts debris off the roadwa~ that washes into it is going to wash right on through
it and into the drain bed. 1t is just like a septic tank and drain field. if you don't maintain
tMat septic tank the lifetime is pretty short. I am saying short, maybe, I don't know it
depends on how much debris you get on the road, how much rain we have, 5 to 7 years.
Morrow: It doesn't seem to me it is reasonabie to expect a normal homeowners
association to have the expertise to maintain those drainage systems.
Smith: That is my concern, even if a homeowners association is strong, welt managed,
well funded, it is difficult. Pressurized irrigation systems have been a concem that they
be able the manage and maintain those. But here we are talking about, the highway
district would be responsible to clean out the sand trap if they have some kind of a
maintenance schedule for the thous~nds of these things that a~e being installed in the
area. I don't know that they do. But anyway that is one of the things that needs to be
hammered out and I hopefully, and I haven't had a chance to contact them yet, but
hopefully we can cqme to some kind of a resolution on the problem, that I foresee as a
problem. Other than that everything else on the plat is of minor consequence between
Dan and i we can get those items taken care of.
Kingsford: Do you know what the status is, 1 don't know see a check off of the Fire
Departments comments?
Tortin: While I'm fooking 1 can address the drainage, I believe all of our drainage retention
.
Meridian Cify Council
June 7, 1994
Page 22
~
facilities are located within the right of way. Ken Bowers, ali common areas will need to
be kept clean. I don't think as we develop this 4th and final phase we are providing more
access and making the Fire Chief feel better every day. On the drainage we are proposing
retention facilities within the right of way, and I met with ACHD personally and they are
approving our plans right now, but in concept they have given us the go ahead. We are
relocating a drair~age facility into the right of way which ACHD will also main#ain. And we
do have a portion of that facility that does to get back to the original alignment has to go
befinreen iots on the preliminary plat but i thing adequate easement is there to maintain that
with restrictions.
Kingsford: (inaudibte)
Torfin: Yes I do, in fact it will probably be signed in the next couple of weeks for the
drainage facilities.
Morrow: I have no ques#ions of Dan, I guess questions of Shari her comments, application
indicates no sprinkler systems are provided, pressurized systems are required. ! think this
falls into the area that we approved 3 meetings ago for a retro fit of the entire subdivision.
To~n: Councilman Morrow, we are planning to instaN pressurized irrigation in phase 4
and we are working on the engineering right now. We would like to start in about a month.
Morrow: That was in terms of the retrofit?
Torfin: Retrofit and for phase 4, ail phases.
Kingsford: Any other questions? Is Council prepared to take action?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat of Danbury Fair
subdivision #4 subject to staff recommendations and development agreement.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the final plat of Danbury Fair #4
subject to staff approval and development agreement, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTIQN CARRIED: All Yea
Tmfin: In the past we have not had to have a development agreement, this is the 4th and
final phase and 1 am not familiar with your development agreement process, but it sounds
like it is lengthy. i guess on future projects #hat would be a requirement, I don't betieve
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 23
that was a requirement for the previous 3 phases which are developed and final platted.
Kingsford: I would suggest Dan that you get with Shari and I think that is pretty simple
because you have done all that, you have dotted your "i's" end crossed your "t's" and so
forth. I would suggest in that agreement there would be things like what our obligations
are to Mr. Baker with regard to the retrofit and those sorts of things so that is on board,
I think it would be a very simple one.
ITEM #16: FINAL PLAT: SPORTSMAN POINTE SUBDIVISION N0. 5, 36 ~LOTS BY THE
WESTPARK COMPANY:
Kingsford: Does Council have any questions for their representative or staff?
Morrow: We have the representative, could he run through #he.
Johnson: What would you iike to know?
Morrow: Just nan through the proposal and bring us up to speed.
Johnsor~: This is a 36 lot phase to Sportsman Pointe, it is being referred to as No. 5. It
was previously applied as #4, but that has been switched it will be #5. I have reviewed
Gary Smith`s comments and Shari's comments and I don't have a problem with them.
Inadvertently the bike path or walk path over to the park in Sportsman 4 was left off but we
will get that on there. The storm drainage that Gary Smith brought up on the previous one,
he has a note on this one, the same type of a note. I agree with him althowgh ACHD has
been, not only on Sportsman's plat but on another plat I have been working on we could
not get it signed unti~ we specifically amended the CC&R's for the homeowners association
to indefinitely maintain that full system and we couidn't get it recorded until we complied
with that . They are very reluctant to maintain it outside of the (inaudible). I appreciate
your help I would like to get that resolved, but they are requiring us to maintain those
systems. And they are requiring us to put very, language that has teeth in i# but basically
the association is in first line to maintain that system, if they fail to the District wiN maintain
it but the association will be billed and the Ivts leaned. Initially on our preliminary plat it
was requested that we try and have a bike path along Nine Mile Drain. 1 don't find tha#
anymore of the comments on our final plat and 1 would request that we not have a bike trail
along Nine Mile simply because it doesn't go anywhere and would lead to problems of
having people behind those lots, just security and those types of things. My
recommendation is not to have a bike trail on that section unless it would go somewhere.
The school district has made their standard comments and ! wasn`t here when it was
reviewed but ! beiieve you have probably discussed that with Satmon Rapids subdivision.
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 24
Tentative agree~nent has been worked out with the school district for a site over in section
19, with Marty Goldsmith , myself and Mr. Voigt and whoever develops the other parcel
there. I think it is going to be a very nice site and combined grade school park area and
work out very well. That will help if we can just get the school district to move that up on
their agenda of being built it will help to ease the pressure in that area.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Greg? Any for staff?
Morrow: I have questions with respect to Shari, Shari addressed the issue with respect
to the bike path for point of clarity and also I noticed in her letter, application indicates no
sprinkler systems are provided, pressurized irrigation is required. Has that been resolved.
Johnson: I plan on putting it in, it is being put in phase and 4 and we will hook to that
system.
Kingsford: Shari do you want to speak to the bike path?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I didn't say anything about the bike path simply
because we are still tryin+g to finalize, we have come to some agreement with Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District, the applicant is required to leave that easement open, and all
of the lots should meet the 8,000 square feet exclusive of that easement. I was satisfied
that the provision was made, the area was there for it but I didn't want to get in any trouble
with Nampa Meridian or cause any problems with them by specifically asking for a bike
path. There will have to be an easement there, they will have to have their roadway on
one side regardless of whether wants it to be used as a path it is pretty certain that it will
be. I just did not note that in my comments.
Kingsford: It is a(ot easier to have that easement then to do away with it and try to
(inaudible).
Johnson: We are sti(I working with them to try and (inaudible) full maintenance of that
ditch and grass that area and maintain it (inaudible). So that it isn't a continuous weed and
garbage patch.
Kingsford: Any other comments from the Council?
Morrow: Question, with respect to the CC&R's are they taken care of ?
Kingsford: Are those the same as the previous?
Johnson: Yes
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 25
Morrow: Those are acceptable to the City?
•
Kingsford: They have been approved as i recati. Is Cvuncil prepared to take action?
Tolsma: Mayor, i would move we approve the final plat of Sportsman Pointe subdivision
No. 5 subject to the comments of Gary Smith and Shar~ Sti(es being met and a
development agreement.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve the final plat of Sportsman Pointe
subdivision No. 5, conditioned upon meeting staff approval and the development
agreement, all those in favor"? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CERAMIC AND GIFT
SHOP BY MELODY FARNSWORTH:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner to speak ~FSt.
Melody Farnsworth, 1991 Tumberry Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Farnswarth: I have already talked with Meridian Fire Department and have found out what
1 need to do there. The landscaping, we are in old town, the sidewalk has already had all
the upgrading done, the bricks, the landscaping, we have just now had the water repaired.
As far as parking goes we have parking from the alley all the way down to the end of the
biock, there are also 3 parking spots beside our building that we would like to use for our
personal use for the 3 partners. 1 have spoken to the Fire Marshall found out what I need
to do there to meet the code. I spoke with Shari several times, I don't know what t ~eed
to say.
Morrow: You are familiar with Gary Smith's comments, the City Engineers comments?
Those were the comments with respect to the parking spaces. You renovated and cieaned
up ths building so on and so forth.
Farnsworth: We have, we own the business from alley clear to the corner of 2~d street.
We are the only person in this building. We are strugg(ing with Trust Joist on parking at
the moment, we have had 2 hour parking signs replaced by the City. They were there
originally and when they did the sidewalks they were taken down, they are now replaced.
And the gentleman over at Trust Joist has already told us that as soon as it open it will not
~ ,
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 26
be a problem, Idaho Trust, I'm sorry. Like I said there is parking there, I would say at least
15 to 20 parking spots in front of our building. Like I said there are 3 parking spots for
ourselves beside the building. We have been picking up trash and cleaning the building
up and the area away. in fact we hauied off about 4 dumpster loads of trash, rubbish,
bumt boards from a burnt down locker building, We have just now got hooked up to the
water, had the water line replaced.
Kingsford: Did you took at his 3rd comment here with regard to the sewer and water
assessments? Are you famifiar with how that works?
Farnsworth: No 1 am not, as far as I know the building is owned by Mr. McFadden, as far
as I know everything is up, he has taken care of everything. That would be something t
think we need to ask him, but as I far as I know it is kept up.
Kingsford: Well, it is an old building and Gary's comment t#~ere and my assumption would
be there to that there was one hook up for each charged, maybe a# fhe tum of the century,
I don't know when that was done. The intent of the sewer and water hook ups is to buy
into the capital improvements of the city, you buy a per capita share of the sewer and
water and there is a formula that you look at to ascertain that. So 1 would suggest that you
visit with the building department and evaluate what those might be. It could be a very
substantial charge I k~ave no idea how many square feet you are using and how that is
stacked up against you from the building code.
Farnsworth: So, I could do that tomorrow. I am a little nervous and I am not real sure
what 1 need to do, any other questions I can answer?
Kingsford: Any other questions? Thank you Melody, anyone else from the public tha#
would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing,
Council members you have the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared for P& Z
entertaifi a motion on those.
Tolsma: Mayor, I move we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for Meiody
Farnsworth.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
af law for Meiody Farnsworth as prepared for P& Z, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
C~
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 27
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
•
Kingsford: The ne~ item then would be to approve the conditional use permit.
Yerrington: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max second by Walt to approve the conditional use permit fior
Melody Farnsworth, all those in favor'? Opposed?
M4TION CARRIED: All Yea
tTEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY BRiGHTON
CORPORATION:
Kingsford: At this time f will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was swom by the City Attomey.
Wardte: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we appreciate the effort of the staff ot the
Planning and Zoning Commission #o bring this praject forward through the process to the
Council. A hearing was held approximately 2 months ago for the initial annexation and
zoning request for a 40 acre parcel approximately 1/4 mile east of Meridian Road on Ustick
Road, a parcel previously owned by Helen Davis which is now under the ownership of the
Brighton Corporation with Mrs. Davis having a life estate far her dwelting that exists on that
property. The Planning Commission on the 12th of April presented and approved findings
of fact and conclusions of law relative #o the request. Last week the Planning & Zoning
Commission reviewed and approved a preliminary plat for which recommendation is being
forwarded to the Council at a meeting a bit later. There are several issues we would just
like to comment on that are represerrted in it~e findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
first being item #9 of the findings that centers around the discussion of the annexation
hearing concerning the green belt corridor along the south slough or Finch Creek as
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District likes to refer to it. The City of course has been working
for some time on a pathway system and has so designa#ed those f~ilities and intent in the
Comprehensive Planning effort. The plan that, and ! would just like to present the concept
here not for specific discussion of the subdivision but just the idea of what is being
proposed by Brighton Corporation for improvement and relocation of the Finch Creek. The
plan #hat has been proposed for this pathway system not only preserves but will open and
enhance that pathway. In projects ta the East the pa#hway system essentially is in an
• ~
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 28
easement area befinreen the backs o# lots. What Brighton is proposing and we have
presented to Nampa Meridian in concept form and they seem agreeabte subjeat to
preparation and approvai of a license agreement is that the back lot line of Fothergill
subdivision which has been platted immediately to the south. Will be provided a link in its
roadway adjacent to that then the relocated Finch Lateral. A!I of this within the prescribed
80 foot easement that the Nampa Meridian Irrigation district has. What distinguishes this
from the other projects is that then the public roadway system would be adjacent to that
so that it is open. !t is not enclosed through this particular project, obviously it will be on
the south side, but the north side will be open and it will be enhanced in the sense that
there will be landscaping improved areas along that lateral, subject to the conditions of
Nampa Meridian but the dirt line of the trees not over hang the lateral itself and we have,
this shows a mature tree 50 foot diameter bloom and that particular kind of a tree system
can be provided along that lateral without overhanging the water itself. And that was the
concem o~f the Nampa Meridian. The homeowners association wil! maintain that particular
system. What I want to clarify in the particular finding item #9, it spoke to testimony given
and the way it is written it suggests that the developer had committed to put in that
particufar pathway system. The only qualification that we need to give to that is one that
1 heard here a bit earlier this evening and that is there still seems to some negotiation
ongoing between the City and Nampa lrrigation district whether or not such a pathway
system will ever come to be. We definitely will provide the carridor and the facility and
make the improvements but there would not be a commitment to put the pathway system
unfess there is physically a facility to which this would connect. Now what we have done
with the Ada County Highway district is suggested tv them that if in fact a pathway systsm
were installed that there would not be a sidewafk on the southside of that roadway, that
he pathway system would serve that particular function. There would be sidewalks on the
north side and that seems to have been acoeptabte to them. So the qualification is simply
that the area will be there if in fact there is a system to be connected to, then there would
definitely be consideration on the part of the developer to work with the City of Meridian
to imptement that particular program. Findings of fact item #16, speaks to residential
dwelling size it doesn't specifically state in the findings but it was our understanding at the
Rlanning & Zoning Commission they put at the annexation h~aring and certainly at the
preliminary plat review last week they stipulated that there woutd be a 9350 square foot
minimum dwelling size in that particular project. That is not identified in the findings of
fact, but regardless what we are asking and we asked the Planning & Zoning commission
we would be asking the City Council when the plat arrives as wel{, but to apply the
provisions of zoning ordinance section 2-411 D 2, found on pages 50.7 and 50.8 af the
ordinance that speaks to allowing a variety (End Of Tape). That particular section where
the ordinance states fhat you can through dispersai of a variety of sizes has a mixture of
dwellings, 10% in the range of a 1000 to 1100 feet, 15% in the 1100 to 1200 square foot,
25°~ 1200 to 1300 square feet and 50% at 1300 or more square feet. One of the reasons
that we look at this and I think perhaps even your staff is finding a request coming to the
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 29
•
City in an R-8 zone which is the most dense of the single family zones to provide housing
opportunities for something less than a 1300 or 1350 square foot dwelling. I think back
to the first home that I ever bought, it was when we had 2 children, 1175 square fooi home
that we thought was pretty big at that point, not in the way that we have grown since. That
home had 3 bedrooms, a bath and 3/4 and it was very adequate for a family of that size
as you are getting started. In looking at the housing policies in the City's comprehensive
planning effort, it talks about a goal of diversity of housing types. In that particular section
of land there are the James Court apartments, and then if what I have heard is true most
of the rest of the developments are being required to develop a 1350 square foot or more.
Going on through the other goals and policies of the housing objectives, one speaks to
providing for all income groups, and we woutd again suggest that the application of this
referenced section of the zoning ordinance will certainly open up and provide a bit more
diversity and an opportunity for more income groups. We understand the ordinance and
would comply to intersperse those smaller units through out and so note on the plat as the
ordinance requires. The final comment that 1 wauld make and perhaps Mr. Turnbull of the
Brighton Corporation may wish to speak to some of these as well. Item #23, of the findings
of faet speaks to the development agreement issue, part of which has been discussed here
this evening and this is a bit of a new effort on the part of the City. I#hink we are all going
to learn a great deal before the process is over. It speaks to the previous zoning
administrators comments for development conditions for impact fees for schools and parks
or police and fire protection. However, the findings of fact are inconclusive as to wheth~r
they will actually be applied or what the formula would be. There is not currently in etfect
such an ordinance or a fee. it is our understanding that without those provisions in place
this verbiage is advisory but we are concemed and wouid request clarification of how that
particular finding and the conclusions identified in item #9 relative to the development
agreement really apply when there is not such a fee structure in place at this point. So that
is the point of clarification that we seek, not certain that we can do it over the dias this
evening but we certainly need to understand what your objectives are so that a
development agreement can properly address those. I would respond to any questions
the Council or Mayor may have at this point.
Kingsford: Mike, in visiting and maybe (inaudible) but his comment was and I think the
Council should know is that he doesn't plan to make any 1000 square foot or 1100. I think
you were talking about 1200 and up. I think the Council should be aware of that and it
should be in the minutes, either you or Dave like to address that.
Wardle: You are referring to the diversity that the ordinance does allow and since we
would have to identify on the plat where those lots would be and what minimum size they
would be it would certainly have to come back for review and approval.
Kingsford: I just think it would be a good idea in the minutes if you could speak to the fact
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 30
that the developer was signifying that there was not going to those lower than 1200 square
feet.
Wardle: That is up to the developer I guess.
Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Wardle?
Yerrington: What is your square footage of your Iots?
Wardte: These particular lots are to be 6500 square foot minimum.
Yerrington: What is your frontage size?
UVardle: 65 feet, the plat will conform to where there will be bulbs and a flag lot or 2 they
will conform to the minimum requirements of the ordinance.
Morrow: Do I understand you to say you have some flag lots in this project?
Wardle: One flag lot, Mr. Morrow, but that will come to you in the form of the plat itself.
Morrow: Okay, a word o# caution here, having, at the curtent time in my own private
business is struggling through problems with flag lots I think that there ought to be some
real spec~c criteria with respect to view quarters, fencing requirements and those things
ought to be clearly spelled both on the plat and in the covenants and restrictions. The one
issue thafi 1 am currently involved in is a real mess, and it is a mess because tMe
development community did not properly do their work and spell out the conditions by
which the adjoining neighbors could fence and the rights and privileges of the owners flag
Iots quite candidly. After going through this experience my preference would be that we
don't see any flag lots period because of those issues and those problems. And so I think
from what I will see or 1 will look at when this proposal comes to the fina! ptat portion is
some really rigid criteria with respeCt to if there is going to be a flag lot with how it is
handled. I think the issue with respect to the couple of comments with the impact fee, as
part of the committee that is working on those I think the impact fees when they are
adopted will be collected at (inaudible) building permit so that I am not sure what the
Counselor has in the findings of facts and conclusions but our direction is io go at point
of building permit. My final comment in terms of, and I will make the comment with
Councilman Corrie's permission, because I think his comments #hat he has left with us
reflect somewhat my own. I think the diversity o# housing that we are maybe looking for
in Meridian is a littte upscale housing that is $250,000 and up. We have a ton o# housing
that is 1100, 1200, 1300 square feet within this City and quite candidly from my
perspe~tive in terms of paying for City services, let's be quite candid those projects are
~ ~
Meridian Gity Council
June 7, 1994
F'age 31
usually are people intensive and not very tax intensive consequently. We have to have
something on the other side that balances to help off set the cost of providing those
services. So, I think diversity to me means I am not totally interested in (inaudible). I am
more interested in seeing R-4 and up. I understand from your standpoint diversity is 1100
through 1350, I think those comments also reflect what Mr. Corrie wa5 trying to get across
to us in his absence. I think I am commenting for both myself and he.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Morrow, I understand that, yes we are looking at this project in
harmony with others being annexed and zoned within that particular section. Certainly the
challenge before the City is to implement the elements of the Comprehensive Plan to
create that overall diversity, but this particular piece is bounded o~ 2 sides currently by the
R-8 and appropriately we believe this one should be R-8 as well, regardless of the
restrictions that may be placed.
Morrow: f have one final comment with respect to the greenbelt pathway, I think the
concept that you have there is a good concept. I do recognize that the problem historically
has been with Narr~pa Meridian, but I think we may see some heip with that evening is
over.
Wardle: Thank you very much.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the pub(ic?
David Couch, 395 Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Couch: I wo~ld like to address 3 items if I could, hopefully it is appropriate to address lot
size being as that is what you were just talking about. It has been stated that they are,
Brighton Corporation is trying to conform with subdivisions in the existing area, if I could
1 would like to hand out an item to you. This indicates the subdivision within a quarter of
a mile of this proposed subdivision. The map on the back shows you the density of the
subdivision in the 1/4 mile boundary of the proposed Bedford Place Subdivision. Those
are subdivisions, the lots per acre range from 2.88 to 3.57. Now some of these are
proposed and some are recorded. Bedford Pface, 153 lots is 3.87 iots per acre, #hat is
higher than any of the surrounding subdivisions proposed vr recorded. There is a
subdivision to the northeast, Lor.~ast Grove and Ustick, that subdivision has 74 lots, 3.41
lots per acre. Across the street from this proposed subdivision is Weber acre (inaudible).
Those are approximately 1 acre per lot, 9 lot per acre excuse me. !t is my feeling that the
lot size should be larger to conform to the surrounding area. Second item I would like to
address is in the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian, on page 29 under land use, 6 rurai
lands, 6.3C, it states that within the Meridian Service Planning Area development may
occur in d~nsities as low as 3 dwelling units per acre, if physical connection is made to
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 32
~
existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and
subdivided in accordance with Ada County zoning and subdivision ordinance policy. 6.7U.
which is more of a personal nature, 1 am a property owner to the west, existing rural,
residential land uses and farm/ ranches shall be buffered from urban development
expanding into rural areas by innovative land use planning techniques including interface
firansitional densities and the increased setbacks to protect rural land use. The 2
properties to the west and to the east currently are being used as agricultural land. This
addresses a buffer zone to protect rural type, farm tyrpe ground. When I bought my
property it was basically listed as a mini ranch, so 6.6 acres is a residential type
agricultural, grazing that type of a use that is to the west. The last item is ort that map you
ean see that Chief Joseph is a little more than a 1!4 mile away from that proposed
subdivision. It is my understanding that the school is full, any people moving into this
subdivision probably assume that they can send their children to that school. I think there
is going to be a rude awakening there, I don't think they can do that. I think they are going
to have to be bussed someplace else. Those are my comments, thank you.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue?
David Turnbull, 12301 West Explorer Drive, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Tumbull: I just wanted to make a few comments, as for our commitment to schools and
other public facilities, Mr. Mabe did send a letter in which he did talk to me about and he
is advising me he is working on a solution for schools what tenants area this project will
go into. But assured me he would work on it to get that worked out. Obviously there are
bussing situations throughout the Meridian School District. As far as our commitments to
schools, we are donating the schoof sife in the area and I don't know too many developers
tha# have done that. We are also in one of our projects donating as much as 25 additional
acres ta public use facilities such as the new YMCA facility. You wilf see an application
before you shortly on the e~ansion of the Meridian Golf Course which we are expanding
the original design from some 35 acre~ to an additional 30 acres for a total of 65 acres.
We weren't prodded into doing that we weren't cajoled into doing that what we did was we
took a look at the existing plan and decided we wanted to get professional design involved
and went out and found a golf course architect. I must admit when he came back with the
pfan and I saw #he additional acreage I choked a little bit but it did make an excellent golf
course design. 50, I don't fhink that we scrimp with the city of Meridian. What we are
looking to do on this project when Councilman Morrow talked about diversity of housing
types, mentioned that we have done a project called the Landing which we would have
been atlowed to 1000 square foot homes but we voluntarily limited the minimum to 1300
square foot homes. In fact there are homes in there as high as 2400 square foot homes.
But this is an R-8 zone, we do recognize the need for some diversity of housing, I have
heard from the building community and from the buying community and also from the
~
Meridian City Councif
June 7, 1994
Page 33
~
planning community how di~cult it is to find an entry level home to satisfy the economic
diversity. Would that all homes are 250U square feet and everybody could afford them,
that is not the reality. In fact those home account for a very ~mall portion of the market and
we don't want to be considered as trying to force all of that market into Meridian but our
Golf course proje~t again will have some of the most upscale housing in the City of
Meridian. So we are trying to provide for diversity of housing. I will 1et Mr. Wardle handle
any rebuttal comments bu# I will open it up to questions from the Mayor and Council.
Kingsford: Would you address that issue.
Tumbull: I am not interested in necessarily putting in the minimum down to 1000 square
feet and 1100 square feet. My concept is that we would limit it to those percentages that
would be allowed for 1000 square feet or 1100 square feet that we would voluntarily limit
that to 1200 square feet. And then the percentage required to be 1300 square feet and
above would be dispersed throughout the project.
Morrow: So does tha# mean that 50% of the homes would be 1200 to 1300 square feet
and the other 50% would 1350 square feet and above, is that what you are saying?
Tumbull: 1 think 50% would 1200 to 1300 and 50% would be 1301 and above and that
obviously would be the minimum. It could be greater than that.
Morrow: To address Mr. Couch's comments with respect to he apparently has an
agricultural parcel in the very recent past with Salmon Rapids and Los Alamitos
subdivision we put into effect in both of those subdivision or at least Salmon Rapids, was
required to put in very specific types of improvements and very specific types of language
within the covenants and restrictions recognizing the rights of those folks to pursue
agricultural pursuFts. Recognizing their rights to utilize pesticides, herbicides, the fact that
weaning calves and those types of things make noise. The harvesting of hay and those
types o# things make noise and are not necessarily at businessmen's hours. Screening
in terms of tights, in essence what we recogni~ed or required the subdivision to recognize
both at the realtor point with the buyers and at the developer point with builders was the
things that constituted agricultural usages and the fact that they pretty much existed and
they were nat going to be impacted by buyers of subdivision houses. I think at the very
least Mr. Couch has indicate~ his displeasure with the lot size, the R-8 zone. There is not
a lot we can do about that, but what we can do is recognize his rights as an agricultural
mini farm or mini ranch whatever it may be and I think that you would be required to make
the same commitments that Mr. Goldsmith had to make with respect to Kachina Estates.
Turnbull: Which was?
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 34
Morrow: Fencing, notification in covenants, and restrictions of the agrieultural uses,
notification of realtors to buyers of the agricultural uses and what agricultural uses means.
Turnbull: Well we stated in Planning & Zoning Commission we would be fencing the
boundary between our property and Mr. Couch's property. I don't have any problem with
that I don't have any problem with placing a statement in the covenants, conditions and
restrictions relating to the pre-existing agricultural uses. I have no objection to notifying
realtors although you probably know Mr. Morrow how difficult realtors are to control and
I can't make a blanket promise as to what they will and will not do, but we can surly
instruct them.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Tumbull: People do drive by the property and know when there is a farm there, they are
not going in with tunnel vision, and only seeing the project itself I'm sure. Your point is
well taken.
Morrow: I think the other issue with respect to the fencing, what we required and what we
approved is a chain link fencing with metal inserts. So, that burning of fence rows and
ditch lines as per normal agricultural practices didn't burn a wood fence. That is
something that you also will need to be aware of. That is a commonly accepted
agricultural practice.
Turnbull: I have no problem with that unless it was decided by the joining parties that a
wood fence was more desirable and I would like the latitude to go that way, but that would
be between Mr. Couch and ourselves.
Kingsford: To go further, I think that the fence ought to ent~il all the other agricultural area
around and no# just Mr. Couch. Those folks not represented here tonight ought to have
the same protection.
Turnbull: Mr. Couch is to the west, to the south is under development currently and I
believe there are applications at least on a god portion to the east. And we would be
providing a fence along Ustick Road, along a 20 foot landscape corridor.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Turnbull? Counselor?
Crookston: Yes, you indicated that you are dedicating a school site in the area, where is
that?
Tumbull: It is in the Meridian School District, it is bordered on Chinden and Eagle Road.
• .
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 35
Crookston: On Chinden and Eagle Road?
Turnbull: Yes
Crookston: That is some difference from this area.
Tumbull: Right, i am making the comment that { tried to do my part, in fact i am chairing
the committee that is, I have been asked by the Bui{ding Contraetors Association to chair
a committee in which wilf involve various govemment agencies and associations from the
private sector to look into the school funding issue. To took direct{y as site acquisition for
schools and other avenues of school funding. I guess my basic comment is that I am
trying to do my part and be a good citizen and a good developer. This year we will
dedicate some 90 acres to the public se~tor. I can't do #hat in every project.
Crookston: 1 appreciate that, but it sounded fike you were saying such that it would
alleviate some of the problems at Chief Joseph, but that site at Eagle Road and Chinden
would not help Chief Joseph because that is in another school district or attendance zone.
Tumbull: Obviously the school district is looking for school sites in each section as they
go along they already have one in Chief Joseph, I'm sure they will be searching out other
school sites in the various sections surrounding that property. I might add I have gone to
the school district on every project of consequence that I have done and we do quite a few
projects of consequence and offered them to an opportunity at a school site. We did that
in the Landing subdivision, in Walden Pond subdivision, which is an Ada County
subdivision. So we have tried to work closely with the Meridian school district and I
believe Dan Mabe were here he would tell you that we have been good citizens and good
developers in that respect.
Crookston: I am not disagreeing with that ! am just indicating that, the apparent and
immediate problem is that Chief Joseph, because they have submitted a letter in another
annexation and zoning to the city to say they can't approve that because there are going
to be so many kids at Chief Joseph. I appreciate what you have done, I am not trying to
belittle you in any fashion. I am just saying the probfem the City has evidencing is around
Chief Joseph. The other subdivisions that have been approved in that area for R-8 have
agreed to lirnit them to single family units, do you agree to do that.
Turnbutl: Yes, this would be singte family dwelling units on1y.
Morrow: i ha~ve a follow up question, you indicated there was a 25 acre site for some sort
of recreational purposes, that would not be impacted by this that is in the City of Boise.
• `
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 36
Turnbull: Yes it is, but it is the Meridian School district.
Morrow: But not in the City of Meridian.
Kingsford; Other questions for Mr. Turnbull? Anyone else from the public that would like
to offer testimony on this issue.
Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Brian: Well, 1 agree with everything Mr, ~ouch has to offer on his c:omments. ! have no
problem with this subdivision in the sense that we make the minimum requirements and
its seems like everything going in out in not only that section but the surrounding sections
which dire~tly impact me with all the traffic, schc~ols and irrigation problems and what have
you. And it seems #o me that they are all R-8 and they are all stacked in there like chord
wood and they are all creating problems. Now we come with yet anotMer development,
yet a new development and he wants to get variances to make it even more compact and
dense. And get variances to get the smaller units put in there to get more houses in there.
t don't know+ if there is an answer to this, you can't tell people what to do with their land
and you say you don't have any control on what they can do, R-8, R-4 or whatever it is.
I don't understand that part of it in the ptanning and zoning. The City of Eagle doesn't
have any trouble keeping it open spaces and higher end development and low density
development, 1 was just wondering why we don't have any control over our situation. Why
we have to keep building and building out in that area without the roads keeping up. They
are projected to be improved down the road and a lot of projects come on line but it is just
going to be too little too late. Another concem i ave is with the open irrigation ditches and
everybody wants greenbelt and path ways, and they are nice to see and took at and play
around and #hey are a problem with the irrigation dis#riat and a probiem for the farmers out
there using water. Ali the landscaping and trees and the tav~m that gets mowed and
everything ends up in the ditch. As projects get developed and they get tiled there is less
problems after they are tiled because they are confined into the designated routes.
Everybody knows about the school situations, I just think it is kind of silly to put more and
more out there at chief Joseph (inaudible). That is all 1 have.
Kingsford: Are there any questions for Mr. Brian? Thank you Dan, anyone eise from the
public? Seeing none { wil{ close the public hearing, Council members. I wifl open the
public hearing.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, just 2 comments, when we started the planning on this particular
project, we were provided a copy of the preliminary plat for the Fothergill Pointe
subdivision which is immediately to the south. Now it has been brought to our attention
that when they got into the final platting that they in fact provided some (arger lots. But the
~ ~
Meridian City Council
Jun~ 7, 1994
Page 37
plat that was approved by the City as we understand had in fact lots adjacent to this parcel
on the immedia#e south side that were 65 feet by 105 feet in depth. This is where we
started our initial planning, the concepts that were developed we are looking at particular
projects, obviously the final platting effort they have gone through have apparently
changed that. I have not seen those plats. A couple of other features about some of those
adjacent subdivisions that create larger (ots, if you look at a lot of lots in projects to the
east far instance they have provided for the continuation for the South Slough and the
Or~wei{er lateral through easemer~ts at the badcs of lo#s. Which necessitates substantially
larger parcel. in this par~icutar case we have worked again to preserve and provide an
easement in an open area for the South Slough. The Onweiler Lateral, the Nampa
Meridian irrigation district has agreed with the concept of placing that at th~ front of the lot
parcels so that through the license agreements that the easements that they have can
actually be taken care of and the roadway which will be adjacent to it. And would avoid
the probtems of having fandscaping and fences and other improvements in backyards over
the top of that lateral. 1lVhich comes in and rWns right along this roadway. So, we have
not placed in lots the areas that have been preserved for easements both fior the laterals
as welf as #or the pathway system, but in fa~t have taken those out and substantiatly
therefore have smaller iots proposed. There are no variances requested, we have not
requested any variances relative to this apptication. the issue reaNy tonight is does the
City af Meridian c~~oose or is the City willing to annex the parcel, and if it is willing to annex
it does it appiy the R-8 zone which is contiguous zoning and a11ow the platting process to
stand separate and alone, that wiil be forthcoming. The onfy thing that might be taken as
a variance that was stated by the previous testifier is the request that we made for the
application of the existing ordinance provision that allows a variety of the housing sizes.
That ordinance is in place and is not a variance it is simply and application through a
formu4a. If we do stiputete that part of that formufa wilf not be on the lower end I don't
k~lieve that constitutes a variance. i think that is simply application of exlsting ordinances.
That is aii I have to say Mr. Mayor.
Kingsford: Having re-opened the public hearing is there anyone else that would like a
second crack at us? t will close the public hearing, Council members.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it would appear, I would ask the counselor it would appear to me
based on the testimony that we probably need amended findings af fact.
Croolcston: There has been testimony that was not heard at the planning 8~ zoning level.
So I think amended findings are appropriate.
Kingsford: Entertain a motion to that effect.
Morrow: So moved
~ •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 38
Totsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ran to have amend findings prepared, all those in
favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATtON AND ZOtdING WITH A PF2ELIMIPIARY
PLAT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES, 135 LOTS BY AVENUE ONE AND ROYLANCE
AND RSSOCIATES:
Kingsford: I will now open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to
speak first.
Steve Bradbury, 300 Nar#h 6th Street, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor, m+embers of the Council as Mayor mentioned this is an application
for annexativn, a rezone from the current designation of RT to the City's designation R-4
and preliminary plat approval, If you have the plat in front af you, you see it is 135 building
lots on 41.5 give or take acres which results in a 3.25 dwelling unit per acre density. This
project is located near the corners of Ustick and Ten Mile, south side of Ustick between
Ten Mile and Black Cat. It is proposed City water and sewer, standards underground
utilities, public streets which would be built to ACHD standards and of course dedicated
to the Highway District. I have reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law which
were adopted by the Planning & Zoning Commission with the developer and #he developer
is wiUing to comply with those proposed findings in all respects. Mr. Roylance the project
engineer is here and can answer any technical questions that you might have. The
developer Andy Bryron is also here in the event you wanted to get a crack at him. Since
the hour is already getting fate 1 will not talk about a 1ot of things tMat you may or may not
want #o talk about and simply respond to questions if you have any.
Kingsford: Ar~y questions for Mr. Bradbury? Thank you very much, anyone else from the
public? Seeing none I wilt Gose the public hearing, Council members.
Morrow: I have quesfiions of Gary and Shari with respect to their comments.
lGngsford: Caunselor, it has been brought to my attention that it might be a good idea to
swear staff as well.
Crookston: That is true.
~ ~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 39
Kingsford: Will those folks come up and be sworn.
Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was swarn by the City Attorney.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Counci(man Morrow, Council members, i don't believe and I can't say
this with certainty that I have heard from the design engineer and concerning the
comments that I made on design review. I have received several correspondences from
his office on other projects and I don't have anything, I don't believe I have anything on
Dakota Ridge, I could be wrong I don't have my file with me at this moment.
(Inaudible)
Smith: They have respontled, I apologize, if you would like 1 can step next door and grab
my file and check all these items off.
Morrow: If you would please. In the meantime we could have Shari address her
comments.
Kingsford: Do you want a recess Max?
Yerrington: I move for a recess.
Kingsford: We stand at recess for a couple of minutes.
(5 MINUTE RECESS)
Kingsford: Call the meeting back to order. Mr. Smith are you prepared to move forward?
Smith: Yes Mr. Mayor, Council members, in reviewing Roylance and Associates
responses to my review comments I guess 1 have a coupie of questions that maybe Dave
RoylanCe can answer. My comment #3 I asked about a stub street being provided to the
west as a question mark, the response had to do with ACHD and project designer
discussing that a stub street would make possible a travel length parallel to Ustick Road
throughout the subdivisions in #he area. Given the possibility of a school beside it directly
west of the proposed development a pedestrian pathway to the west boundary shall be
included in the final design. My only comment would be that technically from our
ordinance with out a stub street through there on our west boundary we have in access
of a 1000 foot block in length. Item #8, I make a comment that too much sewer line is
being placed in a pathway in Block 2, can the street alignment be revised to eliminate this
iength. Comment, sewer trunk line can be adjusted to the west in order to (inaudible) 20
foot easement. The word easement needs to be revised to say pathway, it needs to be
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
P~ge 40
•
a dedicated lot. However the situation sited is no different than that which is found
befinreen Tuscora Court and T~rnberry Way in the Lake at Cherry Lane in the 3rd phase.
Is there a standard maximum length allowed for this situation? i guess the maximum
lengths that 1 have been dealing with are 2 lot depth. 1 think that would be a reasonabie
length for 2 lots. Item #10, how witl the southwest corner of the westeriy side be served
with sewer? The comment is the sewer shafl either come from gr~vity fiow line e~ended
along West Ustick Road ar else from an area wide lift station (inaudible) focated to the
southwest af the property. The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 is having to utilize a temporary
lift station at its west boundary to serve the, { think basically the westerly half of their
subdivision. So part af the subdivision f assume cauld drain into tha# temporary fift statian.
At the time that the sewer line is extended onto the west as part of the Golf course
expansion it will be picked up in the regianal lift station. The reason for my comment was
to have this devetoper working with the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 developer do they
coordinate (inaudible) e{evation so it can be sewered and 1 believe that is happening.
Mvrrow: Question oi clarification, when the temporary {ift station is done away with, who's
expense is that done away with?
Smith: As the development continues to the west, it wou{d be the developers responsibility
to abandon the temporary lift station.
Morrow: The new developers or these developers?
Smith: The l.ake at Cherry Lane No. 3 developer as the golf course phase 2 deve{aps
then that temporary lift station would be removed.
Kingsford: Removed or just bypassed Gary?
Smith: We have to remove the lift station equipment and construct it initialty sa that
(inaudible) and flow on through.
Morrow: And we have provision in place for that to happen atready?
Smith: With the Lake at Cherry ~ane No. 3, yes.
(End of Tape}
Smith: Those are the only items that I had any question on conceming their respo~se to
my review comments.
Morrow: And you are satisfied with their responses?
u
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 41
~
Smith: Well, yes, the length of that block, if a stub street is not provided then technically
it is exceeding #he 1000 foot block length. If the Highway District has concems about that,
I haven't spoken directly with them so.
Morrow: f have a coupte points and you may not be able to clarify them. In the Highway
District's comments they indicated that Ustick Road and the improvements to Ustick Road
were not eligible for impact fee monies, why is that do you know?
Smith: ~10,1 don't knov-r.
Morrow: Then their 4th comment, it said there was another subdivision the Lake at Cherry
Lane No. 3 b~ing processed and currently on this agenda, they enter neighborhood
connecting streets do not match and the proje~t's engineers witl be required to coordinate
with the layout of the 2 projects. So that there is connecting public streets, that has been
address?
Smith: Yes, Ojibwa, which was shown as a culdesac on Dakota Ridge is now a through
stree# and will connect to the Lake No. 3. The furthest street to the east, the north south
~treet to the east side af this subdivision will now culdesac and it won't go th~ough as
originally shown. They are working that connection out.
Morrow: I guess I am still a little confused why the staff doesn't want, 1 have read what
they want and what you said about the stub street to the west, but I am concerned about
the block length. ! am not totally sure, well Ustick Road is going to be a 5 lane road so
why would parallel traffic be an issue?
Smi#h: 1 don't know.
Kingsford: There are other places it exists and they don't allow lot access onto Ustick
Road, sp you make a good point.
Tvlsma: (Inaudible)
Smith; ACHD felt that there was going to be some parallel traffic to Ustick Road and with
the school site to the west of this apparently they felt it was going to promote some heavier
traffic ir~ the subdivision that would normally occur.
Tolsma: There is a school site to the west of this.
Smith: Well, according to our comp plan there is one proposed to the west of this if we
can get a developer to agree to.
•
Meridian City Counci{
June 7, 1994
Page 42
~
Kingsford: Let's get some feedback from Mr. Roylance with regard to that.
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorr~ey.
Roylance: Mike Shrewsberry at our office has been working with ACHD regarding this
issue and in fac;t regarding ali the road alignment. I didn't attend that meeting he went to
one of their design review meeting. As I understand it for the reasons you stated the
potential of a school site ACHD did not want a stub street there. However, our position
would be if you would like us and Gary to revisit that issue with ACHD and rethink that and
if it would be in the best interest of the City and ACHD to put in a stub street we would do
that.
Kingsford: Well, I think certainly i think we need to do that Dave, or you need to apply for
a variance to our block length. It needs to be one or the other and I think my preference
would be to limit that to a 1000 feet if we can by that means.
Roylance: We woutd be happy to do that, as I understand this was a m~ndate more or
less from ACHD and we are complying with their request and collectively we c~uld
probably change that if we can show good cause to do that. We would be happy to work
with you to accomplish that, or at least re-think this so we know that we are doing the right
thing if we leave it this way.
Morrow: I would agree with Grant's position, I would really prefer to of with the stub street
and solve the issue of the bfock tength from that standpoint,
Kingsford: I think that maybe getting the school distric;t involved I'm sure they haven't
given it a whole lot of thought just how they pfan to ingress, egress that but if they did have
it might be that a stub street in a different loeation would be more appropriate. So I woufd
like to see the 3 of you, Mr. Mabe and you 2 working with the Highway District on th8t.
Roylance: Sure, if fhere are no other complications with the plat we would appreciate if
that could be a condition of ~nal plat approval that our firm, Gary, School District and
ACHD can get together and go through that and we will put it wherever everybody would
like it.
Kingsford: Other questions or comments for staff.
Morrow: I have none of Gary, 1 have questions of Shari.
Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was swor~ by the City Attorney.
. •
Meridian ~+ty Gouncil
June 7, 1994
Page 43
Morrow: My questions wou(d be with respect to your analysis of the project. In your letter,
second paragraph, you raise some issues about the city's wastewater treatment piant and
certainly the prevailing winds and the possibility of (inaudible) effe~ts on tMe property
owners or negative feedbaclc from them. Could you enlighten me a little bit as to what you
are referring to with respect to the 20 foot landscape buffer on the northerty boundary and
the additionai mitigation majors that you are thinking of in terms of considering.
Stiles: Counciiman Morrow, Mayor and Council members, I guess I just was putting that
in there to have it on the record when we get complaints. I don't know what you could do
to mitigate that. ! don't know if there is anything you could do, you have giant citronella
pots or soFnething, I don't know what would mitigate that. tt was just noted so in the future
when the calfs and complaints it wiil be in the record that was noted.
Morrow: Was your thought that we recognize that i~ the same manner that e recogni~e
agricultura! uses through the covenants and restrictions?
Stiles: Yes
Tolsma: Well there is a very big area just north of there, right acxoss the road that belongs
to one of (inaudible).
Stiles: Th~t dairy is being proposed as a subdivision now.
Morrow: You also indicated there are no plans for the Ruteldge fateral and other water
way easement should be noted on the piat. And all plans will need to be coordinated with
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District in accordance with the City ordinance. We also talk
about pedestrian walkways and those kinds of things. I think that one of the things that
I am after here is some enlightenment from you on what you are thinking with respect to
the canaf and the pathways so on and so forth. Part of the issue that i am driving at here
is that the property owner happens to be a member of the board of directors of the Nampa
Meridian irrigation district and quite candidly given all the problems that we have with
Nampa Meridian and with the subdivision growth and development this is an excel{ent
opportunity for him to become aware of what our problems are with respect to these
pathway~ deveiopments. As you heard with every development that is here tonight that
has a pathway it is all subject to working with Nampa Meridian irrigation district to g~t
those things accomplished. ! think this is an exce!lent opportunity to at least bring these
fiolk up to sp~ed with what we have to struggle with to accomplish those pathway systems.
So, what i am asking of you is to maybe using this as an example what your thoughts are
and what we need to accomplish and what problems are there and how Nampa Meridian
can help us solve these problems.
•
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 44
•
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor, and Council, we have agreed with the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District to stay away from their laterals, they told us we could work with
their drains and creeks, Eight Mile, Ten Mile, Nine Mile but they don't want us messing
with their laterals. Is it the case in just about any lateral there will be a roadway, or {
presume there will be a roadway for maintenance for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
and regardless of r~vhat they think it will be used as a pathway by those people that live
there. lt is just a fact, I don't know what we could do on this particular project to ca11
Nampa Nleridian Irrigation District call their attention to our desires and needs. But
someday they may recognize that these are an amenity to be used and enjoyed by
everyone.
Kingsford: Mr. Morrow, I am not sure that you were aware but the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation board did convene a meeting specially and visited with the City 2 weeks ago and
those things were addressed. We are currently working on a licensing agreement, that
is one of the things 1 was going to bring up to Wayne is where we are at wi#h review of that
and so forth. f think that we are on target to move along with those walkways on the
drains. And I tend to agree with them, being an old irrigation farmer that we have had
some problems with the laterals 1'm not sure how you deal with those but I think we ace
targeting and moving along on that.
Morrow: Well that is a positive step, I received no paperwork or noti~cation from the city
that the meeting was held or any results of that. At least from position on the Council I am
not aware of those things going on.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Shari? I did close the public hearing l believe, is the
Council prepared to rnake a decision, were there appreciable different testimonies?
Crookston: No
Kingsford: You have #indings as prepared for P& Z.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as
approved by P & Z.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared for P& Z, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - yea, Yerrington - yea, Tolsma - Yea
~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 45
MO710N CARRIEp: All Yea
•
Kingsford: Next item then would be to have the City Attorney prepare a ordinance if #hat
is your desire.
Yerrington: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Waft to have #he City Attomey prepar~ an
annexation and zoning ordinance, ali those in #avor? Opposed?
MOTtON CARRfED: Ail Yea
Kingsford: Next item is to deal with the Preliminary plat.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Dakota Ridge
Estate~ subject to staff conditions.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the preliminary plat for Dakota
Ridge Subdivision conditioned upon staff comments being satisfied, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #20: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATiC~N AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR ROCK CREEK SUBD{VISlON, 20 LOTS Y KEVIN HOWELL AND HUBBLE
ENGtNEERING:
Kingsford: At this time 1 wi11 open the public Mearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Merkle: 1~m here this evening on behalf of Kevin Howell Construction the applicant. This
application consists of a 6.~4 annexation with R-8 zoning and a 20 lot single famity
preliminary plat on 5.7 acres. This is a density o# approximately 3.5 lots per acre. This
projeet is tocated directiy west of the Finch Creek subdivision and Howell Tract
subdivision. We are about 318 of a mile west of Locust Grove along Ustick Road and the
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 46
•
Finch Creek project has had preliminary plat approvai with R-8 zoning, Howell Tract is a
recorded p{at. The surrounding property to the sou#h is the Finch Creek, into the east is
the Finch Creek, the property to the west is a vacant parce{ not within the city timits. The
applicant is proposing lot sizes having an average of 9,000 squace #eet and a minimum of
13b0 square foot home sizes is proposed. Access to the subdivision presently there is no
access to the subdivision because the Finch Creek subdivision wilt not be under
construction until later this year. There will be a single access from the east subdivision.
We are proposing a stub street to the existing 15 acre site to the west which t antiaipate
as things go will be under development in a year or several years. We are not proposing
access to Ustick Road due to the proximity to the entrance of Howell Tract subdivision.
Afso there will be ar~other access to Ustick Road required from th~ project to the west of
us in deating with the Highway District they did not deem it necessary to provide a third
access within an half mile along Ustick on the south side in addition to the existing home
afong there. The streets within the subdivision as usual will be built to the Highway
District's standards with 50 #oot of right of way, 36 foot streets, 5 foot sidewalks as
required by the City of Nleridian. Sewer and water witt be e~ctended to the subdivision from
Finch Creek once Finch Creek is constructed. { wou{d {ike to address Gaty Smith's and
Shari's comments ! prepared a written response to their comments. { befieve you have
them in your packet, they were in your box earlier and 1 think Gary and Shari both have
then also. These basically summarize the comments 1 made and the presentation t made
at Planning & Zoning 2 months ago. If you want me to go through each one of them t wili
but basically they address each of the comments. The particular one I would like fo look
at is number 5 on my response to Gary's comment his #5. He talks about wanting a stub
street, he talks about a culdesac in this tocation being in excess of 450 feet maximum set
by the ordinance. And the way the plan shows it is not en excess of 450 feet, so my
opinion it does not need a variance. So 1 need a clarification on that issue. I believe on
Shari's comments she talks about the greenbelt issue which is the Finch Lateral, South
Slough which you heard earlier tonight Bedford Place whi~h is to the west. 1 would like
to point out on this particufar subdivision that feature is not within the limits of the
subdivision. Kevin HoweN who is proposing the subdivision is the Howell Tract, (inaudible)
to realign the Finch Leteral (inaudibfe) for the future city path on the south. Thaf is aiready
installed at this location. So that comment doesn't reatly apply (inaudible). 1 think that
touches the high points of their comments l would tike to answer any c~omments at this time
if I can.
Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Merkle at this time?
Morrow: This subdivision will (inaudible) for all the pressurized irrigation and all #hose
things that we want.
Merkle: Yes, Kevin is proposing to coordinate that with next door and provide pressurized
• •
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 47
irrigation.
Tolsma: Does the Howeli Tract subdivision (inaudible).
Merkie: (Inaudible~ I think if you look in your ACHD comments within your packet there is
a vicinity map that shows everything within a 1/4 m~le or a 1!2 mile of the subdivision. I
don't think it shows the Bedford Place because this was submitted probably before that.
Tolsma: (lnaudible} 1s there any proposed development (inaudible).
Merk{e: Not to my knowledge, I understand that some developers r realtors or their agents
approached that particuiar landowner but to my knowiedge there has beer~ nothing agreed
upon.
Tolsma: You have a dead end subdivision, no place to get in or out.
Merkle: Until the property to the west that is correct.
Talsma: ACHD was negative on their street going out to Ustick Road?
Merkle: Yes they were, when they iaoked at this particular subdivision they looked at the
whole 1/4 sectian deveioping and looked at the uftimate design of it. And they wouid
rather not have this access they would rather have the access that they now in Howell
Tract and the one that will be proposed to the west of this.
Morrow: ls Mr. Couch's parcel the little "L" shaped thing?
Merkle: IVo. Mr. Couch is further west, this particular 40 acre piece righ# here Mr. Morrow
is the Bedford subdivision and I believe Mr. Couch is over here.
Morrow: And the little notch in the upper right hand, what would be the northeast corner
those are existing houses.
Merkle: Existing houses not owned by the applicant.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Merkle? Anyone else from the public that would
like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the publie hearing, Council
members.
Morrow: I would like to have Shari run through her comments, she is recommended this
proposal be denied or tabled to ailow the applicant to reconsider development features ad
. •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 48
work with city officiais to achieve community goais as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
Could she enlighten us on tha#?
Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was swom by the City Attorney.
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mr. Mayor and Council, I believe 1 wrote this memo prior to
knowing what was going on with that South Slough and didn't realize that it was being
realigned and not be a part of the subdivision. The walkways I think have been
addressed, we didn't have ali the vicinity map showing what was going on out there it was
real confusing as to what this subdivision was, it seemed to be out with no access or
anything but we have since got the ACHD maps detailing that. That was the reason for
#hat comment.
Morrow: Are you, based on Mr. Merkle's response to your {etter and his presentation here
tonight are you satisfied that it meets the goals that we set in the Comprehensive Plan.
And 1 guess a quick question that Gary is satisfied that his conditions have been met by
Jim"s presentation.
Gary Smith, 33 East ldaho, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Smith: t jus# Mave a couple of comments based on Mr. Merkle's comments to my review
comments. My #2 comment was requesting a vicinity map showing land area use for a
half mile each way from the proposed plat area with streets and existing zoning. Jim's
comment was that ACHD map is available but he would provide whatever I needed. i
guess my thought there is that a requirement of submittal of a preliminary plat is the vicinity
map and we don't get the vicinit}r map from ACHD until 11:30 before the meeting. I put this
comment on a4most all of the submittal because I don't get them. Now I shouldn't say that
I don't get them, I think one recent submittal from Hubble Engineering did provide that
vicini#y map. It gives us an opportunity to see where this subdivision lies in relation to
what is happening in a particular area. I think Shari Stiles mentioned that initialiy it was
a little confusing as to what, at least to her and to others as to where it is and how it is
connecting to what is there, what has been submitted for proposal or what is being built.
My #5 comment concerning the street to the west, as Jim said when the property to the
west develops and the stub street continues on then there won't be a culdesac in excess
of 450 feet in length. Right now it is my observation that the cuidesac is longer than 450
feet. The stub street in my opinion is a means for turn around but it coutd be said to
function the same as an eyebrow in a street. So that is the reason for my comment that
with this development, with what is existing out there right now it is my opinion that you
have a 450 foot culdesac in excess ofi 450 feet.
Morrow: Question Gary, your calling that (inaudible) lower culdesac.
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 49
Smith: Yes, as Finch Creek develops on over here where actually this wasn't here then
there is no doubt it is more than the 450 feet. What this is here, even though it is here is
still a culdesac (inaudible) and may not. But like Jim said within a year or 2 years this
probably will develop everything else is.
Morrow: We have no submittal at the present time that it is developing.
Smith: Correct, so right now from this point this is a culdesac, in my opinion.
Kingsford: How does that differ Gary, from the previous request that we were talking
about a stub street to the north getting away from the block length is that the same kind
of an issue?
Smith: Similar yes, the block length again it would only be appropriate once the property
on the end woutd develop. But at least in that case the provision has been started to have
a shortened block so you don't have this whole length you just have this part o# the block.
Maybe I am splitting hairs but it is just, it probably won't be an issue and Kenny Bowers
made a comment that it is a long one way in, one way out situation.
Tolsma: You are utilizing one subdivision to be an access to another subdivision without
access to a city street and we have the same problem down here on another subdivision
coming in (inaudible) because you have to go 3 blocks out of your road to get back into
the subdivision. It is big, long dead end street you can't get there (inaudible), you really
have a problem whether it be emergency medical or fire or whatever.
Smith: I don't know, may this is an issue that Wayne Crookston will need to investigate
or not. t don't mean to create a problem but I don't want to overlook an ordinance
requirement for a culdesac length if that is what it is.
MoROw: My question would be the reason for the 450 feet is emergency services with
respect to the culdesac. I think the other issue here is to me this seems like it falls into
what we cali a piece of prop~rty, it doesn't make any sense to access it on Ustick because
we are trying to keep Ustick as a majpr arterial without a bunch of little roads running in
and out. Maybe what happens here is that we give a little to get a little. I guess I would
feel more comfortab{e if the property to the west was somewhere in the process.
Tolsma: What we could do is what we have done in the past is emergency access to
Ustick as such time it is developed to the west.
Morrow: But Ron you don't have any emergency access to Ustick.
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 50
s
Tolsma: Well, you just utilize one of those lots as emergency access untif such time a spot
develops west and utilize your lot (inaudible).
Kingsford: Jim, what are the widths of lots 1 and 2 up there or Gary?
Smith: (Inaudibfe)
Kingsford: Sa that wouldn't fly, we would have to have an unbuildable fot until such time
that it develops to the west.
Tolsma: Once the streets develop then the culdesac (inaudible) ~nce the street develops
to the west then it is (inaudible) because then they have the access in the middle but if
they have the emergency access that they can get to and from that road to the break way
barrier or whatever. That gives us an (inaudible) in case that develops to the west or
somebody decides not to do that over there then we are not in violation of the ordinance
either.
Kingsford: Would your developer be willing to put a deed restriction on either Lots 1 or
2 for a temporary exit?
Merkle: It is my opinion that he would rather have that than have it denied, bu# yes I think
that is in the best interest of the residents of the city to have that emergency access.
Kingsford: (Inaudible) what are we looking at, we have required some sort, how far are
we looking at.
Smith: (Inaudib{e)
Kingsford: We need a couple loads of gravel to do that. What is the Council's
Merkle: I would be willing to represent that he would go along with that in lieu of the
opposite.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Merkle: I would like to point out that Gary is right and it is an interpretation of what the
culdesac, the ordinance doesn't define what a cuidesac length is.
Kingsford: You can look at it either vrray, our concern is without a doubt safety. I don't
want to have firemen hung out there #rying to bac4c a rig out of there if there is a fire and
so forth. Well that woutd be my recommendation to Council that we look at a deed
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 51
C~
restriction either on 1 or 2 for a temporary ingress and egress for that u~til the road is
complete to the west. Any other questions that you had for Gary?
Morrow: No, Gary has commented on everything that Jim had commented on, i am
comfortabie if you are comfortable.
Smith: For the record i appreciate Mr. Merkle returning comments on my commen#s, I
appreciate Mr. Roylance and associates doing the same.
Morrow: And I think 1 would like to make a comment Jim, the last time you and t met we
had a discussion and I think fhis is very positive. It aids us immeasurably in terms of
walking through these in terms of trying to analyze alf we get here so we have some clue
as to what is going on. I like what I see on both this proje~t and the next project that you
are representing, and Dave Roylance did a good job also. { would mirror Gary's
comments.
Kingsford: 1 closed the public hearing, what is the Council's pleasure? You have findings,
were they any different Counselor?
Crookston: No
Morrow: Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclwsions of law
far the Rock Creek Subdivision as passed by the Pl~nning & Zorting.
Totsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as prepared fo~r P& Z on the Rock Creek Subdivision, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL V4TE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: How do we go about the procedure of getting what we discussed with either lot~
1 or 2.
Kingsford: We have to do annexation and zoning and you do that in regard to the
annexation agreement, which would be the next item to have the City Attorney prepare
annexation and zoning ordinance.
Yerrington: So moved
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 52
Tolsma: Second
•
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to have the City attorney prepare annexation
ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTtON CARRIED: Att Yea
Kingsford: The preliminary plat, then likewise combine that in to restrict that lot, entertain
a motion on the preliminary plat.
Morraw: Mr. Mayor,l would move we approve the preiiminary piat with the exception that
either lots 1 or 2 on the cutdesac bordering Usticfc Road be designated as an emergency
access.
Yerrington: Secand
Kingsford: Moved by Wait, second by Max to approve the preliminary plat conditioned
upon having either lots 1 or 2 be reserved as an emergency access untif the road goes to
the west, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTIUN CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: PUBLIC FiEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR WEST~ALE PARK NO. 2, 39 LOTS BY MAX BOESIGER AND HUBBLE
ENGINEERING:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first,
Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Merkle: I am here this evening on behalf of Max Boesiger the applicant, this particular
project kind af has the same problem as the last one, one long access in a nutshell. It is
located east of the Crossroads preliminary plat at the edge of the Meridian Impact Area.
The applicatian for annexation and preliminary plat this is 38 single family lots on 12.17
acres which is approximatefy 3.2 lots per acre. The request is for R-8 zoning. The
applicant is proposing !ot sizes in a range from 7,000 to 12,000 square foot. Due to the
geometry of the site, it is a wide narrow site, it is not wide enough to have 2 streets, the
width just provides for some real deep lots. Home sizes, Max is proposing will be a
minimum of 1500 square feet which go along generally with the existing Westdale
subdivision No. 1 which is in the Boise Impact Area which is an Ada County subdivision
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 53
•
which is ! think about built out now. Access to the subdivision will be from the existing
Westdale No. 1 subdivisions ultimately from Cloverdale Road. In the future when ACHD
does #he Pine Street extension project that is what the bottom gray area depicts that will
run from Eagle Road down to Cloverdale road and this stub street will tie into that. The
streets within the subdivision as usual will be constructed to the Highway District's
standards with 50 faot right of way, 36 foot streets, 5 foot sidewalks as required by the City
of Meridian. City sewer and water is proposed to be extended through a future phase of
Crossroads subdivision. Myseif and the engineer working on the Crossroads subdivision
met with Mr. Smith regarding the exten~ion of the sewer and water through that
subdivision into this subdivision. We believe that during the final design of this phase we
can accommodate his concems as far as the common lot, it needs to go through between
both subdivisions. Regarding your findings of fact that were prepared and approved at the
Planning & Zoning level, item #13 on page 11, of the findings, states that all ditches canals
and waterways are required to be tiled and pressurized irrigation be installed as a
condition of annexation. On May 4th our office submitted on behalf of Mr. Boesiger a
request of a waiver to install pressurized irrigation as this particular piece of property does
not have a water right. We did meet with Mr. Ken Bowers the Fire Chief regarding the
access issue to this site. And he believes ultimately when the roads are built up that will
meet his requirements in the interim in my little response to Gary Smith's comments
mentioned we had met with Mr. Bowers and he has coordinated with Westem Ada
Emergency Response to deal with access from Cloverdale Road to this site. And it was
my impression from rrryself and Max Boesiger that he would be satisfied with that. If you
would like to take the opportunity to go through my response to Gary and Shari's
comments. The one particular one with Shari, we are proposing a 10 foot landscape
easement along lots adjacent to the future Pine Street which is the green area right there.
There was some confusion whether it is 15, 20 or 10 ar~d that is proposing a 9 0 foot
landscape easement. The ordinance states in areas of buffering i~dustriaf or non-
compatibie uses they want a 20 foot wide. If you look at this plat we feel that these lots
are significant depth, 180 to 165 in essence we are providing a buffer, we have huge deep
fots to an extra 10 feet of landscaping isn't going to realty make a buffer between these
houses and the use to the south. Max has provided 10 foot on several other subdivisions
along Cherry Lane and Ten Mile of that same dimension on his entrance and they are
pretty sharp looking and he feels it is adequate for the need that is there. And we would
request that it be a 10 foot easement. That is what I believe to be the highlights of the
response and if you have any questions I would address them.
Kingsfard: Questions for Mr. Merkle?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, it is my belief that Nampa Meridian Irrigation on property that lost
water rights that they had a vehicle someway to go with pressurized irrigation so that it
could happen.
• !
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 54
Kingsford: 1 was going to bring that up too, Jim I would like you to pursue that. I believe,
was this in Settler's did I read that? Regardless, both of them have indica#ed to us that in
getting into the pressurized irrigation business they would be willing to work to do that. So
that would certainly be my preference that you try and pursue that.
Merkle: At this time we request the waiver because there are no rights currently.
Morrow: The other side of the issue too is that is an ideal candidate for a shallow well if
here is no water right from either one of those 2 it is a small enough subdivision that the
expense of a shallow well at that location broken down per lot is not very expensive. So
I think the pressurized irrigation is doable no matter which method you choose to do it with.
Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Merkle? Thank you Jim.
Tolsma: That is the new proposed design over the March 4th (inaudible).
Merkle: Yes, and this is the proposal that was presented and approved by Planning &
Zoning.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none 1 will close the public hearing,
Council members.
Morrow: I would just have Gary and Shari comment if they are satisfied.
Kingsford: Gary is okay, Shari?
Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
(End of Tape)
Stiles: I guess the only comment t woutd have I still would like to see the 20 foot
landscape easement along that Pine Street not only is it a buffer for the adjacent industrial
but it will be basically an entrance corridor to the City when that street is completed. I
would like to an addition to landscape along that corridor.
Kingsford: Thank you, what was your comment to that refresh my memory?
Merkle: Max has done a couple of other projects, Vineyards and Krystal Springs and they
both have about 10 foot of landscaping, I feel that is adequate for what we need if the
intent is to provide a buffer befinreen the lots and adjacent M1 the lot depth is certainly a
buffer in my opinion.
• ~
Meridian City Council
June ?, 1994
Page 55
Kingsford: Are the Vineyards only 10 feet?
Merkfe: That is what Ma~c instructed.
Crookston: It is going to be zero.
Merkle: Krystal Springs on the other side is, there is about 10 feet of landscaping there
between the fence and the sidewalk.
Kingsford: Weli, we see berms and certainly they are wider than 10 feet.
Merkle: Sure, they are 20.
Morrow: I think the concem here with the industrial stuff, l am sensitive to the depth of the
lot, but I think the landscape issue is there to mitigate noise and those kinds of things.
The depth of the lot probably wouldn't do that, if it is trees and shrubs the sound would be
braken up by the trees and shrubs, I think maybe that is Shari's intent it is certainly her
point about it is going to become a corridor of the city a{though it is an indusVial corridor
that is a valid point also, But I would think that the landscape berm (inaudibfe} fandscape
easement area would serve more as a screen or shield from site and noise traffic from the
different usage from the industrial park.
Kings#ord: So, you go on through that corridor in on the other side of Cloverdale, of course
there are a litt{e different land uses, some areas are industriat and commerciaf on both
sides and in a couple af the areas it gets into a more higher density zone, 2 story
apartment buifdings and so forth.
Morrow: As you follow the corridor through to Cloverdale, it actually splits and creates a
horseshoe on the one, which is called Emerald Street it is adjacent to a mobile home park
with industrial uses. Execu#ive Drive which is realty the one that lines up with Emerald
when it gets bacic to Five Mile, is al1 industrial and then as you progress to Maple Grove
it is ofFce on both sides through to the mid line between Maple Grove and Cole Road and
then you have some o~ce stuff and once you cross Cole that is when you run into the
apartments that you are referring to. So we don`t have basically singfe family residences
anywhere along that corridor bordering that_
Kingsford: But we logically would coming back to the west or could on the north side.
Morrow: Sure we could.
Kingsford: So we would be certainly setting a precedent (inaudible).
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 56
C~
Merkle: 1 would just like to point out that again the 2 other projects and the landscape
easements provided on those is basically what he would be intending to put here nothing
less than that. I would like to point out also that is the alignment ACHD has today, the
alignment wifl move no further to the east but it may move #urther to the west and swing
down. We can't tell that righ# now we are, to allow for that much right of way whe~ we final
plat it but Pine Street may not be there. So, if there is some verbiage in the case it is built
that way we wili provide the landscape.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, refresh my memoty, did ACHD when they made the presentation for
the realigr~ment for the presentation of Pine Street and Locust Grove Road did the City
Council at that time take a position on those, I think there were 3 or 4 alternatives, and we
opted for the altemative that was of this configuration and the realignment of South Locust
Grove road at the same time because it is a11 a part of the same design. So, 1 think to
answer your question as a City we have committed to this des+gn.
Kingsford: We have , but recognizing Mr. Merkle's point is still well taken. As that land
develops, I have had conversation with a developer that is very interested in the Pine
connector being finished. Other comments, thank you Jim, Council has findings, I befieve
there was na new testimony Counselor?
Crookston: That is correct.
Kingsford: Is there a motion to approve findings?
Tolsma: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as prepared by P& Z, roll cafl vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: MoROw - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, To{sma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: Alf Yea
Kingsford: is there a motion to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance.
Yerrington: So moved
Tolsma: Second
~ ~
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 57
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron ta have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance
annexing and zoning, all those in favor? Opposed?
M4TI4N CARRIED: Al! Yea
Kingsford: Preliminary plat.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I am going to through the motion out and i don't know how it will be
received, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat with a 20 foot landscape
easement subjeet to staff conditions.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the preiiminary plat subjec# to staff
approval and a 20 foot landscape easement, all those in favor? Opposed?
MQTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #22: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONIIdG BY ROBERT GLENN:
Kingsford: At this time f wiil open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Ted Hutchinson, 109, South Fort Street, Boise was swom by the City Attomey.
Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, we are seeking annexation
of approximately 25 acres. We are located on the north side of Cherry Lane, we are
situated between the Sunburst Subdivision and Sunnybrook Farms subdivision. We have
a preliminary plat which is presently before the Planning & Zoning Commission. These
items were separated when the Planning 8~ Zoning Commission sent the plat badc to us
for some redesign and consideration. It is our intent to develop this parcel in compliance
with the R-4 zoning designation which we are asking that the City of Meridian zone this
parcel should you choose to annexation this particular parcel. We reviewed the findings
of fact and conclusions of law and th~ reoommenda#ions that were issued by the Planning
& Zoning Commission for the most part we understand and approve of the findings and
conclusions. We are however, a littie concerned with one of the conciusions. Before we
ask for clarification we believe it is important for the Council to understand some of the
constraints which are present at this site. Which have driven our particular site design.
Prior to sumiting this application I spoke with Mr. Forrey, he was still in the capacity of your
zoning director at that time, we discussed the areas development for requirements of the
Meridian zoning and subdivision ordinances and sort of the basic expectations of the
•
Meridian City Council
Jun~ 7, 1994
Page 58
.
Councii conceming the new developments in the City of Meridian. We discussed the site
and its physica) characteristics we also talked about the development options given those
physical canstraints aF the site. This site is bounded by irrigation and drainage ditches on
basicalty 3 sides, there is a smaller irrigation ditch that runs down the 4th side. And a!I of
these ditches are going to be required by the ordinance to be tiled or covered. I'd ask~!
about the possibility of leaving these ditches open for improvement (inaudible) as a water
amenity within the development. I was told that the ordinance required that al! ditches
which were less than a spec~c size be ti{ed. It is my impression from that discussion that
there was very {ittle chance that the ti{ing requirement could be removed. Some of my
discussion with Mr. Forrey also centered upon density transfer for part of the site to
provide parks based within the development to be located up near the Sunnybrook Farms
site that they have as a neighborhood park. But this option I was told is subject to
neighborhood approval through the public hearing process and given that the development
pattern in the area was single family dwellings on R-4 lots with R-4 densities it didn't
appear on fihe surface that such density transfer would be favorably received by the
general neighbtxhoad. So ir~ormation and impressionis that I received in the meeting with
Mr. Forrey I discussed the options with the developer. With congideration of the parce!
of land, the cast of tiling the ditches and other infrastructure costs which may include the
necessary sewer !ift station, the developer chose an option which simply developed the
site with singfe family dwellings on lots which meet the devetopment standards for the R-4
zone. A number of other design considerations have also arisen considering this
development including the easements for the ditches, the street pattem and direct parcel
ac~ess onto Cherry Lane. At fiirst review the Ada County Highway District was denying any
access onto Cherry Lane, that decision was made by staff, we took that decision of staff
to the Ada County Highway District Commission and after hearing testimony from
neighboring property owners and our proposal the Commission has permitted access onto
Cherry Lane. So we have got a design with direct lot access onto Cherry Lane. This
access aided our design and particularly when we considered our site is only 415 feet
wide and yet extends for a 1!2 mile. It has been very difficult to come up with a street
design within that to give us a viable project. We also have been ab{e to worlc out a basic
agreement with the Nampa Meridian {rrigatian District concerning the easements and the
easements and the easement widths for the tiling of ditches. We wil! also be providing an
easement for their maintenance of #hose tiled ditches. This left one area of contention with
the neighboring property owners and in all possibility with the Council, that remaining
issue is open space or park space. Tonight t tried to explain the process which has lead
to our current site design. Park space was discussed with the developer, but because of
simple economics #he cost of providing park land within this development without the
abifity to negotiate other development options is simp{y toa high given our understanding
of the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance. We understand the importance of
park space as ar~ area develops, it is a benefit to the development if parks and open
spaces are provided within that development. We also recognize the benefit to the
~ ~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 59
community. After reviewing the findings of fact and conciusions of law from the
Commission 1 came to City Hall to speak with Ms. Stiles concerning those findings of fact
and conclusions however she was out of the office and Mr. Forrey happened to be there
on another mat#er. He did agree to speak with me concerning this because we did have
some concern about the findings, specificafly where he was mentioned in the findings of
fact and conctusions of law. And it had to do specifically with open space in the area.
Again we discussed the possibility of a density transfer and.
Kingsford: Ted, do you happen to have the site where that is brought up in the findings?
Hutchinson: I believe it is on page #11, it is under finding #9. It has to do with the
development agreement and we have gone through this sited sections and we believe that
we are addressing or can address those specific requirements that concern with the
planning strip, I have a question about H2, which has to da with existing natural features
which enhance development. We are not sure what that is, we have a fiat site that is
bounded by some ditches and a drainage that we are going to tile. But those tiling wili be
done as required by City code. And then pedestrian and bike paths then linear open
space corridors those are things that we would like to get clerified from the Council tonight.
After speaking with Forrey this aftemoon, 1 again spoke with the developer concerning the
matters and we are seeking direction from the Council for a method by which we can
provide much needed open space while maintaining the viability of this project.
Particularly if we can do it in a timely manner. We are seeking the guidance of the Council
for a method in which we can develop the parcel in compliance with the R-4 zoning
standards and we are wondering will a density transfer in (inaudibfe) reduction of lot sizes
permit an opportunity for the developer of this site t develop this site in a viable manner.
We are hoping for a reasonable determination from Council on this issue. We agree with
the need for a development agreement, we are however a little concerned about the time
frames in which these agreements are processed. We are aware of the demands in which
Ms. Stiles works and having recently been on the public side of development 1 deeply
emphasize with Ms. Stiles and her workload. I would encourage the Council to look at the
addition of staff to aid Ms. St~les because of the terrific growth which has been and is
currently being experienced by the City. Finally we believe this is an unusuat enclave and
it can be developed in a manner which is compatible with the neighboring properties both
the existing and proposed development of the area. This proposal complies with the
requirements of the Meridian code concerning annexation and we ask for guidance,
direction and options from the Council in addressing the need for park space in this
particular section of the City of Meridian. We are particularly concerned about ~nding #30
that talks about existing naturally features and #31 the linear open space and the
requirements that those are placed in the development agreement. We are {ooking for
guidance as f have indicated on the open space requirements as Mr. Forrey has given
indication that there is a need for open space in that area. Again we believe that it is
~- i
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 60
appropriate to annex this and would like your guidance in this particular matter. Are there
any questions from the Council?
Kingsford: Questions for Ted?
Tolsma: You don't have a p(at, a late model piat map?
Hutchinson: I have a late model plat map and we are trying to get all this naiied down so
that we can get it back to staff for their review.
Tolsma: This shows the road going out.
Hutchinson: ({naudible)
Tolsma: This section in here
Hutchinson: {(naudible)
Tolsma: And where does it go off over here, does it go off over here, (inaudible).
Hutchinson: Chateau Drive comes through here I believe Kentfield subdivisio~ is being
develaped north of that which would be adjacent to (inaudibfe).
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Hutchinson: It will e~end over to Ten Miie.
Tvlsma: Do you know what the size of the tand is roughly this section ~"sght in here?
Hutchinson: I can scate that off and give you a rough estimate. This is ~pproximately less
than 5. That raises the issue, as Mr. Forrey indicated that density transfer within the
development is possible for whatever we need to give up in here that we can make up in
fots by reducing the 1ot size (inaudible). Again because the cost of the land and the
requirements for the infrastructure (inaudible). We are fooking for some direction.
Tolsma: Whafi we are tooking at here, this wouid be an ideal point for a neighborhood
park for everything in here with the Sunnybrook (inaudible). And then this area i~ here to
be developed (inaudible). It would be an ideal spot in here for a, it is back (inaudible) that
is why I was looking at that. As a matter of fact I think w8 looked at this earlier before the
development plans came in as a possible park site (inaudible~.
~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 61
C~
HutchinSOn: That is one of the things that has been discussed about this particular site
it would be prime for a park however again we are looking for some kind of guidance is
if possible to cluster some of the development or reduce the lot sizes so that we can still
keep a viable pro}ect and still be able to work with the City of Meridian toward this common
goal.
Tolsma: Gary Smith had some comments in there about elevations for sewer flow, have
you addressed him?
Hutchinson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman we are still waiting for a response from Mr. Smith
concetning this I think he is working some numbers on this one.
Kingsford: We1C, I wouid suggest to you Ron that as this plat comes through you work with
Ted or the owner, I would just caution you that other jurisdictions have found that parks
that small can be very costly per acre. I know that r~eighborhood association parks can
be very nice depending on how strong the neighborhood association is.
Tolsma: Well, that is why we have a problem with the neighborhood park here, some of
the patrons of that parK wish that sbmebody else had it other than them.
Hutchinso~: I believe there are representatives of the homeowners association here
tonight.
Tina Morris, 25'I 1 West Chateau, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Morris: As of the last meeting, me and Mr. Hutchinson have been to quite a few meetings,
we have been to ACHD meeting and everything else, and I do want to publicly
acknowtedge and thank him fior all the cooperation he has done with daaling with us.
Since our last meeting we have had a homeowners association, I have resigned, but I am
keeping up with this since 1 started it I want to finish it. The homeowners of Sunnybrook
Farm since Mr. Hutchinson has complied with a lot of our requests would like to keep the
park as a private park. We are wiliing to go ahead if he wil{ fence in the one side and just
keep it as a private park. We are understanding, we had proposed that he match us the
acreage but it was still going to be under 10 acres for the park, so we agceed as
homeowners t4 go ahead and keep it as a private park. And the only thing we want is
maybe a coupl~ of stop signs coming from Arrow Leaf from Chateau so they wiii stop
before the park and maybe a children at play slow sign or something just so that the cars
would be aware that there is a park there. Otherwise we are jus# grateful that he has been
working with us and we know that he has had to ffip flop his plans quite a bit to comply
with our requests. And we are grateful for that. That is it, like I said we have had our
meeting and the homeowners are aware of everything that is going on. Thank you.
~ •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 62
Kingsford: Anyone else?
Kenneth Tetrauit, 2830 West Gemstone, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tetrault: t too would like to thank Mr. Hutchinson for all the compliance he has done as
far as changing the pfans to accommodate the people in the area surrounding Arrow Leaf.
I am speaking as the president of Sunburst Homeowners association. And one of the
#hings that Mr. Hutchinson mentioned is that deal about leaving the irrigation ditch open.
Several of the residents of Sunburst would really like to see that be left as such. The first
reason being that there are a large number of trees that are along that ditch and the
individua! who owns the property that is adjacent to the ditch where the trees are really
doesn't want to see those trees removed and he did contact the irrigation district and they
told him that in the event that ditch was tiled those trees would likely have to come out
because the roots of the trees would penetrate into the tiled ditch. Another reason that the
individuals in Sunburst would like to see that open is several of them also have are paying
for water out of that ditch and that the irrigation district has told them in the event that
ditch is tiled that they don't have the responsib+lity of getting water to the individuals who
are on the property adjacent to it. And that is a{{ that I needed to bring up.
Morrow: I guess l would have some questions maybe not for Kenneth but commerrts
directly, with respect to the tiling o# the ditch. lf the titing was done in high pressure plastic
pipes obviously the tree roots wou{d not penetrate the tiles and cause blockages of the
ditch. The second issue is that if there are fofks that are actively irrigating out af that ditch
and have a water right there is no way that water right or access to that ditch can be
{imited or taken away in away diminished and certainly we are going to require the ditch
to be tiled. So, it will be from the standpoint that those who are being serviced by the ditch
continue to get their servic+e. i
Kingsford: He will have to be given access, some sort of a piping out. I just would
comment you know with regard to tiling a ditch. We got in a situation where we ended up
paying #or tiling one because neighbors, not very far from this, being very upset about the
safety and so forth. I guess I wouid suggest to you Ken that you be very careful who you
say that to or the arrogation district will be out there cutting those trees down we have
experienced that at a meeting here, we talked abvut trees out here on Overland Road and
the next morning they were out a.itting them down before we had a chance to ask them to
leave them up.
Tetrawlt: The individual that owns the property has already talked to the Nampa Meridian
irrigation district.
Kingsford: They might be out cutting them down as we speak then. Thank you, anyone
~ •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1 g94
Page 63
else from the public that would like ta offer testimony. Walt were you finished?
Morrow: Those were the 2 issues, tiling with the plastic pipe and the access to the ditch.
Kir-gsford: Anyone eise that would like to offer testimony? Seeing none 1 wiil ciose the
public hearing, as stated earfier the issue is reaiiy separated, the piat with regard to its
production and the annexation and zoning. This evening you are dealing with the
annexation and zoning issues only. 1s the Council prepared to make a recommendation
on that? First off findings.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, ! move we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as submitted
and approved by Planning & Zoning.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Mooed by Walt, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
as submitted and approved by P& Z, roll call vote.
Ft4LL CAIL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Totsma - Yea
MOTIflN CARRIED: Att yea
Kingsfiord: ls there a motion to have an ordinance drawn.
Morrow: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance
annexing and zoning that property all those in favor? Opposed?
M4TION CARRIED: All yea
Kings#ord: I would just comment that I understand that we took a pretty broad look at how
we might utilize ball fields and cover irrigation ditches and it is not an easy chore.
ITEM #23: WATER/ SEWER/ TRASH DELINQUENCiES:
Kingsford: This is to ir~form you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a pre-
determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person
to be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by the City that your water, sewer,
~ .
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 64
and trash bill is delinquent. This service will be discontinued on June 15, 1994 unless
payment is received in full. Is there anyone from the public that would like to contest their
sewer, water and trash delinquency? Entertain a motion to approve the turn off list.
Tolsma: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the tum off 4ist, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: You are hereby informed that they may appeal of have the decision of the
Council reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court, pursuant to Idaho Code. Even
though they appeal their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $9,094.90.
ITEM #24: APPROVE BILLS:
Talsma: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve the bills, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
iTEM #25: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Kingsford: Shari
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council members this is what I was talking about earlier this is the
development compliance report. Wayne Forrey and I have been working on something
that will help get us out of the hole we are kind of in as far as the development
agreements. 1 like what Jim Merkle presented tonight, actually addressing our comments.
{f you can read this over, 1 don't know if you want me to read it. Basically it is just what 1
explained before to have them submit this report to us and make sure they have a
complete understanding of those requirements and that there is no question. That is all
I had.
~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 65
Kingsford: Questions or comments for Shari?
•
Morrow: I guess this goes back to our discussion earlier the outline the City has asked to
use in the DCR cover letter stating the applicant has read and understands the hearing
minutes, FF & CL and all agency and City cor~ditions. Copies of all agendas, minutes, FF
& CL and agency comments wouid detail response or answer to each and every item.
How do we go about insuring~ obviously this is going to be a class act and they will submit
everything. How do we check ourselves in terms of making sure all those things we are
asking fior are in term submitted and that and done. And that some important item that may
be important to Chief Gordon or some other department that typicatly is not o~ there
doesn't disappear by way of the waste paper basket and none of us have the access to
any of that. !t appears to me thai somewhere along the line that we implemerrt this
procedure to make it work that we get everything in there and we have a way of confirm+ng
that it is there to our satisfaction and yours and the rest of #he department heads. How do
we do that, I am asking?
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mr. Mayor and Coun~il members, I guess that we would have
to rely on them, we don't have.any real enforcement in effect right now. We try just as
people call and complain and say this wasn't done or that wasn't done. There is no one
going out and seeing that any of this was ever done. As far as how do we know the lots
actually have the #rorrtage that is ~epresented. It is really di~cult to tell that they, not that
they would make that change in the field. I guess what I am needing is help actuafly
compiling al! of this information and once they know thi~ is a requirement from the very
beginning a# least we will have that all in ane packet and they are coming to us fater and
saying well we didn't know that oc what does that mean. Even things that are in the
ordinance we are having to spel{ out and tel{ them they have to do it because it is in our
ordinance. And it is like a big surprise to a{ot of them. I think this wilf force them to
actually read those ~ndings, actually read the minutes and address each item that is
mentioned in there. Maybe we need Anna, as she is going to have to be compiling a lot
of these things and making sure the applicant gets this information to ensure a11 of the
minutes and all of the findings and ail of the agency and city conditions are in a central
location tha# can be easily accessed. Right now I am having to go back through any
number of minutes and try and figure out what day it was heard at P& Z and when the
findings came out. Actually finding a signed approved set of findings. lt has just been
rea{{y difficuft.
K'ingsford: f am wondering 'rf maybe a solution might be, I appreciate what Shari is saying
put it on their shoulders, but we need to have some sort of control. 1 wonder if we
shouldn't have Shari maybe a part time person that you pick up and that is what they do.
For exampie, I go back over the minutes we said with regard to this particular subdivision
this, this and this had to be done. Shari has way more things to do than dig through those
• ~
Meridian City Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 66
cotton picking minutes.
Morrow: Wefl i think the thing is Grant maybe what we dv is start a master fiie and as the
minutes come out from Anna the part time person goes through and ciips through those
minutes the parts that are appropriate for each subdivision, puts them in that fite. What
I am affer here is, and if becomes a part of that file and if the thing doesn't develop for 10
years the file is stitl there with all the conditions that appiy to the project and then we don't`
have to struggle going back for conformation. And maybe the part time person does the
same thing, when the submittal that is proposed comes from the devefoper then we cross
reference what they are saying with what is in our file, and say this is in compliance 1et's
press ahead. Or we say you forgot item 1 through 10, address those before you take it to
P& Z or whatever the case may be. As a way of making sure we are getting the
information in that praposal that we all wanted.
Yerrington: In other words you don't trust the oth~r fe1{ow, and sometimes you don't trust
yourself. tn other words you give the control to him, but you don't know whether he is
doing it right or not. And t am sure Me won't be doing it to your satisfaction, because
everybody isn't going to do it the same, you are going t~ do it different from me, you and
everyone else. But you know you are going to do it the same everytime.
NCingsford: 6ut certainly then after thafi point, l thir-k one oi these addressing that is always
a good idea without question but ! think we need to go back and make sure we covered
all we meant to cover. 1 have seen several times that something has been discussed and
all of the sudden there has been a convenient lack of inemory r~ot so recently ago the
condition of a well iot maybe a school lot, not to point fingers.
Crookston: Gary, does this tie into what we were talking about having a person basically
an inspector that could do both what Sh~ri is commenting about and actualty go out and
see if the frontage is there.
Kingsford: Boise has 3 or 4 compliance officers that is what they do, they go around and
see that people actually did what they stipulated they were doing.
Morrow: That transcends down to even so far as individual buildings, they have
compliance officers that come down and check for the number of trees and the drainage
system and the (inaudible) and anything that is part of the building permit process that has
absolutely nothing to do with P& Z or anybody else, but it is a P& Z compliance officer
that does the verification before the OP's are issued.
Kingsford: Well, 1et's have a get together Shari at your convenience tomorrow we wil( kick
that around. I think this is a real good framework and let's see if we can't get you some
• •
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
f'age 67
help as to how we are going to deal with it. Let's taik about that jointty.
Forrey: Thank you Mayor, it is real4y not a department report, maybe not appropriate
under department reports. Also, 1 wrould tike to say in accordance with Ordinance No. 649
there will be no whistling, jeering, or disorderly remarks pertaining to my comments,
because it is after 11:~. I have been volunteering some time with Commissioner Morrow
on your Impact Fee Committee and we are getting ciose. We have the Boise Park Impact
Fee Ordinance now I have that on computer disk, changed some things to turn it into
Meridian, generally into a Meridian type approach. I am about to give that to the
Counselor. 1 think it could be several weeks, and I think it conceivably could be before the
Council in a draft, working kind of ir~ternal document. The police and fire are a little
farther down the road. Our committee hasn't really gelled on how to structure those fees
but the parks I think are getting there. We have patterned our work after Boise and
Meridian has its own criteria as well #hat the committee feels good about. I think this
community could be on the verge of a park impact fee if the Council so moved. But one
af the other things we did in that committee which ties into what Shari is talking about is,
I initially took a pretty hard look at (End of ~ape) permit variance and they a~e te~rib4y low
compared to other communities. The Committee went th~ough that with us and they fe{t
that there were areas that needed to be raised. I made some calculations tonight I was
going through some files, t think there is probably with a modest fee increase here you
could probably see $1200 to as much as $1700 a month revenue into this pfaning function
or inspection function. Those fee increases could essentialiy support that position, and
if it took 5 or 6 months to get around the PERSi you know that coutd be self funded,
perhaps you ought to {ook at that at your department head meeting. 1 would be happy to
give you those numbers, it hasn't come from the Committee as a#ormal recommendation
formerly t don't befieve but we are about on the verge of that. That is maybe a revenue
source to tap inta.
Kingsford: Mr. Smith
Smith: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: Chief
Gordon: Nothing Mr. Mayor
Kingsford: Counselor
Crookston: Nothing
Kingsford: Walter
. •
Meridian City Coun~ir
June 7, 1994
Page 68
Morrow: A coup4e of things, quickly, the resuits on recycling, the resu{ts of our survey area
within 30 days we wiN have a(inaudibls) recycling pro~ram out there. ft wiJl be done with
a trailer ar~d pick ups. it appears at this point what we will do we wiff pick up, not
supplying specific boxes but we will have the customer suppfy the bags for the recycfab{e
that they wish to recycle and we wi{I give that a 90 day run to determine what the demand
is what the costs are and at the end of the 90 days we wili analyze the information and
bring it to the counci! and make whatever proposal the Council and Mayor wish with
respect to that. At least we wili have accurate date on which to base a decision. Second
thing is with respect to our sewer department, we are in a position where we have one
inspe~tor and one inspector only. Quite candidiy we are not getting enough of the stuff
inspected and the frequency of the stuff inspected is not adequate. We don't charge
anything for our inspection fees, at the current time it is my desire to bring on another
sewer inspector and also to have funds for camera inspeetion work which we currently do
not have. In #he City o# Boise with re~pect to sewer inspe~tion fees they use $2.31 a lineal
foot for pipes to fund that inspection process. Based on current information it appears we
can subcontract some television camera for about $.40 a lineal foot if it is done (ocally, if
we bring in somebody from the outside it $.40 * expenses. It doesn't appear to me that
there is any reason that we should implement an inspection fee for a lesser rate than the
$2.31. Certainly we have some catch up work to do, whethes Gary and choose to use a
temporary person or bring a person on fult time to aid the inspector that we have now to
make sure we are getting what we are paying for. And we don't have to repair a sewer
tine at City expense because of poor installation. I think we ought to implement a sewer
fee and I think we ought to use the $2.31 number. Quite candidly from a cost of providing
the service by the time we charge 2 inspectors and sub-contract it I don' t think that fee is
out of line. I am looking for some guidance from the Council tonight with respect to
structuring an ordinance to that effect and would open that up to debate on the part of the
other 2 councilmen that are here and certainly Grant.
Yerrington: Sounds good, 1 would make a motion that we draft an ordinance.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Discussion
Morrow: Can I have some discussion from my boss?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, I was wondering if the fee value should be in #he
form of a resolution rather than an ordinance so it wouldn't be so difficult to adjust.
Morrow: I withdraw the second
• •
Meridian City Cour~cil
June 7, 1994
Page 69
Yerrington: I withdraw the first and make the change so noted.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to have that resolution drawn adopting $2.31
a linear foot inspection fee, other discussion? All those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Yerrington: For a point ofi information does somebody like Nampa have a fee like this?
Kingsford: Boise and Garden City 1 think do.
Smith: I coufd comment that the City of Nampa does not inspect those facilities they make
it a requirement of the developers engineer to certify to them that sverything is installed
in accordance with the plans. That means the developer pays his engineer to do that
instead of paying the city to do that. So the developer is still paying a biff for that
inspection.
Morrow: My comment to that Max would be that since we are the maintaining agency and
those tines are never going to go to the private sector that I think I would like to have our
as builts in our book on file and our inspectors comments so that if we da experience a
problem Gary and his folk can go immediately to the records it is at this point. You
wouldn't e~erience that at all if you had somebody else doing it. The last comment that
I which to make under Department reports comes with this year's budgeting process with
respect to and it applies directly to what we are talking about with Shari. I think and I
taiked about it once before briefly a couple of ineetings ago. I think we need t convene a
Cauncil workshop t4 give Grant some help with respect to our department and look at
staffing, I know m my departments and I have made the comment before that in a couple
cases we are buried. We need some help in terms of people, it happens that my
departments are revenue producing departments, but I think in fairness to all the City
employees that it is time the 5 of us sat down and brainstormed what it is v~ve are going to
do, where we are going and have everybody come to the table with their job descriptions,
salary requirements and those kinds ofi things. So that we can get some sense of direction
for our department heads. It appears that in the case of mine that the department heads
are doing work that rightfulfy belongs with employees and they are not able to fuffilf their
funetions in terms of the planning and organizing and directing and research and the
things that department heads ought to be doing because we have them buried in terms of
the current growth situa#ion. 1 think it is time we took a fook at the entire organizatian and
work as a team to get everything going in the direction we need to go.
•
Meridian C+ty Councii
June 7, 1994
Page 70
Yerrington: Nothing 1Ufayor, he said too much already.
Kingsford: Ronald
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: Yes, that is on the noise ordinance.
.
Toisma: 1 think Mr. Gordon brought up the point that we have farming equipment that
might be running at 3:00 in the moming and we just said we are making afl these
(inaudible) for farmers.
Kingsford: t think if you check with a certain judge in Caldwetl he is going to tell you they
can bail at night anyway regardless as to what vur ordinanrs says.
Morrow: l don' t have a commitmer-t from these 2 guys as to when we are going to meet
to start solving is problem.
Kingsford: Do you guys plan to be at the department head meeting tomorrow.
Morrow: I can't be 1 have a conflict, I'm meeting with an arch'stect and some clients.
Kingsfiord: Let's coordinate with Will and see if we can't get a budg~ting workshop going
at a time when you have some preliminary stuff from your departments.
Tolsma: You don't think we have any problem with the cattle noises and the horse noises
and mule noises and stuff like this (inaudible).
Kingsford: I'd have to have that ordinance back out again but I don't think it spoke to
agriculturaf uses.
Gordon: No, sir is didn't and Councilman Morrow brought this up. I checked with
Councilman Yerrington and his suggestion was that we just let this go the way it is tonight.
1 will come before you with an amendment at the next Council meeting which will cover
that situation. But that was the one issue that we didn't cover and we have a iot of
agricultural uses.
Kingsford: I have a few things, first off, l certainly thought we had done this but indications
are at least at City Hall that we never passed an ordinance on 2 LID's, Glennfield Manner
and the Phase II. Counselor would you inspect your file and see if that did happen and
if so we are in better shape but if not we need to draw up those.
•
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 71
Crookston: i don't believe that there was.
~
Kingsford: i wouid entertain a motion to have an ordinance prepared on both of those.
Yerrington: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to draw up ordinances on LID's for Glennfield
as well as Phase II downtown, a{{ those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: I have a letter from the State Department, the Attomey's Gener~l's office with
regard to designating a agency for emergency response (inaudible). Have we done tMat
Chief, it seemed iike it was either fire or police.
Gordon: Fire, Kenny Bowers.
Kingsford: Woufd you respond back to Mr. Moore at the Department of Law enforcement
that it is the Fire Department. I made a note, I think I already told you Wayne on to get the
program on that licensing agreement with Nampa Meridian. Comment, we did receive a
f1ag, gift of a flag from ~nce Emhart who is the manager of Boise's Deseret Industries, he
gave us a Garrison #1ag. We are working on how we are going to fiy that rascai up for
special occasions. I wanted to acknowledge that gift and thank him for it. We can run
competition with Mr. Simplot now for flag size.
Morrow: Is it an American flag?
Kingsford: Yes sir.
Morrow: And it is as big as Jack's?
Kingsford: I don't know af~ut that, it is a Garrison flag, it is a large flag. The flag that flies
at Bronco stadium is a Garrison flag. I don't want to have too much applause but I did
schedule a special meeting for the City Council vn the 28th, one item. This was to look
at West One's project over o~ Cherry Lane.
Crookston: The 28th?
Morrow: Of this month?
~
Meridian City Council
June 7, 1994
Page 72
~
Kingsford: Yes, it should only take a matter of a few minu#es.
~ropkston: What time?
Kings#osd: 7:30
Morrow: So we have this meeting and the one on the 21 st and then on the 28th, okay.
Kingsford: Mr. Berg
Ber'g: Nothing
Kingsford: i would entertain a motion.
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, t move we adjoum at 23:47 hour.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to adjourn at 23:47 hour, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:47 P.M.
(TAPE ON FtLE OF THESE PRQCEEDINGS)
,
~
~ GRANT P. KINGSF R, YOR
ATTEST:
, , _
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI L K
i
ORDINANCE NO. ~ y 9
~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 16,
OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN BY
THE ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW SECTION TO BE KNOWN AS SECTION 1612A,
PUBLIC DISTURBANCE NOISES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and the City Council of the City of
Meridian, State of Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best
interest of the said City to state when public disturbance noi.ses
become nuisances;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO:
SECTION 1: That Title 8, Chapter 16, of the Revised and
Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian is hereby amended by
the addition thereto of a new section to be known as 8-1612A,
PUBLIC DISTURBANCE NOISES, which shall read as follows:
8-1612A:
1. PUBLIC DISTURBANCE NOISES.
It is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in
possession of property to allow to originate from the
property, sound that is a public disturbance noise. The
following sounds are determined to be public disturbance
noises:
A. The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of
any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle, except as a
warning of danger or as specifically permitted or required by
law;
B. The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous
sounds in connection with the starting, operation, repair,
rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off-
highway vehicle or internal combustion engine within a
residential district, so as to unreasonably disturb or
interfere with the pealce, comfort and repose of owners or
AMENDED ORDINANCE/PUBLIC DISTURBANCE NOISES Page 1
# ~
possessors of real property;
C. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on
or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of
11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or at any time and place so as to
unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort and
repose of owners or possessors of real property;
D. The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous
sounds which emanate from any building, structure, apartment,
or condominium, which unreasonably interfere with the peace,
comfort, and repose of owners or possessors of real property,
such as sounds from audio equipment, musical instruments, band
sessions, or social gatherings;
E. Sound from motor vehicle sound systems, such as tape
players, radios, and compact disc players, operated at a
volume so as to be audible greater than 50 feet from the
vehicle itself;
F. Sound from audio equipment, such as tape players,
radios, or compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to
be audible greater than 50 feet from the source, and if not
operated upon the property of the operator.
The foregoing provisions shall not apply to regularly
scheduled events at parks, such as public address systems for
baseball games or park concerts.
2. VIOLATION - PENALTIES.
Any person violatinq the provisions of this chapter shall be
punished by a fine in a sum not exceeding $300.00 for the
first violation hereof, of which $100.00 shall not be
suspended or deferred; a fine of $300.00 shall be imposed for
each subsequent violation, of which $150.00 shall not he
suspended or deferred.
SECTION 2: If any provision or part of this ordinance
shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication
shall not effect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: EFFECTIVE DATE: WHEREAS, there is an emergency
therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this
AMFNDED ORDINANCE/PUBLIC DISTURBANCE NOISES Page 2
~ ~
Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval and publication according to law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this ~ day of ~G~ ~. 1994.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
T P. K NGS OR YOR
ATTEST:
~---.
i~~
WILL BERG-CITY LERK
AMENDED ORDINANCE/PUBLIC DISTURBANCE NOI5ES Page 3
~ •
ORDTNANC~ NO. ~ ~ V
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE X, CHAPTER 3,
OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF T8E CITY OF MERIDIADI
ADDING A NEW SECTION, 10-302A, `PO BE KNOWN AS "ADDITIONAL PARKING
REGULATIONS," GOVERNING PARKING TO THE SIDE OF THE STRE~ET,
PROVIDING FOR ANGLE PARKING, AND DIRECTING THAT VEHICLES PARK
FACING THE CURB AND NOT THE STREET; AND AMENDING SECTION 10-309 (B)
Z. (a) (1) TO ADD SECTIQN 10-302A AS A SECTION THE VIOLATOR OF
WHICH WILL BE FTNED $25.00~ AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and the City Council of the City of
Meridian, State of Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best
interest of the said City to amend Title X, Chapter 3 of the
REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN to add a
new section to be known as "ADDITIONAL PARKING REGULATIONS".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO:
SECTION 1: That Title X, Chapter 3 of the REVISED AND
COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN is hereby amended to
add a new section to be known as Section 10-302A "ADDITIONAL
PARKING REGULATION", which shall read as follows:
10-302A ADDITIONAL PARKING REGULATIONS:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, every
vehicle stopped or parked upon a two-way street shall be
stopped or parked with the right-hand wheels parallel to
and within eighteen (18) inches of the right-hand curb or
as close as practicable to the right edge of the right-
hand shoulder.
(2) Except when otherwise provided, every vehicle stopped or
parked upon a one-way street shall be stopped or parked
parallel to the curb or edge of the street, in the
direction of authorized traffic movement, with its ri.ght-
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, PARKING Page - 1
~ ~
had wheels within eighteen (18) inches of the right-hand
curb or as close as.practicable to the right edge of the
right-hand shoulder, or with its left-hand wheels within
eighteen (18) inches of the left-hand curb or as close as
practicable to the left edge of the left-hand shoulder.
(3) The Meridian Police Department may permit angle parking
on any street„ except that angle parking shall not be
permitted on any federal-aid or state highway unless the
State of Idaho Transportation Department.,has determined
that the roadway is of sufficient width to permit angle
parking without interference with the free movement of
traffic. If angle parking is permitted, the vehicle
shall not be backed into the parking space with the front
of the vehicle facing the road way.
SECTION 2: That Title X, Chapter 3, Section 10-309 (B) 1.
(a) (2) of the REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN is hereby amended as follows:
(1) $25.00 for violations of Sections:
10-301
10-302A
10-307
10-308
SECTION 3: If any provision or part of this ordinance
shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication
shall not effect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE: WHEREAS, there is an emergency
therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this
Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval and publication according to law.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, PARKING Page - 2
~ ~
PASSED AND APPROVED this ~th day of ~~'`'~ ,
1994.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
T P. KINGSFORD MA
ATTES :
~
WI LIAM BERG, CITY LERK
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, PARKING Page - 3
# ,~
AMENDED RESOLUTION NUMBER 153
AN AMENDED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, IDAHO, ADOPTING A POLICY OF NON-DISCRIMINATION ON THE
BASIS OF DISABILITY.
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has passed Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which requires that "No
otherwise qualified i~idividual with handicaps in the United
States...shall, solely on the basis of his or her handicap, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
federal financial assistance"; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian has applied
for and, or, received an Idaho Community Development Block Grant
and is required to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973; and,
WHEREAS, the failure to comply with the terms and conditions
of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act may cause the City to lose
its grant or eligibility for future grants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO:
SECTION I. It is the policy of the City that all programs
and activities shall be accessi.ble to, and
usable by, qualified persons with
disabilities.
SECTION II. That the City shall undertake an evaluation, "
conducted in consultation with citizen groups
involving persons with disabilities, of its
programs, policies, procedures and facilities
in order to determine those areas where
discrimination may occur.
~
SECTION III. The City shall, upon
evaluation, make
modifications, or other
comply with the letter
504.
~
completion of said
such revisions,
changes so as to fully
and intent of Section
SECTION IV. Further, the City shall, where building
irrodifications are required, develop and
implement a transition plan for the timely
elimination of structural barriers to citizens
with disabilities.
SECTION V. Citizens who have questions regarding this
policy or need assistance may contact the
Zoning Administrator, who now is Shari Stiles,
33 E. Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho,
Telephone: 888-4433.
PASSED BY THE CITY CO~UNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO this
19th day of April, 1994.
APPROVED:
F
)
P. KINGSFOR
ATTEST:
, ~r~'"J~~-~ r •
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. - CI CLERR
~ !
RESOLUTION NUMBER 155
A RESOLUTtON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, {DAHO,
ADOPTING A POLICY OF FAIR HOUSING.
LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL PERSONS of the City of Meridian that discrimination
in the sale, rental, leasing, financing of housing or land to be used for construction of
housing, or in the provision of brokerage services because of race, color, religion, sex or
national origin is prohibited by Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act (Federal Fair Housing
Law).
It is the policy of the City of Meridian to implement programs to ensure equal
opportunity in housing for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 expands coverage to include disabled
persons and families with children. Therefore, the City does hereby pass the following
Resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED that with available resources the City will assist all persons who
feel they have been discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, disability, or familial status to seek equity under federal and state laws by filing a
complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity, Compliance Division.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall publicize this Resolution and
through this publicity shall cause owners of real estate, developers and builders to become
aware of their respective responsibili#ies and rights under the Federal Fair Housing Law
and amendments and any applicable state or local laws or ordinances.
SAID PROGRAM will at a minimum include, but not be limited to: (1) printing and
~
~
publicizing of this policy and other applicable fair housing information through local media
and community contacts; (2) distribution of posters, f{yers and any other means which wil4
bring to the attention of those affected, the knowledge of their respective responsibilities
and rights concerning equal opportunity in housing; (3) prepare an analysis of
impediments to fair housing choice and actions to mitigate such impediments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Resolution shail take effect on June 7, 1994.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO this ~
day of ~~ ~ ~ , 1994.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
~:.9,i'~G~C.~C~..-~~• i .
WILLtAM G. BERG, .fR., CI CLERK
~ ~
,
RANT P. KINGSFO D, AY R
~ ~
RESOLUTION NO. 156
IDAHQ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SECTION 504 GRIEVANCE
PROCEDURE FOR IDAHO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT RECIPIENTS 1991 -1992
Lega/ Basis
Enacted in 1973 and amended in 1978 and 1986, the Rehabilitation Act provides that no
otherwise quaiified individual with handicaps in the United States .... shall, solely on the
basis of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under and program or activity receiving federal financial
a~sistance.
tn accordance with this Act, the City as a recipient of Idaho Community Development Block
Grant (tCDBG) funds, certifies all citizens sha(I have the right to submit his or her
grievance(s) and receive a response in a timely, equitable and responsible manner.
Responsib/e Employee
A responsible employer of the ICDBG recipient has been designated to assist citizens with
the grievance procedures described here. This individual shall assist anyone wishing to
file a complaint on the basis of disability when filed through the local jurisdiction, the Idaho
Human Rights Commission or directly to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). The designated employee is the Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles,
and can be contacted at telephone: 888-4433 / address 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian.
Idaho 83642.
What is a Grievance?
A written grievance or complaint is formal notification of a concern, allegation or protest
to the proper authority which indicates the belief that the individual or individuals have
been denied opportunities, or treated differently from the general population on the basis
of his or her disability. The laws apply to those programs, activities and facilities provided
for and accessible to all citizens in the community.
When filing a grievance, citizens must provide enough information to permit an
investigation. The complaint should be clear and concise and include:
1) ldentification of the problem, which includes a description of the set of circumstances
leading to the grievance, and 2) Appropriate and sufficient documentation to substantiate
any claim or charges. Citizens will be encouraged to propose a resolution to the problem
as identified.
• i
A formal complaint will be considered filed at the time it is delivered to the appropriate
authority's o~ce, or if maiied, on the date it is postmarked. Special accommodations will
be made, upon request and whenever possible, for persons with disabilities or language
barriers.
Con~dentiality
Corrfidentiality is available to all citizens. Pursuant to 24-CFR 8.56(c)(2), the responsible
civil rights employee shall hold in confidence the identity of any person submitting a
complaint, unless the person submits written authorization waiving confidentiality and
when it is found to be in the best interests of all parties in reaching a satisfactory
resolution.
Where To File
Citizens shall be notified they have the option of filing complaints, either through the City,
the Idaho Human Rights Commission (if the comp(aint is related to employment
discrimination), or directly to HUD.
Loca/ Procedur~
Grievances may first be filed with the appropriate elected official and the designated
employee when the grievance is related to the local grantee's programs, activities or
facilities. When a complaint is filed, the gran#ee shall notify the Idaho Department of
Commerce (IDC) the grievance have been filed by submitting a copy of the complaint to
the Department. City Council members or Boards of Commissioners shall atso be notified
o# the grievance at this time. The grantee shall respond within thirty (30) days where
practicable. A copy of the response must also be submitted to ths Department.
Every effort shall be made by the City to compromise and negotiate a satisfactory
resolution with the grievant.
If the Grievant is unsatisfied with the response from the local jurisdiction, the individual(s)
may appeal to IDC to review the complaint. Additional information may be requested at
that time. Every effort will be made by the Department to provide a response within thirty
(30) days.
If valid and sufficient data has been provided to substantiate the original complaint, an
investigation will be conducted. The extent of an investigation shall depend on the scope
and depth of the issue involved.
If the citizen(s) determine the response from the Department is not satisfactory, he or she
may appeai to HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Seattle. All
complaints must be filed to HUD within 180 days of the act of discrimination, unless the
responsible HUD Compliance Officer waives this time limit for good cause.
• ~
These grievance procedures are not established with respect to complaints for housing
assistance. Irrformation concerning complaint procedures can be provided by contacting
IDC or the HUD Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Compliance
Division, in Seattle.
Idaho Human Rights Commission
The federa{ Rehabi{itation Act includes employers who have at least $2,500 in federal
contracts. As of July 1, 1991, the number of private employers who have at least 5
employees are covered by Idaho law. The law also covers all governmental entities and
state contractors, regardless of the number of employees they have.
Employees or applicants for employment who believe they have been subjected to
discrimination should contact the Idaho Human Rights Commission at the address or
tetephone number shown below. Collect calls may be made to the Commission and the
grievant need not give his or her name in order to receive information about their situation
and anti-discrimination laws. If it appears the individual is a victim of illegal discrimination,
a formal complaint may be filed.
These are also the locations to which the Rehabilitation Act appeals identified above may
be submitted:
Idaho Department of Commerce
700 West State Street, 2nd Floor
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-2470
U.S. Dept. of Housing 8 Urban Development
Office of Fair Housing 8~ Equal Opportunity
Compliance Division
1321 Second Avenue, Mail Stop 10E0
Seattle, WA 98101
Call coltect: (206) 553-0226
Idaho Human Rights Commission
450 West State Street, 1st Fioor
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 3342873, collect calls accepted
U.S. Dept. of Housing 8~ Urban Dev.
Office of HUD Program Compliance
Room 5230
451 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20410
(202) 70&2904
TTY (202) 708-0015 for hearing impaired
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO this __L~ day
of ^(;~rc,2.r , 1994.
BERG JR., CI
~ ~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNC{L
AGENDd
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES ~F PREVI~US MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1994: ~i~'a`~'~`~'
1. TABLED AT MAY 3, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE NO. 4 FiNAL PLAT WITH
REST~~TtVE CO 2ENAQT~ ~ ~~Y~ ~ pl"~
2. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH KEN
HAMILTON PRESENTATIONS: -~~ ~2 ~~ `"erP4~"'
3. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVlSON F1NAL
PLAT: r,~n~~ ov-e. ~~..~..e ,a.e~ w/cond~ ~ ~
4. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: LOS AlAMITOS SUBDIVIStON FINAL
PLAT: ~c.~Oprr~v.e {~n.c ~ ~s-2A-t u.~/ c~ ~~~
5. TABLED AT MAY 17, 1994 MEETING: AMENDED ORDINANCE #630: ~~o/~~~'~a--
6. TABLED AT MAY 17, 'l994 MEETING: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
SUMMERFlELD SUBDIVISION:
?. ORDlNANCE #648 - PARKING ORDINANCE: ~,p~rU/~ed-
8. ORDINANCE #649 - NOISE ORDINANCE: ~~~ro~'~~
~~~~.~~ ~~- ~~) ~ /~`~~ 1'~ ~' 6'°°~m'
9. RESOLUTION NO. 155: FAIR HOUSING: u~vv~r~~~-
10. AMENDED RESOIUTION NO. 'l53: NON-DISCRIMINATION: ~-~%''~~~~'
11. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: ~~~~~
92. GARY KUHN: MERRYWOOD SUBDIVISIDN CONCERNS: ~~~~/~t ~ez~er
~~ r ~ ~ le ~v- ~.ts~?a~~ ~u.{~~ ~-~-e-
13. E.E. BRINEGAR - REQUEST APPROVAL FOR WATER HOOK UP:
u~~o~-ov~e w~dv~b~e ,~f
14. McALVAiN/ NELSON - REQUEST APPROVAL FOR WATER HOOK UP:
u~~r~ r~~c Jw~,E u,d c~-~dor~~C'e ~'.~~.r c~/ ah.,.,e,~ cc.~r~h~k 2¢-
15. FfNAL PLAT: DANBURY FAIR SUBDIVIStON NO. 4, 66 LOTS BY DENNIS
BAKER: Gc~prov.2d ~"iv6Je~~- z~v s~-~ ~/~i°rova,C a~ cC..
~LQve%r~e~t a~reet~e~.t.
~ ~
16. FINAL PLAT: SPORTSMAN P41NT SUBDIVISiON NO. 5, 36 LOTS BY THE
WESTPARK COMPANY: a~j~'ro"Q~ ~t'j~~~ t° J"~--~{ ~~p~o'r"-~'
Gi~~.u' Gt'~~re(a~n~~a`" GL.~~"2Psr.e..,-t`.
17. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CERAMIC AND. GIFT
SHOP BY MELC?DY FARNSWORTH: ~-~o~~'pV~ ~l~ ~ ~l~
Q~~~- o ve ~'o,i c,C< ~ ~vnc~' c~a-e ~~.,~.~`
18. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY BRIGHTON CORP.•
C~~y C~1`~'vhe.~ ~ro ~.e,,oc~-,,~ s~.ee,.~/~~e~-a'e~ v~~f ~ c/.L
~'I~:° ~'l7~3Ld~;' HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONIIV~"Vi~~i`ti A ~'RELIMI~Y -
PLAT FOR DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES, 135 LOTS BY AVENUE
ONE AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCtATES: ~ppr~ ve ~'/{ ~~
a~J~rovc> an.,~ ~ Z~,~.y ~>~h~ a/~.~cy,or~G'~cte dt~~.ah~ a~nprvv.e~re%Jla.t
20. PUBLiC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION, 20 LOTS BY KEVIN HOWELL AND
HUBBIE ENGINEERING: a~vy~we ~%~ ~ cl,L a-p~oro~~~ a.H.y...-,~ ~za-r•.~-~
C'/~y' a -~~ ye~~.c oza~~,.a~,.e~. ~%~Proy.e ~7 r.~P. ~.c.~ cw~e~d~ir~
21. PUBLIC HEARING:~EXATION AND ZONlNG WITH A PRELtMINARY PLAT
FOR WESTDALE PARK NO. 2, 39 L4TS BY MAX BOEStGER AND , .
HUBB~E ENGINEERING: a-pp~g~e ~~~ g C/L QPprov~-e anrre,~ ° 2o-r~~
ci~j cz~~~,~.e y z~ p~e~oa-~e. fn.d.~.a~ ~ ~-F~'r~~~/~ r.e~~a,f w~can~f:~-.~
22. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONtNG BY ROBERT GLENN:
23. WATER/ SEWER/ TRASH DELINQUENCIES: G<.PProve~
24. APPROVE BtLLS: d~apro~e~-
25. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
~~z.~vu c~'~~ /~2s --- ~-e ve.L~o~,m ~ ~.-~ Co~-~' ~-~- /~,r~~t
G°Jav~-e ~ ~-re~ -- .1~~-~a.c~ Gre~r (,~'~~/cs )
~.ees` -~ /.~~cc.ti try/s
Ll.1~~ /~'L~'~-o2v-"' ~PC~~G~~ ~-a~~a-rti- ~m dr,~c/.l"
O
J'e ~z ,~.r~.-e.- ~ h,T,g.c r,~~- ' ~-e-a~
C''~a. ~v-az.1~-
Nf~ a r~`arn.e~ -~, ~-r.e~~-e ~:~fa-~u ~i~ ~i ~~c,f~oeC-~'~- ~'pe-
~ Zr 3~ ~f~
(0~2- a, t J'i~A ~h-~ ~ d~ a~i ze. Sr ~x~~i a~.,
~ll~`tri~-~ l hK~'~
~ .
/~dYL ~(~'L,~y~,Q~' ~ ~'LLl3'C SR' d7-~n Gwt ~C../ 6~~ "~ ° Zw~-~ii+fa ~
I/
~'h ~~~~d~6-h- u~-e- l~- a,~ e ~~ ~~-~
,~,~~~~. ~-- ~ r ;~ e~ ~ Q ~-~~ ~ ~,~p--~. 02~.~.-. ~
l-ale.,,,~.-~~c.~-~l.~ ~--~~ ; ~~-~-k- ~'~.u Z
~~~~ ~,r~'~~ h y ~.e.re~z:t .~'~f~s-~ ~J
~F,.e~c`~.e /~-Ge~ JZ~,,.e- E? ~ ~' ~ 7'30 ~~---
~
~-~~~~~.~'~~
J ~f N - 3 ~994
~ ....r.~
~
~
CITY OF MER~IDIAI~
2 June 1994
Mayor Grant Kingsford
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Deseret tndustries
10740 Fairview Avenue
Boise, Idaho 83704
Phone (208) 375-4681
Dear Mayor Kingsford:
The Boise Deseret Industries is honored to present to the City
of Meridian a large garrison flag which will be suitable for flying
on special occasions at locations as you deem appropriate.
As you are aware, the Deseret Industries operates under the
auspices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which
is fully supportive of patriotic ideals and activities. It seems
appropriate that this flag, which symbolizes those ideals, should
be displayed in such a manner so that all may enjoy it.
As this large flag flies over Storey Park or any location that
yau choose, it is our hope that those sentiments of pride and
allegiance to our country will swell within those who see the flag
stirring within them a recollection of those qualities that make
our country great.
Sincerel ,
/
-~" C.~~~rrc C,~ !~'l~//~ ~ t~
Vince Earnhart
Unit Manager
_ _ _ _ _ ~c~i~-.~d 6-7 ~ ~-
C'" ~i~~
~ HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY '~ ~~~~
OFFICIALS
A Good Place to Live
WILLIAMG.BERG,JR.,CityClerk
JANICE L. GASS, City Treasurer CITY ~F MERIDIAN
GARY D. SMITH, P.E. City Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, w~gta wete~ s~at.
33 EAST IDAHO
KENNY W. BOWERS, Fire Chfef MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
W.L.'•8lLL" GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Aftorney Phone (2A8) 888~433 •~AX (208) 887~813
Public Works/Building Department (2A8) 887-2211
iVlemorandum GRANT P. KINGSFORD
To: Mayor Kingsford and City Counci~ayo`
From: Shari L. Stiles, Planning Director
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RONALD R. TOISMA
MAX YERRINGTON
ROBERT D. CORRIE
WALT W. MORROW
SHAHI STILES
Planner & Zoning Administrator
JIM JOHNSON
Chairman • Planning & Zoning
Date: June 7, 1994
Regarding: Support for a D v oRmPnt omnliance Re~rt (DCR) procedure
I have been working with Steiner Development Co.(Cherry Lane at the Lake) on
a Development Compliance Report that will require the applicant to address
each of the agency comments, FF&CL, and Development Agreement in one
concise written report. Once we get this report, the City and the Applicant will
each fully understand all the conditions for developing a certain project.
Right now, most developers and engineers submit piecemeal pla.ns to the City
and then claim that they were unaware of all the approvai conditions. T'he end
result is that Gary Smith and I have to research the conditions and then schedtile
constant meetings to explain the agency comments and development procedures.
By having the development community prepare a Development Compliance
Report (DCR}, they will become responsible for educating themselves on all the
requirements and City proceedures. I believe the net result of asking every
applicant to prepare a DCR, will be less emergency and crisis meetings, and
better understanding of the complete process.
If you believe that the Development Complia.nce Report process would help the
development community a.nd City Staff, then I would appreciate knowing if we
can make this a standard approval condition.
Here is the outiine that I have asked Steiner Development to use in their DCR:
1. Cover letter stating the applicant has read and understands the
hearing minutes, FF&CL, plus all agency and City conditions.
2. Copy of all agendas, minutes, FF&CL and agency comments
with a detailed response or answer to each and every item.
3. A completed v Ionment Agree ent including the
attachment of specif ic conditions.
4. Other specific items as requested by the City Council or staff.
_ _ /?2reived.. G - 7- ~2 ~
;~ ~
~C.~! `GC~~~~ ~1~~C~~ ~!~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
~
June 6, 1994
Ci ty of Meridian
Attn: Sherri Stiles
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Sherri:
I appreciate your time on May 27th, as I know how valuable it is.
I enjoyed walking over the j ob site and discussing various defails
about the upcoming projects. I feel we have discussed all the
areas of concern and I have come to the following understandings.
If my conclusions aren't factual please advise as soon as possible
so I can work any of my misinterpretations out and afford you the
CvII~{~.:'~ ic?i,~El 1~c°.i.C3ScZ2"y t0 a~jJZ'OV@ ~Ti~% ~lrai jJ1~3t ap~licatiuns.
Gary Smi th's comments have been addressed on both Los A1ami tos Paxk
and Salmon Rapids and you both feel comfortable that their are no
engineering issues that aren't handled. The CCR's on these two
subdivisions have been changed as requested by Wayne Crookston. I
am applying for a License agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District and Andy Harrington (their attorney <342-4591>), as per
your request. The License Agreement will be in place prior to any
work being done that wi11 affect Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District. This work will not start until Phase #2 of Los Alamitos
Park.
A contract to purchase/option a school/park site with Meridian
Joint School District ~2 is ,being prepared by Rich Allison at Acre
Reality (888-7300). Dan Mabe and I have complete confidence that
this issue is in hand and that he intends on optioning to purchase
and I to sell the required szte to him as the community's needs are
of a high priority to us a11. The developer clearly understands
that it is not the desire of Meridian City to trade for land, grant
a waiver or accept we11 development fund fees in lieu of the
pressurized irrigation ordinance at this time.
A memorandu~ of understanding has been prepared by Brian McCo11
(our attorney) and this wi11 serve as specifics in a development
agreement which wi11 be prepared at your convenience. This issue
has been addressed to the extent you feel good enough to support us
in rrioving through the final plat process.
The preceding issues have been discussed by yourse.if, Bob Jones
(our engineer), Brian McColl and myself, in the event these issues
affect my final plat approval I will have your support in
attempting to make them conditions of final plat approval at worst
case.
Thank you,
Mar t y Go1 d~~~~ j~'L
~~ ~~~~
4,5,50 ~ ~atc ~i~ise, 3d~ e~.~~'06 ~206~ .1J8-9iG~'
_ ~ ______
_ _.
. , . .-., k..._ . , . ., _ _ _ .
,-~~ e~v~- 6-?-~I~
_ r ~ ~'~c ~~~ ~~-~-
ADA COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RECENT AND PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN 1/4 MILE
OF BEDFORD PLACE ~c
SUBDIVISlON NAME LOTS LOTS/ACRE
Bedford Place Subdivision~r 153 3.87/Ac
Howe!! Tract Subdivision 97 3.57/Ac
Tract Subdivision No. 4 69 3.54/Ac
Rock Creek Subdivision 20 3.50/Ac
Fothergill Pointe # 1 Subdivisi on 82 3.38/Ac
Lansbury Lane Subdivision 46 3.31 /Ac
Finch Creek Subdivision 46 3.13/Ac
Cougar Creek Subdivision 35 2.88/Ac
548 Total
OUTSIDE OF 1/4 MILE AREA
Summerfield No. 1 Subdivision 74 3.41 /Ac
Weaver Acres 1 and 2 22 1.00/Ac
96 Add.
~ " ~ ~
;,
~ .i i ~ .
_ 'r 'S0 0 ~ 1
~
0
RT C
RT
iz g
RI
ncA~sco ~
~tK CtEEK
Sr{pvaioN
R~ ~ L~~•~~~1~°~^ ~'1 - . a ~ n a
~
L.._...~ . ~ • r ~ ~ •
, t ~ '~ j ! ! T •; ~
,~~ !{~i ~ '~~ i~ ~j}ii:~ !`:. ; R 1 t: _. ; _ _ '•~~!j~ii 41:;i}~(;~i#~j~t;~ji ~s ~k' ~'~ j:~ ~ij'~f i
;,~;;i~t;~! li il~~ f=~i`~~' ~`. ` ••~•j~, •' + 1S~i}j~. „{;:;f!' i;; 'j ! ~i ~ _
~i i tl i~ ~i ~~:
' ~1~~ :~:i ~!i~~ • ~~~ F .
I~~ "1 'il'i . - •7 ;~ ' i ~ i ~ '.., . .
1, •~ !t .t.F. •~ .. . . ~_. . .~. .'1 ~ ~ i
t ~ j ; ~ 'j~ -
; ~ : ~ ' ~• s ' ~e '
.i,i'ti'~ ;i :~ , e •~ f, . - ~ . , n ~
, ~t ,: .,f ~= ~ ~ ~ , _ ,
~~~,~I'~.~ 1 `• t ! '~.,` + ~~ ~~ •~ _ ~
• i ~ ~i~ii;iil•;•~ - . ~
I t . ~j .+ • t~ i. CHtLF
~.Il~(+'S:~Ei. :r i: ,JOSEPh+
~ i ~' F i I ;; Q 6CF100t. j
i.
~y,;; ~ ~ r(~ ~ R~ sue No a
~ ,''a•; ~`~;,;, RT ~ ~ RT . .
: , , ,;:`'~ . ' . 1 i . .' ~
~~j ~ ~i 11l1 ~:: :~~i: -
; :;:;:;i=: ,' , RT ~
., ~ ; .~ ~ : :s: " ~~`
'' •; ~~~i';~~ ~1 !i ' ~ ~_`;' . ~
; ~;i~it ,I I ;~;' RT ~. ~
~ ;~' ,~. AT ~: ~ ~:
; ii i i~~l~it ~i~~i ~~~` ~~ '
~, ~;. .' i~ ~+~ . ~~: ~
~~ ~ '1 !'' ~ ! "~
;~ +~ ;; +i'I~I RT ': 'I: :~ ' ~~~~
~~~ .,':;..~'S '':i ~ "~'`~:;~i ~!i i
~~~ ~;~ :;::: .~.~„ • ; RT
: ~.i . ~;~i~,;tt t) ~
~~
~ i ~i :~.:~~ c ~ ~! ~~~ ,
:: ~ :~E , .;: ~ .~ •.i :
.. . I ~ .t . ,
; ~; ; . :(r',; ~~~~~ .
~ ~ ' i . _ ~ ' : : ~ t ~ s ~ - T,.,.--- -~• _ , [~ ~ .+...n _.
~~~ ~^=Tr- : .... . .. .....F's'f:S",'i.,,it sr~<,e i~a~as<.a~r , so . 7 ~ tf2rt:ai~4 ~ tFfS s4?fi5'sistti?i.~e,..,is!?a3fif.z~d~? , , .:.i~~~: ~ < , '~2 • , . + '~ ~ ~~ t > ~ .. . . . .
.~Scin.3...rA32i2..323iik3 Sa..&i{23:~2?2~{~E~~S...>.~~....., t..;i...ub2.tski:i{i~'sESe,a2.~i~~.
~~~
~ ~
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME:
St~.Q "~ , I 9 9 `~
PHONE NUMBER:
3 3~ -
-~-°-~-- ~ -°--n=~ S --------------------------------------------------------~ 3 ~~-----------------
;~~ _ ~~_v__~
~ 5~-- ~ ~Z?
r ~---------------------------------------~~a- ---- ~=-~-a~~.
~J' - --- - --- --------------------------------------Q °---~--~ =-=7 - ~ ~-,~-------------
~ • •
DELINQUENCY LIST
TURN OFF LIST SCHEDULED FOR 06/15/94
ACCOUNT # NAME & ADDRESS AMT. PAST DUE
1-30 JOHN R. BEAUDOIN 78.75
713 MERIDIAN ST.
1-920 JON C. HOFFMAN 107.70
233 W. BROADWAY
1-1810 GLADYS CLYMENS 44.00
729 W. IDAHO AVE
1-Z000 HEIDI SELLERS 134.00
331 W. IDAHO AVE.
1-3310 ENIIL & ESTHER BRINCKEN 60.50
? 11 W. PINE AVE
1-4100 HAROLD BRISCOE 28.00
646 W. FRANKLIN RD
2--1I0 D. SANTISTEVAN 25.00
230 W. PINE AVE.
2--526 DAVID L. MOSSI 73.40
1032 W. 8TH
2-1050 BII.,L GRAU 130.00
820 N. LINDER RD
2-1250 ELIZABETH WEAKLEY 63.80
1528 W. 1 ST ST
2-1300 E. E. BRINEGAR 82.60
1632 W. 1 ST ST
2-2130 SHAWN & PIXIE BALDWIN 54.90
207 CAMELLIA
• •
2-2170 DEANNA BERRY 90.10
232 CHERRY AVE
2-2180 DUWAIN SHEPHARD 86.50
238 CHERRY AVE.
2-2280 RICHARD SCHERER 122.00
201 CHERRY AVE.
2-3180 WALTER RYAN 127.65
1131 W. 7TH ST.
2-3600 WILLIAM HUTCHINGS 52.60
309 W. WASHINGTON AVE
2-3712 CLYDE E. BRINEGAR 49.00
1625 MERIDIAN ST
2-4480 MICHAEL S. MYERS 63.80
1224 NORTHGATE CT.
2-4770 CHRISTI FRENCH 80.10
1430 W. 14TH ST
2-4850 DOUG DAVIS 59.40
1512 W. 15TH ST.
2-4990 BRET LANE 64.80
1520 LINDER RD
2-5410 SHERRI ELIADES. 99.00
1434 ELM PLACE
2-5670 JAMES R. RANSOM 60.20
1017 W. 15TH AVE
2-5840 GARY FRANK 51.55.
1338 W. CARLTON
2-5850 PHILLIP DUPEROUZEL 57.15
1406 W. CARLTON
20-1510 JAY D. ALLRED 70.00
1855 N. OAK HILLS DR
, ~
20-1610 PHYLLIS AITKEN
3950 SUGAR CREEK DR
20-1616 JAY R. DEAN
1720 INTERLACHEN WY
20-1624 JUDITH A. HEATON
1812 Il~tCLINE WAY
20-1698 MICHAEL L. MEACHAM
3720 WOODMONT DR
20-1846 MICHAEL L. WARE
3721 SEA ISLAND CT
21---24 MARK & GINA PRICE
1830 KRISTEN WAY
21---28 DAVID L. KEMP
1860 KRISTEN WAY
21---34 LARRY C. HOCKEMEYER
1952 KRISTEN WAY
21---72 GENE CHANTRII,L
2415 W. CHATEAU DR
21-1174 DAVID TWADDLE
2492 W. CHATEAU DR.
21-1658 R & M HOMES
2150 TODD WAY
22-338 JEFF R. BURROUGHS
1861 TRACY CT
22-$40 ROBERT BRAINARD
2179 W. CHATEAU DR
22-860 SUSAN E. TEATER
2234 N. KUBIK PL
22-914 JEAN RUCKER
2261 MONACO WY.
•
66.90
49.30
136.20
82.15
75.70
72.40
48.10
67.80
54.90
110.30
54.60
78.05
48.30
58.30
51.35
• •
22-1270 GEORGE MOSGERVE 71.10
1902 N. RAINYCREEK PL
22-1354 RODNEY WILLIAMS 68.80
1908 MONACO WAY
22-1406 H. BRENT PERKINS 65.80
1854 W. MCGLINCHEY ST
22-1420 DUANE DAVENPORT 48.30
1719 W. MCGLINCHEY ST
22-1520 MICHAEL A. RUFFALO 154.70
1952 SANDALWOOD DR
22-1524 CARL L. KOCH 57.20
1994 SANDALWOOD DR.
22-1614 DONALD H. FISHER 50.30
1750 BEARDEN CT
22-1634 EVA LOUISE REED 52.60
2291 N. LINDER RD
31---10 LINDA L. PADDOCK 78.50
1131 W. CHERRY LN
31--140 1VICHOLAS CORRAL 62.2Q
1300 W. YOST CT.
31--226 DANNY A. YOLTNG 56.20
1725 N.W. 13TH AVE.
31--516 SHARON JERRETT 65.60
1542 STOREY AVE
31--840 GERALD R. BARNOWSKI 108.95
1312 TANA DRIVE
31--874 EDWARD E. SPELLMAN 80.30
1424 W. CHATEAU DR
31--886 JOHN RADLER 25.00
2410 LINDER ROAD
. •
31-1002 COE KIEBERT
1571 CLAIRE ST
31-1264 BRENT MORGAN.
1232 DARRAH DR.
31-2218 JOYCE LINSEr~VIANN.
2664 13TH ST.
31-2300 DOUGLAS S. HALLOCK
1532 LOWRY ST
31-3002 DAVE CHRISTENSEN
2240 N.W. 15TH ST.
31-3058 DOROTHY L. HARBOUR
940 W. CHATEAU DR
31-3250 S.WARE & D.ANDERSON
1131 DELMAR DRIVE
31-3252 RONALD BARKER
1111 DELMAR DRIVE
31-3336 JUDITH CRYER
811 DELMAR DR
31-3402 LYNN BASURA
2252 N. W. 11 TH AVE
31-3422 TIM ALLEN
1034 FAIRWOOD CT
31-3454 LORI BABBITT
2051 N.W. 8TH ST
3I-3458 DARRYL HOPKINS
2048 N. W. 9TH PL
31-3468 RADD FARBO
2075 N. W. 9TH PL.
31-3474 SHAWN MCDONALD
2082 N. W. l OTH PL.
•
54.90
47.30
65.80
70.40
74.70
63.20
53.60
69.10
45.00
48.60
66.05
83.00
60.50
25.30
61.50
~
31-3504 LINDA PADDOCK
1643 N. W. 11 TH AVE.
32--586 LINDA PADDOCK
1717 CRESTMONT DR.
32--652 ROBERT HAMPTON" '
451 W. WII,LOWBROOK DR.
32-662 JOHN YRAZABAL
425 CRANMER DR.
32--938 ROBERT COOLEY
2257 KENMERE PL
32-1100 JACK & ROSE. BURTON
330 W. CHRISFIELD DR.
33--348 IVA KISSINGER
1990 N. MERIDIAN RD.
34-398 DAVID L. STUCKER
1164 TORRINGTON CT.
34-800 KENNETH ZEAR
998 CHATEAU DR
34-910 CALVIN EDWARDS
1223 E. HLTNTER DR.
34-944 RICHARD DEBRIAE, 7R.
2418 N. VALMET AVE.
34-1018 DONALD & J. RICE
2548 N. ELK COVE WY
34-1792 A1~TITA NASH
2167 JERICHO WAY
34-1806 ERNIlNE DAVIS
1014 CLAYBOURNE DR
34-1854 WAYNE MCGURER
1011 CLAYBOURNE DR
•
45.00
132.00
89.40
61,20
57.90
105.20
73.00
66.55
66.45
70.10
71.05
65.70
59.70
80.00
54.30
. ~
34-1888 RANDY C. MARCiIM
2132 N. LARK PL.
34-1948 FORREST MOORE
821 E. WILLOWBROOK DR.
34-1954 PHILLIP WINGATE
905 E. WII,LOWBROOK DR.
34-1976 MICHAEL LACROIX
1028 CLARENE ST.
34-2042 JOHN WENNSTROM
1883 TEARE AVE.
34-2044 WILLIAM G. MILLER
1855 TEARE AVE
34-2104 HEIDI TYLER
1034 TAMMY ST. .
34-2114 TRACY GRANO
1842 TEARE AVE.
42-2248 RICHARD R. KENNEDY
2246 E. CHATEAU DR.
42-2422 STEVE WHEELER
1699 E.MEADOWGRASS ST.
42-2740 KEVIN BLAIR
1843 E. MEADOWGRASS CT
50----2 TOM ELLIOTT
16 E. PINE AVE
50--12 PALJL H. SMITH
29 E. STATE AVE.
50--74 KENNETH THOMSON
924 E. 4TH ST
50-226 JAMES HOWELL
234 & 236 E. STATE AVE.
•
90.20
78.30
82.30
80.60
72.70
64.80
53.90
80.00
63.50
79.10
78.40
76.60
45.30
45.40
116.40
, • •
50-354 ARDIS M. AGAN 145.25
41 b E. CARLTON AVE
50-1020 TECO INVESTMENTS 67.65
301 E. GRUBER
50-1500 TERRY WOODWARD 227.20
1535 E. 1ST ST.-OFFICE
50-1706 STEVE HUNT 83.00
16 E. WASHINGTON
50-1778 CECIL CHERRY 60.60
1608 MERIDIAN ST
50-2444 STEVE MCrTITT 47.00
1472 N. PENRITH AVE.
50-3726 TRUAX COMPANY 44.30
989 N. RALSTIN PL
50-4582 CAROLE BARRIETUA. 122.80
914 E. 2ND ST.
51--738 KELLY A. GWILLIAM 51.00
302 E. IDAHO AVE.
51-3430 ROBERT D. STRASSER 47.00
218 E. KING ST.
69-1400 C.K. CONSTRUCTION 146.90
2092 S.E. STH WAY
69-1692 JEFF LOFFER 46.00
530 E. ANTIGUA DR.
72--106 THE DEVELOPMENT CO. 110.60
1915 S.GULL COVE PL.
74---18 ALFRED HOCKLEY 47.80
43 S. W. 7TH AVE.
74---80 RICK R. BURWELL 77.00
513 KEARNEY PL.
~ ~
74--350 GARY FRANK 46.00
638 HANOVER CT.
74-1082 HAROLD MCKEAN 46.30
7 ROSE CIRCLE
74-1084 EDWARD NEALE 78.10
102 W. 1 ST ST.
74-1316 NORMAN FULLER 3 8. 00
417 S. MERIDIAN ST.
74-1478 JOHN DANZER 3 5.00
613 S. MERIDIAN ST.
74-2520 DAVID TOLAND 103.50
1395 W. KIlVIIZA ST
74-2834 MICHAEL MCCORMICK 85.50
1289 W. CRESTWOOD DR.
74-3300 DONALD L. MOORE 65.80
1244 W. GREENHEAD DR.
74-3308 WAIDE T. WOODLAND 62.20
1312 W. GREENHEAD DR
TOTAL DUE: 9,094.90
. QRiGINAL
• ~
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MELODY J. FARNSWORTH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT 10 - BLOCK 4'OF MERIDIAN TOWNSITE
EAST OF BROADWAY AVENUE AND NORTfl OF SECOND ST.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDTNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the
matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2j consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for April 12, 1~994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter w3s duly considered at the April 12, 1994,
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 the property is located within the City of
Meridian; the property is described in the application which
description is incorporated herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 1
• •
3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a
conditional use permi.t for the operation of~a small ceramics and
gift shop business which the application requests.
• 4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10. as follows:
(OT) Old Town District: The purpose of the
(OT) District is to accommodate and encourage
further expansion of the historical core of
the community; to delineate a centralized
activity center and to encourage its renewal,
revitalization and growth as the public, and
quasi-public, cultural, financial and
recreational center of the City. A variety
of these uses integrated with general
business, medium-high to high density
residential, and other related uses is
encouraged in an effort to provide the
appropriate mix of activities necessary to
establish a truly urban City Center. The
District shall be served by~Municipal Water
and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian.
Development in this district must give
attention to the handling of high volumes of
traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian
movement, and provide strip commercial
development, and must be approved as a
conditional use, unless otherwise permitted.
5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specific allowed
conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409 B.
6. That the abutting properties are used for commercial
purposes.
7. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Co~nission have been
given and followed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 2
• •
8. That sewer and water is available ta the property, but
the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and
water rates.
9. That the City Engineer, Central District Health
Department, Fire Department, and Police Department have submitted
comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full
herein.
10. That the Fire Department commented that the building
should be brought up to current fire safety codes.
11. That there was no testimony objecting to the
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 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, pu=suant 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
pu~suant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 3
• •
the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
Idaho;
4. That 1T-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 Planning and Zoning Commission
concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a
conditional use and a conditional use germit
is required by ordinance.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but
the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional
use permit to allow the use.
c. The use apparently would be designed and
constructed, to be harmonious in appearance
with the intended character of the general
vicinity.
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.
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 4
• •
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.
5. That the comments of the City Engineer must be met and
complied with.
6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
including but not li.mited to, the Uni:form Building Code, Uniform
Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code,
all parking and landscaping requirements.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED ~~=v_`-
-~-
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
COMMISSIONER SHEARER . VOTED
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED
. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 5
• ~
described in the application with the conditions set forth in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
MOTION:
APPROVED: ~ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FARNSWORTH - PAGE 6
~ ,
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 YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
(INITIAL)
APPROVED
VOTED ~
VOTED ``~
VOTED ~-'~
VOTED '~'~
VOTED
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- MELODY FARNSWORTH
ORIGINAL
i •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COI~II~IISSION
REVIN HOWELL
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
NE 1/4, Section 6, T. 3N.,
R.lE., B.M., Ada CountV_
ROCK CREER SUBDIVISION
MERIDIAN, IDAHO •
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on Apri1 12, 1994, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through its engineer, Jim Merkle, and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 April 12, 1994, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the April 12, 1994, hearing; that the
public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit
evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCI~USIONS OF LAW paJe 1
HOWELL/ROCR CREER SUBDIVISION
~ •
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 six (6)
acres in size; the property is south of Ustick Road and West of
Locust Grove Road, directly west of the Finch Creek subdivision.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as
(RT) Rural Transition and the proposed •use would be for R-8
Residential type development; that the Applicant states the
subdivision lot size would be average, around 9,000 square feet,
that there would be 20 lots in the proposed subdivision; that the
Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum
square footage of home would be 1,300 square feet, that there would
be 3.50 lots per acre, that there would only be single family
homes, that all lots would be 9,000 square feet; the Applicant,
however, stated that the minimum house size would be 1,350 sdquare
feet.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is
developed in the R-8, Residential fashion.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property,
but the owners are Charles E. and Mary Beth Wells, husband and
wife; that the owners have submitted a request or consent to this
Application for annexation and zoning.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION3 OF LAW Page 2
HOWELL/ROCK CREER SUBDIVISION
7. That th~property included in the ~nexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the entire 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.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is
for agriculture; that the intended develop~ent of the property is
for an R-8 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the
density would be approximately 3.50 dwelling units per acre.
10. The Applicant's representative stated that the
subdivisions access will be from Finch Creek to the east; the
streets within the subdivision will be built to the Highway
District's standards with 50 foot of right of way, 36 foot streets
and 5 foot sidewalks; that sewer and water can be provided to the
subdivision through the Finch Creek Subdivision.
11. That Jim Merkle addressed some of the comments of City
Engineer, Gary Smith, and such comments of Gary Smith and the
responses of Jim Merkle are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
12. That comments were received from the Fire Department,
Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name Committee, Central
District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District,
Idaho Power Company, submitted comments and they are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
13. That in response to a question by Commissioner Johnson,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU3IONS OF LAW Page 3
HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
• •
Mr. Merkle stated that the R-8 zoning request was made because the
lots have substantial depth; some of the lots will~be 65 to 70 feet
in width and 150 feet deep; because we have some monster lots in
theze that we don't feel we want to go with the R-4 frontage
requirement of 80 feet; that the surrounding vicinity is zoned R-8;
that we would not be in excess of the density we propose.
14. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area.
15. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
16. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
17. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
18. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows:
1R-8) Medium Densitv Residential District: The purpose
of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of
single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This
district delineates those areas where such development
has or is likely to occur in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to
permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family
dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable
land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer
systems of the City of Meridian is required.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
HOWELL/ROCK CREER SUBDIVISION
• •
that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's
representative stated that the subdivision eventually applied for
would comply with the neighborhood.
19. 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."
20. 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 physicaT
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided ..
.'
21. That the Merida.an Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
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."
22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing,
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 arrangements), . . ."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
• •
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be,encouraged."
23. 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 likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
24. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment
in different applications that a determination of ground water
level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a
comment is equally applicable to this Application.
25. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that
annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement
including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to
impact fees for parkR police, and fire services as determined by
the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that
such comment is equally agplicable to this Application.
28. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was
that this subdivision will cause increased overcrowding in all
three schools; that before they could support this subdivision,
land needs to be dedicated to the district or at least made
available for a school site in this area; that the site would need
water and sewer service available.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
• •
29. 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
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.
30. 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pa9e ~
HOWELL/ROCR CREEK SUBDIVISION
• •
31. 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."
32. 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, commetcial
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."
33. 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;" .
34. That Section 11-9-605 R 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
FINDiN~S OF FACT AND,CONCLU3IONS OF LAW Page 8
HOWEI~L/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
• ~
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreatian facilities." .
35. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicycle-Pedestrian DesiQn Manua•1 for Ada Countv (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
36. That proper nctice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That a11 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 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
HOWELLJROCR CREER SUBDIVISION
~ ~
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 ~~ithin 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, which is not the titled owner, 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 Fal1sL 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
• •
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G. , H 2, K, L and prior comments of the
previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, reiating to the lack of
adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future
park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-
asides for future public service use, that a school site was not
reserved; 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 development fee 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.
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,
including those he specifically stated in his comments and those
stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions and at the public
hearing, and of the Ada County Highway District, if submitted,
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department,
Idaho Power, and the prior comments of the Meridian Planning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
• ~
Director referenced herein, 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; 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.
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; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by
11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall
address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of
11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L; that the development agreement shall,
as a condition of annexation, require that the Appli.cant, 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 the housE size representation of 1,350 square feet
must be met.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12
HOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
• •
15. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-8 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
VOTED~
COMMISSIONER flEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ~~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~`
COMMISSIONER ALIDJP_NI VOTED~
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECOl~IIKENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Planning and Zoning Commission 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13
HOWELL/ROCK CREER SUBDIVISION
~ ~
Applicant and owners be specifically required to tile all ditches,
canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system as
conditions of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
development time requirements and enter into the required
development agreement, and that if the conditions are not met that
the property be de-annexed.
MOTION: ~
APPROVED: ~-~ " DI5APPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14
SOWELL/ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
~
~
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Counci! hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
VOTED
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCiLMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED
(INITIAL) ,
APPROVED
D{SAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW --ROCK CREEK SUBDIVISION
_ _ __
. i •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COI~IISSION
MAX BOESIGER
ANNERATION AND ZONING
S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION 9
T.3N., R.lE.. B.M., ADA COUNTY
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on April 12, 1994, 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 Planning and Zoning
Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and
the Applicant appearing through Jim Merkle and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 April 12, 1994, the first publication
of which was fifteen (.15 ) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the April 12, 1994, 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
MAX BOESIGER/WESTDALE ~2 Page 1
• •
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 12.2 acres in size;~it is located West of Cloverdale
Road, and South of Fairview Avenue.
3. ?hat the property is presently zoned by the county RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant r.equests that the property
be zoned R-8.
4. Home sizes proposed for this project will be a minimum
of 1,500 square feet, with 7,000 to 12,000 square foot lots.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the
present City limits and the entrance will be from Cloverdale and
Pine Street/Emerald extension with a stub street to the north.
6. Cloverdale Seventh Day Adventist Church is located to
the north.
7. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property
but the owner of record, Carol M. Marshall, of San Francisco,
California, and has requested the annexation and consented to the
Application.
8. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
9. That the entire parcel of ground requested to be annexed
is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning
Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
, 10. As found above, the Application requested that the
parcel be annexed and zoned R-8 Medium Density Residential; that
MAX BOESIGERJWESTDAI.E #2 page 2
•
C~
the applicant has indicated that the intended development of the
property is for an R-8 subdivision, and would not to included
duplexes.
11. Jim Merkle addressed the Commission, on behalf of Max
Boesiger the Applicant, regarding Gary Smith's, City Engineer's,
comments of the project, which are incorporated herein.
12. Sewer and water lines will be installed and the
accessway will come through the Crossrpads subdivision, just east
of th.is project.
13. Rowan Wilson, representing the Cloverdale Seventh Day
Adventist Church, requested that Applicant put a 6 foot fence
along the north boundary of the subdivision to help define the
boundaries of the church property as well as there is a school at
the church and it would reduce the liability on both sides because
of the children. Mrs. Wilson also asked that no gates be allowed
in the back fence.
14. Max Hoesiger commented to Mrs. Wilson's remarks about
the fencing with regards to privacy versus open space. Mr.
Boesiger is willing to continue discussions with the church and
suggested a compromise of a 5 or 4 foot fence.
15. That comments were received from the Meridian Police
Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County
Street Name Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa
& Meridian Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation District,
Idaho Power Company, and Shari Stiles the Zoning Administrator
submitted cou~ments, and they all are incorporated herein as if set
MAR BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 . Page 3
•
forth in full.
~
16. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Single Family~Residential area.
17. That in the Rural~ Area section of the Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land
in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
18. That Meridian has, and is,.experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
19. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
20. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows:
LR S1 Medium Densitv Residential District: The purpose of
the (R-S) Districts is to permit the establishment of single
and two (2) family dwellings at a desnity not exceeding eight
(8)~dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those
areas where such development has or is likely to occur in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also
designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two ( 2)
family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of
comparable land use. Connection to the Municpal Water and
Sewer systems of .the City of Meridian is required.
that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone, but the Applicant has
stated that the minimum house size would be 1,500 square feet.
21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
MAX BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Page 4
. •
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condomi.niums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City
with a range of affordable housing oppo=tunities."
22. 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 .
~
. .
23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
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."
24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Sousing,
Aousing 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-fami.ly, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), . . ."
"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."
25. 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 likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
26. That the City Engineer has previously submi.tted comment
MAX BOESIGER/WESTDALE ~2 paqe 5
. •
in different applications that a determi.nation of ground water
level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a
comment is equally applicable to this Application.
27. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the previous Zoning Administrator has coaunented that
annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement
including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to
impact fees for park, 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.
28. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such
is incorporated herein as if set forth- in full; its comment was
that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District
and that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of
attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for
support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the
costs of building additional schools.
29. 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
MA% BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Pege 6
o ulation tha•t is occurring and with its~impact on the City being
P P
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to i.ts 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 incr~ase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and =ecreation 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.
30. 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.
31. 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."
32. 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, =ailroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties . Such screening shall be a mi.nimum of twenty feet
MAX BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 page T
• •
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street
right of way or utility easement." ,
33. 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;'•
34. That Section 11-9-605 R 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."
35. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Desictn Manual for Ada Countv
MA7C BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 page a
• ~
(as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within
developments.
36. That proper notice was~given as required by l~w 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.
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.
MAX BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 page 9
• •
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 proposed 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 owner and the annexation is
not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
S. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land.
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and
comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time
schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches, and
Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation;
that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water
and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject
to and controTled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance;
that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required
to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L
and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the
inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C,
G.,.H 2, K, and L; that the development agreement shall, as a
condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if
MAX BOESIGER/WESTDALE #2 Page 10
~ •
required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal
representatives, pay, when required, any development fee 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.
10. That proper and adequate ac~ess to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked
as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does
not conflict with.the Rural Areas policies.
12. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and
evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian it is ultimately concluded that
Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned R-8; that the
conditions should be those stated above and upon issuance of final
platting and other conditions to be explored at the City Council
level; that such annexation would be orderly development and
reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be
subject to de-annexation if the requirements of these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met.
13. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be
tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled and pressurized irrigation
installed as a condition of annexation and if not so done the
MAX BOESIGER/WE3TDALE #2 Page 11
• •
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning or R-B,~Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian; that since the Applicant stated
the mini.mum size home would be 1,500 square feet, that minimum
size must be met.
15. That if the conditions of approval are nct met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREARER)
VOTED_ ~~~
VOTED_,~
VOTED__ ~~~~~
VOTED_~
VOTED
4v -
~
MAg SOESIGER/WESTDALL ~2 Page 12
• •
DECISION AND RECO~ENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
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 apglication with the conditions set forth in the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners
be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals and waterways
and install a pressurized irrigation system as conditions of
annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of
the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time
requirements and .enter into the required development agreement, ,
and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-
annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
MA% BOESIGER/WESTDALE ~2 Paqe 13
~
•
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
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED~
VOTED
VOTE
,
(INITIAL)
APPROVED
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AfdD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- WESTDALE PARK NO. 2
• • ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COI~II~IISSION
ROBERT GLENN
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
SW 1/4 SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 3N,RANGE 1 WEST
NORTH SIDE CHERRY LANE
ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on April 12, 1994, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through Ted Hutchinson of Tealey's Surveying, and having
duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes the following:
FINDIN(3S 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 April 12, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the April 12, 1994, 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.
ROSERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 1
• • .
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
approximately 25 acres in size; the property is on the north side
of Cherry Lane, between Sunburst and Sunnybrook Farms Subdivisions.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as
(RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-4
Residential type development; that the Applicant states in his
Subdivision application that the lots would be over 8,000 square
feet, that there would be 87 lots in the proposed subdivision; that
the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the
minimum square footage of a home would be 1,400 square feet, that
there would be 3.5 lots per acre, that there would only be single
family homes and that this will be the first phase of a two phase
development.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used with
some agriculture but it is used mostly residentially; that the
residential property is developed in the R-4, Residential fashion.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property,
but the owner is Joan D. Priest, of Caldwell, Idaho; that Joan D.
Priest has submitted a request or consent to this Application for
annexation and zoning.
7. " That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
ROBERT GI~ENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVI3ION pa9e 2
• •
8. That the entire 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.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is
for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is
for an R-4 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the
density would be approximately 3.50 dwelling units per acre.
10. The Applicant's representative addressed the questions of
Gary Smith, City Engineer, and such responses are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full as are the comments of Gary Smith.
11. That comments were received from the Meridian Police
Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District and Shari Stiles, Zoning
Administrator; that there comments are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
12. There were nine people testifying at the hearing; Tina
Morse, representing Sunnybrook .Farms Homeowners Association was
concerned about their park and with regards to access burdening
Chateau and denied to Cherry Lane.
13. Tina Morse and Kathy Reierson, a residents of Sunnybrook
Farms, object to paying yearly fees for maintaining their park when
an adjacent subdivision's residents could come in and possibly use
the park but pay no fees for upkeep; Mrs. Reierson also objected to
the Ada"County Highway Departments denial of access off Cherry
Lane; Bill Carroll, a resident of Sunburst Subdivision, was
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF 3UBDIVISION Page 3
• •
concerned about small children and the additional traffic and
desired that Gem Stone street be left unconnected and he had
concerns over wildlife in the area; Sue Sheehan stated that she
desired a"SLOW. CHILDREN AT PLAY" sign and that schools were of
great concern to her.
14. Mr. Ken Tetrault testified regarding his concerns as to
the status of Gem Stone Drive remaining a dead end street; that he
and other residenT on the street wish it• to remain a dead end
street; also he was concerned about the irrigation ditch and the
trees and wildlife to be found there; that if the subdivision goes
in, those living in Sunburst subdivision will see the ditch needing
to be tiled and therefore lose a good ecosystem.
15. Charlen Miller was concenred over the number of children
that would be going to Linder Elementary and Meridian Middle
School; Melody Lowe also testified as to the interruption this
subdivision will play on the ecosystem as well as her concerns with
the number of.children these homes will have and how that affects
the schools overcrowding.
16. Scott Campbell stated that he had concern over the
traff~.c that would be created by this development; Jan DeWeerd had
concerns over traffic and the school overloading.
17. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area.
18. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use~, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW I~EAF SUBDIVISION Page 4
• •
until urban services can be provided.
19. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures• on land previously used for
agxicultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
20. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
21. That the R-4, Residential Distri:ct 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
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.
22. 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."
23. 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 ..
.'
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 5
~ •
24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allpwed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urhan Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and High density residential may be considered. Al1
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
25. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing,
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 arrangements), . . ."
"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."
26. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present ti.me which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
27. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was
that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and
that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of
attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for
support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the
costs of building additional schools.
26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF 3UBDIVISION Page 6
~ ~
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 co~promising 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
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.
27. 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.
28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION paJe ~
~
~
"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."
29. 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."
30. 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 si.milar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 R 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 st,ate), 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
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUSDIVISION pa9e $
• •
recreation facilities."
32. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCZUSIONS
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 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.
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF 3UBDIVISION paqe 9
4. That al•notice and hearing requi• ents 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 contiguaus 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, which is not the titled owner, 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, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requi~ements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall he subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUSDIVISION Page 10
• •
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. , H 2,~ K, L and prior comments of the
previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of
adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future
park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-
asides for future public service use, that a school site was not
reserved; 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 development fee 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.
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, and
of the Ada County Highway District, if submitted, Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation, Settlers Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department,
Idaho Power, and the prior comments of the Meridian Planning
Director reference herein, 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
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 11
• •
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.
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; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by
11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall
address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of
11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L; 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 the house size representation of 1,400 square feet
must be met.
15. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
16." That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and assigns.
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 12
• •
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
/ y • ~cr,t fh C'
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commi'ssion hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED~
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~t
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED ~
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) ~
VOTED~
C~~L~I. DECISION AND RECOI~II~IENDATION .
The Meridia Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Planning and Zoning Commission 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 tile all ditches,
canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system as
conditions of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF SUBDIVISION Page 13
~
~
development time requirements and enter into the required
development agreement, and that if the conditions are not met that
the property be de-annexed. •
MOTION:
APPROVED: "~ DISAPPROVED:
~~
ROBERT GLENN/ARROW LEAF 3UBDIVISION Page 14
~
~ ~
~J
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 YERRINGTON
COUNCiLMAN CORRIE
VOTED ~
VOTED
VOTE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED ~ ~
VOTED
(INITIAL)
APPROVED
DISAPPROVED
FtNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
/?ot"~ER `T C7CEtV~
~ • • ORlG~NAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONIN~3 COI~II~iI38ION
AVENUE ONE
ANNEJCATION AND ZONING
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 NE 1/4,
SECTION 3, T. 3N., R. 1W., B.M.
DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES
MERIDIAN, IDAHO ~
FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on April 12, 1994, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through David Roylance, and having duly considered the
matter, the Planning and Zoning Commi.ssion 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 April 12, 1994, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the April 12, 1994, 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 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
approximately 41.57 acres in size; the property is west of Ten Mile
Road on Ustick Road.
3. That the prop~rty is presently zoned by Ada County as
(RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-4
Residential type development; that the Applicant states in his
Subdivision application that the lots would be 8,000 square feet,
that there would be 135 lots in the proposed subdivision; that the
Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum
square footage of home would be I,500 square feet, that there would
be 3.25 lots per acre, that there would only be single family
homes, that all lots would be 8,000 square feet, and that
sprinkling systems are provided for.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is
developed in the R-4, Residential fashion.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property,
but the owners are Leonard A. Ashenbrenner and Nadine Ashenbrenner;
that the Ashenbrenners have not submitted a request or consent to
this Application for annexation and zoning.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the entire 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.
~ •
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is
for agriculture; that the intended development of the property is
for an R-4 subdivision and the subdivision Application states the
density would be approximately 3.25 dwelling units per acre.
10. The Applicant's representative addressed the questions of
Gary Smith, City Engineer, and such responses are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full as are the comments of Gary Smith.
11. That comments were received from the Meridian Police
Department, Fire Department, Meridian School District, Ada County
Street Name Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District, and Idaho Power Company; that there
comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
12. There were two people testifying at the hearing; Beverly
McKay was concerned about the traffic on Ustick Road; Gary Johnson
did not object but wanted it on the record that he has a family
farm in the area and that from the farm there is dust and they
apply sprays, which could be objectionable, and he just wanted the
people to know that they did those types of things.
13. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area.
14. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
15. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there, are pressures on land previously used for
~
i
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
16. That the property can be•physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
17. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4j 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
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.
18. 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."
19. 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 ..
.'
20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed i.n 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." . .
21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Sousing,
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 arrangements), . • •"
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic baekground."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
22. 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 likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
23. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment
in different applications that a determination of ground water
level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a
comment is equally applicable to this Application.
24. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that
annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement
including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to
impact fees for park, 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.
• !
25. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was
that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District and
that residents of the new subdivision could not be assured of
attending the neighborhood schools; the School District asked for
support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the
costs of building additional schools.
26. 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
deZiver 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
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 bu=dening 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.
•
•
27. 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 ar~d 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.
28. 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."
29. 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 n.ot be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
30. 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 simi.lar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 R 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 uni.mproved
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."
32. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicvcle Pedestrian DesiQn Manual for Ada Count (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
33. 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.
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, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not
upon the initiation of the City of Meridian; that the_annexation
should be denied if the owner's.request or consent to annexation
and zoning is not filed with the City prior to the hearing before
the City Planning and Zoning Commission.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legisl.ative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. " That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
• ~
requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G. , H 2, R, L and prior comments of the
previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of
adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a futu=e
park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-
asides for future public service use, that a school site was not
reserved; 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 development fee or.transfer fee adopted by the City;
that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this
parag~aph are met or, if necessary, the praperty shall be subject
to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of
this paragraph are not met.
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,
including those he sQecifically stated in his comments and those
• •
stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions and at the public
hearing, and of the Ada County Highway District, if submitted,
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Distr~.ct, Meridian Fire Department,
Idaho Power, and the prior comments of the Meridian Planning
Director reference herein, 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; 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.
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; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be reguire#d t,~ enter into a development agreement as authorized by
11-2-416 L and II-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; 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
annexatibn 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 the house size representation of 1,500 square feet
must be met.
15. That proper and adequate~access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.-
APPROVAL OF FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLU3IONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREARER)
VOTED~~~
VOTED
VOTED ~-~
VOTED
VOTED
DECIS ION AND RECOI~II~IENDATION
The~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Planning and Zoning Commission 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 tile all ditches,
canals and waterways and install a pressurized irrigation system as
conditions of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
development time requirements and enter into the required
development agreement, and that if the conc~itions are not met that
the property b - ed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
~ ~
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 YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
VOTE ,
VOTED
VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
(INITIAL)
APPROVED v
VOTED
VOTED
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES