HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 09-06~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL S
AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CiTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 16, 1994:
(APPROVED)
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD AUGUST 22, 1994:
(APPROVED)
1. TABLED: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISIOPJ NO. 5, REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY INTERWEST
DEVELOPMENT (TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING):
(TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 MEETING)
2. TABLED: ORDINANCE #666 - ASHFORD GREENS ANNEXATION:
(TABL~D)
3. TABLED: FINAL PLAT - THE LANDING NO. 8, 48 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE
CORPORATION: (TABLED UNTIL sEPTEMBER 20, 1994)
4. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
ASHFORD GRE~NS SUBDIVISION BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER:
(TABLED)
5. TABLED: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
ON TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER
20, 1994)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR W.H. MOORE COMPANY: (APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; DENIED VARIANCE)
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION: (TABLED)
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
~ONING FOR NEB-i COMPANY:(APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK
SUBDMSION NO. 5: (APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
10. ORDINANCE #670 - ANNEXATION/ HARTFORD SUBDNISION: (TABLED
UNTIL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED)
11. ORDINANCE #67~ANNEXATION/ THE HOLL4WS:`ABLED UNTIL
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED)
12. FINAL PLAT: GRANITE CREEK SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY ROCK CREEK), 21
LOTS BY KEVIN HOWELL CONSTRUCTION: (APPROVED CONDITIONED
UPON MEETING STAFF COMMENTS)
13. FINAL PLAT: TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1, 73 LOTS BY STEELE AND
SON: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 MEETING)
14. FINAL PLAT: FIRE LIGHT ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 27 LOTS BY RUNNING
BROOK ESTATES INC.: (APPROVED CONDITIONED UPON
MEETING STAFF COMMENTS)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FAWCETT MEADOWS NO. 2
BY RONALD HENRY: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FQCT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRAMBLE WOOD SUBDIVISION BY
WARDEE CONSTRUCTION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMiNARY PLAT FOR THUNDER
CREEK SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (APPROVED)
18. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDMSION
BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER
INVESTMENTS: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDINANCE AFTER
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS APPROVED)
20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS:
(APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;
TABLE UNTIL ORDINANCE IS PASSED)
21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR GROVE
RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS: (TABLE APPLICATION UNTIL
PRELIMINARY PLAT IS EXAMINED)
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES:
(TABLE UNTIL OCTOBER 4, 1994)
23. PUBLIC HEARIN~2EQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL~E PERMIT FOR
MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES:
(TABLE UNTIL OCTOBER 4, 1994)
24. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CQNCLUSIONS OF LAW)
25. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT:
(WITHDRAW APPLICATION)
26. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
RONALD VAN AUKER: (CITY ATTORNEY T4 PREPARE FINDIPIGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
27. DAN WOOD: REQUEST FOR 1 YEAR EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAT FOR
WINGATE SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 AND 3: (APPROVED)
28. JOHN EWING: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR
FOTHERGILL POINTE SUBDIVISION: (APPROVE REFUND AFTER
PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION IS INSTALLED)
29. SCOTT SWANBY: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY TRAILER AT 1901
E. LANARK: (TABLE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20,1994)
30. DOVE MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT - tRRIGATION SITUATION: (DUE PROCESS)
31. DAVID RUNDLE: SPEED CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT OF CITY
ORDINANCES: (NO SHOWj
32. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR WATERBURY
PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 4: (APPROVED)
33. KENTFIELD MANOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: (APPROVED)
34. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED)
35. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED)
36. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
# ~
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was catled to order by Mayor Grant
Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Harold
Briscoe, Robert Baldwin, Stacie Tuliy, Tom Anderson, Jeremy Swanby, Milna Dickey,
Thomas Geile, Hilton Dickey, Inez Baxter, Chris Galagher, David Stokem, Terry Harper,
John Schafer,John Jackson, David Collins, Jim Merkle, Gary Lee, Gene Smith, Ron Henry,
Ted Hutchinson, Dan Hardee, Mike Shrewsberry, Jim Rees, David Bailey, Steve Jenson,
Jay Jones, Liz Gwen, Kathleen Calter, John Jensen, David Stukker, Terry Hagen, Don
Bryan, Becky Bowcutt, Barbara Brilonda, Craig Cavanaugh, Mike Wewless, Jeremey Scott
Swanby, Rich Allison, Ron Van Auker, Jim Kissler, Carmen Mayes, Dwayne Emends,
Cornell Larson, Mike Ford, Chris Nelson, Dan Wood, John Ewing:
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 16, 1994:
Kingsford: Are there any corrections or additions or deletions to those minutes?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the August 16th minutes, all those
in #avor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD AUGUST 22, 1994:
Kingsford: Any corrections to those?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob Corrie to approve of the special meeting of
August 22nd minutes, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTtON CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED: HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5, REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING WiTH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY lNTERWEST DEVELOPMENT (TABLED
~ ~
Meridian City Councii
September 6, 1994
Page 2
AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING):
Kingsford: Does Council have questions or comments there.
Morrow. I believe the issue there was tabling because we didn't have evidence of deed
and Gary Smith had new comments with respect to that project. Could he enlighten us if
those issues have been resolved as per his memorandum dated today? And if the deed
has been resolved satisfactorily?
Kingsford: Mr. Smith
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members and Councilman Morrow, I have been in
conversation with David Collins the engineer for the Applicant and we resolved my
comments on the plat, the preliminary plat with the exception of the 40 foot wide right of
way that he showed on the culdesac street. It was my contention that it should be a 50
foot width in order to provide adequate access for our fire truck and emergency vehicle.
He was proposing that it be 40 feet because the Highway District does allow 40 foot right
of way. That is argument as to why he felt it should be 40 feet. Other than that I saw I
believe in my packet of information a letter from the property owners conceming the
annexation and zoning request but I haven't (inaudible) specifically. So I don't (inaudible).
Morrow: Were the issues with respect to the neighboring property owners resolved?
Were there not some access issues and those things?
Smith: Yes, that access issued to the Geile property has been located as v~e have
requested and I have met with Mr. Geile's son it must have been Friday afternoon he came
into the office and met with me. We looked at the plat and it appears to meet the needs
of his property.
Morrow. Item 7 on your memorandum today says the preliminary plat does not show
where the proposed sanitary sew~er, storm water, water or irrigation or waste water ditches
are. Why are those items not there?
Smith: it just didn't get shown, he had shown that on a previous submittal and didn't
(inaudible). I asked him about that today and he said he would have a new plat this
evening for me that would show these things. We talked in generalities about the location
of the sew~er and which way it vuvuld drain. Part of the subdivision is going to have to drain
to the south according to him into an existing lift station that will be part of Merryvu~ood
Subdivision. It is his responsibility to check with that developer's engineer Roy Johnson
and make any necessary corrections or revisions to that tift station so that it will accept
approximately 30 lots from the subdivision.
_~ ~
Meridian City Councit
September 6, 1994
Page 3
Morrow: Has that been done?
Smith: No
Morrow. I have no further questions.
Corrie: I have one for Shari, we discussed the agreement early this afternoon. Can you
give me a little bit more information as far as this the one we are talking about that I think
we've got a 20 foot a~d we need a 25 0~ 30 will this be put in a general agreement, the
development agreement?
Stiles: The development agreement does have that specifically listed and it is specifically
{isted in the findings. It does talk about highways but our ordinance also defines a highway
as a street. I believe Mr. Collins has some problem with our definition of a highway. But
across the street at Merrywood Subdivision they have a 25 foot landscape berm.
Corrie: And he is proposing to just a 20 foot.
Stiles: A 7 foot with that includes a bike path.
Kingsford: Mr. Collins is here does the Council have any questions for them?
Corrie: Mr. Collins 2 questions I guess, we will start with the last and then go to the first.
On this berming the 20, what is it you are wanting the 7 foot, is that what you are proposing
compared with what the others are a 20 or 25 foot?
Collins: The original request of the Highway District was 33 feet of right of way has been
reduced to 30 feet on our side. Which vu~uld permit us to take 3 feet of that additional right
of way and put it with a berm and make a 10 foot berm along the edge of that subdivision.
The question on the south side of Merrryvuood, it is (inaudible) of the 2 because I think they
w~ere even different, design eras if you want to put it that way. They have 40 feet of right
of way on their side. So at the time that was done the Highway District was thinking of 80
feet of right of way down there now they are talking 60 feet of right of way and it is really
difficult to keep the design ahead of the requirements sometimes. So we w~ould propose
10 foot landscape strip down through there. The ordinance, both ordinances the 1989 and
the 1993 ordinance speak to berming along incompatible uses. Gary and I discussed this
this aftemoon the fact that the definition, I think where the di~culty arose was in re-writing
the 1993 ordinance the d~nition of highway changed. In the 1989 ordinance the highway
was defined as a right of way designated by the state agency, if you want me to read it
exactly 1 can. "A street designated as a highway by an appropriate state or federal
agency", which I think we can see clearly in the screening and buffering area (inaudible)
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 4
to residential neighborhood. The new definition in the 1993 ordinance however defines
a highway as the entire width between the boundary lines of every publically maintained
every way publically maintained when any part is open to the use of the public for
vehicular traffic with jurisdiction extending the adjacent property lines including sidewalk,
shoulders and berms and (inaudible) not intended for motorized traffic. I think v-fiat
happened is the definition got changed for some reason and then the rest of the ordinance
wasn't reviewed to see the impact of that on the rest of the ordinance. If you take that strict
definition of highway than every interior street in my subdivision is a highway by that
definition and by section 9-605 G would require a 20 foot planning strip on either side of
that right of way through out #he subdivision. So I think the intention is to have an
incompatible use which certainly isn't your neighborhood street and your collectors but
your major highways as the ordinance previousty defined are incompatible with residential
neighbofioods because of the noise and the vehicular traffic. So in that light I would like
to request the Council waive that condition of the 20 foot easement or the 20 foot
landscape strip and accept the 10 foot landscape strip on this subdivision.
Corrie: I have one other question if I may Mr. Mayor, the culdesac you say 40, the fire
department and city says 50, are you willing to go to the 50?
Collins: It doesn't sound like an option if the city requires it. My concern is that with a 40
foot right of way you have a 28 foot back to back section out of which you have 2 foot on
either side for curb and gutter which leaves you 24 foot of travel way. If we put verticat
curbs which we would be wiNing to do in there so people can't park on the sidewalk that
would, to most drivers be an obvious restriction there is no parking. We would even be
willing #o have no parking signs. Two lanes 24 feet wide even if you have an (inaudible)
to park there let's say they ran out of gas there, another vehicle is not going to park directly
across from it because he is obviously going to block the entire road he can see that
unless he is too far in space to see. So you are guaranteed one iane of traffic down
through there. You take a 36 back to back is 32 feet of asphalt with rolled curbs and it
encourages people to park on both sides because it kind of looks like it will make it and
reatly restricts 2 way traffic down the center (inaudible) emergency vehicles. I think you
have a better guarantee of an emergency vehicle access with 24 feet of asphalt than you
do with 32 because it totally discourages parking.
Corrie: Can you do a 50?
Collins: Yes, sir I can design about anything.
Kingsford: Any other questions of Mr. Collins? It is not a public hearing but since I know
you so wel( Tom (inaudible) go ahead.
~
Meridian City Councii
September 6, 1994
Page 5
•
Geite: I guess on this plat, t don't realiy have any objections to the new plat, the only thing
that I need to make sure of is that when they do the subdivision that I would want the water
and the sewer and the street stubbed to my property back a ways. And that is all the
comment that I have for this evening.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, just a point of discussion, here w~e are again with Haven Cove and last
time we had this project there were several issues that are up in the air were brought to
the table at the last minute without time for staff to adequately review it. Tonight we are
being asked to make a deGision between a 4~ foot and a 50 foot turn around. We are
being asked to compromise a landscape berm without having the necessary facts here.
Mr. Smith has indicated that he has not seen the preliminary plat data that should be on
a preliminary plat. He has not been able to confirm the sew~r hook up with respect to the
adjoining subdivision. From my perspective all of those things ought to be done before the
thing is brought before us in a public hearing. The chances of things falling through the
cracks with us trying to make a motion and incorporating all of the things that are not there
it seems to me to be risky at best. I think from my perspective I would like to see the issue
tabled until everything is done the way it is supposed to be done and have a presentation
with all of the questions answered. Those would be my comments.
Corrie: Would you like to make that a motion?
Morrow: So moved.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table Haven Cove No. 5 until the neut
Council meeting aN those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED: ORDINANCE #666 - ASHFORD GREENS ANNEXATION:
Kingsford: Along with Item #4, Ashford Greens Subdivision preliminary plat, the developer
has requested that those be tabled they are coming back with a planned unit development
proposal for the entire thing.
Corrie: So those would be tabled tonight.
Morrow. So moved then.
i
Meridi~n City Councii
September 6, 1994
Page 6
Kingsford: Likewise item #7
Yerrington: Second
•
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED: FINAL PLAT - THE LANDING NO. 8, 48 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE
CORPORATION:
Kingsford: Is the Council prepared to take action on that?
Morrow. I believe it was tabled last meeting on my motion because there was nobody
representative of the development folks to make a small presentation if those folks are
here I would like to see that presentation.
Kingsford: Is the developer or his representative present? Were they alerted to that?
Morrow: I would move to table to the next meeting until they can be here to make their
presentation.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table the Landing No. 8 until the next meeting
ail those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
IT~M #5: TABLED: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
ON TUMBLE CREEK SUBDtVtSION:
Kingsford: They have likewise sent a letter requesting they be tabled until the next
meeting, entertain a motion to that effect.
Morrow. So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table Stubblefield's request on Tumble
Creek Subdivision untii the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 7
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
•
ITEM #6: FtNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR W.H. MOORE COMPANY:
Kingsford: The Council has had those findings, are you prepared to take action?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of
law for the W. H. Moore Company.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of lawfor W.H. Moore Company's variance request, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: The findings Mr. Moore, the decision is the application for a variance from 11-
9-605 M is denied. Mr. Berg will present you with a set of those findings later this evening
or tomorrow.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I think you need a motion to deny it.
Kingsford: Is there a motion then to deny it?
Yerrington; I move we deny the request.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to deny the variance request for W. H. Moore
Company, all those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING FOR NEB-i COMPANY:
Morrow: I have a question and I think the Counselor has started to explain it when the
meeting started. It was a conditional use permit which was requested for this particular
C
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 8
i
project and the question in my mind was that if we were granting the commercial aoning
if a conditional use permit was needed and Wayne started to explain that and I would like
to have him explain that for the record please.
Crookston: The Comprehensive Plan designates that as a planned use area. The areas
that are designated that are required to have conditional use permits for development.
Kingsford: Is that satisfactory to your question Mr. Morrow'?
Morrow: Yes
Kingsford: Is the Councii prepared to take action on those findings?
Morrow. I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the
NEB-i project.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: It is moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for NEB-i project, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Nea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: 3 YEA, 1 NEA
Kingsford: Are you ready to take action on the decision?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I will read the decision, the City Council hereby decides that the
property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and
zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law,
including but not limited to that the applicant inform the Council of the uses and the
proposed development and that the applicant enter into a development agreement prior
to annexatidn and zoning ordinance being passed. As that agreement is information that
the Council needs to decide whether to pass an annexation and zoning ordinance or deny
the applications and if the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and
conclusions and it is not agreeable wi#h entering into a development agreement and
informing the city of the intended uses and development of the property the property shall
not be annexed.
Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision?
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 9
Morrow: That is my motion is to accept the decision.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to accept the decision of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law all those in favor? Opposed
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5:
Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed those?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I vrrould move v~ approve the findings of fact and conclusions for
Waterbury Park No. 5 as written.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conctusions
of law for Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Are you prepared to act on the decision?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I wr~uld move that we approve the decision which is as follows the City
Council hereby decides that the property set forth in the application is approved for
annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Including that the applicant enter into a development agreement prior
to an annexation and zoning ordinance being passed. As that agreement is information
that the Council needs to decide whether to pass an annexation and zoning ordinance or
deny the application. That if the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and
conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property
shall not be annexed.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the decision, al those in favor?
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 10
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: ORDINANCE #670 - ANNEXATION/ HARTFORD SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE S4UTH
HALF OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 35, T.4N, R.1W, B.M., ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the
public that w~uld like Ordinance #670 read in its entirety? Seeing none I w~u(d entertain
a motion.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, this is similar to the Waterbury Park and other annexation and
zoning requests that we have had. In the findings it says that no annexation ordinance
should be passed until a development agreement is entered into. I just bring that to the
City Council's attention for you to decide whether or not you feel that an ordinance shou(d
be adopted at this time. To my understanding there is no development agreement yet.
Kingsford: Is that true Shari?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table the ordinance until the development
agreement is entered into.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table Ordinance #670 until the development
agreement is entered into, ail those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: ORDINANCE #671 - ANNEXATION/ THE HQLLOWS:
Kingsford: Is that similar?
Crookston: Yes it is, I think you need to call it for action though.
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED
IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTIQN 31, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1
EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Pag~ 11
•
DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance #671 read in its
entirety? Seeing none 1 would entertain a motion on the ordinance.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table the ordinance until the development
agreement has been executed.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table Ordinance #671 until a development
agreement has been entered into, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: Atl Yea
ITEM #12: FINAL PLAT: GRANITE CREEK SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY ROCK CREEK),
21 LOTS BY KEVIN HOWELL CONSTRUCTION:
Kingsford: Does the Council have any question on that subdivision?
Morrow. Could we have a real brief presentation by the representative of the developer
please?
Kingsford: Is the developer or his engineer present?
Merkle: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I am Jim Merkle with Hubble Engineering
here on behalf of Kevin How~ell the Applicant. This is a 20 lot final plat on about 5.7 acres
or about 3.5 lots per acre. Located 3/8 a mile west of Locust Grove off of Ustick Road.
This was approved as a preliminary plat and annexation I think a month or two ago. Our
final plat is basically in conformance with the requirements of the preliminary plat as was
approved by the Council a month or tv~ro ago. Gary Smith and Shari both had comments
and 1 Mave written responses to them. There is nothing really out of the ordinary here
other than the subdivision to the east of us, we wi{I require access is not under
development yet. So obviously we can't develop this until that one is developed. However
w~e are trying to go through the process now, so we don't have to do it later. The Highvw~y
District won't sign the plat until that access is obtained and neither will the City. So that
wauld be the only peculiar item on this particular plat right now. I will entertain any
questions and will try to answer them for you.
Tolsma: Wasn't there supposed to be an emergency access at the end of that cufdesac
(inaudible) in and out of that?
Merkle: That is correct Mr. Mayor and Councilman Tolsma, there will be a deed restriction
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 12
on one of these 2 lots, I believe it is lot 2 for a secondary access coming in off of Ustick,
unti{ such time as this develops out to the west because there witl onfy be one access.
Gary had th~t in his comments and I responded to him whether he wanted it on the face
of the plat or the covenants or a separate agreement we are willing to do whatever he
wants to assure that.
Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Merkle?
~llorrow: I have a question of Gary, was it not these 2 subdivisions that we were having
trouble with a hole that was full of irrigation water and breeding mosquitos? Was that
involved in this particular subdivision?
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Morrow, this same developer it is not
the same subdivision. The subdivision in question is over on Locust Grove Road,
Chamberlain Estates on the east side of Locust Grove.
Morrow. Has that been solved by the way?
Smifh: No it has not. I sent a letter to the developer today requesting some action that I
suggested some suggested action that previous conversations and phone calls and the
work they have done out there is not resolved the problem.
Kingsford: Other questions of either staff or Mr. Merkle? Is the Council prepared to take
action?
Corrie: 1 move we approve the final plat of Granite Creek Subdivision with the provision
that the comments of the City Engineer and City Planner be completed before signing.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve the final plat of Granite Creek
Subdivision conditioned upon the City Engineer and City Planner's comments being met,
a11 fhose in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: FINAL PLAT: TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION N0. 1, 73 LOTS BY STEELE
AND SON:
Kingsford: Does the Council have questions or comments on that?
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 13
•
Morrow: I would like to hear a brief presentation by the developer.
tee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers, we represent the client Steele and Son.
This phase of Turtle Creek subdivision No. 1 consists of 73 lots on about 22 acres with a
density of about 3.25 on this development. It is in substantial conformance with the
approved preliminary plat (inaudible) July. The plat comments that the City staff has made
I believe most of them are technical in nature and we can address the concerns they have
with the exception of possibly item 1 on the City Engineer's list which addresses the
landscape strip along North Linder Road. The preliminary plat was approved with a 10
foot wide strip and it was our understanding at the time that the 10 foot common lot along
with the adjacent right of way available would be adequate for the buffering. That is the
way the preliminary plat was approved. And that is how the final plat has been presented
to you. The same comment was made by Shari Stiles regarding the landscape buffering
as well. Item 7 on Shari's comment list is a little unclear to me, the pretiminary plat was
prepared in conjunction with adjoining properties and at that time there was a preliminary
plat that was called Tumble Creek which we coordinated the street design and made
available the block split at that particular point. So I guess there are some unclear items
about the 1000 foot (inaudible). During the design phase which we haven't submitted the
the City Engineer at this point, w~e have run into a little bit of a snag with the sanitary sewer
system and to resolve that conflict we had to provide sewer access to the east of the
project. The original concept was to go through that Tumble Creek Subdivision north of us.
But due to some scheduling problems we had to re-route the first phase sewer. As a
consequence to that we had to add a 20 foot common lot to get access to that sewer which
is on the east side of Five Mile Creek or the east side of Linder Road. So consequently
we adjusted the plat to accommodate that 20 foot strip, I just brought these along to show
the Council (inaudible) for sanitary sewer easement. The balance of the subdivision is
identical to what you have seen in your packets. The only adjustment has been the 20 foot
strip and w~e accommodates by sliding some of the lots around that first phase and actuaify
had to eliminate to make room for that 20 foot strip. So if you have any questions I would
be glad to entertain them at this point.
Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Lee?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I have one, have you pursued that pressurized irrigation any
more(inaudible). And also talked to Mr. Stubblefieid over there about it, about have they
had any designs or anything that they have proposed as far as what size of pumps they
need or where it is going to be or are they going to use the water out of Five Mile Creek
(inaudible).
Lee: We have met with both Settler's Irrigation and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
about that issue. And it was the opinion of Nampa Meridian that we should located that
~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 14
•
pump station on the Five Mile Creek. By doing that it allows us access to waters that
vv~ouldn't be available during normal irrigation seasons. So it will take care of the water in
the spring and fall of the year. But yes we are in the middle of doing a design for that
facility and yes we do want to talk to you about sizing those pumps. It would be a good
opportunity for the City to participate I suppose to a certain amount in developing a pump
station that can do both Tulfy park and the subdivision. And at some future date it could
be expanded to even take care of Tumble Creek.
Tolsma: Lot 6 here that would probably (inaudible), this walkway type situation here
(inaudible).
Lee: It could be, we haven't designed the distribution pipe on that yet, but we've got to
cross Linder Road in some fashion and that would be as good a place as any. But our
experience has been the pipe line is routed along the back of the lots. But is under design
consideration and I do want to talk to you.
Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Lee?
Tolsma: One other one, on this 1000 foot, this stub street, this I think was (inaudible). The
stub street still goes through for Tumble Creek Subdivision right?
Lee: That is our intent, of course phase 1 doesn't address that but when we get into that
second phase that is where we would like to go.
Kingsford: And that does line up with the street that Tumble Creek has coming out of
Lee: (Inaudible) original preliminary plat, I haven't seen the revised one or the modified
plat, I assume it is in the same location.
Tolsma: Tumble Creek's middle section will still line up with (inaudible).
Kingsford: They have got some problems with block length that I think maybe would be
a good idea if your engineer got with their engineer and see if there couldn't be 2 streets
to go through there or something. They have some confinements on Ustick and Linder and
to the east. Here is an opportunity that is a better access to go through the 2 subdivisions.
I think that you need to coordinate that perhaps with them.
Lee: Maybe we can shift one around and put a second one in somewhere.
Kingsford: Remedy their block length problem and possibly yours as well, I haven't scaled
that. Any other questions or comments of Council?
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 15
•
Morrow. I have some of Gary and Shari, I would like to hear their thoughts.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Morrow.
Morrow: Item #17, there seems to be a conflict between what Mr. Lee is discussing and
what your comment is.
Smith: I guess the reason that I raised that question is because of what we have been
requiring on other plats that are on section line roads that have a 90 foot right of way. And
I concur with Mr. Lee that it wasn't brought up at the preliminary plat at least I didn't bring
it up at the preliminary plat stage I don't believe. But the concem has been to get an
adequate berm to provide a barrier to what could be a 5 lane roadway at some point in the
future. That would be 4 trave{ {anes with a center turn 1ane. And whether or not we are
all here to see that happen remains to be seen but I think that the plan is to be able to
provide that kind of a s#reet section at some point in the future and the section in our
ordinance that Dave Collins quoted earlier concerning barriers to this type of distraction
you might say. I do request a 20 foot wide strip. This has been provided in a couple
different ways one, in several places is being provided as a planting strip easement, in
other places it is being provided as a common area lot v~rould contain the berm. I recall on
Candlelight subdivision on North Ten Mile Road they had a 40 foot wide plant strip there.
It is an easement in that case but it was platted as a 40 foot wide and if you notice when
you travel North Ten Mile that berm is substantial in size.
Kingsford: On that subject t just offer up that the property to the immediate north of there
that is an issue there too. Whether it be 10 or a common lot or an easement, so what you
address here is going to carry onto the north as well. Other questions for Mr. Smith?
Morrow. I have none, I have a coupie of questions of Shari with respect to her comments.
Would you review your thoughts on items 2 through 7 for me please on your letter of
September 1 st.
Stiles: Mayor and Council, Councilman Morrow, #2 is concerning the landscape strip, we
have been requiring the 20 foot landscape strip on all of the developments who come in,
particularly on the Section line roads. It is specifically mentioned in the findings and I
vwuld ask that if that is not going to be continued that it not be put in the ~ndings because
that is what I have to use for the development agreements. Buffering along the east
boundary, that was requested in my first letter and that was because the larger parcels
there to protect them from all the homes in their backyard. Perimeter fencing has been
required in al1 of our development agreements because of the trash blowing even during
the street construction there has been a problem. The development agreement has been
required on everything that has been annexed since September of last year. Number 6,
.
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 16
•
secure approvals from the appropriate irrigation district's. We have also had problems in
the past of people either covering up the ditches completely or treating the ditches in a
way that has not been approved by the irrigation district's. So in order to have that in our
files that is why I request that.
Morrow. Number 7 is the one that (inaudible}.
Stiles: Number 7 was more of an informational, sorry Gary I didn't' mean to catch you off
guard, I tried to call him this aftemoon. {t seems to be a problem with this subdivision and
the one to the north that there wilt be approximately 500 homes and only one access
betw~en the 2. And the excessive block lengths. For pedestrian and emergency vehicles
I know we can't require them to do that but I would like to see if Mr. Lee could work with
his client and at least have one additional street going through there so they are not
having to go clear out to the main roads to go in between the subdivisions.
Kingsford: Other questions for Shari?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, Shari your #2 comment and Gary's #17 (inaudible) you are saying 5.
Stiles: He is showing it as only 10 feet wide and I believe it was f feet wide on the last
submittal that we got.
Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council?
Morrow. Comment, (End of Tape) I think that this kind of falls into the same category as
Haven Cove did earlier, I have a problem of things that Gary and Shari have aHuded to
and that Gary Lee has talked about in terms of coordinating with the subdivision that is
immediately to the north. It also I am reasonabte certain that within the not too distant
future Linder Road will be a five lane road and I don't' think a 5 foot or a 10 foot berm is
adequate. It looks to me like there ought to be some coordination so that vrre as a Council
are not forced back into a corner on one subdivision or the other. And that those
alignments make good sense to me from the standpoint of 500 homes with one cross street
becomes by default almost a collector or could be. It seems to me that we need some
coordination there and it might be to the City's benefit to table for a couple weeks to allow
for those things to be worked out.
Kingsford: Any other comments of the Council? Are you prepared to take an action?
Morrow. I would move that we table this plat for 2 weeks to allow for some coordina#ion
for our staff, the developer and the developer of Tumble Creek.
.
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 17
Corrie: Second
n
~J
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 1 until
the next Council meeting, requesting that the engineers coordinate some things and work
with staff, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
iTEM #14: FINAL PLAT: FIRE LIGHT ESTATES SUBDtViSION, 27 LOTS BY RUNNING
BROOK ESTATES INC:
Kingsford: Does Council have questions on that issue?
Morrow. Again I would like to see a short presentation.
Kingsford: Is the developer or representative here?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Gene Smith, 1 am with Hubble
Engineering representing the applicant in this matter. Fire Light Estates is a 27 lot
subdivision, single family subdivision located on Ten Mife, west of Ten Miie South of
Ustick. The final plat is in general conformance with the approved preliminary plat which
was previously approved by City Council on July 19. We have received read and can
compiy with the staff recommendations which are in your packet. I w~ould be glad to
answer any questions or concerns you might have.
Morrow. Those staff recommendations are the ones that were memorandum from Gary
Smith our City Engineer dated September 1 st and from Shari Stiles the Planner dated also
September 1 st, you are in agreement with both of those?
Smith: Correct.
Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Questions for staff'?
Morrow I have none they have agreed to the conditions that our staff has asked for and
so.
Kingsford: is there a motion?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the final plat for Fire Light Estates subdivision
subject to meeting the conditions of City staff.
.
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 18
Corrie: Second
•
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by 8ob to approve the final plat for Fire Light Estates
Subdivision conditioned upon meeting the recomrrrendations of staff, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FAWCETT MEADOWS NO.
2 BY RONALD H~NRY:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Henry or his designee
to speak first.
Ronald Henry, 6301 Charleston Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Henry: This variance is really a request for permissio~ to allow existing buildings on Lot
9 and 10 of Fawcett Meadows No. 2 to remain. These buildings are less than what we
have set up as the set backs, 10 foot setbacks. Both I think , there are 2 buildings there
that have a total distance of about 10 feet between them. So what this variance is
requesting is permission to leave them as is.
Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Henry?
Morrow: You have read the comments of staff?
Henry: Yes
Morrow. And are in agreement with those?
Henry: Yes
Morrow. I have rto other questions.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this variance
request for Fawcett Meadows No. 2? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council
members.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, 1 would move that we instruct the City Attomey to prepare findings of
fact and Conclusions of law.
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 19
Tolsma: Second
~ J
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law on the variance request for Fawcett Meadows No. 2, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRAMBLE WOOD SUBDIVISION BY HARDEE
CONSTRUCTION:
Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fort Street, Boise, was sv~rorn by the City Attorney.
Hutchinson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this is a 13 lot residential subdivision
located on the north side of Ustick Road a little more than a 1/4 mile east of the
intersection of Ustick and Ten Mile. This is contiguous to the city limits which is on the
south side of the centerline of Ustick Road making this parcel contiguous. We are
requesting annexation with a zoning designation of R-4. The preliminary plat has gone
through a number of revisions as we attempt to comply wi#h the requirements and
comments from the City staff and to ensure that the plat is in compliance with the
requirements of the R-4 zoning regulations that are in effect at this time. We have
indicated on the plat the location of an existing flood hazard area, I believe it is in an A
zone. We have provided a 20 foot ptanting strip easement along the lots adjacent to
Ustick Road, those will be parts of Lots 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 1. I believe that v~ould
satisfy the requirements as called out in the zoning ordinance. I believe the applicant is
here to address some of the things that were in the findings of fact from the Planning and
Zoning Commission. However we do believe that this plat is in compliance with the
regulations that are in effect at this time. Are there any questions from the Council?
Dan Hardee, 6477 Fairview, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hardee: The only thing that we would like to have you look at for us is on the the 2 lots
that face Ustick Road, what we would like to do there rather than have an association for
the maintenance maybe put a deed restriction in each lot that would allow for the
maintenance for that lot so it would be a separate lot that vu~uld be part of Lot 1 and then
we would put a deed restriction in there so that the owner would have to maintain that
along with his own home. I don't think that would be too much of a problem in that they
~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 20
•
are going to want to keep that property in good shape anyway and it seems a little
cumbersome to have an association to do just those 2 little strips of land. So that was the
only comment that we had. Any questions.
Morrow. You are proposing a subdivision with no homeowners association is that correct?
Hardee: Yes
Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Anyone else from the public that would
like to offer testimony on this issue?
John Schaffer, 2788 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Schaffer: I own the piece of property 4.5 acres to the vvest of the proposed subdivision.
1 vwuld request that a w~ood fence or something similar to that be constructed between the
2 properties with a neighbor friendly type fence. Also, I v~ould request that a fence be
installed at the dead end road (inaudible) to the v~st. I v~rould also ask that the review
team look at the elevations and contour lines for the flood plain in this area to verify the
floodplain. It also brings up some questions with the sewer line running along the
easement along Five Mile Drainage, how this will be installed, be a water type system or
an elevated type system. Ifi it is the elevated type system will the v~ather proof type road
have to be elevated to meet the requirements to elevate the manholes out of the
floodplain. If that is the case the run off to my property does run to Five Mile I vvould
request that a run off culvert or something be installed underneath that roadway for the
collection of the irrigation water that does run to the north. Also I would like to take a look
at how the irrigation water if there is a head gate that feeds the property from the south
side to the property how that will be handled. They did address the homeowners
association, they would prefer not to, I woutd like to see a homeowners association if
possible. I realize it is a small subdivision but that one person may not take of the fences
or the trees or the landscape betvu~een their property and Ustick Road. And an association
is a little more aggressive I guess with the entrance of their subdivision. That is about all
1 have.
Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Schaffer? Anyone else from the public that w~ould like to offer
testimony on this issue?
Stacie Tully, 2510 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tully: Our property is directly east of the proposed Bramble Wood subdivision. The first
item I vwuld like to address is the preliminary plat application that was received by the City
of Meridian on April 14, 1994. On the first page paragraph 3, it states the 4.19 acre site
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 21
presentfy contains a single family dwelling and 3 detached accessory buildings. That
statement is incorrect, that is a description of our property. 7he Bramble Wood proposed
subdivision is a piece of bare land (inaudible). The next thing is when v~ne attended the last
Planning & Zoning meeting on August 9 we were finally allow~ed to see a detailed map of
the property. On that map it showed the sewer line stopping approximately 80 feet west
of our property line. We vwuld like to have that line but all the way to the property line so
in later years is w~e decide to develop we could hook into the line and not have to tear up
the street. The next concem is our w~est pasture that borders that property, we have cattle
in it all year round. We would like to see a fence put up there before any building begins
so ~nre don't have trash blowing over or thrown over into our property. And then I would also
like to have a homeowners association too like Mr. Schaffer mentioned.
Kingsford: Any questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony
on this issue? Seeing none l will close that public hearing, Counselor are the comments
different substantially?
Crookston: I don't believe that Mrs. Tufly testified before Planning and Zoning. I don't
think her comments are, they are more specific than what she wants than was addressed
at Planning & Zoning.
Kingsford: You didn't answer my question.
Crookston: I know it. I would have to look at the P& Z findings again to real{y make a
judgement call as to whether or not we need amended findings.
(tnaudible)
Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to have the City Attorney review and prepare
amended findings if that is appropriate.
Yerrington: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare revised
findings and conclusions, all those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
tTEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THUNDER
CREEK SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
U
Meridian City Council
Sep#ember 6, 1994
Page 22
•
Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Mike Shrewsberry, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Shrewsberry: This is a map of the preliminary plat of Thunder Creek Subdivision. It is 21
lots on about 6.75 acres. It is located on North Ten Mile Road just north o# Pine Avenue.
This was brought up to Planning & Zoning Commission in June, they had a question
reg~rding the geometrics configuration of Lot 13 Block 1. And regarding the flag
designation of the property. They requested tabling that v~ might submit some redesigns
of this area in order to try ~nd alleviate this question here. Unfortunately our efforts were
not really successful this has proven to be the most optimal design of the subdivision given
the unique geometric configuration of the property itself. The application went back to
Planning & Zoning Commission and I believe they offered up an a~rmative
recommendation for your action tonight. If you have any other questions I would be happy
to entertain them.
Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Shrewsberry?
Morrow. You have incorporated all of the comments from Gary Smith and Shari Stiles as
per their letter of the 23rd of June?
Shrewsberry: Yes sir.
Morrow. And the 17th of June?
Shrewsberrry: Yes sir.
Kingsford: Any other questions of Mr. Shrewsberry?
Corrie: There is a comment by the Fire Chief that if the city allows this subdivision with
only one way in and out the subdivision should have a path for evacuation, do you have
that pathway?
Shrewsberry: There is no dedicated pathway that is with this particular design. ACHD has
required a stub to the south be made part of this subdivision for an access. This property
to the south and provide an eventual way to Pine Avenue. This is a re-development of an
earlier subdivision that you all had seen about a year ago. That previous design did not
include this feature to it.
Corrie: So in other words you don't have one.
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 23
Shrewsberry: No sir.
•
Kingsford: Mike, if ! may, what is the gray area that goes off of that one?
Shrewsberry: The gray area is surface drainage retention area for storm drainage. And
the greenish area here is sanitary sewer corridor to serve the property located on the
northeast side of the Eight Mile Lateral.
Kingsford: And the storm drainage retention is a separate lot.
Shrev~ssberry: Yes sir it would be a separate dedicated lot.
Kingsford: Any other questions fo~ Mr. Shrewsberry? Anyone else from the public that
would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing.
Morrow. Questions of Gary and Shari, you are satisfied that all of your requirements have
been met concerning this issue.
Kingsford: They answ~ered in the affirmative. Is there a motion from the Council.
Morrow. t would move fhat w~e approve the preliminary plat for Thunder Creek Subdivision.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the preliminary plat for Thunder
Creek subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THUNDER CREEK
SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: At this time I will open that publie hearing and invite Mike to address that first.
Mike Shrewsberry, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Shrewsberry: The request for variance is to enable the developer to fence the boundary
of the Eight Mile Lateral as opposed to adherence to the City code requirement for piping
of irrigation laterals as they border residential subdivisions. It is our position that in this
area the Eight Mile Lateral is still a major irrigation faciiity and it would require a pipe in
excess of 48 inch diameter. We have 2 previous developments further upstream on this
~ ~'
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 24
lateral in which similar variances were granfied, Hunts Bluff No. 2 and Salmon Rapids
Subdivision. It also enabled the developer to enter into a license agreement with Nampa
Meridian lrrigation District in order to specify the type of fencing involved to their
satisfaction as well as the developer's.
Morrow: You have done the calculation to indicate that it is going to be in excess of 48
inches?
Shrewsberrry: No sir w~e have not done specific calculations.
Morrow. How do we know it is going to be an excess of 48?
Shrewsberry: The size and the volume of water that is observed in the lateral at this time
of year.
Morrow: It seems to me ihat the other 2 subdivisions that you are referring to were at
essentialiy Locust Grove and Overland v~ere they not?
Shrewsberry: Yes sir.
Morrow: And that is 2 miles as the crow flies from this location?
Shrewsberry: About a mile and a half, but the facility is still located within a 60 foot of right
of way, it is still a major facility in this area.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Corrie: There will be a homec~wners association as well with this one or you don't knovV?
Shrewsberry: 1 would imagine there would be, I don't know any specifics regarding that.
1 believe that the representative of the developer is here and ~nrould be able to answer that
specific question if you wish an elaboration?
Corrie: Primarily the area behind that fencing is going to need v~ark, sudden{y it is fenced
and left up to nothing and weeds and everything else grows back there.
Shrewsberry: I imagine that vwuld be part of the license agreement with Nampa Meridian
as far as maintenance is concerned.
Corrie: That is all I have Mr. Mayor.
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 25
•
Kingsford: Do you have any other questions for Mr. Shrewsberry? Anyone else from the
public that vwu{d like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public
hearing. Council members.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I would move we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact
and conclusions of law for the variance request for Thunder Creek Subdivision by Farwest
Developers.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law on the variance request for Thunder Creek Subdivision by
Farwest all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
lTEM #19: PUBLIC H~ARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS:
Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Jim Rees, 707 North 27th, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rees: This is a request for annexation for a subdivision which witl consist of a zero lot line
duplexes for senior citizens which fall under the HUQ program for over 55 years of age.
It is located close to services, it is really an enclave at this point in time with a multi family
housing project here, another one that has been approved in this corner, Meridian Mobile
Manor is on the east. There is a slight amount of vacant land in Alberton's shopping center
to the east and west. We propose a single access because there is no other place to put
an access unless we put another one across the canal. And it is our understanding that
for security reasons most of the senior citizens would like to have something they can call
secure. The developer wold actually like to have a private road and put a gate out here
so that it could be closed at 9:00 at night so they v~uldn'fi have people going through it.
If that is not something that the City would desire than it w~ould be, Ada County Highway
District has approved the plans. They did request an access out to the north and west,
which we don't feel is a good idea because it v~ould break down the security. Actually this
is a farm up here at this point in time and we have no idea when it might be developed.
If there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. I think the report from staff
and findings of fact and conclusions of law are something the developer can live with.
• •
Meridian City Councii
September 6, 1994
Page 26
Kingsford: Any questions?
Morrow. You have read Shari's and Gary's comments with respect to their letters of July
11 th in Gary's case and July 8th in Shari's case and have no problem with them.
Rees: Yes I have and see no problem with them.
Morrow: ! have a major problem with Mr. Smith's item #15, could you elaborate on that
please?
Rees: Well, obviously we went to college together.
Morrow. That is a good reason to tum this down.
Rees: I am not sure he qualifies to #etl the truth about it.
Morrow. Oh, he is younger than you?
Rees: I believe that is true.
Morrow. I see
Kingsford: Does that mean it took you ionger to get through college?
Rees: It probably did.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor t would comment again, the Fire Department, of course they are always
concemed with one way in and one way out of any place that has a high density. Can you
hald that up just a little bit 1 can't quite see it, thank you. Security I can see, He had made
a comment, have you seen his comment, you saw that.
Rees: (Inaudible) my client has even talked to the developer of this (inaudible) to be able
to get temporary access up here to go in and ~hop the vveeds down and he will not allow
that.
Tolsma (Inaudible)
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue?
Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council members, there were findings
prepared, t assume Counselor those have not been (inaudible).
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 27
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I w~ould move we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as
approved by P & Z.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law prepared from Planning & Zoning, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VQTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRfED: Alf Yea
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: 1 haven't looked at the findings recently but I am sure they require a
development agreement before the ordinance is passed.
Kingsford: Likewise the next item will be of similar nature.
Crookston: What is your decision on the ordinance?
Kingsford: I w~ouldn't think it w~ould hurt to draw one conditioned upon it not be passed until
such time as the development agreement is reached if that is the Council's prerogative.
Marrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attomey prepare the
ordinance annexing and zoning it w~ould not be approved until the development agreement,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #20: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Rees to speak first.
Jim Rees, 707 N. 27th, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
• •
Meridian City Counci{
September 6, 1994
Page 28
Rees: The reason w~e need a cond~tional use permit fior this is in the ordinance in the R-8
zone which w~e have requested we have lots that are smaller than the ones that would be
required w~e have some 42.5 foot frontage lots for duplexes. We could have requested an
R-15 but once one of those zones are passed then it is not what we need. The R-8 takes
care of it and with the conditional u5e permit we can proceed. If there are any questions,
I know you have a long agenda tonight.
Kingsford: Any questions o# Mr. Rees? Anyone else from the public that vwuld like to offer
testimony on the conditional use permit request? Seeing none I will close that public
hearing. Do we need findings on that Counselor.
Crookston: Findings have been prepared.
Morrow: 1 move vve approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as approved by
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the findings of fact and conctusions
of law as prepared for Planning & Zoning, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: A!I Yea
Kingsford: We need to act on the conditional use, is that part of the devetopment
agreement as well.
Crookston: Well, it is and you can't act on the conditional use until it is annexed.
Kingsford: Would it be necessary to table it?
Crookston: It would be, you can table it until the time of the action on the annexation
ordinance.
Kingsford: It doesn't have to be a date certain?
Crookston: 1 think that is a date certain.
Tolsma: I would move w~e table the conditional use permit until such time as the ordinance
is read (inaudible).
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 29
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Bob to table the request for conditional use permit
until such time as the annexation ordinance is adopted, all those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: That will be a book keeping nightmare, stafF inake sure that gets on the agenda
with that ordinance then.
ITEM #21: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
GROVE RUN SUBDIVISION BY JLG BUILDERS:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, 1 w~ould ask that since Mr. Glaisyer and I are the best of friends and
atso business associates that I be allowed to step aside during this public hearing with
your permission and the Council's permission to avoid any appearance of conflict of
interest.
Kingsford: 1 think that is appropriate, step down.
David Bailey, 870 North Linder, Suite B, was swom by the City Attomey.
Bailey: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Council members the project Grove Run subdivision
is 5 acres in a rural transitional zone on Locust Grove north of Fairview it is on the edge
of the city limits and the developer is requesting annexation and a zone designatian of R-8.
It is adjacent to R8 in Gem Park Subdivision and in the County R8 in Doris subdivision
which R8 in the County is a different zone designation altogether than the R-8 in the city
of Meridian. It is somewhat of a difficult site in that the frontage of approximately 250 feet
and it deveioped all around the property. In discussions with the Ada County Highway
District the need 50 feet of right o# way through there and in discussions with the City
Engineer he also said he would like to see about 50 feet of right of way through there.
Given the setbacks that iimits the size of building that can go in this lot here. In addition
there is no other convenient access point to get out of the subdivision so there is a rather
long run with a culdesac which does exceed the 450 foot limit for the City of Meridian code.
The develo~er proposes to put duplexes in the R-8 zone, R-8 would allow up to 40 units
in this area. We feel it is a good in fill project in this area, there is sev~er and water
availabte and to provide services to it. It is close to Fairview for access to the arterial. We
had submitted the annexation request to the planning and zoning commission who had
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 30
•
recommended denying the application based on lack of detailed plans. We had not as yet
submitted a preliminary plat. The deveioper requested after the planning and Zoning
commission that the project be tabled based on that and based on the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So we are here tonight to conduct the public
hearing, the developer is requesting that it be tabled rather than denied as recommended
by the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We are in the process of v~rking together
detailed plans of preliminary to first submission to planning and zoning.
Kingsford: Any questions? For the record a proposal was submitted a reasonably detailed
sketch of what would was happening. It was designated as I understand i# as being ~If
duplex separate ownership and all of that. Very simi~ar to the Brandon Creek in that it will
apply to that older group in terms of finance. That was submitted it just didn't get to
planning and zoning, it was just submittal and it didn't get out to them. That was part of
the reason for their findings. Any questions? Anyone else from the public that vu~uld like
to offer testimony on this issue?
Steve Jensen, 1420 W. Washington, Boise, was svrrorn by the City Attorney.
Jensen: I just wanted to thank you Mayor and Council members, I just wanted to address
you a little bit further on this request both on behalf of the devetoper and the property
owner. This particular property as the engineer described has been, it is definitely an in
fill project, it has Gem Park subdivision to the north and the west and a rural type
subdivision to the south of it, I don't recall the name of that particular subdivision. It has
to be an in fill type of project. The owner of the property, Grant and Carol Richards bought
the property in 1992 and did occupy the property for a period of time they no longer occupy
the property, during the course of their ownership of that property they have w~orked
closely with the Ada County Highway District to allow for a storm, sevver, tile coming out
of Gem Subdivision and has been accommodating in those regards. Because this piece
of property is a rural piece of property and the one residence that sits on their now the
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has a tile that runs along the east border of the property
along Locust Grove Road that tile regu{arly overflows when they put water in that ditch
system there. It has caused the owner a lot of problems it has overflown the septic system
and contaminated the w~ell to the point he is probably going to have to hook that house up
to the city water system. It is not leaving him with a whole lot of options where he can go
with this particular piece of property. Once again I w~ould like to also reiterate on the behalf
af the developer that his plans for the project is a 2 family dwelling or a 2 unity dv~lling,
I hesitate to use the word duplex because as the Mayor pointed out because they are
certainly targeted for individual ownership however there will only be 2 units in each
building. We think certainly the market in Meridian could withstand this type of a
development in that v~e are targeting senior citizens and perhaps single adults for the
buyers of this piece of property. We would think that in that likelihood it is probably going
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 31
•
to not add too much additional pressure to the already overcrovu~ded school system. We
also feel though that w~e can bring this project on line in a price point that will be attractive
to the seniors of the City of Meridian and not force them out of the market or to single
adults of the city of Meridian and we would request your consideration on that. That is
really a{I I have to say.
Kingsford: Thank you Mr. Jensen (End of Tape}
Jay Jones, 1426 N. Carol, was sv+rorn by the City Attomey.
Jones: I trust that you have read my previous or a description of my comments in the
findings of fact and conclusions of law. A few concerns that I have, I live directly sough
of this property. The dwellings would be about 15 feet off of my property and 2 of them
would be abreast the back of my property. Which would be 4 units to back fence. First
of all I wauid like to address the issue of Gem Park being listed as an R-8, it may be listed
as an R8 but there is no R-8 housing in that area, it is currently developed in an R-3 and
R-4 subdivision and there are no duplexes in that area. There are further down beyond
the school directly adjacent to this property. It v-rould be more adequate stated it is an R-3
or an R-4. The subdivision which I tive in which is called Doris Subdivision is a County R8
which in the terms we are talking about is about an R.75, about 4 units per 5 acres. A
contrast to the 40 units they are proposing. The greatest concern that 1 have and the
neighbors that live near me is the great increase in density and the great change that it
would be in that area. With all do respect to the builders, or the developer that wants to
put in this nice project I think there are a couple other concems that vu~ee should encount
on. First of all, they have proposed as being a senior center, there is nothing to restrict
that, no recreation center to call it a senior center. Also, there is no park area in this part
of the whole ci#y. All of Gem Park, Hunters Point, Chateau Meadows and all of the
surrounding areas there are no recreational facilities except for the elementary school on
Chateau Road. The other thing he talked about was the class of people that might move
in there, there are no provisions that would limit anyone from coming into that area. 40
units could bring anywhere from 40 to 100 kids who knows, maybe maybe not. Already
Chief Joseph is over loaded with elementary kids as you all know. Those are my biggest
concerns, I would not like to see the higher density. I think there can be other projects
proposed for this particular piece of ground that wouldn't create such a high density in that
area. tf for any chance this was approved for this particular use I w~ould really desire that
it only listed as an R-8 on the condition that it is developed as proposed rather than it be
an open book after it has been annexed to where they can develop any kind of property
which I think is a very great concern for those in our particular area. Any questions.
Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Jones?
~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 32
•
Jon~s: I w~ould ask that the City Council deny it on the basis of density and that v~e go in
there with something compatibie with what is in the area.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public?
Liz Gwen, 1515 S. Carol Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Gwen: I live in Doris subdivision and I too have objections to this high density
development right next to our subdivision which is more or less i think our tots range from
an acre and a quarter to a 1/3 of an acre. Also we have a higher values in our homes
there than I w~ould say than even Gem Park and the surrounding area. So, this I guess is
going to be about $90,000 a unit or something so I object to the high density there and
also to the price range because there is no guarantee that we v~on't get families in there.
Also, whatever is developed in there I would like to see a written agreement of some sort
that the buyers might have to sign that they will realize that we have animals and live stock
in our subdivision. We are allowed 3 stock animals and there are mules currently on one
acreage that would be right adjacent to #hat. So I would like to see that in writing in the
agreement. Another thing is in listening to previous testimony on other projects I like the
idea of having a sturdy screen type fence being put up before construction because you
do get a lot of dirt and debris whenever the wind blows in construction which we have sort
of been living with around there for the last 2 or 3 years. So that is something that I vu~uld
like to see whatever happens there. I think that is about it. But I pretty much agree with
Mr. Jones on the density issue.
Kingsford: Any questions? Anyone else from the public?
Kathleen Coulter, 2095 N. Amethyst, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Coulter: I live in Gem Park No. 1, I live on Lot 27, my property is directly north of this
planned subdivision. As a matter of fact this is the first I heard of it tonight when I walked
in the door at 7:00. I was not notified and I do believe that as a property owner directly
adjacent to this I shouid have had some sort of notification. The only reason I did get any
kind of notification is a gentlemen that used ~o live in our subdivision just happened to
come by and handed my husband a notice of the hearing tonight or I would not have been
here. My eoncerns are the f2-8 zoning, it is too compact, I don't know if you gentlemen
have seen this property I also know that the access in and out only one way woutd be very
long and the road would have to go directly behind my property. I am worried about the
noise and putting 40 units back there is going to create a lot of traffic. We also have an
overtaxed water system since I have lived there I have only lived there since 1991, !
reatize that I am a new comer to some of the people here, but my water system, i can't
even water my lawn anymore. My sprinkler system doesn't even go off at certain times
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 33
during the day. If 1 have my shower going and the sprinkler going at the same time all you
get is a trickle if you try to get water. With 40 more units back there you are taxing an
already over taxed system. You are taxing an over exed system, I am not for not
developing it because right now all it is is a pile of weeds. ! just think there needs to be
more planning than R-8. Thank you.
Kingsford: Anyone efse?
John Jensen, 2100 North Amethyst, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Jensen: We liue right on the comer, it vwuld probably be, our back yard would go right up
against the development. The first thing again is notification, a neighbor brought me one
notification as t was heading off to football practice at 6:00 and i found out when I stopped
back by the house that w~e w~ere notified at approximately 4:00 by handing the notification
to my year old daughter which I consider shaky at best as far as for this big of a project.
The question, I am not sure, is there a plat developed yet or a preliminary plat to where the
road wili go, is it going to be a long culdesac as I understand with development on both
sides of it?
Kingsford: It is our understanding yes the plat has not been completed.
Jensen: Some people spoke of similar dwellings somewhere else in the Meridian area,
do we have an address where similar dwetlings to see what would be going in there?
Kingsford: The similar one is the one that was just approved, 3 or 4 agenda items ago.
Jensen: So we have nothing on the ground that we can go look at.
Kingsford: I think there are some in Boise and the developer would be glad to show you
those or the realtor. I think the proposed developer of this has done a similar one in Boise.
Jensen: I noticed the real estate agent brought up the fact that basically the person that
bought the property is not saying that it is not useful except for this type of development.
We moved in we were the third house in the Gem Park Subdivision, it has turned into a
pile of weeds but prior to that it was a very successful farm run by a couple back there, it
was very well kept, green and cattle and horses and a pretty nice development. I am
certain that maybe somebody else were marketed to that type of person they coeald find it
as an alternative to a high density subdivision or a high density building. That would be
my biggest complaint is that I think the water system, schools and w~e can't control. I would
say deny just because of the high density factor.
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 34
Corrie: Who do you think will (inaudible)
Jensen: (Inaudible)
David Stucker, 2490 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Stucker: Mine are going to be a little bit the same so I will be brief, and also I didn't' have
a lot of notification that was my fault I was out of town. 1 talked to, one of my concems is
notification in trying to gather information quickly I talked to either 3 or 4 homeowners that
were directly adjacent that didn't know about it. That is a concern of mine t v~rold iie to see
at least more notification so that the people so close that are going to be involved by the
high density vwuld at least have an opportunity to be heard. And then another one, Chief
Joseph, my understanding is that in some grades are already turning some people away
and that if it doesn't (inaudible) I w~ould think there would be a considerable addition to the
Chief Joseph which f understand is already running at max and over in some grades. One
of my concerns is parks, we seem to be pretty limited in parks in that area already. And
with this I would think there would be even more need for parks and we just don't have
much over there. Let's see I am also concemed about aa:ess, the only access that I could
see in my mind would be onto Locust Grove and that seems to be pretty limited. I would
ask at least that be looked at closely also. I live directly on Locust Grove and I sat for 2
minutes trying to get onto that street now and this is not rush hour. Another concern is that
it would be considerably different and this has already been brought up so I will be brief
but it is considerably different to everything around that I see. I have a concem, and f
suppose this is a selfish one but I have a concern of property values in the area and how
they w~uld be affected. Also I have a question could we get, well it sounds like maybe the
proposal isn't completed yet.
Kingsford: Their preliminary plat is not done.
Stucker: And when that is how would I get a copy?
Kingsford: What the applicant has asked is that vr~ table it after the public hearings since
it was noticed and that they will prepare that for the Council to consider.
Stucker: 1 would ask that, well I have 2 requests, first of all I v~ould really like to see that
pisce go into single family dwellings that are a lot more like those in the area. And another
request would be really careful access onto Locust Grove. And another one is if it
proceeds as it must be and 1 am for progress, but I like progress carefully, I v~uld like to
see some sort of limitation as to how the zoning is handled and the stipulations as to how
the zoning is handled. And also perhaps about retired or singles so that it w~ouldn't be
such an overload on the schools.
. ~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 35
Kingsford: I am checking some of these notifications on certified mailings.
Stucker: I was kind of caught, it was just sold so I de~ivered them their notification.
Kingsford: A certified mailing was sent to you on August 19th.
Stucker: One was sent to me, but in talking with, I was the one that handed a couple of
these folks, I was kind of half going looking for information and half asking if they had
known. 1 had talked to at least 3 owners that were directly adjacent to it that didn't have
any idea of what was going on.
Kingsford: I haven't checked those out was just looking at this, supposedly these come
from the County Assessor and they are the people within 300 feet. Anyone else from the
public that would like to offer testimony on this issue?
Terry Hagen, 2119 Sapphire, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hagen: I vu~uld just say that 1 moved from Boise to Meridian and I wanted to be in a single
family dwelling atmosphere and that is what I would like to see developed in there. And
also because of the overcrowding in Chief Joseph I don't know if my own son is going to
be able to go to that school and we live 2 blocks away. And I agree with everybody else
as far as density building in there. So I will keep it short and sweet those are my concerns.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public?
Don Bryan, 2770 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Bryan: I have a lot of concerns, I have a little trouble arguing about a development that
I don't' know that much about by not seeing a plat. I know this is just the annexation phase
but we are arguing whether it should be annexed R-8 or not and I have concerns along
with the neighbors around there about the R-8 development. I v~ould fike to see R-4, the
type of development that Mr. Glaisyer is putting in there is certainly a lot better than what
it could be, It could be a lot worse. And there are a lot of concerns that I have on the
development. Main4y the location of the access road in and out, the berming and
landscaping on Locust Grove, the time frame of this project when it is going to be taking
place. And the intent on the phasing whether it is all going to happen at one or in phases.
But tike i say it is hard for me to argue the fact when I haven't see a plat of what is going
on, which was stated in the findings. The concern with the traffic, as you know my property
is directly across the street and I have a heck of a time getting out of my driveway if I don't
leave before 6:00 or 6:30. And I know it is not you guys it is Ada County Highway District
but as you all know their budget is like everyone elses and they are about 5 years behind
• •
Meridian City Councif
September 6, 1994
Page 36
on all of their developments. That has been a mess out there for the last five years. So,
and that would have a lot of bearing on that access road coming out from the other side
(inaudible). That would be okay with me, any questions?
Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Bryan? Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will
close the public hearing. The applicant has requested it be tabled pending a preliminary
plat being finalized.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have a question, on findings of fact do v~ need some new
ones.
Kingsford: I don't think there is any question there has been additional testimony.
Probably is appropriate that those be drawn or wait until the preliminary plat goes to
planning and zoning and have them review it, what is your calculation Counselor?
Crookston: We should have amended findings of fact and conclusions, they can be
withheld and not acted on at the pleasure of the Council unti) you receive an additional
recommendation from Planning and Zoning on the annexation and zoning. What is being
requested I assume is to put the development plan together which is not part of the
annexation and zoning. But I think the people's testimony has indicated they ~uld like to
know and if there is additional problems with what comes forward they may want to testify
again on the annexation and zoning.
Kingsford: Well, {ikewise I think the Council would want to have input from the Planning
& Zoning hearing with regard to that plat. Wouldn't we be inappropriate to prepare a
finding now that might be altered at that stage.
Crookston: Could be, I think that is correct.
Kingsford: 1 think the appropriate thing is to table it until we receive recommendation from
P& Z with regard to platting. And also is that amends their view point on annexation and
zoning.
Yerrington: I make that in the form of a motion.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table the request for annexation and zoning
as per the applicant's request until Planning and Zoning has reviewed the preliminary plat.
Corrie: Question, w~e can still make the change if we so desire it to our four at that point?
.
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 37
Kingsford: Yes, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, 1 move we have a 5 minute recess.
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
Kingsford: Let's call the meeting back to order.
~
ITEM #22: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR MERIDIAN MOBILE
ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES:
ITEM #23: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MERIDIAN MOBILE
ESTATES BY TROY GREEN:
Kingsford: This aftemoon at 4:55 P.M. we received a request from Troy Green and
Associates application for annexation and rezoning and conditional use permit, "Dear Will,
1 am requesting a 30 day deferral of public hearing for the above application. My partners
and I are considering other alternatives and wouid like the item tabled." Even so it has
been noticed you have every right to speak on that issue, vve will conduct the public
hearing but recognize that they are requesting it, people will be noticed again and you
would have an opportunity to speak on it again and the chances are that apparently it will
be somewhat changed. Having said that I will open the public hearing and invite the pwner
and his designee if they happen to be here to speak first if not anyone from the public.
Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Bow~cutt: The applicant has requested that I ask for a deferral. I did contact the City last
week, they requested that I get it in writing from him, he was out of town and I could not
get it until this aftemoon. We will not do a presentation this evening. Like the letter states
they are looking at various altematives, I have given them a few recommendations and the
property is owned by 4 different clients or 4 different people and one of them is Northw~est
Nazarene College. So those people are also analyzing the implications of the application
and that is basically why we are not ready at this time. Thank you.
Kingsford: Anyone efse from the public that v~uld like to offer testimony?
Barbara Brudondo, 4p Rose Circle, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Brudondo: My concem is the water and the safety of the road. We live in a mobile home
.
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 38
.
park so I am not against mobile homes, but my concern is the water. Like severat of the
other people say here if somebody else has the water on you don't take a shower. And
if you put 243 mobile homes in there what is going to happen to our water system. Also
getting out onto Franktin Road, right now if you go out there between 6:30 and 8:00 you
better wait 15 minutes or consider that you are going to wait 15 minutes because you just
cannot get across there. It is dangerous for our children to cross #here, they have to cross
to get on a bus and I know that is not your problem but they do have to cross Franklin
Road to get on a bus to go to grade school. So the children up the street would have to do
that too. And that is a major concern. Thank you.
Kingsford: Anyone else?
Craig Cavanaugh, 581 Lindhurst, was sv~orn by the City Attorney.
Cavanaugh: I have a couple of questions for the Council, I guess one I don't quite
understand why they are (inaudible) or why they are asking for as far as the 30 day
leeway, what they are asking to do. And is there anyway around that where we can
(inaudible) residential owners and get it water under the bridge?
Kingsford: Well, an applicant always has a right to file and to attempt to do something with
their property. You couldn't preclude that. Their request is that it be deferred, our action
is since it was noticed you have every right to speak so we will hear that. You will also be
noticed and deal with something else again later. I sense that it might be something
entirely different or could be. Since you are noticed you have every right to speak.
Cavanuagh: I kind of went through this with the Planning & Zoning and I gave my
presentation there and the facts and findings are real adequate and I am sure you guys
have all read the facts and findings of law. The thing that brings to my mind is w~e need
75% of the residents to say yes w~e do approve of a trailer park in that particular area and
there was clearly 100°~ of the people said no. Also the building they w~ere doing or the
property boundaries w~eren't within statutes as far as what you guys require t beiieve within
200 feet of a permanent fixture. So I don't know whether J need to go through this all now
or wait until they try to re-annex it as far as a rezone.
Kingsford: You certainly have another shot at it and v~ do have, if you have something
additional what you put in the findings already feel free to say that if not we do have those
findings and would consider them.
Cavanaugh: They are all pretty much there then.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public?
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 39
~
Mike Wewers, 550 Lindhurst, was sv~rn by the City Attorney.
Wewers: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, for the sake of brevity I am going to
continue to use my crib sheets. Regarding Meridian Mobile Home Estates and with
reference to findings of fact and conclusions of law on this proposal with reference to the
petition in opposition presented to the Planning and Zoning on this proposal and with
reference to the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to deny approvaf of
the mobile home park at the location desired by Troy Green and Estates, w~e the Meradian
residents most affected by Troy Green and Associates inability to proceed and failure to
notify of intentions request th~t a motion be made denying Troy Green and Associates a
deferral or continuance in the matter of annexafion and zoning or conditional use permit.
And that the request for annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit be denied by
the Meridian City Council afi this time, thank you.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public?
Jeremy Scott Swanby, 771 Pennw~ood, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Swanby: 1 have been sitting here for about 3 hours and 45 minutes and to me that is a lot
of my time and I know a lot of the people around here are putting in a lot of their time.
What 1 don't understand is how the developer's can not come to the conctusion or decision
and request a deferral, it seems to me that they have had plenty of time to discuss
befin~en themselves what they want to do. If they want to go ahead with another type of
development in that area I think it should be filed at a later date. And I do request that you
deny the deferral.
ICingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing.
Council members.
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, in reference to the developer's saying they would like to have a table
I would move that we table this request for 2 weeks, 30 days I'm sorry. Since vve don't
know exactly what they have in mind.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob Corrie, secand by Max to table the issue until the October 4th
meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: I share some of your frustrations and it is not great fun to eome to public
~
Meridian City Councii
September 6, 1994
Page 40
l J
meetings, it is getting less and less fun all the time. But you still cannot preclude a
person's property rights and so forth. I apofogize for that and v~e will look forward to your
smiling faces if they come back. One thing before you go, the City Clerk has just made a
comment that makes some sense to me. We are tabling it until the October 4th meeting,
but there is a problem with that in that these folks have to be duly noticed of that. And so
the tabling realfy needs to be amended until such time as the developer has gotten with
us and a date certain has been established and then you would be officially re-noticed. So
I would entertain a motion to change that until the developer has proceeded to meet the
proper notification guideline.
Morrow. So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table it until the Developer has reaehed a
time certain to meet the hearing deadline, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Might logically be w~ell more than the 30 days. You will have to be noticed well
in advanced, what is it 15 days Counselor?
Crookston: Yes
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: Probably the threat that these guys are going to shoot him. We don't like long
meetings either and v~ will be here for a good while yet.
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: I think you can call Mr. Berg and if that is the case he will let you know.
ITEM #24: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PINE
STREET DEVELOPMENT:
Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Corrie: Do we need to table the other too?
~
Meridian City Councit
September 6, 1994
Page 41
~
Kingsford: When I introduced those I commented on both items, (inaudible).
Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bowcutt: Well thank you, it is pleasure to be here. I would like you to know I had my
choice of going to Nampa or Meridian and I chose Meridian and Van is in Nampa. But we
were first on the agenda so 1 don't know maybe I got the short end of the stick. I am
representing the applicant in this matter. As you can see in the staff report the property
is approximately 12 acres in size or a little greater. We did a public hearing before
planning and zoning commission, their recommendation was approval of the R-8 zone.
The property is located off of Locust Grove on the west side just south of Fairview Avenue.
One of the things that I think stands out in this Section 7 is the fact that it is a mixed use
area, you have predominantly R-8 zoning, R-15, L-O and a considerable amount of
commercial which basically runs along Fairview Avenue. Fairview is a major arterial in this
valley, Locust Grove is designated as a minor arterial. The property as you can see sits
right here in this cross hatched area. It is in the unincorporated area of Ada County. The
property abuts the salvage yard, which is just north of us. And then the new Intermountain
Arms facility is going in just north of us also. Just west of us is Danbury Fair Subdivision
that property is zoned R-8 it is developed with homes from the information I have that
range anywhere from 1200 to 1700 square feet in size. The lots when I scale out the lots
they are averaging roughly 6800 to 7000 square feet. I am well aware of Meridian's intent
on trying to move towards the R-4 zone, we did make a commitment at the Planning and
Zoning Commissian that we would not exceed 4 units to the acre. It was not our intent to
do so we do not intend to build duplexes nor have that option available to us. We are
willing to enter into a development agreement. However, one of the things vve have to
consider is this particular area. The fact that it is mixed use we have abutting us some
uses which normally aren't real conducive with say 8,000 square foot lots and 1400, 1500,
1600 square foot homes. The property as I see it, you have that commercial your
transition into that medium residential like Danbury Fair. That is basically what we are
looking for. And then as you transition south, you may find that it goes to a little bit of less
density but then you start getting light industrial zones as you go south towards Franklin
Road. So it is a very unique area. We did agree with all of the statements made in the
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The only one that we had any particular problem
with was the designation that no more than 25% of the houses be between 1200 and 1300
square feet. And that leaves us with 75% must be at least 1300 square feet or greater.
We know that in the zoning ordinance there is flexibility which basically allows 10% 1001
to 1100, 15% to be 1101 to 1200, we are not trying to go that small we are just basically
trying to utilize the property and market it. We are not going to be able to create a Meridian
Greens behind the salvage yard and next to Danbury Fair and that is a market reality. And
I can't do anything about that. It also states that 25°~ must be 1201 to 1300 and then 50%
at 1301. The applicant Mr. Walsh, has indicated that from a marketing perspe~tive he has
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 42
no problem with 50% at 1300 or greater but we do need 50% to be within that 1200 to
1300 range. This is based on what it will cost us to develop the property and based on
marketing perspective an what will sell in that area. It is a very nice area, it has a nice
convenient commute if someone w~ere to v~ork in Boise. Even though we have the salvage
yard it still is a nice piece of property. Services are available in this area. There is a new
well going in at the Treasure Valley Research Center. That was one of the concems that
was brought up by one of the neighbors was, the water pressure out in that area vvould
decrease substantially. It is my understanding that shouid be coming on line in the near
future. We do abut a minor arterial which is Locust Grove that is not real conducive to the
higher end single family dw~ellings either. As far as sewer, this has the ability to sewer off
of Locust Grove and then a portion of it will have to sev~r into Danbury Fair, we have
plans for that we have looked at the inverse. Mr. Walsh has talked with Mr. Baker and I
believe that situation has been solved. We will submitting a preliminary plat on this at this
item we are just requesting annexation and rezone of the property. Do you have any
questions?
Kingsford: Questions for Ms. Bow~cutt? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer
testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor, same as?
Crookston: Yes
Kingsford: Is there a motion to approve the findings?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I vwuld move we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law
as written. Did you have a comment Gary? I would withdraw my motion until Mr. Smith's
comment is made.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, the annexation description that I received in the
packet is not complete. And so I don't see how an ordinance or an annexation can be
written based on that description. I said it in my comments and I haven't received any
word from anybody that there was anything different unless I didn't get it.
Bov~nccutt: We provided the legal description that was give to us from the title report.
Smith: When I tried to trace the one that came in the packet for comments that I received
it made no sense. That is the problem with a lot of these and that is why the resolution
was made recently that these legal descriptions have to be prepared by a professional
land sunreyor. Ar~d they are not title report description, a description that comes out of a
bank, that comes from a real estate agency is not adequate. Very seldom do they describe
the property that is being requested for annexation.
• •
Meridian City Councit
September 6, 1994
Page 43
Bowcutt: We can provide an accurate description of the property. We just basically
submitted the title report with the existing legal descriptions of record. Some of those
maybe oid and some of the oider (inaudible).
Kingsford: Well, I think the appropriate thing is to approve of the findings and conditions
and then not prepare an ordinance until an adequate description has been delivered.
Morrow. That being the case I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as written for and approved by Planning & Zoning.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared for Planning and Zoning Commission, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Nea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: 1 Nea, 3 Yea
Kingsford: We need a motion probably to direct the City Attorney not to prepare an
ordinance until such time as the legal description has been prepared adequately.
Morrow. So moved
Kingsford: I think that vuould be required likewise as a part of annexation as I recall those
findings that the development agreement be submitted and approved.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to hold up preparing an ordinance until such
time as the correct legal description is #ound and also the development agreement has
been submitted and approved, (End of Tape)
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #25: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PINE STREET
DEVELOPMENT:
Kingsford: I will now open the public hearing.
Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
• •
Meridian City Council
September fi, 1994
Page 44
Bowcutt: The applicant has requested that I withdraw the variance. When we originally
submitted it was pertaining to the ditch. We had the Jackson Drain and the Settler's Canal
and he had some reservations about trying to tile it and cost. We did research with
Settler's I met and talked with Shari concerning the policies of the City of Meridian and it
is my understanding that tiles below that 48 inch which you guys have kind of used as a
guideline as what is economically feasible fo pipe. Therefore we went and proceeded and
got some quotes from companies to pipe and the variance issue has moved and it will be
required. I would like to withdraw that application. Thank you.
Kingsford: Having noticed it I have to ask if there is further public comment. I w~ould hope
there w~ould be none since it is being withdrawn. Anyone else from the public that would
like to offer testimony on the variance request. it is being withdrawn and they will pipe the
ditch so the variance is not required, but it was noticed. Seeing no one I will close the
public hearing on that.
Yerrington: t move that v~ deny this request.
Kingsford: Since it has been requested to be withdrawn, it clears it from the agenda, is
that correct Counselor is it appropriate to deny it.
Crookston: It is appropriate to act on the motion.
Kingsford: Is there a second to Mr. Yerrington's motion.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to deny the request, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #26: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
RONALD VAN AUKER:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Van Auker and his
designee to speak first.
James Jones, 3084 Eastland Arc, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Jones: Gentlemen I would like to use the overhead projector if I may. I don't know how
you would like me to use the mike, I would like to be by the projector if I could. We are
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 45
requesting annexation for 172 acres it is located at the intersection at approximately the
northeast comer of {inaudible). This is Eagle Road this is Franklin Road, the property lies
totally within the edge of the Meridian Area of Impact. There is a small portion to the v~est
of Eagle Road. Mr. Van Auker has been a developer in the val{ey for approximately 25
years, he has been around during both the good times and the bad times. He has
committed to this area for the long haul fot 25 years he has been araund, he is committed
to this area. He has a reputation as a builder of quality projects. He has built quality
commercial and industrial buildings throughout that 2~ year period. He has many national
accounts, he has repeat business with national clients over many years. Ron currently
lives in the City of Meridian and if our annexation is approved our offices will then become
part of the City. Mr. Van Auker has v~rorked throughout fihe valley and he selected this
property very carefully the property there is a perfect match between the types of
development that Mr. Van Auker does and the types of development that the City has
p~anned for this particular area. I would Iike to show you now some pictures of some of the
development Mr. Vanauker has done. I think this will give you a good idea of the types of
projects that we would be proposing for the area of annexation. This is the old mutual
creamery building, it is located at 500 South 10th in Boise. It is approximately 22,0~0
square feet, it is leased to the Department of Corrections and it is approximately 5 years
old. I think we did a nice job on that one. This is the other side of that building, it is the
type of quality project that we like to do. This is our office building where our offices are,
this building is part of the annexation and would be annexed into the City. It is
approxima~tely 9600 square feet, it has offices and warehouse it is approximately 1 year
old. We call this the Dines Building it is located at Broadway and Federal Way. It is
148,000 square feet fhe building is totally leased some of the tenants are Airborne
Express, North American Transfer, and the National Interagency Fire Center. This building
is approximately 5 years old. This is the Nickels photo !ab building, it is at TK street ad
Federal Way, it has approximately 6,000 square feet it is 6 years old and if you notice the
panel construction this is called the Van Auker panel, Mr. Van Auker manufactures these
in Nampa and it is a signature of his buildings. They are quite a nice panel and we can
identify his buildings pretty readily by those panels. This is another building on TK Street,
Shannon Distributing 3Q,000 square feet, warehouse, it has a large freezer, office facilities
and is approximately 6 years old. And again the panels. So 1 am showing you these in
response to the findings o# fact which refer to not having a specific plan of development.
These are the type of buildings w~e build, this is about all we build and this is approximately
what you would see in the area to be annexed. This the fluid connector products building,
15,000 square feet, its office and warehouse this building is 5 years old. Again the Van
Auker panels. We have also requested general commercial zoning, where we would have
more of an emphasis on offices and commercial retail. This is the West Boise Industrial
Park it is at Five Mile and Emerald. We have built 4 buildings here. This is office space
and retail, again it is made from panels and w~e believe it is a very attractive building. This
is right on Emerald, the corner of Emerald and Five Mile. This is the type of commercial
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 46
retail that we would propose for the area to be annexed. This is a warehouse building it
is part of that complex, you can see how the 2 blend rather nicely they share a common
parking landscaping. This is the final building in that complex. This is the Big O Tire
building, it is at TK street and Federal Way, it is 92,000 square feet, it has 2 storys of
offices and the building is approximately 6 years old. This is another view of that building.
This building is part of the Jensen Buitding there are 5 buildings it is at Vista Avenue and
1-84. And it is strictly office, the 5 buildings vary befinreen 14,000 to 34,000 square feet.
And these buildings are betw~een 5 and 12 years old. This is a good example af just office
buildings. This is another view of that bui(ding. This is the Meeder Quip buildi~g it is at
4449 Enterprise in Boise, it is 11,000 square feet and this building is 15 years old. This
is an existing building which is included in the annexation this building is located on
Commercial Court and we are asking to bring this building into the City at this time. 1 hope
that shows the type of building and the quality of building that w~e are proposing and that
may put your minds at ease as to what we propose. Now, v+~ were very pleased that
Planning and Zoning recommended that we be annexed, we w~ere very pleased that they
recommended our zoning be adopted. However, there was a portion of their findings
which we found not to follow with the remainder of their findings. In this paragraph this is
page 5 of the findings paragraph 15, "that the property in included within an area
designated on the generalized land use map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a
commerciaf area. That the commercial area is an area that is listed as Mixed Planned Use
development area." I have a copy of the Comprehensive Plan Map and the
Comprehensive Plan Map clearly shows this area is the area that we are reference to for
annexation it is a light gray, it clearly refers to that as a light industrial area. Mixed
Planned Use development is designated by a different color that would be this are here
and this are here and this area here and here. So you can clearly see this is not a Mixed
Planned Use area. Because of that assumption that this is a Planned Mixed Use Area
conditions were imposed on our annexation. Paragraph 14, "that it is concluded that since
the comprehensive plan under land use, Mixed use area at Locust Grove Road and
FairviewAvenue states that all the development requests will be subject to development
review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility. That
such limitation should also apply to land in the area where the property is located." So
what they are trying to do is make a connection here betw~een a mixed use area and a light
industrial area. And through that connection to impose the condition it is therefore
concluded that development of the parcel is conditioned upon being developed as a
commercial or industrial planned development or under the conditional use permit process.
So what they tried to do is make first of all they have mis-classified the land, compounded
that by making a connection beiv~neen mixed use and a light industrial area. I don't believe
that is appropriate and we don't believe that those conditions should apply. In the
comprehensive Plan it clearly shows industrial review areas. The industrial review areas
are an essential element of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, industrial uses of land must
be recognized as having special needs and diverse impacts. Designating certain areas
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 47
~
for business use is a method of guiding business expansion is an appropriate approach
to Meridian's economic future and provides for the essential difference between the City's
business land market and the residential land market. The comprehensive Plan intends
to prepare for Meridian's business and employment future by reserving land for industrial,
retail and commercial and office uses. Those are all uses that we have requested. The
area that we are are requesting the annex, if you notice to the far left there are 2 planned
industrial review areas addressed in this Comprehensive Plan. The eastern is called the
Eagle Road light industrial review area. That is precisely the land that we have requested
be annexed. This differentiates from mixed use which clearly states Mixed use is a
planning category which refers to the coordinated development of several major uses as
part of a single project such as specialty retail, commercial, variable density residential,
offices, motels, industrial service commercial, pubtic and semi-public uses. There is a
definite differentiation in the comprehensive Plan. It should not be confused and cannot
be confused. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to say that it lists specific uses for the
Eagle Road light industrial review area. And these are the uses that differentiate it from
a mixed use area. Under land use for Mixed use area it states if you will notice nowhere
does it state anything about Planned use development or conditionaf use or any of those
categories or conditions. Under mixed use, the mixed use area at Locust Grove Road and
Fairview Avenue now this is the part that is referred to in the findings of fact and the
connection is attempted to be made between this area and our area. It states here all
development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit
processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility. That is precisely the language that is
used in the findings of fact. So what has happened is that an assumption was made in the
findings, it was compounded by an attempt to associate that with our property. When in
fact they are completely separate categories and should be treated, and the
Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for them to be treated differently. Mixed use is the most
restrietive use in the Comprehensive Plan, the industrial review area is the least restrictive.
Because of that w~e w~ould ask that the conditions that were sited in the findings of fact be
eliminated since they do not apply to our area. Now we are very conscious of problems
the city has had with certain uses in a light industrial area. Believe me gentlemen we are
just as concerned as you are that we do not want those types of projects in our
development. We would be happy to cooperate in any way w~e can to ensure that does not
#ake place. However v~e feel that conditional use is so offensive to the development
process that it w~ould literally inhibit us from developing the project. What I have, I would
like to talk a little bit about the conditions that w~ere imposed. Number 1 the mixed use are
our project should not be classified mixed use it clearly is not classified in the
comprehensive plan that way. The conditional use process, 1 figured it out that just tMe
basic process to get a conditional use to build out our project would take us 150 months
of hearing under the best scenario, now every time w~e change the use in there v~e would
have to get a new conditional use in there. So this would go on and on and on for years.
~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 48
•
Kingsford: I think you have made your point in terms of that, t think that is an evaluation
the staff can make and if that is correct. We are all for you.
Jones: I apologize if 1 exaggerated that number. The conditional use is associated with
mixed use it is not associated with the light industrial review area where our property is
located. The industrial planned development is already a conditional use under the light
industrial zoning that we have requested. As to the development agreement we believe
that we would already be subject to all of the ordinances the city has for every other
building under similar zoning. So what I have proposed, or what I would like to propose
is an option that would perhaps satisfy both the Council and us as developers. And what
it is this is a list of all the uses under the light industrial zoning. And there are already 22
conditional uses listed in the zoning regulations and there are 44 permitted uses. What we
w~ould propose is that if there are uses that you vu~uld like to change or there are uses that
you feel wuuld not be something you would want built there that w~e would stipulate if you
w+ere to identify those uses and we would stipulate that those not be a par# of the zoning
approved for this annexation. I have copies of this for you to look at. We have already
stipulated on the second page the 2 permitted uses that we feel v~ would not particularly
want in our development and I am sure the City would not want. Actually 31 is a mistake
because it is already a conditional use, we would already stipulate to recycling yards and
sodway transfer stations. Now if the Council could identify those uses that they feel they
would not like to have in this area and identif~r those perhaps we can stipulate to those this
can be attached to some revised findings of fact. And we coutd have a solution that we
alt would be comfortable with. Any questions?
Kingsford: Questians for Mr. Jones?
Morrow. I have some questions but I think they would be better answered by Mr. Van
Auker and it is in respect to marketing scenarios and those types of things that he has
experienced with conditional uses. And the potentia{ problems that the findings are
creating for that industrial and growth and encouragement. So I don't think 1 have any for
James.
Kingsford: Two comments, you well exceeded the 3 minutes and (inaudible) those are
beautiful buildings and you always landscape them well. And he gets back there and
cleans all those w~eeds and stuf~, my gosh. Anyone else from the public that w~ould like to
offer testimony?
Rich Allison, 1108 W. 4th St., was sworn by the City Attorney.
Allison: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, I want to state that Mr. Van Auker has been very
cooperative with the Meridian School District. We were v~rking in Section 9 trying to
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 49
locate a school site for a middle school for future development of the Meridian School
District. We checked out many sites and approached Mr. Van Auker about a particular
piece of property which on the map you have would be the easterly most portion of
property being annexed and zaned. It is currently designated as a TE or technical zone
which would allow for a school to be built. We have further entered into an option
agreement with Mr. Van Auker to purchase this property at a price that is very attractive
to the school district with all services in place. And there fore we v~ould certainly support
this annexation and zoning without a conditional use permit particularly with regard to the
technical zone. Do you have any questions?
Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Mr. Van Auker I sense that Mr.
Morrow woutd like to ask you some questions if you want to be a party to this?
Ronald Van Auker, 1381 Meadow Lane, Nampa, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Van Auker: I apologize for (inaudible). I think basically I am here to answer any questions
that you do have. I think that our goal here is not to obviously sell our company but really
to implement the philosophies of what and how we perceive the development
responsibilities that we want to get done. I represent and I might say the 172 acres that
is coming is not necessarily my property it is a portion of several peoples property of which
w~e have some people here today that if you would like to discuss and (inaudible). But we
w~ere the ones to take the impetece to go after the zoning, gathering everythir~g and bring
i# to you as best we coutd. (Inaudible).
Kingsford: Mr. Morrow your questions.
Morrow t have a couple of questions, one is that there are some enclaves that have been
created by this proposed annexation. Can you brief us as to why those enclaves there or
why those folk don't wish to be part of the annexation?
Van Auker: I think it was in the matter of timing and getting everybody together obviously
the ground that we know as the barren ground coming around in behind Alberton's picking
up I believe Mr. Nelson's ground which had already started construction on one of the
warehowse buildings that you saw. And then picking up the ground where our offices are
and the ground on Eagle and Cloverdale or excuse me Eagle Road and Franklin, was not
an attempt there to exclude anyone it was though that area we could get together and
bring in because of the development interest by about 5 different entities who w~re the
owners of the property. I know that as the time comes down and services are offered and
impelmetations of the building permit process you will require that they be annexed now
all of those areas will touch basically the way that we brought all of that in. I hope that
answers your question.
• i
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 50
Morrow. It was part of what is going on there is that those particular property owners did
not wish to be annexed at this present time?
Van Auker: No w~e didn't have time to sit down, as you know this is quite a long process.
Let me back up just a little bit. One of the most interesting ones that we are attempting to
get located at Eagle Road is on a piece of ground that is owned by Mr. Kissler and myself
and we got it approved for the GSA which is a large office building. Which provides a lot
of jobs and it is for the BLM that is a widely advertised v~ll known piece of ground. And
it is important that w~e got that annexation in time to offer that site. But 1 think that it is our
interest to the timing is right for the development of this area, senrices are coming, you
have St. Luke's coming on board and on stream and it is our desire and interest not onfy
to be a part of that growth area out there but pay for that growth in that area. And the
critical mast has been reached that we can do it. Everyone that we talk to was interested
in coming in. Some calfed us afterward and said why weren't v~ included it is because we
didn't have enough time to talk to them.
Morrow: My next question would be directed towards your marketing expertise over the
years. In all probability there would some spec buildings that would be built in this and I
guess I would like your comments from 2 aspects. How does the conditional use permit
process as proposed in these findings affect something like the GSA building that you just
discussed and secondly how would that process affect for example a 50,0000 square foot
spec building v~ich is going to be subdivided amongs# as few as one and as many as 10
tenants. Could you run through that process and if you have been through that same type
of process in other areas?
Van Auker: Yes, I can do that. I think first of all, obviously time is a very valuable
commodity that we are all short of. The conditional use permit obviously is a long lengthy
process or we find it to be as a developer. In addition to the permitting process that is
required and to put that on top of and make that a condition of by the time that you have
the inception of the project to the approvai and then the completion of the project it adds
a process that takes a lot of time and a lot of effort that we perceive as unnecessary. Now
that is our perception. And I think that because of the zonings that we have requested it
is pretty much spelled out and it can't get out of control or we can't wind up with something
w~e wouldn't want in these zones. f know that it doesn't mean much but we'll even be, l as
a developer and the other people that own ground in and around this will be more critical
probably then the codes will allow or require us to be. Secondly, one of the things with a
conditional use permit is that when we go in and build a spec building v-re have no idea of
who is going to be in there. We know what kind of an industry they are probably going to
be in but it could be a paper printing company (inaudible) but that conditional permit goes
for in this particu{ar case it w~ould have to be a portion of the building and then it w~ould only
apply and then if that tenant was lost which happens sometimes then we've got to go in
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 51
to get another conditional use permit. This then carries over into our lender or local
bankers and or our long term lender that then says well we probab{y (inaudib{e) but we
can't do that because you have a restriction on (inaudible) and then maybe if the tenant
move~ out we don't know where you are. It is a problem that woe should deal, it is nice to
talk about it out loud in front of you. {t is a very serious problem and it adds {ength to the
process, uncertainty #o the process and hopefully we can come up with a degree and the
zone and a plan that v~ could deal without having to use the conditional use process.
Morrow. One final question, is the tenant typically willing to wait that 45 or 60 days to find
out if they can rent a space or not?
Van Auker: No, right now tenants will do anything for space because there is no space,
but given the condition where we have had in the years several thousands of square feet
out there with 4 or 5 developers throughout the valley they won't wait and again that is just
a fact of the rental and real estate business.
Morrow I have no other questions.
Tolsma: I have a question, basically all of your industry will then be inside (inaudible)
externa{ type industrial. This is cfassified as a light industriat area so actuaily all of your
industry will be enclosed rather fhan exterior.
VanAuker: I can think of one, I will answer that specifical{y we have a company there is
an area that and i forget the name of the street that goes out to where Alberton's is,
Commercial, and that area allows fenced yard areas. Let's say a pipe supplier has
purchased a piece of ground and bet~r~een Tech equipment and Jackson's and he is going
to put a pipe yard there and fence it. Obviously we can control that with fencing and
statted fences and that type of thing to say though that everything will be done inside the
building much like the pictures that Jim showed you this evening were (inaudible) I hadn't
really thought about it but v~ really have a lot of nice clean things there, we don't have
ugly outside storage. I think the ordinances would have to cover the outside storage and
or procedures that you woutd require. To ensure and inhibit anybody making an unsightly
mess. But to be in a position where we would absolutely say everybody is going to have
no outside storage I couldn't guarantee that.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) outside storage as much as manufacturing construction or similar to
what they do in Southern California where they have a steel yard that is just under a roof
and have everything outside the overhead cranes and everything efse. What 1 am getting
at and no reflection on you but we got burned here at the city and I explained that to Mr.
Jones and(inaudible) and we are really hesitant now about light industrial. The land was
zoned light industrial and it went into a project that (inaudible) because (inaudible). We just
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 52
don't want to see that happen again. If, I know how you build things and your projects are
always very well constructed and very clean. It is nothing against you but it is a kind of self
protection at this point.
Van Auker: To ansv~r your question there I understand very well what you are talking
about and have seen the things that have happened. One of the things that we wili do in
our areas that we control is that we have CC&R's and the restrictions that will be filed at
the time we do the platting and within those things we wilt address such things as parking,
setbacks, outside fenced storage area, slat fences, specifically speaking to things like
cement silos if that, I hope it is not inappropriate to bring tha# up. And/or outside steel
bending operation tanks, those kinds of things are really a heavy industrial zone as I
perceive it.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) because basically we just have the one (inaudible) and what v~ are
more or less (inaudible) is noise, dust, noise late at night is not compatib{e to people in the
residential areas (inaudible) noise at night is a bothersome noise.
Van Auker: Well, maybe how we approach that an work our way around that and Mr.
Crookston can tell us this can w~e have a development agreement come up with some type
of language within the CC&R's that are filed with the subdivision at the time of platting.
Kingsford: If t heard Mr. Jones correctty and he is has presented us a copy of our light
industrial thing that those things that the Council finds offensive you put a C by them a
conditional use and then you have the handle on that. And tha# can be a part of this
development agreement that will be necessitated anyway.
Van Auker: And that actually helps us because in our sales if som~body were to suggest
that they vu~ould buy it and then change the use betw~een the time we sell it and they permit
to you because v~ wilt sell it, (inaudible). Then it does get out of our control so it has to
be kept by someone.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Van Auker'? Anyone else from the public that
~nrould like to offer testimony an this issue?
Jim Kissler, 5091 Sundaro Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kissler: I come to you gentlemen as I guess a cross section of a typical tenant that might
go into that building or that land development down there. Ron and I own jointly the 22
acres on the corner of Fr~nklin and Eagle Road. I bought it because I own a company
called Norco in tovm and v~e are welding supply company and it is an industrial supply
company as well as a medical supply company. Ron Van Auker has done my last 3
C~
Meridian City Councii
September 6, 1994
Page 53
.
projects that I did and I put them out for a competitive bid and Ron gets the jobs the
majority of the time. He did an addition for on 1121 W. Amity which is out in Boise
Industrial Park, he built my brand new store in Ontario which is right by the freeway. Our
business is noted by the green cylinder that we have out there because v~ are the oxygen
guys for breathing, w~elding or cutting. And more recently he did a project for me down on
4th and Main Street which is my medical supply store right downtown, solid brick building.
My business is very typical of other businesses in the local area that have a presence in
Boise and also have a presence in the Nampa Caldwell market that as this valley gets a
little denser will need a presence in the Eagle Road area that will allow us to service our
customers. The type of building that I put down there v~rould probably be a distribution
building everything would be inside and be a typical of one of my welding supply stores
cylinders on the docks parking, landscaping the whole deal. 1 would like to avoid having
to go through the conditional use permit to put up one of my own projects down there
because as I go towards financing or if I try to make a 30 or 40 year plan i vwuld like to
know if the rules that I v~nt and built that building for still apply 20 or 30 years from now.
To the extent that we want it put in additional warehouse space that I wou(d be able to
grow into but didn't need right away and still have the capabilities of putting a tenant in
there on short notice without going through a conditional use permit. I am also going to
speak for a fellow by the name of Kevin Loveless that owns Global Travel Agency he has
come to me with an interest in a parcel of tand in that sam subdivision, he has the same
need. He has a presence in Karcher Mall, he has a presence in downtown Boise, he
would like to be able to service his customers that were coming from Eagle or coming out
of Meridian. And that type of thing, he has expressed an interest in owning land to put a
travel agency on it. So 1 think that would give you a cross seetion of perspective tenants
and the type of buildings that might go out there.
Kingsford: Thank you Jim, PVIs. Mayes.
Carmen Mayes, 3710 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City At#orney.
Mayes: First of all 1 must say that I am amazed that anyone wants to bring business to
Meridian or any city that has as many requirements as I read in this paper, #16 it lists 1 to
14 and the any other items deemed necessary by the City staff. It seems to me like there
is an awFul lot of requirements and vve are always hearing in Meridian that we need
businesses that is what we want more than anything else to help with the tax base. And
after perusing the City budget proposai I really see a need for a tax base. Some of the
increases are overwhelming there. So to me it is an opportunity for the City of Meridian
to have a w~ell pfanned area here, one man sort of in control of the thing, has a vision and
he has taken this whole area strip together so it is contingent and my property is part of
it. 1 am on Franklin Road which is just, it is about a 112 mile from the, it is actually 1/4 mile
from the Boise boundary. So it ends with my property which is not quite to the Boise area.
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 54
•
But this area that we have lived on since we haye moved here 30 years ago and more has
been determined as an industrial area by the very first zoning maps. And as t have seen
it in the County it has not changed and not by your own maps. And so to me, industrial
has restrictions, the whole purpose of zoning is to control and to restrict property rights.
Supposedly for the good of the majority at least that is my understanding of zoning. And
when you are talking about conditional use that term has always bothered me in fact it
seems to me to be a scape goat for everything that isn't listed. If you don't have it down
in black and white for one thing like industrial than you can say we will make it a
conditional use and v~e will decide but that leaves it open to arbitrary decision, to the old
buddy system. To discrimination infact. So to me the best way to go is to stick with the
zoning that you have and the zoning sates what is permitted and what isn't permitted as
listed there something is permitted if it is not permitted than you can cross it off. But what
else could one want. And when you need to know about Van Auker's quality of buildings
and so forth I am sure that is true v~e all want to know something is going to go in there
that is not going to be unsightly or environmentally unsound. But on the other hand I think
he needs the assurance that he can do what he needs to do without these prolonged
periods of arbitrary decision which can go into months and months. There is one question
that I personally have which refers to #2p on page 14, it says 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. Now there has been a drain ditch in the back of our property
since the orchards were down Franklin Road I believe and that was before I came here.
A~nd is this in that proposal that that ditch has to be tiled all the way, it is a huge ditch I
cannot fathom that would be one of the requirements. (End of Tape) kind of direct
question to anyone who might.
Kingsford: If it is over 48 inches we don't make them tile.
Mayes: tf they are what?
Kingsford: If they are over 48 inches of tiling requirement #o be tiled. If it is smaller than
that it would be required to be tiled.
Mayes: Meaning ifi the ditch is only 48 inches.
Kingsford: No, if it takes larger than a 48 inch pipe we don't require it.
Mayes: Well, now Eagle Road has a pipe under it do you know what that measurement
is?
Kingsford: I don't know that would be something again that is by ordinance. If they didn't
want to do that then they would have to request a variance to that part of the ordinance.
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 55
To{sma: ({naudible)
.
Kingsford: The answer to your question is if it is over 48 inches we don't require it if it is
under 48 inches we have. The only way to get around that is a variance.
Mayes: Well, at any rate as you well know I am for this proposal and I don't think at lease
in my, we have been trying to se{I our place for 20 years, it has been {ight industriaf a11
those years and nobody has come by with a plan as good as this that we have seen. I
think it is to the advantage of Meridian to accept the proposal and ~nrork with them on the
basis (inaudible).
Kingsfiord: Anyone else?
Dwayne Emonds, 2835 West Covered Road, Kuna, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Emonds: Ron Van Auker and myself and one other partner own 5 acres over on
Commercial Park right next door to Coors. We have plans to build 15,000 square foot
machine shop. We do contract (inaudibie) machine for Micron, Hewlett Packard,
Lockhead, IBM, several other medical companies across the country. Gentlemen,
conditional use is bad for the City. If a company has to come in and go through the
conditional use process prior to being able to take acquisition or buiid than they wili be
moving outside the area. They can't go east to Boise, Boise is already oversaturated, that
only leaves Canyon County. The decision is in your hands whether to accept it or to go
ahead and keep the conditional use there. My feeling is it wifl be bad in the long run.
Kingsford: Questions? Anyone else?
John Jackson, 3500 Commercial Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Jackson: We own a parcel of land just north of this proposed development and I am an
acquaintance of Mr. Van Auker and Mr. Kissler and I just wanted to speak in favor of the
project. I beiieve that they do the quality work that v~rould give us a good development
there. Very briefly.
Cornefl Larson, 210 Murray Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Larson: I wanted tv take a few minutes and talk to you about a project that I was involved
in with conjunction with Mr. Van Auker and a company by the name of Willowbrook
Development. We proposed jointly to rezone a piece of ground that is on Cloverdale
Road, in approximately this area in the County several months ago. As vve w~ent through
that process it was evident that the Pine Street Executive connector was going to progress
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 56
on through over to Meridian if the Highway District gets their way. And that is going to
make that corridor that connects executive to Eagle Road a fairly important element of the
tra~c planning for the County. As v~ went through the rezone process vv~ had asked for
an R-14 or an R-11 zoning on that property thinking that might be a good buffer between
the existing residential which you see up there and the industrial that was planned to the
south along the railroad tracks that it is currently zoned in Ada County. We had no less
than 40 people from that subdivision come in and protest the rezone that property to
residential because it says on their plat for that property that the zoning of the property to
the South will be an M1 light industrial zone as it exists in the County. As a result of that
the request got denied and it seems like that corridor in itself and the pieces of property
that Mr. Van Auker and Mr. Kissler and others are proposing to develop should continue
to be light industria! because that extends the cordior from Boise. The Pine Executive area
also has industrial in it. There has been new buildings going in at the corner of Cloverdale
and Franklin which are out of your impact area but they are light industrial buildings. At
this point 1 would like to encourage you to not go through the conditional use process for
several reasons. The buildings that went in at the corner of Franklin Cloverdale are the
ones that I did as an architect for a developer. That deal was put together in a 2 week
period. The procedure in Ada County in their M1 zone is a traffic and development
procedure, it allows for the project to go forward after a 2 w~eek review by the board of
commissioners. As long as the uses within that zone comply. The County and the City
both have fairly specific uses in their M1 ordinance that I would encourage you to keep
those uses in your ordinance and not do those as conditional uses because of the time in
which it takes to put real estate deals together some deals are good in a short period of
time and they work w~ell in the community and they are good for the City of Meridian. I was
also involved in one Freedman Bag over here on Taylor Street and that building was also
a fairly quick turn around time and it has been a fairly good asset to the City of Meridian
I believe. Those are buildings along with Coca-Cola building that Mr. Van Auker or some
of my clients are doing the light indusfrial development have been involved in and they
appear to be very good for Meridian or for the people working here providing some
additional tax base. I would also like to encourage you not to do the conditional use
application since the American public is heading towards less government or so they are
saying. The cost to the City of administering the conditional use process for every tenant
that goes into a 50,000 square foot warehouse will be outstanding. if he has 5 or 10
tenants in there and you have to do 5 to 10 conditional use application permits that seems
like an awFul lot of review time by the City staff and by the architects and by the planners
and by the developers. 1 would encourage you to come up with specific uses in your M1
zone that are acceptable to you as a City Council and to the Mayor.
Kingsford: Light Industrial, M1 is the County and we don't even talk to those folks. Any
questions? Of course there would be those folks that are out there that want less
govemment unless it fowls them up and then they warrt a good deal more. We hear ftom
~ ~.
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 57
them. Anyone else from the public?
Mike Ford, 10807 Alliance, Boise, was sw~rn by the City Attorney.
Ford: Gentlemen I am a real estate manager for Ron Yanke, Ron owns several pieces of
light industrial property in the Meridian area. Some of it is in the City and some of it is
contiguous to the City. My concern is first of a{t v~e are not part of Mr. Van Auker's 172
acres. My concern is though if he was required to go through the conditional use permit
on his development that this would carry over to future developments. And for all of the
reasons you have heard tonight the time required to put these deals together and this sort
of thing. If I was v~rorking with a tenant and had to wait 45 days or 60 days for the
conditional use permit Mr. Van Auker v~rould probably find out who that tenant was and
steal him from me before I ca put my deal together. I wrould just like to go on the record
that we would be against it also.
Kingsford: So Mr. Van Auker do you want us to put that restriction on Yanke and not
yourself. Anyone else from the public?
Chris Nelson, 200 South Granite Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Nelson: I represent (inaudible) which is included in Mr. Van Auker's group here. We have
a number of parcels of land particularly down Commercial Court there. We just want to go
on record as saying as well the conditional uses are not good. Just an example vwe have
just erected a building on those parcels of land. The customer for that is Albertson's, we
bui{t it on their request. Right now they are breathing down our necks to have it done they
want to be in it right now And again the delay in this process w~ould have been bad for us
and would have been bad for them. So, on that I just wanted to make sure we were
recorded on record as being (inaudible).
Kingsford: Thank you, a couple of you haven't spoken. Anyone else from the public?
Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor, I think clearly there are changes
in the findings with regard to designation of land that needs to be addressed in additional
findings. Entertain a motion to prepare additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Morrow. So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attorney work on additional
findings and conclusions, all those in favor? Opposed?
• ~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 58
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Cvrrie: Mr. Mayor, may f ask a question of the Counselor? Where are we on the
ordinance that some of the members have been putting together here and gave it to you
on this light industrial and trying to clear this up?
Grookston: Bob, I haven't had a chance to get to it.
Corrie: That might clear up an awFul lot of doubts in peoples minds if that would
(inaudible).
Kingsford: I w~ould suggest that you guys ponder your information for the findings that you
use as Mr. Jone's has suggested and go through this list and see those that you find
offensive and mark them with a C.
Corrie: That is exactly what we have done.
ITEM #27: DAN WOOD: REQUEST FOR 1 YEAR EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAT FOR
WINGATE SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 AND 3:
Kingsford: Mr. Wood
Wood: What I am doing is requesting an extension phases 2 and 3 on Wingate
Subdivision. Part of the reason behind it is when the Preliminary plat and the final plat of
phase 1 was approved you requested that I get the problem on Dixie Lane straightened
out. It has taken quite a while but finally i've gotten that straightened out, part of the delay
also in the next phase is the subdivision Dove Meadows has been delayed so I am
anticipating getting started on phases 2 and 3 next year. So that is what i am requesting.
Kingsford: Questions of Dan? Entertain a motion.
Yerrington: I make a motion that we give Dan Woods a 1 year extension.
Morrow. Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve a year extension for Wingate
subdivision phases 2 and 3 all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #28: JOHN EWING: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEE
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 59
FOR FOTHERGILL POINTE SUBDIVISiON:
Kingsford: Go ahead.
Ewing: Does everyone have the letter that I sent?
.
Kingsford: I think everyone received John's letter, any questions that you might have for
John? Realty he is retrofitting that into pressurized irrigation.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Morrow. I think that is the motion that we made before that upon successful (inaudible)
then w~e refund his money and I woufd make that a motion. Is that Gary and Shari how v~
have been handling that.
Corrie: Second
Kings~ord: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to return the money to Ewing Construction the
upon successful completion (inaudible), all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #29: SCOTT SWANBY: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY TRAtLER AT 1901 E.
LANARK:
Kingsford: )s Scott here? I think you all received that letter, do you have any questions
about it. Mr. Berg, did they express to you?
Berg: I have a copy of the letter that is all I received and I asked them to be here.
Morrow. You are talking about the letter dated August 16th? It just simply says I would
like to request that you kindly notify me as to when the next City meeting will take place
concerning the proposal for a temporary trailer. And we notified him and he is a no shoe
so it is an automatic table.
Kingsford: Not unless I hear a motion.
Morrow. So moved
Corrie: Second
. •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 60
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table this until the next Council meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTfON CARRIED: A{I Yea
ITEM #30: DOVE MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT - IRRIGATION SITUATION:
Kingsford: Is that you Don? Counseior, where are we at with that or Gary?
Crookston: Where we are at as you are aware, we had a previous Council motion to
withhold building permits and occupancy permits from Dove Meadows and from Elk Run.
t received telephone catls from an attorney representing Dove Meadows developer Mr.
Leader and he pointed out and rightFully so that they had not received any due process.
We have written to Dove Meadows and to Elk Run that they now can obtain the building
permits and the occupancy permits. I still even after that letter received a tetter from the
Attorney for pove Meadows stating that the City people were stilling telling people that
they could no longer get occupancy permits. That to my understanding has been
corrected. I have sat down with Gary and Bruce Freckleton and I think that woe have
determined at least from the City's viewpoint as to the cause fior the additional water that
is going in front of Mr. Bryan's property. My intent is to send a letter to the attomey for
Dave Leader what we have determined, ask for his comment indicate to him that if we can't
reach an agreement that the City wilt then hold a hearing on Dove Meadows to determine
whether or not building permits and occupancy permfts could be wi#hheld.
Kingsford: Meaning his due process.
Crookston: Right
Kingsford: Questions?
Morrow. What is the time frame that we are dealing with here?
Crookston: I intend to do it as soon as I can. Hopefully 1 can get it out (inaudible) to the
Attorney at least by Thursday.
Morrow So can we send the letter and start due process at the same short periad of time
of each other?
Crookston: We could send the letter and set a hearing date right now if that is your
desire? 1 w~ould rather try and work it out with them in advance hov~ver. But that is totally
up to you.
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 61
Kingsford: Part of the thing is w~e have let this thing go way past what it should have done.
The water is out of the ditch this week or next week.
Morrow: Thursday or Friday.
Kingsford: For God's sake let's not have this thing go into next season. This is something
that has to be follow~ed up on. The need is not as eminent as it has been all summer. But
I think I would concur with the Counselor and spend a little time in trying to get the thing
done prior to the due process hearing. I think certainly let's wrap this thing up this
ca{endar year. Let's not carry this thing into another year and possibly another season.
Morrow I think the thing I see guys is that once you get 2 legal folk writing back and forth
that is a lot of what happens and quite candidly it is not the 6th of September, by the time
w~e get done with letters and all of the sudden we're into, let's assume for arguments sake
that some concrete diversion boxes have to be built or this thing goes on and everybody
goofs around until ail of the sudden oops can't pour concrete because it is too muddy and
frozen and too w~et so now we have to do it next spring. And who is to say that (inaudible).
1 think that what we do as a Council is that we give direction that is to be followed and say
okay this is the time schedule that we want to go on and you legal folk come to that time
schedule and let's go from there.
Kingsford: I certainly wouldn't take exception to that.
Morrow. Those are my thoughts conceming that given the time of the year the fact that the
water is going out on Thursday or Friday in terms of Meridian it does make the immediate
thing in terms of flooding. But also we are running out of weather and season. So I w~ould
like to see something committed in terms of actual dates.
Kingsford: So you are proposing a Due process hearing date be set?
Morrow: 1 think so.
Kingsford: Do you have a suggestion of a time so the Counselor can put it in his letter?
Yerrington: !s 2 weeks too soon or should it be 4 weeks?
Crookston: Two weeks is not too soon.
Morrow. Then let's do it 2 weeks from tonight.
Tolsma: Could you see what they could work out and if not put the due process in 2
~ ~
Meridian City Gouncil
September 6, 1994
Page 62
weeks?
Crookston: We can do it in conjunction of one another.
Kingsford: is that something you want to do at a regular Council meeting? Do you want
to have a special meeting to cover that, what is your pleasure?
Corrie: If they are going to last very long let's have a special meeting.
Kingsford: (Inaudibie) but i can just see this taking some time (inaudible) let's get it nailed
down.
Corrie: Let's have it the Wednesday after the regular Council meeting.
Kingsford: Two weeks from tomorrow night?
Corrie: Two weeks from tomorrow night.
Morrow. I wauld second Mr. Corrie's motion.
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to have the City Attorney follow up the letter
he is writing to Mr. Leader's attorney with the statement of due process hearing in these
Council Chambers on Wednesday the 21 st of September at 7:00 P.M., all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Do you want Will to give you a call Don?
(Inaudible)
Crookston: I think it would be a good idea, but the hearing itself is just for Mr. Leader.
Kingsford: Well, and or I think it pertains as well to Roger Allen. ft goes across his
property whether he is the culprit or not it does cross his property and into the box on this
property that causes the problem.
Crookston: Well is there anybody else?
Kingsford: I vvould see those as being the 2 that need to be here besides Don.
u
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 63
•
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, 1 think John Ewing needs to be invited into that
meeting as well as the owner of the Shoshoni Building and I even think that the Capitol
Christian Center people should be invited to that meeting because they re-routed some
ditches also.
Morrow. Do we need that as a motion?
Kingsford: Well, I think those are the people he is directing to be invited.
Crookston: I guess what I need to ascertain, is it your intention to have a hearing to
withhold the building permits and occupancy permits and to (inaudible) specifically Dave
Leader a hearing in that regard. Because to my knowledge he is the only developer that
is developing property in that area. Or are w~e just going to have a sit down and talk about
it? Because if w~e are going to have a hearing to withhold building permits and occupancy
permits I had to be prepared to submit evidence that is the problem and why it is caused.
Therefore justifying the City withholding those permits. And you have to be the judge of
that.
Kingsford: We can do it. So get with it. I think you have that evidence (inaudible).
Corrie: So you have to present evidence to their representative and say we are going to
make this decision.
Kingsford: I think that also apply at least to Mr. Allen because that water traverses his
property in the same threat should be awarded him.
Morrow: Give him his due process notice at the same time.
Corrie: So in other words we have to give due process to all of those people?
Kingsford: Well at a minimum, those 2 people I don't know (inaudible)
Smith: Welt, I think there is some confusion as to how the ditch has crossed his property.
And he has changed the release point on some water that used to enter his property, he
put it in a different spot than where it was.
Kingsford: Does it constitute a problem is the question.
Smith: f don't know that it does, i think the diversion of Roger Allen's people made around
the Shoshoni Building is part of the problem as far as entrance to Don Bryan's southerly
boundary. And I think the diversion that Dave Leader causes some problems to Don
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 64
Bryan's south boundary.
Corrie: But not the church, you don't think?
Kingsford: Wel{ the church and the Shoshoni Building, the church owns the Shoshoni
Building they could very well be a party to that too. I understand they did some
modification to the ditch on their property.
Smith: Capitol Christian Church not the Shoshoni building.
Kingsford: Now didn't they change some irrigation structures on their property too?
Smith: That was on their property but it was done by Roger Allen I guess with the
Shoshoni Building's permission. But Allen's people did the ditch.
Crookston: So what I hear is we are specifically dealing with Dave Leader, Roger AI1en
and Capitol Christian Center.
Kingsford: You don't think that the church that is in the Shoshoni Building should be a
party to that?
Smith: Well, 1 don't think they are involved in it other than they gave permission to Allen
to do it to make that diversion. That is my understanding of what happened.
Morrow: But the diversion is on their property?
Smith: It is on the Shoshoni Building property. The ditch was dug on the Shoshoni
Building property.
Morrow: Well, ultimately aren't they responsible for it no matter who does what to it? I
guess from my perspective what is to keep Mr. Allen from saying well it is not on my
property, solve the problem yourself to the Shoshoni folk or to the church folk or whatever
it might be. I think that they ought to be part of the process even though at this point #hey
appear to be an innocent bystander it is certainly their property.
Crookston: 1 don't want to belabor the issue but we have to make a decision or let's put
it this way I have to make a decision as Gary and I and Bruce Freckleton we need to make
a decision as to what we believe caused the problem. Then we have to be prepared to
present evidence as to what that cause was and who did it. So, I guess I am looking for
a little direction as to how far we want to go and is there anything in these other people's
case that we can withhold from them. in the case of Capitoi Christian I don't know what
~ •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 65
they have before the City of Meridian this juncture that v~ can withhold.
Kingsford: Occupancy permit.
Crookston: They are not in the church yet?
Kingsford: They are under construction and they are not occupying.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Kingsford: So you have that with them with regard to the construction of the Shoshoni
Building. I believe they are doing some remodel I don't know what what the position that
is at this point. We have some (inaudible) as well. 1 guess I would be satisfied with the
3 of you determining where the problem is and let's dea{ with those peopie.
Morrow. And give everybody due process notice that it applies to. lf there are only three
of them that it applies to than give them their due process notice.
Kingsford: Is that enough direction?
ITEM #31: DAVID RUNDLE: SPEED CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT OF GITY
ORDINANCES:
Kingsford: Mr. Rundle h~d written a letter requesting 15 minutes today to discuss some
things, but he is not here today so 1 guess we won't hear from his.
ITEM #32: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR WATERBURY
PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 4:
Kingsford: Counselor, have you reviewed those?
Crookston: Yes, those are fine.
Morrow: l would move that we approve the covenants.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the CC&R's for Waterbury Park
Subdivision No. 4, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 66
ITEM #33: KENTFIELD MANOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Kingsford: We met with the principle (inaudible) this afternoon. I will just do this, correct
me if I get off base here Shari. We met with him , we hammered the agreement basically
out. w~e still one little finding that I would recommend that you approve the Mayor and the
City Clerk to sign that conditioned upon the Attorney's review of that. We used to border
plate thing on it and also there are some specifics that, well we have copies. We have
some specifics there on the attachment there that Wayne has to my knowledge has not
had time ta review. I think it meets all the intent of what we wanted and what they wanted
to protect. I think that would be appropriate to authorize myself and Will to sign that
conditioned upon the Attorney's review.
Morrow: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to allow the City Clerk and Mayor to sign the
Kentfield Manor development agreement conditioned upon the City Attorney's review, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #34: WATER/ SEWER/ TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
Kingsford: You are informed in writing if you choose to you have a right to a pre-
determinidation hearing before the Mayor and Council to be judged on the facts and
defend the claim made by the City that your sewer, water and trash bill is delinquent. You
may retain Counsel even thaugh the service wil{ be discontinued on September 14, 1994
unless payment is received in full. I assume you are here to discuss.
Baldwin: My name is Bob Baldwin, I live at 2088 Leann Way. I have a copy of my
(inaudibfe). You erratic amounts that all of the sudden popped up Qn my water bilf. In
June every thing was going at the same rate of $26 ~ month as it has forever, I have been
here for 4 years. Then in June I received a bill that I used 26,000 gallons which if you wiN
look on the bottom line my average consumption is 3400 so it kind of blew me away when
1 seen that how much water was being used. After 1 seen that bill I called the City Hall and
talked to Shannon and requested a leak check. I didn't hear anything back from them and
then after I received my second billing in July of 21,800 gallons I recalled Shannon at City
Hall asked if they did do a check she said yes and they said there was no leak. I have not
changed anything in my house whatsoever. I have no water softener, 3 toilets, 2 show~ers
and that has been the same. There hasn't been a Fawcett change there hasn't been
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 67
anything changed. I am on the original house in the Sunnybrook Farms out there, 1 do
have a well, the well is what I use to irrigate all the lawn with. So there is no City water
used on that.
Kingsford: You don't have a connection to the City to that sprinkler system as a back up?
Baldwin: At this time I do not know. Then after receiving notice that there was no leak I
went ahead and sent a payment for the 2 months of $26 of my normal payment was. I just
made a payment in good faith that this matter could be cleared up. Then I received my
July bill of 17,800 gallons, each time these extreme high amounts are received for no
reason at this time I can tell you explain. I did call again, I called in July Bruce Stuart and
1 called him again, I didn't receive a call back from. I called him again in August, he was
going to come out and do another check on that. I called him a week later and he hadn't
had time to get out there. He went out on the 18th of August, I called him back and he told
me I had a 1/16 leak in 3 minutes. That was the last week in August 1 did make an
appointment to meet out there on September 1, leave work early and go out and I met
Greg Walker out there. We took another leak check and no leak. At that time 1 found out
that this residence and years past has had problems with the City on the very point you
had mentioned. There was found other valves that interlocked. Which they didn't know
about, I didn't know about (inaudibie) just flip the switch on and make sure you got water
running to the well because you don't have a pressure tank. So that is the way v~ been
doing it. Upon finding that I dug the whole thing up to see how it was laid out had Greg
back out the next moming to see what we needed to do to clear up any possible leak and
didn't know at that time whether there was a leak going back in the well or what. I totally
dug that up and Bruce and Greg came back out later we totally re-laid the line through
there so there isn't any possible tease at this time. I feel that I didn't know about it, they
did know about trouble before but they were under the assumption that (inaudible) and
checked. I feel that if the leak was going back the other way or wherever the leak was
going I did not receive benefit because I didn't do anything at my residence to change
anything. And i feel that any erroneous above the $26.00 should be eliminated. I think
1 kept communications continuously, you can tefi with the City or water either one to
eliminate this problem right now from the start and I think I have showed god faith effort
on my part to eliminate any extra waste of water or do anything to defraud #he City of their
rightful payments. But we did find where there w~ere some valves buried down undemeath
there that had been left for that purpose.
Morrow. The question in my mind is how much money we are talking about here?
Kingsford: It is, as I look at the sheet here, the total amount is $98 that is delinquent now.
Baldwin: Some of that is the legitimate $26, I think there are 1 or 2 payments of the $26.
. •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 68
Kingsford: 1 certainly commend you on working through and getting that done. Normally
our policy is that if we get it at the me#er our responsibility basically ends, you ov-m it from
there. We deliver water in good faith and we (inaudible). It is a little bit different in that
you did pursue that, you had leak checks for some reason apparently the way that was it
must be only at a particular time that it (inaudible).
Baldwin: We w~ent through and (inaudible) each separately and checked that everything
was sealed off tight. It all worked the house worked good.
Morrow: So the thing we are talking about here is you pay up to $52 is $44
Baldwin: I feel I didn't receive any benefit from it that in my efforts to rectify the problem
that I shouldn't have to pay the full erroneous amount by this. You can see how it has
gone down and we did this on September 1 which is even after the August 8 reading of
11,100 if there was still a leak taking place at that time which should have been because
Bruce was out on the 18th of August which was just 10 days past that day. And the
quantity is still going down which I didn't understand, they couldn't explain it, I couldn't
explain it. These are the meter readings and they are so erroneous to what I have been
normally been doing that 1 feel that it is fair on part to help find the part it is fair on their
part to remedy the (inaudible).
Morrow. Gary, was there a cross connection here that basically (inaudible) health hazard
to our system?
Smith: (Inaudible) Bruce Stuart told me what was going on and what had happened he
said Mr. Baldwin had been very cooperative and is seeing that the problem got rectifred.
Bruce and Greg vu~ere aware of the situation a number of years ago and made an effort with
the previous owner to see that this connection was disconnected but obviously he either
re-connected it or (inaudible).
Baldwin: Well, what Bruce told me when he came out, Greg came out the night before,
Bruce came out the next morning, Bruce told me was that he had never seen what I was
showing him. He said what they had dug up, he showed me was over here. What took
place I don't know but Bruce could probably fill you in more on the background.
Morrow: Well I think in my mind that $44 or whatever it is a fair trade off for what has
transpired and what was a good faith effort made to get the thing done. And there has
been a potential health hazard eliminated and there was certainly a paper trail of calls to
our folk and the fact that they looked at the meter a couple of times and had no visible
leakages and those kinds of deals. It makes sense to me we give him his $44 bucks back.
•
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 69
•
Kingsford: Well, not give it back just take it off the bill, we never give money back.
Morrow. So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Walt, to waive the $44 issue with Mr. Baldwin and
(inaudible) whatever the balance of that is, all those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Anyone else to contest their sew~er water and trash bill? Who did you buy that
from Mr. Baldwin?
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: Entertain a motion to approve the tum off list less Mr. Baldwin.
Yerrington: ~o moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve the turn off list less Mr. Baldwin, all
those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: They are hereby iriformed that they may appeal and have the decisions
(inaudible) even though they appeal their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn
off list this month is big, $20,087.63.
ITEM #35: APPROVE BILLS:
Morrow: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the bills, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
•
Meridian City Councif
September 6, 1994
Page 70
ITEM #36: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Kingsford: Shari do you have anything? (End of Tape)
Stiles: No
Kingsford: Mr. Smith do you have anything?
Smith: No
Kingsford: Chief?
Gordon: Nothing Mr. Mayor.
Kingsford: Mr. Attorney?
C~
Crookston: Yes, on Kentfield, I thought we were talking about a development agreement
these are covenants.
Kingsford: Oh that is something else, they just passed those out. Those are for your
review. Shari do you have that development agreement any way we will get it to you for
your review.
Stiles: It is in your box.
Kingsford: Any thing else? Mr. Morrov~/?
Morrow: Nothing
Kingsford: Mr. Yerrington?
Yerrington: Yes sir, Will Berg put a deal in on the impact fees in our basket. Is action
going to be taken on this shortly.
Kingsford: Bob says it is premature.
Corrie: We have a meeting Thursday and then 1 will call you. That is tentatively what it
is going to come out at I think.
Kingsford: There is some discussion and Will and I suggested with regard to the budget
and I think Mr. Forrey had suggested that there needed to be some money in the budget
~ ~
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 71
and I suggested that vve didn't know how much it rnrould be until after v~ had the hearing
and adopted the so on, The logical thing to me was to amend the budget to accommodate
whatever it is that then set those at when that times comes. So you will have those
probably next meeting. Anything else Max?
Yerrington: That is it .
Kingsford: Bob?
Corrie: Yes, I would like to see if we can get that ordinance on the agenda next meeting
night. We need to move along with that to get the new ordinance for the Fire Department.
We will need to get a copy for each of the people on the fuli time fire fighting that we have
24 hour coverage and all af that. Afso where we are pulling the fire fighters from at this
point.
Morrow. Why do we need an ordinance for that?
Corrie: We need an ordinance because w~e changed some things, but I don't recall exactly
what it was.
Crookston: We, specifically we need the ordinance changed because vve were going to
commence using the volunteers as a list of possible people who might be hired full time.
Kingsford: Ron
Tolsma: No
Kingsford: WiN Berg
Berg: Reminder tomorrow at 6:00 is the budget meeting.
Morrow. We started out at 7:30 and then we went to 7:00 which was bad for the Mayor's
memory and now v~ are at 6:00.
Kingsford: This is a different one and I said it w~ould probably be a good idea on that other
one that I am going to be fowled up at 7:00. But this is at what time?
Berg: 6:00
Kingsford: And is duly noticed, we couldn't have it tonight because the Council has had
enough public hearings this evening so we are going to have ours tomorrow at 6:00 +n
• •
Meridian City Council
September 6, 1994
Page 72
these chambers.
Kingsford: 1 wouid entertain that motion to adjournment.
Yerrington: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
~
.
GRANT P. KINGSFOR , MAY
ATTEST:
c`~~~~~
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK
• MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~
AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 16, 1994: ~~P~~ve~
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD AU~UST 22, 1994: aj~p~~~'
1. TABLED: HAVEN COVE SUBDMSION NO. 5, REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT BY INTERWEST
DEVELOPMENT (TABLED AT AUGUST 2, 1994 MEETING): ~b~
2. TABLED: ORDINANCE #666 - ASHFORD GREENS ANNEXATION: ~/°v~c.-
3. TABLED: FINAL PLAT - THE LANDING NO. 8, 48 LOTS BY THE SKYLINE
CORPORATION: ~a~- c~~7v~-~~ ti~
4. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER:
~~ ~~ ~ ~
5. TABLED: STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
ON TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION: ~ ~~ ~~'7 ~~~ '
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR W.H. MOORE COMPANY: ctrp~rv~~e ~%~ s c'~~
~,, J ;-Q-~~~~t
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION: fzc~
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING FOR NEB-i COMPANY: ~p,o~~~ ~~~ ~ e%
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY P T FOR WATERBURY PARK
SUBDMSION NO. 5: ~~l1~Ylrov~ .~~~` ~/l
10. ORDINANCE #670 - ANNEXATtON/ HARTFORD SUBDIVISION: ~ab~-e-
11. ORDINANCE #671 - ANNEXATION/ THE HOLLOWS: ~~.~
12. FINAL PLAT: GRANITE CREEK SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY ROCK CREEK), 21
LOTS BY KEVIN HOWELL CONSTRUCTION: k-pp~-ave- ~/ ~o-~~~
~ G~ ~~-y ,g.L~~••--.,,~z, ~ c, }~ ~ ~ ~~..e.e.~, d,~ '. _ :v.-ec~'
13. FINAL PLAT: TURTLE CREEK SUBDMSION PI0.1, 73 LOTS BY STEELE AND
SON: -~~e u~,t.2 ~,cY- ~--.~-
14. FINAL PLAT: FlRE LIGHT ESTATES SUBDMSION, 27 LOTS BY RUNNING
BROOK ES TES INC.: ~~o~''~o~,..e, ~"~C`~ .~`~'.~~~""'ee"~ ~'ci~ ~a"'~..~L
~ <,
15. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FAWCETT MEADOWS NO. 2
BY RONALD HENRY: ~~t~ a~~"~y f°~~ eP~'`~ ~~~ `~'~~
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRAMBLE WOOD SUBDIVISION~~ ~_~
HARDEE CONSTRUCTION: C'~~y ~t~'~~ ~"/°~i°°~'`" f` G~
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THUNDER
CREEK SUBDMSION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: ~~r~~~
18. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDMSIOI~
BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: ~~~ ~~~''~`~ ~~j~~ ~l~ ~ e/C
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER
INVESTMENTS: ~/ai~""'~ ~~1~ ~ ~~lC c~~~j ~. ~~y ~ ~p~
~ c~-r.c~n~ ~c~t ~---n-~ - a~-~ Gt'~v.~o~`~- a~v~.ee ~--f
20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
BRANDON CREEK ESTATES BY PIONEER INVESTMENTS: ~
~~~pr~ ~.e ~/~-~ ~ ~~ l L ~~j~ a~~rr~ ~~ ~. ~i 1 az ~ y~~c n-~e i r~a ~`f e~C.
21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR GROVE
RUN SUBDMSION BY JLG BUILDERS: ~t~-~ ~pi~~~'"~"'~ `~''z`~'~
fv',~,~~- c~- .~-e_ rL,~~~.~~..~ ~
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES:
~-G-e~
23. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MERIDIAN MOBILE ESTATES BY TROY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES:
. ~-~-~ .
24. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
P1NE STREET DEVELOPMENT: ~~,~r~~~ ~'lf ` ~ /~
('/~l~ jr CZ [ [ B'! h.ey
25. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT:
c.~>~~i ol~aw oppi,~.r~~
26. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
RONALD VAN AUKER: c~~ y a f~-~y ~ P~ e,~'°`~ "a ~ta'~~-~~-~P ~~ ~'~~ ~` ~/l
27. DAN WOOD: REQUEST FOR 1 YEAR EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAT FOR
WINGATE SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 AND 3: ~~o~/ro~~- c~~~J~~
28. JOHN EWING: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR
FOTHERGILL POINTE SUBDIVISI~O/N~,:p ~P/~y v ve f-e~Ld a~t~c.~
P/-~2Sfcv1 / 2C G~ i7'ri 6jR.t~itYr-~ /.~ /h ~ T~wf ~~
/
29. SCOTT SWANBY: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY TRAILER AT 1901
E. LANARK: ~ b~~-
30. DOVE MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT - IRRIGATION SITUATION:
(~c~,~ ~A-i, ~c:~- ~~2vr,.~
31. DAVtD RUNDLE: . EED CONTROL AND ENFORCE ENT OF C1TY
ORDINAN~: - ~o S~~ ~~ ~
32. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR WATERBURY
PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 4: ~~'p~e~
33. KENTFIELD MANOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: ~,~/~~~~~~t
~~ ~~ ~' ~f~~ ~~..~ ~ f~~"
34. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES:
35. APPROVE BILLS: ~~~' d~~ ~
36. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
~'~~' ~~ ~.~~~ ~€~b:~~
~~~~ ~~ ~ ?~~~:~.~~.~~~~ e€~,~.~.~Y~
~~~ ~ y~~ ~k~l~~"r~,~
~.~~~~~~.. P~,.,~~._ q.~.~~~~~
S ~ ~ 0 6 1994
~ Cl'CY ()~~ ~~:~~1~~«;~
~~' ~~~~ ~~y~~~'~~ ~'~~~ ~=~°~ ~~~'`~a~ PUBI.IC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME: PHONE NUMBER:
~~~
~ _
--- ~- d ~`-`----1-~-~~?F? .~o~ -------------------------------------------~~~ --- ~ 4 4 7 ----------------
__ _ _ _ __ .
,p~ S~~' O 6 1~J4
4..n~O~~~ ~~'~ ~ .... "::~~ °` ~ ~ ~+ i ~ r ~'.'::,.. .
~ ,,~ , = 4! ~ ~ i~~ t ~r.litdir~-j~
~~~ ~m'~ ~ t'm'~..~. _<, ~. , .,.,, : . ...-_ ~,,.".`.. ti
`"~ ,~ ra ~ ,~.: . ~ . ~.
~r ~ 5.~:' ~. ~a,~.. ' ~ c ~:.?% .
~~~~~~~`'~`~' ~~'~°~~~a ~ ~ ~~~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME: PHONE NUMBER:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ , ~ __
-----~--- ----- - - -- ----------- ~-----------------------=--------~~~ _ e1 d~~' S ------------------------
^1
. _. ~ ~ \ . \ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~L~1~~~~ ~ ~31_r~.~~-------------
-------= T ~ --r---°~-- -- ----------------------------
---- =~~=~°~--~~------~~c~Cl~--------------------------- --~'-~ -? - ~ 4 7 7--------------------
~b~~ ~. , ------ ~- ~~o~
~ ~
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
RAMON YORGASON
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
E 1/2 SE 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 1, T. 3N.,
R.1W., B.M., Ada Countv
WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION # 5
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above enti.tled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on August 16, 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 City Council having heard and
taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing
through his engineer, Brian D. Smith, and having duly considered
the matter, the City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning
was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said
public hearing scheduled for August 16, 1994, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the August 16, 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
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 1
~ •
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately thirteen acres in size; the property is south of
Ustick Road and East of Linder Road.
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 subdivision lot size would be a
minimum or 8,000 square feet; that there would be 46 lots .in the
proposed subdivision; that the Applicant in its subdivision
application states that the minimum square footage of homes would
be per the Ordinance; that there would be 3.16 lots per acre.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially.
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 of record Erlan J. Venable, has requested that the
land be annexed and zoned.
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 land use of the
property is for agriculture pasture and two houses; that the
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 2
~ •
intended development of the property is for an R-4 single family
subdivision which is consistent with the property to the east and
south.
10. The Applicant's representative stated in the letter
accompanying the preliminary plat application, which was submitted
simultaneously with the annexation application, that there would be
2.04 acres of common area which is proposed to be maintained by the
homeowner's association and that the subdivision was designed to
maintain a corridor for the existing 21 inch sewer trunk line
paralleling the Creason Lateral.
11. That comments were received from various Meridian City
Departments, from other governmental agencies, and other interested
parties and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
12. The Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles submitted
comments which related mostly to the preliminary plat; in other
annexation applications she has commented that a development
agreement is required as a condition af annexation; such comment is
equally applicable to this annexation application.
13. That two people testified on this Application; Joe
Siminich commented that he owned the property to the west, that he
had concerns over irrigation and how the developers were not doing
good jobs to see that the irrigation rights were maintained; he
also stated at the Planning and Zoning commission that there were
no plans shown for the irrigation ditch, and that for irrigation he
was on a rotation system and he wanted that recognized and
protected; John Sanford testified that if Venable Lane is not going
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 3
~ •
to be a through Ada County Highway District street he would be land
locked; that he had requested access when Lounsbury Subdivision was
before the City but access was not provided through that
subdivision.
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-4 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
"R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family
Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be
permitted except for Planned Residential Development and
public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to
permit the establishment of low density single-family
dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately
residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the
integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows
f or a maximum of four ( 4) dwelling 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
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 4
~
~
feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's
representative stated in the letter accompanying the application
that the subdivision would comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
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, town houses, 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 physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided ..
.'
21. 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."
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, town houses 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."
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 5
• •
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 Appli.cata.on.
25. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the previous Zoning ~,dministrator 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.
_ 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
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
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 6
• •
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 i.mperilment 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 reguired 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."
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 7
• •
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 similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
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 Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada Countv (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 8
~ •
33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the City Council 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 City Council 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.
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 9
i
•
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, who is not the titled owner, but the titled owner has
requested the annexation 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 City 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 irri.gation; 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, 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
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 10
• •
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 servi.ces, 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 comments and requirements of the Meridian City
Departments and the other governmental agencies shall be met and
addressed in a development Agreement.
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to
install a pressurized irrigation system; that the Applicant shall
provide access for the lands owned by John Sanford and the City
shall monitor this requirement in the platting process; that the
Applicant shall ensure that the irrigation systems are not
interfered with and that all adjoining properties receive the water
that they received prior to Applicant's development; that if the
Applicant does not meet the above requirements 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
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 11
• •
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance; that a determination of ground water level and
subsurface soil conditions shall be made and reported to the City
Engineer
14. That as a condition of annexation the house size 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 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 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
COUNCTLMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 12
~
DECISION
•
The City Council hereby decides that the property set forth in
the application is approved for annexation and zoning under the
conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, including that the Applicant enter into a development
agreement prior to an annexation and zoning ordinance being passed
as that agreement is information that the Council needs to decide
whether to pass an annexation and zoning ordinance or deny the
application; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering
into a development agreement, the property shall not be annexed.
MOTION: ~
APPROVED: ~ DISAPPROVED:
WATERBURY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 13
• •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
NEB-i COMPANY
ANNE]tATION AND ZONING
LOTS 8- 17 OF PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION,
EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 12.4 FEET THEREOF
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on August 16, 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 City Council having heard and
taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing
through James C. Merkle, P. E., 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 August 16, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the August 16, 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
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 1
• •
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 9.1 acres in size.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-8
residential; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned
C-G General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G); that no specific
use for the property was presented but a letter accompanying the
application stated that the proposed use was for general
commercial .
4. The general area surrounding the property is used as R-8
County residential and the property on the north has recently been
annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G); the
property to the west is an automobile salvage yard; the property to
the south is used residentially and for various agricultural uses.
5. That the property is now adjacent and abutting to the
present City limits as a result of the AVest annexation, but the
property was not contiguous at the time of the filing of the
application.
6. That NEB-i Company is the Applicant; that Applicant does
not own the land; that the owner is Roger C. Crandlemire and he has
consented to the application and has requested th.is annexation and
zoning and the applicata.on is not at the request of the City of
Meridian.
7. That the Applicant's annexation and zoning application
was submitted with a letter that stated the present use of the land
is for pasture and farmland.
8. Ada County Highway District ( ACHD ) submitted comments and
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 2
• •
such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
9. That Gary Smith, City Engineer, submitted comments and
they are incorparated herein as if set forth in full; the
Applicant's representative stated at the Planning and Zoning
hearing that he had no problem with the Engineer's comments.
10. That the Planning and Zoning Adma.nistrator, Shari Stiles
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as i.f set forth
in full; that the Applicant's representative stated at the Planning
and Zoning hearing that he had a problem with the comment that a 35
foot landscape setback was required and the Applicant was proposing
a 15 foot setback as required in the Zoning Ordinance; that the 35
foot setback is a Comprehensive Plan goal for the entryway
corridors to the City, of which Fairview Avenue is such. The
Planner also commented that the annexation and land use request of
C-G generally complies with the current Comprehensive Plan; that no
development proposal has been received; that the legal description
does not appear to include all the area to the centerlines of
adjacent roadways and a revised legal incorporating these areas
needs to be submitted; that a development agreement is necessary
prior to annexation addressing the 35 foot landscaped setback,
tiling of ditches, pedestrian walkways, ACHD right-of-way
dedication, and other City goals and requirements; and that
depending on intended use, conditional use permits may be
necessary; that at the City Council hearing Mr. Merkle stated that
he had objection to the 35 foot setback along Fairview Avenue and
that 35 feet was excessive; that the applicant was willing to work
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 3
• •
with the City and negotiate an agreement on the setback on Fairview
Avenue; Mr Merkle also stated in response to questions that there
was now no proposal for development of any site specific projects
and that development would be whatever was allowed in the zone.
11. The Meridian Police and Fire Department Departments
submitted comments as did the Central District Health Department,
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and U. S. West; that all such
comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
12. There were no property owners appearing at the Planning
and Zoning hearing to make comments on the application; that at the
City Council hearing Fred Mack, attorney at law, appeared on behalf
of Barbara Myall who owns 16 acres directly south of the subject
property; he basically testified that the action the Council takes
on this application may have a long term effect on the City's
approval of a concept of development for an area in excess of 35
acres; that the annexation of this parcel would be premature; that
other properties in the area would be substantially effected and
that it was in best interest of Meridian to consider putting off
the annexation; that if the Council annexes this property without
consideration of the greater effect or detriment that it is going
to have on adjoining property the City will forever be barred from
considering the greater effect on the adjoining properties; that
development of this property at this time will create strip
development which is contrary to the goals of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan; that the property is not deep enough to allow
multi-stacked commercial developments; that if the City is going to
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 4
• •
look at how the land ought to be developed the City needs to
consider all of the other properties that are there; that the only
logical thing to do is to consider doing planning in tandem with
some kind of a cluster development; that there has been no concept
plan for development of that entire area.
That there has been a court decision in Ada County where the
Judge ruled that action by a city to annex and then to zone the
parcel commercial is quasi judicial; that if that is true the
City's protection of a conditional use perm.it could be put in
jeopardy; that it was Mr. Mack's concern that if the City acts on
this, it grants to the Applicant a commercial development which he
can do with as he desires, and if Judge Schroeder is right, the
City loses control over the Applicant.
Mr. Mack also stated that the development proposed has not
been adequately disclosed to the City and therefore the City is at
a disadvantage of not knowing what type of development is going to
be on the property; that if the City tells the Applicant to come
back with a development agreement and have the development
agreement address how the property is going to impact the adjoining
property owners for a comprehensive plan of development of the
entire corner, the City can then get an approach at guidance as to
how this development is going to affect the City for years.
13. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
14. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 5
• •
( U. S. P. A. ) as the Urban Service Planning Area is def ined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
15. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
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
and commercial.
17. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
A. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
Statement
Policies, Page 19
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interests and activities are to dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design
Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land
use and design within the development, and with
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 6
• ~
contiguous developments; and encourage innovations
in building techniques, so that the growing demands
of the community are met, while at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
B.
Under LAND USE
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS, Page 21
Commercial and retail areas are established along
major arterials, (East First Street, Cherry Lane,
Fairview Avenue, Franklin and Meridian Roads) and
include small commercial centers and individual
businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale,
service, office, and limited manufacturing.
2. GENERAL POLICIES, Page 22
The following land use activities are not in
compliance with the basic goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
a. Strip commercial and strip industrial.
b. Scattered residential (sprawl or spread).
3. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, Page 25
a. Sn all cases, the locations of Commercial
Activity Centers should be guided by
performance and developments standards. These
standards consider, among other aspects:
1. Traffic Volume and Type
2. Trip Generation
3. Impacts on Arterial Street System
4. Proximity to Other Commercial Development
5. Impacts on Neighborhood Residential Areas
6. Accessibility of Site
7. Parking Demands
8. Pedestrian Circulation
9. Available Utility Systems
10. Aesthetics (Design Considerations)
11. Use Impacts Upon Other Adjacent Uses
12. Internal Circulation Design
13. Drainage
4. COMMERCIAL POLICIES, Page 26
a. 4.6U Community shopping centers will be
encouraged to locate at arterial intersections
and near high-traffic intensity areas.
b. 4.7U Community shopping centers must be
planned for future integration of adjoining
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 7
• •
residential uses.
5. MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 28
Mixed-use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview
Avenue Plus Area North of Fairview Avenue.
These areas are within Ada County, but nearly
surrounded by the City of Meridian. The area is
characterized by large rural lots, and a sparse
development pattern. In order to stimulate planned
development in these areas, the following policies
apply:
a. 5.16U Al1 development requests will be
subject to development review and conditional
use permit processing to ensure neighborhood
compatibility.
b. 5.17U A variety of coordinated, planned
and compatible land uses are desirable for
this area, including low-to-high density
residential, office, light industrial and
commercial land uses.
c. 5.18U Existing residential properties will
be protected from incompatible land use
development in this area. Screening and
buffers will be incorporated into all
development requests in this area.
d. 5.19U A planned community shopping center
is anticipated near the Locust Grove
Road/Fairview Avenue intersection.
C. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 42
1. Existing Conditions
a. Cherry Lane/Fairview, East of Meridian Road,
is listed as a principal arterial
b. Locust Grove Road is listed as a Minor
arterial.
D. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 71
1. Entryway Corridors
c. Fairview Avenue (East entrance).
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 8
~
.
2. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote,
encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically
pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian.
3. Policies, Page 71
a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision
regulations, and zoning to discourage strip
development and encourage clustered, landscaped
business development on entrance corridors.
b. 4.4U Encourage 35-foot landscaped setbacks
for new development on entrance corridors. The
City shall require, as a condition of development
approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors.
4. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 72
a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly
residential neighborhoods to nonresidential
uses, and require effective buffers and
mitigation measures through conditional use
permits when appropriate nonresidential uses
are proposed.
18. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, page 28, it states as follows:
"Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which
generally allow for agricultural and rural residential
activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil
characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban
land uses. Where community grawth creates pressure for new
development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can
no longer economically continue to be identified or used as
agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and
development."
19. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services
(municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided.
20. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states as follows:
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 9
• •
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
21. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a commercial area; that the commercial area is in an area that
is listed as Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
22. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service
Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B.
11. as follows:
(C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of
the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely witha.n a
building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial
streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as
well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring
public. All such districts shall be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and
shall not constitute strip commercial development and
encourage clustering of commercial development.
23. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B,
Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various zoning
districts of the City; that Shopping Centers, Community, are not
listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial
(C-G) district; that Shopping Centers, Neighborhood, are not listed
as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G)
district; that individual department stores, retail stores,
restaurants, and storage facilities, indoors or outdoors, are
allowed uses in the C-G district; that planned commercial
developments, are an allowed use in the C-G district.
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 10
• •
24. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential,
industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A
PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density,
lot coverage required, open space or type of residential,
commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or
more created districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential,
commercial or industrial uses."
25. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development, is a permitted use in
the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C-G district.
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, includiz~g 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
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 11
• •
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, and the housing for that 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 retroaative and apply to all 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 not be a part of the normal street right
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 12
• •
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 similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
"Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged wa.thin
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 fzom the automobile) can be
provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bic~rcle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 13
• •
pathway provisions within developments."
33. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
"The City's policy is to encourage developers of land
development and construction projects to utilize the
provisions of this Section to achieve the following:
1. A development pattern in accord with the goals,
objectives and pol.icies of the Comprehensive Plan;
5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and
industrial uses as well as public services which support
such uses."
34. The Comprehensive Plan, recently adopted, does state that
in the Mixed-Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue
development requests will be subject to development review and
conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood
compatibility.
35. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridi.an 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
NEBi COMP.ANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 14
~
~J
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. That the City Council has judged these annexation and
zoning applications under ldaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67,
Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and
things of which it 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 Council 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 property owner, and is not upon
the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation of land is a legislative
function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the
annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho
65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983); that 11-2-417, ANNEXATION AND ZONING UPON
ANNEXATION, A, reads in part as follows:
" The Commission, the City, the applicant and the
Council shall follow the notice and hearing procedures
provided in 5ection 2-416, Zoning Amendment Procedures.
Provided, however, that the final decision of the Council
shall not be appealable since such decision is a legislative
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 15
i •
function even though the procedure is designed to be quasi-
judicial in nature and provides due process to the applicant.
The application for annexation shall include a request for a
zoning designation and, upon annexation, the property shall be
zoned; however, procedurally, the property shall be deemed to
have been annexed prior to being zoned and for appeal rights,
there can be no appeal from the zoning decision if the
property is not first annexed. ...";
that the Applicant has been provided due process; that the City may
as part of the annexation, and as a condition of the annexation,
place conditions of approval on the annexation, which must be met
prior to the adoption of an annexation ordinance, or which may be
allowed to be met after annexation and if not met the parcel shall
be de-annexed.
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, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
10. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it
is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the
City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in
the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
11. That it is concluded that the City could annex the
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 16
~ •
property and zone it C-G but once the property was zoned C-G, the
Applicant could place many different uses on the property without
additional approval from the City other than building permits,
which limits the control that the City should have over the
development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of the
Comprehensive Plan.
12. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is not
known and therefore it is not known whether the application is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the
annexation and zoning should be conditioned on the City determining
what the proposed uses are and whether the proposed uses are in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, or the property should be
subject to de-annexation if the uses and lay-out of uses are not in
compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
13. Additionally, the Applicant has not stated or represented
its intention for development, which is of concern to the
Commission and the City Council; it is therefore concluded, as a
condition of annexation and zoning, even if some uses are revealed
and those uses are determined to be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, any use or development of the property shall
only be allowed as a conditional use with design review.
14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan,
under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview
Avenue, in 5.16U, states that all development requests will be
subject to development review and conditional use permit processing
to insure neighborhood compatibility, and since the City should
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 17
• •
have control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is
therefore concluded that once annexed and zoned, development of the
parcel of land is conditioned on being developed as a Commercial
Planned Development, which is allowed in the General Retail and
Service Commercial (C-G) district, or under the conditional use
permit process, or both.
15. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be
conditionally annexed and zoned General Retail and Service
Commercial (C-G) subject to determination by the City that the uses
and development are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; that
the property would only be capable of being developed as a planned
commercial development and under the conditional use permit
process.
16. That, prior to annexation and the zoning of C-G, the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11- D; that the development
agreement shall address, among other things, the following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11-
9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Strips.
c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any
impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the
City.
3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and
recreation services.
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 18
• •
4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
sites to serve the area.
5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the city.
6. Appropriate berming and landscaping.
7. Submission and approval of any required plats.
8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage,
lighting, parking, and other development plans under the
Planned Development guidelines.
9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the existing residential development.
10. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback required
under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same.
11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Shari
Stiles.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development.
14. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing as required under the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and meeting the standards for
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, at page 25, COMMERCIAL
POLICIES, at Page 26, and the MIXED-PLANNED USE
DEVELOPMENT, comments at Page 28 of the Comprehensive Plan.
17. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance
states in part as follows:
"It property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. ...";
that since the above section states that the development agreement
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 19
• •
shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and
zoning the parcel and since no development agreement has been
agreed on, or even discussed, it is concluded that the development
agreement is information that the City Council needs prior to the
final action on the annexing and zoning applications, which is the
annexation ordinance, and therefore pursuant to 11-2-416 F 2. the
Ci.ty Council may desire to continue the matter from meeting to
meeting until the development agreement is executed by all
necessary parties.
18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian,
but it is concluded that there shall be no annexation until the
requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are
met and the annexation and zoning is conditioned upon meeting the
requirements of these Finda.ngs of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
19. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department
Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Meridian
Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and addressed in
a development agreement.
20. 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 pressurized irrigation shall be
installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
21. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 20
~ •
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 and the development agreement.
22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-
G), would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall not be annexed.
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)
VOTED ~
VOTE
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 21
• i
DECISION
The City Council hereby decides that the property set forth in
the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and
zoning under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, including, but not limited to, that the
Applicant inform the Council of the uses and the proposed
development and that the Applicant enter into a development
agreement prior to an annexation and zoning ordinance being passed
as that agreement is information that the Council needs to decide
whether to pass an annexation and zoning ordinance or deny the
application; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering
into a development agreement and informing the City of intended
uses and development of the property, the property shall not be
annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED:--~v ~ ~ • DISAPPROVED:
NEBi COMPANY ANNEX - FF & CL Page - 22
•
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF THE W. H. MOORE COMPANY
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605 M. PIPING OF DITCHES
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on August 16, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock
p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and taken oral
and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF F.ACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for August 16, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the August 16, 1994, hearing; that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E. , 11-2-419 D. , and 11-
9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
MOORE VARIANCE - FF AND CL Page - 1
•
•
3. That O~dinance 11-9-605 M PIPING OF DITCHES, requires all
irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural
waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous,
shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering
equivalent in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or
canal.
4. That the Applicant has requested a variance from the
above ditch piping requirements and be allowed not to pipe the
Hunter Lateral.
5. The entire property in question is described in the
variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
6. That the property in the area where the variance is
requested is zoned I-L Light Industrial and is proposed to be used
in that fashion.
7. That the Applicant stated in the Application for variance
that the piping of the ditch would require in excess of a 48 inch
pipe to tile the ditch; that at the public hearing the Applicant
stated that it would require a 36 inch pipe or better; in the
application, in answer to the question why the granting of the
variances would nat confer upon the Applicant special privileges
that are denied to other lands in the same district, the Applicant
stated as follows: "The applicant's request would enable the
efficient use of property which would be unduly impacted by the
arbitrary enforcement of this provision of the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance."; that in response to the question what
MOORE VARIANCE - FF AND CL Page - 2
• •
special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to
the land, structure, or building invoTved and which are not
applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district, the Applicant states as follows: "The Hunter Irrigation
Lateral is a major facility which traverses the applicant's
property from southeast to northwest. The property in question is
not adjacent to any residential areas, and would not be subject to
a high degree of pedestrian traffic. The installation of a very
large pipe (in excess of 48-inch diameter) would be necessary in
order to comply with Section 9-605 M of the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance." The Applicant also stated at the hearing
that this ordinance requirement was intended for resi.dential
subdivisions as opposed to a subdivision of this kind where there
will be no children and that he presumed that it was a safety
matter. He stated that the property was business and light
industrial and would not be frequented by children as a residential
neighborhood would be.
8. In response to the question, "Why will a literal
interpretation of this ordinance deprive you of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this ordinance?" the Applicant stated as follows: "A literal
interpretation of Section 9-605 M would require the applicant to
provide for the public safety to a degree beyond the actual need
for such a facility in the area of the site in question."
9. That the Applicant owns the property.
10. That the following people appeared at the hearing to
MOORE VARIANCE - FF AND CL Page - 3
• •
testify as to the variance application:
a. Ed Slagle testified that his property backed up to the
applicant's property and that he had three children; that ,
there were other people living in the area that had
several kids; that if it is a safety factor then the
application should be denied.
b. Gary Blessin testified that he has a difficult time
getting irrigation water to his property and that he does
not want it to get any harder; in response to a question
from Councilman Corrie he stated that he thought he would
get the water faster if the ditch was piped if it had
gates.
c. Janet Hinkle testified that she was there to make sure
that her irrigation is not cut off.
11. That proper notice was gi.ven as required by law and all
procedures before the City Council 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 has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances and under 11-9-605 M the
City may waive the requirement of piping ditches if the City
Council finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be
served in the individual case.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
MOORE VARIANCE - FF AND CI, Page - 4
C~
•
Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record submitted
to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That the following provisions of Section 11-9-605 M
PIPING OF DITCHES, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance are
noted which is pertinent to the Agplication:
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of
natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent
and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch
either or bath sides of the area being subdi.vided, shall be
covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent
in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal.
The City may waive this requirement for covering such ditch,
lateral or canal, if it finds that the public purpose
requiring such will not be served in the individual case. Any
covering program involving the distribution system of any
irrigation district shall have the pr.ior approval of that
affected district. . . .
6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-9-612 A. 2., FINDINGS
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing,
that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be
impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the
subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to
the specific provision or requirement involved;
b. That strict compl.iance with the requirements of this
MOORE VARIANCE - FF AND CL Page - 5
' ~ •
Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the
subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature or
condition of adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions that make strict
compliance w.ith this Ordinance unreasonable under the
circumstances, or that the conditions and requ.irements of
this Ordinance will result in inhibiting the achievement
or objectives~of this Ordinance.
c. That the granting of the specified variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the
Idaho Code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying
the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
7. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or
profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant in that the
ditch was in existence at the time that the Applicant purchased the
property; that the City has required other developers to tile
ditches; that the granting of this variance would be of specific
economic gain to the Applicant;because if the ditch would not have
to be tiled such would save the Applicant money; that the variance
would be of benefit to the Applicant because other developers have
had to pay for tiling of ditches.
8. That it is concluded that the size of the ditch is a
substantial reason for having the ditch tiled rather than a reason
for granting a variance from the requirement of tiling it; the
Applicant stated at the hearing that the size of the diameter of
~ the tile to pipe the ditch would be in excess of 36 inches; that no
specific data was put forth that the ditch would require a 48 inch
diameter tile to pipe the ditch; that the City has granted
MOORE VARIANCE - FF AND CL Page - 6
• •
variances where the size of tile would be 48 inches or more; that
the Applicant did not show that the tile size would be 48 inches or
more or more.
9. That the requirement of tiling ditches is a health and
safety requirement; that there are children who drown in ditches in
Ada County and the Treasure Valley almost every irrigation season;
that the City has experienced a public outcry from residents
adjacent to a ditch in Glennfield Manner to have a ditch tiled.
10. That the requirement of tiling ditches and waterways is
health, welfare and safety requirement; that there are children
living on property adjacent to the Applicant's property; that there
was no evidence produced to indicate that the property was not
accessible by children; that the requirement of piping ditches and
waterways is not solely a residential subdivision requirement and
applies to all lands in the City of Meridian.
11. That the evidence ; put forth by the Applicant did not
meet the requirements to enable the City to make the findings
required by 11-9-612 A. 2. to support the granting of a variance.
12. That it would not be in the best interest of the City to
grant the variance; that the public purpose requiring tiling would
not be served by the granting of this variance; that it is
concluded the Application for a variance from the 11-9-605 M PIPING
OF DITCHES should be denied.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
MOORE VARIANCE - FF AND CL ~ Page - 7
•
~
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby approve
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED
COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION
That it is decided the Application for a variance from 11-9-
605 M is de ied.
APPROVED: '
DISAPPROVED:
MOORE VARIANCE - FF AND CL Page - 8
' ' ~
u
pINE STREET DEVEL~pl"I~NT
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
NE 1/4 NE 1/4 SeC Aaa C unt
T. 3N. R.lE. B.M.
MERIDIAN ID~O
FINDXNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF I+AW
e above entitled annexation and zoning application having
Th
n for consideration on July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30
come o 33 East Idaho
Hall,
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City
and Zoning Commission
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning
and the Applicant
having heard and taken oral and written testimonY. ered the matter,
and having duly consid
appearing through Ron Walsh,
the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINC3S OF FACT
hat notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning
1. T
ed for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said
was publish
12~ lgg4, the first publication
public hearing scheduled for July that the
of which was fi.fteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
12~ 199~, hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the July ress comments and submit
public was given full opportunity to exp
and that copies of all notices were available to
evidence;
newspaPer, radio and television stations.
included in the application for
2, That the property
and zoning is described in the appLication, and by this
annexation
page l
FINDINGS OF FAVELOPMENTNCLUSIONS OF LAW
pINE STREET DE
• •
rence is incorporated herein; that the property is 12•46 acres
refe
'ze• the property is south of. Fairview Avenue and West o
in si ,
~°~ o~ the Danbury Faire Subdivision.
Locust Grove Road, .
zoned by Ada County as R-1
ro ert is presently
3. That the p P y ro osed use
Estates Residential and (RT) Rural Transition and the p P
• that the Applicant
would be for R-8 Residential type development,
the could live with R-4 zoning but would like R-8 for other
states Y uare feet
urposes; that some houses would fall below the 1,400 sq e Would
p is R-8 ther
required by the R-4 zone; that if the zoning
be single family dwellings; that they want $ome house sizes to
only
e 1 100 and 1,200 square feet and the rest would be 1,400 or over;
b ~ • that they
that it would be in line with Danbury Faire~subdivision,
R-4.
do not anticipate any higher density than that allowed by
hat Becky Bowcut appeared for the Applicant and stated that
T
Faire was R-8 and that R-8 wa$ aPP=opriate because of the
Danbury
area; that the land was not adjacent to the wrecking yard
The general area surrounding the property is used
4• that the
residentially with an automobile wrecking yard nearby;
tial roperty is developed in ti~e R-8~ Residential fashion;
residen P =esent City
that the property is adjacent and abutting to the p
limits. at the public
5. That the Commission received testi.mony
hearing; that the testimony was basically as folloW$'anbu Faire
a. Lynette Miller testi~£~ t a that her lot was zoned R-4 and
Subdivision and she act on schools is
she has 1,500 square feet; that the ~P roblem and that
to high; that the irrigation ditch is a P
Page 2
FINDINGS OF FAVELOPMENT CLUSIONS OF LAW
pINE STREET DE
• •
she wants fencing; that she has a flooding problem.
att testified that. she lived in Danbury Faire and
b, Linda Wy ~ p 0 square f eet and that thua=e a f eet ~ in
her home is 1~ ust 1,100 and 1,200 sq
larger homes than j ressure
Danbury; that her main concern W ressu=ewa and Panother
because there was no water P roblems; that the
subdivision would cau ~eat uconcernP she also question
schools were also oing to be park area.
whether there was g 9
t e
~. Rob Powers testified ou e W e Wanted a fence along od
as 1 400 square feet; that he
ditch line; that his h that it was go
wants a fence to protect from trash;
area for a park; he had concerns ovehetalso stat d that
an fencing was 9oing to be required;
y narrow and that this
I,ocust Grove Roadus~acausertraffic problems.
subdivision would j
d. Deborah Tisher testified tha~t sshshe alsodwanted a fence
their proposal for the ditch around; she
for privacy and to prevent trash from blowing
also stated that she had CO uld be requi ed.$chools and
thought that impact fees sho
erty,
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the Pr ritia;
but the owners are Joe and Aline DeNardi and Rebecca I' P to this
that the owners have submitted a request and consent
Application for annexation and zoning• the annexation and zoning
~. That the property included in
'cation is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
~ppl1 round is included within the
g. That the entire parcel of g
'an Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Meridi
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
9.
resent use of the property is
and zoned R-8 Residential; that the p
'culture and residences; that the intended development of
for agrl subdivision but not subdivision
the property is for an R-8
Page 3
FINDINGS OF FEVELOPMENTNCLUSIONS OF LAW
PINE STREET D
• •
application was submitted. artment,
10. That comments were received from• the Fire Dep ,strict
Central Di
Police Department, Meridian School District,
ation District, City
Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrig
er and the Meridian Planning Director and they are
Engine ,
incorporated herein as if set forth in full• ented that the
Cit Engineer, comm
11. That Gary Smith, Y
'cant needs to provide a legal description that describes the
ApPll that it is assumed that an
property proposed for annexation;
arcel can sewered by Applicant's
easterly portion of this p
ension of the existing sewer in Locust Grove Road but the
ext
inder of the parcel will need to sewer"to the west in Danbury
rema p, licant's
5ubdivision; that water service can be provided by PP
extension of the water line in Locust Grove Road. ~ rehensive
12. That the property is shown on the Meridian Co p
Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area.
13. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Use Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
Land -
tural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
agricul
until urban services can be provided.
ex eriencing a population
14. That Meridian has, and is, P
ase• that there are pressures on land previously used for
incre ,
' ultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
agric
lots.
5. That the property can be physically serviced with City
1
Page 4
FINDINGS OF DEVELOPMENTNCLUSIONS ~F LAw
pINE STREET
~ •
water and sewer.
16. That the R-8, Residential. District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-4U8 B• 4 as follows:
g-g Medium Densit Residential District: The purpo3e
of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishmentri ~
2 family dwellings at a density This
single and two () units per acre.
exceeding eight (8) dwelling
district delineates those areas whereaccord d withpmthe
has or is likely to occur in
Comprehensive Plan of the a 1 eyhomes into two ( 2)9 family
permi t t he c o n v e r s i o n o f 1 q
dwellings in well-established nMunicipal~WatercandaSewer
land use. Connection to the uired.
systems of the City of Meridian is req
uare
that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 sq
that the Applicant's
feet to be included in houses in that zone%WOUld be in line with
representative stated that the subdivision uestion.
Danbury Faire, an R-8 subdivision adjacent to the land in q
1'7. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: rural,
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban,
townhouses, apartments,
single-family, multi-family, roviding the City with
condominiums, etc. ) for the purpose of p
a range of affordable housing opportunities.
lg. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
Area development may occur
"Within the Urban Service Planning s er acre if physical
in densities as low as 3 dwelling P
nection is made to existing Citi tted anddsubdiv a a and
c o n r o e r t y l s p
sewer service an d t he p P
„ rehensive Plan, under Land Use,
lg. That the Meridian Comp
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
~~ sidential development is allowed in the rural area provided
Re
Page 5
FINDINGS ~F DEVELOPMENTNCLUSIONS OF LAW
PINE STREET
. •
that said development does not eiseinside theaUrban1Service
Agricultural density, unless it rovided, then Low,
Planning Area and City sewer and water i$ be ~onsidered. Al1
Medium and High density residential may with the other
residential development must lans~ comply
appropriate sections of this p
2p. 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
t es single-familY~ modular, mobile
diversity of housing yP ( "
townhouses arrangements), • • -
homes, multi-family,
market for all persons, regardless of
"1.3 An open housing
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
in centers should be encouraged."
to employment and shopp q
That there is a population influx into the City of
21.
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.
22. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment
lications that a determination of ground water
in different app
level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a
comment is equally applicable to this Application.
in this
23. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning
area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that
develo ment agreement
annexation could be conditioned on a p
'ncluding an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
i
site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to
im act fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by
P
Page 6
FINDINGS OF DEVELOPMENTNCLUSIONS OF LAW
PINE STREET
• ~
reement; that
the city and designated in an approved development ag
lication.
such comment is equally applicable to this App
24. The Meridian School District submitted comment and such
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; its comment was
~n all
that this subdivision wi11 cause increased overcrowding .on
three schools; that before they could support this subdivisi ,
needs to be dedicated to the district or at least made
land
ilable for a school site in this area; that the site would need
ava
water and sewer service available. assed
islature p
25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Leg~ aho Code,
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513•Id
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows-
~'Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation °o fthpoiitical
of subdivision development on the aschool districts, to
subdivisions of the state, including uality of service
deliver s to 1 ~urrenth~ residents m or ngimPosing substantial
delivery
additional costs upon current resa.dents to accommodate t e
subdivision.";
the City of Meridian is concerned with the i.ncrease in
that
ation that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
popul sewer,
enc health care, water,
able to provide fire, police, emerg Y
ks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
par
ovin into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
m 9
o ulation is burdening the schools of the Meridian Schoo
in p P
'strict which provide school service to current and future
Di
esidents of the City; that the City knows that the increase ln
r
lation does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offse
popu
Page 7
FINDINGS ~F DEVELOPNiENT CLUSIONS OF LAW
PINE STREET
• •
emergency health care, water,
the cost of providing fire, police,
se~iier, 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.
26. 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 ret~oactive 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.
27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
edestrian walkways in the middle of long
"Right-of-way for p to obtain convenient
blocks may be required where necessaa k$ or $hopping areas;
pedestrian circulation to schools, p
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
uired to be placed next to
"Planting strips shall be req hwa s railroads, commercial
incompatible features such as hig Y-
or industrial uses to screen the view from residenfeet
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty
~20~) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
29. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: ~al
"Existing natural features attractivenesls oft theecommunity
development and enhance the historic spots and si.milar
(such as trees, watercourses,
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design o
the subdivision;"
30. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands desina~ural features an~n
space corridors should b~n ~ a lnfeatures such as utili y
to lesser extent, by
Page 8
FINDINGS ~F DEVELOPMENTNCLUSIONS OF I+AW
PINE STREET
•
•
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."
31. 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 W~Pi h is
easements so that an alternate transpartation system ~ rovided
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be P The
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area.
Commissi.on and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicvcle Pedestrian Desi4n Manual for Ada Count (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSTONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Page 9
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT
•
•
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
of.notice to owners of property
been met, including the mailing
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
ursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
P
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
overnment ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
9
existing within the City and State.
(. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the
resent City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
P
annexation.
would not be a shoestring
~. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
p, licant, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not
PP
upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
page 10
FINDINGS OF DEVELOPNiENTNCLU3IONS OF I~AW
PINE STREET
• •
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
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, 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;
Paqe 11
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA1^1
PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT
~ •
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,
Meridian Planning Director and of the Ada County Highway District,
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the prior comments of the
Meridian Planning Director referenced herein, shall be met and
addressed in a development Agreement. -
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways sha11 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
wi11 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
page 12
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT
• •
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 sha11 be subject to de-annexation and loss
of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not
met.
14. That in the R-8 zone the house size is required to be
1,300 square feet unless smaller house are interspersed within the
subdivision as allowed in 11-2-411 D; that it is concluded, however
as a condition of annexation that there shall be no houses smaller
than 1,200 square feet, that 25~ of the houses may be between 1,200
and 1,300 square feet, and the rest of the liouses shall meet the
1, 300 square foot minimum; and that homes smaller than 1, 300 square
feet shall not be located to be adjacent to Danbury Faire
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13
PINE STREET DEVELOPMENT
• •
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall not be annexed; that if the Applicant does not
consent to these conclusion in writing prior to the City Council
hearing it is concluded that the property should not be annexed.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
CONIMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
RECOl~IIKENDATION
ROLL CALL
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 application with the conditions set forth in the Fi.ndings of
Fact and.Conclusions of Law; that if the Applicant does not consent
to these Conclusions and does not gi.ve his consent in writing prior
to the City Council hearing, it is recommended that the property
not be annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PINE STREET DEVELQPMENT
DISAPPROVED:
page 14
~
~
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCL.USIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions this _~ day of ~1J~'~~ , 1994.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
(INITIAL)
APPROVED~
VOTED
VOTED_~
VOTED i~~+~
VOTED
VOTED
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -~~ ~~~'e~ ~~` ~~~~~
, ~ • •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNINa AND ZONINa CO1~II~+iISSION
PIONEER INVESTMENTS INC.
BRANDON CREER'ESTATES
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
A PORTION OF THE SE 1 4 SECTION 6 T.3N. R.lE. BOISF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
July 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., that Jim Rees
representing the Petitioner appeared 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 (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for July 12, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the July 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. The property is approximately 14.95 acres; the property
is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is not the
BRANDON CREER ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 1
• •
owner of the property; the owners of record appear to be Leonard W.
Evans and Doris B. Evans, James M. Rees and Eleanor V. Rees, the
Rp,P Trust, the estates of Richard Melickian and Ara Melickian, and
Carol I. Stiner; that James M. Rees submitted a statement that
stated, "I James R. Rees, being a partner of the property
description of which is attached, do hereby request that the City
of Meridian annex this property with a zone of R-8."; that there is
no evidence that the land is owned by a partnership, that Mr. Rees
is a partner, and there is no request for annexation submitted bg
the parties who are the apparent owners as shown in the documents
submitted with the Application.
3. That the property to the east is~the Wheel Inn Mobile
Manor, a mobile home court, the property to the north is James
Court, a subsidized housing project, the property to the south is
the Albertson store, the Cherry Plaza mall and other retail
establishments, the property to the west property used for a day
care and across Meridian Road is vacant ground; there are single
family subdivisions adjacent or nearby; the land in the immediate
area is not developed in any fashion other than as stated above.
4. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
5. The Applicant is Pioneer Investments, Inc., but know
relationship was evidenced in the documents submitted with the
Application between Pioneer Investments, Inc. and the apparent
owners or any partnership.
6, That the property included in the annexation and zoni.ng
paqe - 2
gRANDON CREEIi ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL
~ •
lication is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
app
~, That the entire parcel of.ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Se=vice Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. nexed
g. That the Application requests that the parcel be an
and zoned R-8; that the Applicant also submi.tted a conditional use
re uest for planned residential development to allow for a single
q
zero lot line project and the Applicant stated that the
family, with
project would contain 79 units with a club house along of
recreational facilities for people over the age of 50, that some
the lots would have single family detached homes but the majority
would be built on a zero lot line or as a duplex with each side
bein sold to an owner; that they have also subtaitted the
9
conditional use request to allow a reduction in the frontage from
and for a planned unit
50 feet for a two family dwelling lat for
development; the Applicant also submitted a preliminary p
42.5 feet.
approval which shows most lot wi.dths being
9. At the hearing Jim Rees testified that there would be
u lexes or O-lot line development; that they want R-8 zoning with
d p
0-lot line development; that there were sewer lines that
ede development
transversed the property that he hoped would not imp
he
• that they have to build a bridge across Five Mile Creek;
, ented on the desire of the City to have sewer line unfenced,
c omm
left open and an access road along it; that the unfenced was no
roblem but the access road was; that they would like to landscape
P ro erty
Five Mile Creek; and that they would like to fence the p p
Page - 3
gRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL
• •
exce t along the canal; he later stated that they could work with
P
the City on access to the sewer line.
the reliminary plat Application it is stated that
10. In P
there would be 79 lots, 5.28 dwellings per acre, that recreation
easements have been provided for, that any recreation amenities
would only be fore the residents of the area, that there would be
a club house a recreational facilities, that there only be
residential housing in the subdivision, that there.would only be
lot line dwellings, that the
single family and single family )-
minimum square footage of the lots would be 4,250 and the minimum
500, that there
square footage of the homes would be 1,200 to 1,
would be garages of 4-00 square feet, that there would be
landscaping along 5 Mile Drain and around the clubhouse, that trees
would be provided and sprinkler systems, that there would be no
multiple units but there may be two units attached, and that off
street parking would be provided in the form of garages and
driveways.
11. The present zoning of the property is shown in the Zoning
Ordinance as AP-2•
12. That comments were received from the City Engineer, City
Planning Director, Meridian Police Department, Fire Department,
hwa District, Central
Meridian School District, Ada County Hi.9 Y
ation District,
Di.strict Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrig
and Idaho Power; that such comments are incorporated herein by ths-s
reference. ~o~ented
13. The Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles,
paqe - 4
gRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL
• •
that the Application generally complies with the goals of the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan to provide a diversity of housing types
and higher density near the downtown core; that she had additional
requirements of the platting; that the stub street requested by
ACHD to the north in the northeast corner appeared to be
detrimental to what the Applicant was trying to achieve; that she
had been contacted by many senior citizens that desired to move
onto a smaller lot that wi11 not require as much upkeep; that she
recommended that the Applications be approved and that a
development agreement would be required as a condition of the
annexation and zoning.
Gary Smith, City Engineer, commented that a legal description
need to be submitted by a licensed land surveyor; that the sewer
interceptor easement and sewer later easement servicing the Wheel
Inn Mobile Manor needs to be unfenced and kept open with access
road for maintenance purposes; the bridge structure over Five Mile
Creek needs to have an opening sufficient to pass a 100 year
frequency flood; that the highest seasonal ground water needs to be
determined; that all irrigation/drainages ditches carrying water
across this project need to be piped; and that proposed restrictive
covenants need to be submitted.
14. That Kenny Bowers of the Meridian Fire Department
commented that he had a problem with the "one way in and out"
situation and that there was going to be a lot of traffic for that
and that there should be no parking in cul-de-sacs.
15. There was one person ftom the public testifying at the
paqe - 5
BRANDON CREER ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL
• •
hearing; Raleigh Hawe testified that he had concern over fencing in
the northeast corner around the proposed clubhouse.
16. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
a ricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
9
lots.
\ ro ert can be physically serviced wi.th City
17. That the p P Y
water and sewer.
lg. That the R-8 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B• 4 as follows:
~~(g-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of
the (R-8) Districts is to PS at a dens ty not exceedingseight
and two (2) family dwelling
(8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those
areas where such developmenv plan ofl thel City and~ isu also
accord with the Comprehensi
designed to permit the conversion of large home hbo ho ds tof
f~ily dwell a guse ln Connecti na to1 t e Municg pal Water and
comparable lan
Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is require •
that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square
that the Applicant's
feet to be included in houses in that zone;
representative did not state that the subdivision would comply with
thi.s requirement and it is stated in the plat Application that the
minimum size homes would be 1,200 to 1,500.
19. That Planned Unit Developments are allowed under a
11-2-409 A.); that 0-lot
conditional use permit in the R-8 Zone (
line development is not specifically address in the Zoning
Ordinance and the only reference in the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance is in 11-9-605 F 4. and it only speaks to yard setbacks
paqe - 6
gFtANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL
~ •
and to easements.
2p. That 0-lot lines are stated to one of the predominant
housing types in the R-15 zoning district.
21. That in Comprehensive Plan, in the FOR~WAR_~ section it
states in part as follows:
rehensive Plan update process, citizens
"Throughout the Comp oals and policies contained in the 1993
reaffirmed that the g values.
Centennial Year plan be based on six key
Manage growth to achieve high-quality development.
Enhance Meridian's quality of life for all residents.
•.•„ ection of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land
and in the Land Use s
Use Goal Statement, it does state in various sections as follows:
1.4U Encourage new develo ttern of h gherldensity development
present development pa
within the Old Town Area and lower-density development in
outlying areas.
1.5U Encourage a balance of lan stablet~ and u selfasufficient
remains a desireable,
community .
22. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan,
under Comprehensive P1an Map, it does state in various sections as
follows:
"The land use element is based upon these objectives:
residential neighborhoods, north, south,
3, Quality
east, and west of Old Town.
ortance of maintaining compatible land uses
'7. The imp ualit of life.
to ensure an optimum q Y
22. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
Page - 7
gRANDON CREER ESTATES 1~lNNERATION FF & CL
~ •
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.
22. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots
in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
24. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
BRANDON CREER ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL page 8
~ •
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide." '
25. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
26. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
27. That Section 11-9-605 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
BRANDON CREER ESTATES ANNEXPITION FF & CL pa9e - 9
~ •
recreation facilities."
28. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada Countv (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
29. 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
BRANDON CREER ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 10
~ •
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 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 titled owners, and the annexation
is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 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 would be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property would be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant would be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
BRANDON CREER ESTATES ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 11
, . ~
agreement would address the inclusion into the subclivision 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 tl~at 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
annexati.on, requi.re 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 would be subject
to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of
this paragraph were not met.
10. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized
Land Use Map as being in an Existing Urban Area; that development
of the land in a residential capacity would be in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation would be in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; the specific plan for
development and the requested zoning for all of the land is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan in that the Plan encourages
higher density development within the Old Town area and lower
density in outlying areas; being behind the Cherry Mall and the
Albertsan store and not being adjacent to any existing single
family subdivisions or dwellings, the land is in an area that begs
for development.
BRANDON CREER ESTATES ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 12
~
•
11. That the Comprehensive Plans policies ~to protect and
maintain =esidential neighborhood property val.ues, improve each
neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life
for residents and to maintain compatible land uses to ensure an
optimum quality of life, would apparently be followed as noticed by
the total lack of objecting testimony as compared to the testimony
from owners of property adjacent to the Applicant's development
land objecting to the Meridian Mobile Estates Application, heard
the same night as this Appla.cation. The area in which this land is
located is close to the core of the City but has had few
development applications, and this type of development in this area
is beneficial.
14. That the annexation of the property is in the best
interest of the City of Meridian and should be granted.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planni.ng 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)
BRANDON CREEK ESTATES ANNEXFITION FF & CL
VOTED~C~-
VOTED Q. ~il~ -
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
Page - 13
, Y ~ .
RECONII~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 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 a condition of
annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the
City of Meridian, specifically including the development time
requirements and entering into the required development agreement,
and the conditions of these Findings and Conclusions of Law, and
that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: ~ DISAPPROVED:
BRANDON CREER ESTATES ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 14
~ ~
APPROVAL OF FfNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conc{usions this __~ day of ~,11~~ , 1994.
ROLL CALL
C(~UNCtLMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
C~UNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
(INITIAL)
APPROVED~?~~
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED `
VOTED
VOTED
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -~~~" C~~ ~f~~`~
~ r cPilie~
~~
i rxnn~ M~T~A nonco i ~ ~nco ~
9-~-q~
c~~ ~~ .
. ._ . _.. ~.. __ .. ~ - - , ,".
WATE R Cqh18UMF~T I DN * MOD T FY ~
EICIOK IVUh1~EFt °;~1 ~ ME7ER ° ~~' § MFG. S/N ( )
I~IAME : LAS"(' ° BAL DW I N ~ F I RST ° ROHE RT §
SEf~VIG E STREET: ° LE AhIN WAY § NUMPE R ° L0 88 § EXT ° §
WA7ER~ REAU D7E CUR. REAll F'RIOR READ OLD METER IVEW GhlSUh'I
..~A~ ° ~11~;94 ~ ~ JJ~~~~ ~ ~ JJ~~~~ ~ ~ F3 ~ JLF~~ ~
FE~ ° ~~' 1594 ~ ° 56~ 1 ~~ § ° JJE~ Q~Q~Q~ § ° § ( 41 Q~0 )
MAR ° Q~3~~94 § ° 56190~ § ° 56Q~1~0 § ° § ( 18Q~Q~ )
AF~'R ° ~41994 § ° ~693~~ § ° ~619~Q~ § ° ~ ( 74Q~~ >
MAY ° ~~1~94 § ° 5946~~Z- § ° ~69?,Q~~ ~ ° § ( `5..?,Q~O )
JUN ° 06~894 § ° 6164Q~Q~ § ° 5946~~ § ° § ( L18~~ )
JUL ° ~71.?,94 § ° 6~4`~~ § ° b 164~-~ § ° § ( 178Q~Q~ )
AU6 ° ~8~894 § ° 64530Q~ § ° b34c~~ § ° § ( 111-Z~~ )
SEP ° ~91593 § ° 54c40Q~ § ° 53$O~Q~ § ° § ( 4400 )
OCT ° 101593 § ° J~FJJQ~Q~ § ° 54`40Q~ § ° § t 310Q~ )
NOV ° 111JS" ~3 ~ J~FBiQ~~ ~3 ' J~FJJQ~~ f3 ~ f3 { ''~'`'E7~Q~ )
DEC p 1`1 J~~ 3 ~ JJ~C'~Q~Q~ ~ ~ J'~FB 1~Q~ F3 ~ ~3 ~ ~JQ~~ ~
AVG. CONSUMF~7IOhl ° 3450 § DQLLAR ° 10. Q~~ ~ SQR FOOTAGE ° ~
............................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................
::~ .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::•:::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.........................................................................................
~F1 hr10DTFY ~ F:~ RECCIRD F,~ QUI7 F4 FtE-SELECT F7 ACTI VE NOTES
, ~ ~
C:: I a'~r'' i~ ~ 1'~"91~ f~ ~C L~ I~ i'~i
DELIIVG!UEI~CY LI~T - R001'. & METER ORDER
Delinquency Time = 60 ~ays / Minioue Dallar Aiount: 10.~80
Book-Meter #: 1-1@ ta
09/0fil94 F~'~: i
BDQK I i - PAST DUE AMt~ii~lT5 -------:
METER # 1------------------- RE5IDEAtT NflME --------------- ---I---- 9ERVICE ST~tEET C~DbRES5 --- --1 Ct7RREPiT I AR4iEARS i T~i :a~ti.
-----------------------------------
1- 420 I ANDERS --------------
IDQL6LFi5 --------
1726 BRQADWAY AUE. W
I ~'.0~D1
49.001
71.~t~
1-1040 i AZEVEDD IJDE c~ HEA7rIER 1120 RAILRDAD flVE. W I 22.~1 S~.~Q! 74.'~k~:
1-1280 i TECO INVE57hSEtJTS I 1609 21VD ST. W I ~7.601 54.201 81.8~n:
f-181@ i CLYMENS IGLflDYS 17~9 IDAHD AUE. W I 2~.0Q~i 52.Q~01 7s.~01
i-~i:~ ~ aa~RO~Ta~~a iPHYLLIS I's7 iDAHD AVE. W f 27.001
~ 47.001
' 74.~~':
- -- I „
1-339@ I CUSSINS iANGEL~ .
l50s' PINE AVE. W I 54.iak 101.c0i I55.,:;~~
1-'s4Q0 I WILLIAMS IROSALIE 14s'3 ~'INE flVE. W 1 ~5.'s@I 63.8di 89.13!
1-35~~ I FUHRMAN IKETiT 18s0 JVD ST. W I 39.40{ 117.701 157.b0~
i-444Q~ i HDLSTEIN IWILiI~M 187Q FRRNKLIN RD. W 1 6's.@01 135.001 19&.E+~~
~:10 I SANTISTEUflN IDAVID & LEROY i~s'2 PINE AVE. W 1 23.001 62.001 85.~~1
2- 460 i GEP{ERAL SERVICES 1 ibci8 CRITERI~N 5T. W I ~:2.~@1 's6.@0i 58.~~~:
2- 502 i ROLFSON IBRETi 1802 FINE AVE. W E 76.90{ ~81.c~Dl 35$.1~~
c- 5~6 ~ MOS5I IDflVID L. !1@?c 8TH W I 79.5~1 146.Q~0i ~.`i.~~l
~-I~@0 1 K.STEWART 16. SMART ~ Ils's~ i5T 5T. W I 51.301 76.n01 127.4~1
2-22.`,Z~ I WEAKLEY IELIZAAETN I15~8 1ST ST. W I 50.~01 87.4Q~1 1s7.6EI
P-13@0 I BRINEGAR iE.E. 11632 1ST 5T. W I 49.4a1 99.801 149.~~;
c'-1530 { OBENCNAIN I JAIi4E I 13~@ 2ND 5T. W I 43. Q~0 i 72. 601 115. 6Q~ (
~-17~1 i DR. BARRY ~~I~S ~ 14~3 CNERRY L,`~. W i ~l.~el 50.001 ll.k~l
~-197@ i LAASQN I KERRY L. I 2~5 ~iflPl.E W f 5~. ~2 } 7~. s@ I 1'c4. 8$- i
~-~0's0 I MEYER iVIRGINIA 1230 CAMELLIA 1 c^E.sai 52.60i 78.~Z~i
2-22~40 1 70DD 15HERi 1236 CAt4ELLIp I 48.1~1 65.201 113.:;0i
~-24b0 I FARMER 15COTT 1314 CAMELLIA ! 41.c01 84.401 1~.`~.6~i
:-215Q~ I NEAGLE ILOUIE J. 1216 CHERRY AVE. I 67.001 1~5.Q@I 192.~~!
?-~~40 i GERKINS ITAMERA 1233 CHERRY AVE. I 77.801 1~8.601 18b.4~i
~-~3~0 } MCfARLflND IRUSSELL L. 11217 15T ST. W I 84.401 1~8.80! c13.c~2':
^c-~500 1 BAILEY IELLEN r4. Is38 CHERRY AVE. I 28.601 61.201 89.3ai
2-3570 I D.J. 5TANLEY I 1112~ 4TH ST. W ! 83.~1 123.~01 20E.4~;
, -, .~s..,
~-4740 1 ALBRECHT IJIiDY ~1406 14TH 5T. W i 67.101 118.2~1 1$5.~0i
~-4750 I FUl~6t IDAVID 11414 14TH ST. W I 62.301 1@7.E~11 169.9~!
~-4$~0 I TODD IJUDY L. 11400 NORTNGA7E AVE. i 57.90I 108.8@I 16b.7F;
2-489Q- i BISti~P ISTEGE~"~ d. l1i4@ 1°,TH ST. W i 181.501 118.10! ~}9.E~0!
~ 5a10 i EARLEY IGE~RGE 11~36 LINDER RD. N 1 49.c0f 81.401 1~.643i
P-5040 I MITCHELL IBARRY D. i15z7 NORTHGATE AVE. I 93.401 180.801 c74.7~1
:-,~,7s~A I GREINER iDOUGLAS 11339 CARLTDN AUE. W 1 74.901 114.8@I iS9.7~2i
~ 5896 I FEIL IKAY Il~s6 iSTH AVE. W 1 43.[~01 6Q.@0! 103.Q~Q1
^c-6s0k1 I 5CHILDHAUfR I~i_EN I1L03 6TH W I 72.601 145.2~1 ~'.17.8d~1
s- 54 i fISHER fRICK i705 ABERNATHY WY. N 1 ~~.901 1Y~0.601 151.~01
's- 318 1 DECKER IKIMERY 1694 ABERNATHY WY. N I 43.201 79.401 1~~.6i21
s'- 378 I i~lYER IDAUID E. 1814 ROTAN AUE. N i 54.301 1~.6@1 176.901
4-1754 I PRYaR IMARK 12`~3 SHERYL 5T. W I 74.901 91.351 166.~5i
4-178@ I MACLENNRN PUILDEkS 1 1128~ STUCKER AVE. PJ I 'c2.Q~01 44.001 ~+6.(~Q~(
4-1887 I HAVEW COVE NDMEDWNERS ~iS50C. 1 i SPRINKLER-HAVEN CDVE } s4.+~~f 150.~Q+1 194.00i
4-1908 1 BYER5 IDRRRELL R. i15~3 TO}iRY WY. ~1 1 98.801 177.601 276.41~1
4-c15$ 1 h1AX htILLER CONST"nUCTICN ! ! ls'19 5AtiTA ADSA AVE. N
, - 1 I
~ 33.3@I
~ ~~. ~~d;
. ,A ~ ~
G I T V' CM ~ t~1 E F~ I]f~ S i~ hi
DELINGUENCY LI ST - ROC1K & METER ORDER
Delinguency Tiie = 60 Days / Minieu~ Dollar A~ount: 10.00
Book-Meter #: 1-18 to
09/0G194 ~: J
Bp~;{ ~ I PAST Dl~ AM~ITS -.
METER # I-----°----------- RE5IDENT t~ME - ------- ---I----- SERVICE STREET ADDRESS ---i CURf~NT I AR~ARS I TOT BAL.
74- 322 I
I EVERSON
IKEVIN •
1684 PEt~VM~D 5T. 1
37.90!
159.681 ----
197.`,~df
74- 's5~ I FRANH IGARY E. lb38 liR~IOVER CT. 1 58.801 12b.b0t 185.4~:
74- s82 I R B~ M HDME5 I 1636 FULMER CT. I 31.@81 99.0@I 13@.~~i
74- 's84 I RD61E ISl~RYL f656 FUIMER CT. I 4b.201 lc^2.401 167.60i
74- 's92 1 CHADWICK i LARRY & SUSIE 173b FW+~R CT. I 25. 001 59. ~ 1 84. ~i~ ;
74-1084 I~ALE IEDWARD & MADORA l102 fST ST. W I 50.2~1 I1s.40! 163.6~~
74-1458 I JDMVSON IRUSSELL 1513 M~RIAIAM St. S I 24.081 48.@01 72•Q~Q~
74-~s6& I ELDRED 1FL.OYD 11014 CRESTWOOD CL. i Sl. i21 101.401 152. ~I~:
74-24P6 ! DUNNE ICHRIS B CHEflYL 1108P KIMRA ST. W I 40.001 89.~01 1~9.8@:
74-2$s4 i MCCDRMICK . IMICNRQ 11289 CRESTW~D QR. W I 66.501 188.00I ~54.51~.
74-2850 I CHEESBRDUGH IJAMES G. 1519 SP~ONBILL AUE. 5 i 33.501 79.001 112.~::
74 t876 i USSERY ITRACY 11345 MERGANSER DR. W i 44.1A1 94.20i 1's$.~'~',
74-3036 I URATA IFRANK & 6ARBARA . 1925 LOON ST. W I 31.a01 66.701 99.d~;
74-32s8 4 RULE IDEBRA 11134 6R~~+FOn na. W f 33.4~{ 102.80f is6.?3i
74-s.'~~6 I YOUNG IMIGHAEL A. 1151n GREEt+OiEAD DR. ~ I 3@.901 89.801 icQ.'aI
--------
TQTALS -----~~-
I
f11598.~01
~249~9.i31
536557.9s:
TOTAL DUE: $20,087.63