HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 10-17
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
C~
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 3, 1995:
(APPROVED)
TABLED APRIL 18, 1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS
SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (TABLED UNTIL
NOVEMBER 8, 1995 -REQUESTED BY APPLICANT)
2. TABLED AUGUST 15, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 5, 1995 -
REQUESTED BY APPLICANT)
3. TABLED AUGUST 15, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
USES BY E.L. BEWS: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 5, 1995 -
REQUESTED BY APPLICANT)
4. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
(TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
5. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISON:
(APRPOVED)
6. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDNISION N0.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
(APPROVED AMENDED FINDINGS; APPROVE DECISION)
7. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (APPROVED
SUBJECT TO MEETING ALL CONDITIONS)
8. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995 -REQUESTED
BY APPLICANT)
9. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #713 -LOS ALAMITOS SUBDNISION
NO. 3 ANNEXATION: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
10. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED
UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
11. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 5 8: 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED
AMENDED FINDNGS; APPROVE DECISION)
12. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #717 -THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 5 & 6: {APPROVED)
13. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 5 8~ 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED)
14. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO.S BY RAMON YORGASON:
(APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVED DECISION; APPROVED
VARIANCE)
15. REQUEST FOR AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FOR REQUEST TO REDUCE REQUIRED MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE OF
1800 TO 1500 SQUARE FEET FOR ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDNISION:
(TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995 - REQUEST A PRESENTATION)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES
TO C-G BY LANGLEY AND ASSOCIATES: {CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RETAIL PROJECT OF APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FEET BY
LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.17
ACRES TO L-O AND C-G BY JIM BALLANTYNE: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.3 ACRES
TO R-40 BY BILLY QUINN: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A DAY CARE FOR APPROXIMATELY 6 TO 12 CHILDREN
BY JUDY WILSON: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TIME AND CHANGE THE NAME FROM
•
C~
MERRYWOOD SUBDIVISION N0. 3 & 4 TO PINE CREEK SUBDIVISON
NO. 1 & 2 BY RUSSELL HUNNEMILLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ON STREET
PARKING, PERMIT LIMITED OUTDOOR SEATING WITH PERMISSION
FROM ACHD, WAIVER FROM STATE REGULATION THAT BEER/WINE
LICENSE CANNOT BE ISSUED IF WITHIN 300' OF A CHURCH OR
SCHOOL UNLESS WAIVED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY ALBERT
AND SUSAN BERNER AND MARIE NANNI: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;
APPROVE WAIVER FROM STATE REGULATIONS)
23. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY BY US NEWVECTOR GROUP, INC.: (APPROVE FINDNGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONDITIONED UPON
RECEIVING INFORMATION FOR THE FAA NON-RESTRICTING AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
24. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT,
LOUNGE, AND MICRO-BREWERY BY SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS:
(TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
25. MARTY GOLDSMITH: REQUEST TO PHASE CONSTRUCTION IN LOS
ALAMITOS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 8,
1995)
26. DOVE MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS: CONCERNS ABOUT NON-COMPLETION
OF LANDSCAPING: (SHARI AND BRUCE WILL FOLLOW UPON
RESEARCHING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT)
27. MICHAEL PRESTON: FRANKLIN LOCUST GROVE PROPERTY
RECONSIDERATION: (APPROVE TO RE-HEAR (PUBLIC HEARING) THE
PROJECT FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING)
28. FIRE LIGHT ESTATES: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON FINAL PLAT:
(DENY REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION -SUGGEST TO GET A
VARIANCE)
29. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. BID RESULTS FOR WATER & SEWER VEHICLES:(DEFERRED
UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1995)
B. SHARI STILES:
1. MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: TEMPORARY PARKING LOT
(APPROVED UNTIL SPRING)
C. WAYNE CROOKSTON:
1. LEGAL BUDGET: (APPROVED)
D. WALT MORROW:
1. INSPECTOR CONTRACTS: (APPROVED)
2. SPEEDWAY LEASE: (APPROVED)
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 19, 1995: a~~o%ovecL~
1. TABLED APRIL 18, 1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS
SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: raQae!'L tv be
fz~-~~~- ~ /~lov.. E? r-t' /7t~*l. - Cu~Pro/'ecl.
2. TABLED AUGUST 15, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: i ~'~u.tft fry Ge tu.~CerG to e..5~ ~if~, "
d~ppruvecL~
3. TABLED AUGUST 15, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
USES BY E.L. BEWS: rer~~ft ~ be z`u-blpd Ea ,aec~. Sx /~t/~.
a'~~Orc~~e cL
4. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
{~ ~ c~,wh l ,tlov. fI3 rk-f~,
5. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISON:
a~prv~'zx~
6. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
FOR SALMON RAPID SUBDMSION N0.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
d~~/odl~i ~trrr~hcle'd ~~~~'cfL Wi~-h ~Fhc~s,~Yi~~ ~~7iorode rlPc~.T%.~
7. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION N0.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
t~~~ru/¢ ~l7rQJ.~mE'a.t`~rfn~~ u,.Et' G'cm~r"~-ians
8. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION: rertu~st EL ~,,e tabiic~ fb .t/ov g~h.F~-
cr p/~ ru ve cC~-.
9. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #713 - LOS ALAMITOS SUBDMSION
NO.3 ANNEXATION: f~ h-~e ~cn.t'Z ~/cv, f r,~, /7i {~.
10. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION N0.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
~~/~ cc~~~J ~l~s fJ%?~ fig
11. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 5 8~ 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
~t~~r~wQ arne~~~a'ecf ~~~ €~c°~C
a~P/o~e lf'crc~~'i~
12. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #717 -THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 5 & 6: aP~oi'o/e-
13. TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995:`PRELIMINARYPLRT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 5 8~ 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
a~~/c ve,
14. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY RAMON YORGASON:
~2~~YVvf` L~f ~N~C a~~iW'i~ GIPn~Yi~rna t~~FUd2 dwtiahcx.
15. REQUEST FOR AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FOR REQUEST TO REDUCE REQUIRED MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE OF
1800 TO 1500 SQUARE FEET FOR ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDMSION:
~C.•%(c a«fi1 illcc' Sr'' - retju2s~ ~~'i~JE~l7lLibx~
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES
TO C-G BY LANGLEY AND ASSOCIATES: ~~~~y G~f~fa Fy /i' Prpfiut~
a~eW f/~ ~` C/c
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RETAIL PROJECT OF APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FEET BY
LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: 77c hie u~L~ir ~.v. 8 ~ `J2 ~ .
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.17
ACRES TO L-O AND C-G BY JIM BALLA/NTYNE: ~~~~ ~ilfc~n~,y
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.3 ACRES
TO R-40 BY BILLY QUINN: 1z44/e u~~fiC ~ffoc: b'!z /~t~
20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A DAY CARE FOR APPROXIMATELY 6 TO 12 CHILDREN
BY JUDY WILSON: ~-~ cc~i1 mow, B~ ~/j~ _
21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TIME AND CHANGE THE NAME FROM
MERRYWOOD SUBDIVISION NO. 3 8 4 TO PINE CREEK SUBDIVISON
NO. 1 & 2 BY RUSSELL HUNNEMILLER: c%~hj a ttzn-may t~
pie~w-~ f~f ~ c%
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ON STREET
PARKING, PERMIT LIMITED OUTDOOR SEATING WITH PERMISSION
FROM ACHD, WAIVER FROM STATE REGULATION THAT BEER/WINE
LICENSE CANNOT.BE ISSUED IF WITHIN 300' OF A CHURCH ~
UNLESS WAIVED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY ALBERT
AND SUSAN BERNER AND MARIE NANNL C'i~ ~cft~~~~ tv~iepure ~~/t C/C
a~~ra/e lti~ai/er ~ravn ffR-te rey.~/Cl~io~...
23. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY BY US NEWVECTOR GROUP, INC.:
C~~,e~r~ce ~~l ~C'/~ e~c~z~ti~-it~n~~ ~ ~-eC~•6~,h~ ik/~.~~atox~
fe'/.. ~!-+k ~f7~ rt oit-rPlfvi2 ~ihc~ Ct ~e d/ e~b'~-ze~i ~"i 73'n a.C'
c:J~~ ~~tr~-ci?
24. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT,
LOUNGE, AND MICR~"~~O''-BREWERY BY SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS:
~.{/~' ure-fil /~CG' ~'!~ /2if~
25. MARTY GOLDSMITH: REQUEST TO PHASE CONSTRUCTION IN LOS
ALAMITOS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION:
~.~,~/~ untrl ~ov, ~~ fi~t~,.
26. DOVE MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS: CONCERNS ABOUT NON-COMPLETION
OF LANDSCAPING: <jhau ~ /truce w•?C !-o/%w u~ are refea~-ck.hy
!"?,.X I'C~lr G[iYem Pn-z`r OF ldi.c' Clrf'vP /op.~c t'hL
27. MICHAEL PRESTON: FRANKLIN LOCUST GROVE PROPERTY
RECONSIDERATION: lcO~Jru~`e- ~ ~_Q-fzear ~rOubG~ h.car'~`~`~
f/ ~' ~r"~./C'ct ~r a~r~ ex a f>tr-~ ~ Zunih~ .
28. FIRE LIGHT ESTATES: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON FINAL PLAT:
~~~~i~~ ~ej~ue~r~in- ~~ih-~ Pe~P.~i/~ -~/~1~f ~9etv~~r~~ce-
29. DEPARTMEN7`REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. BID RESULTS FOR WATER & SEWER VEHICLES:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 17 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant
Kingsford was called to order 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, Jim Johnson,
Chief Gordon, Jim Ballantyne, Glenn Bentley, Brandie Hazen, Jim Rogers, Betty
Bermensolo, Larry Strough, Joe Simunich, AI Berner, Susan Berner, Robert Nelson, Brian
McCall, Larry Sales, Steve Bradbury, Doug Cambpell, Russ Keithly, Pam Rogers, Billy
Quinn, Judy Wilson, Russ Hunnemiller, Tim McFadden:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD OCTOBER 3, 1995:
Kingsford: Any corrections, additions or deletions to those minutes?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved as written.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the October 3, 1995 minutes, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED APRIL 18, 1995: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS
SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Kingsford: Does the Council have questions of staff?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I believe there was a letter that was in our bins that requested this be
tabled until November 7, 1995.
Kingsford: Motion to that effect?
Morrow: So moved.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table the Ashford Greens variance until the
November 7, 1995 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 2
Kingsford: The correct date for that meeting should be the 8th being election day. Notify
the applicant of that.
ITEM #2: TABLED AUGUST 15, 1995: ANNEXATION AND HEARING ZONING
REQUEST FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS:
Kingsford: Likewise it asked to be deferred until the December 5, 1995 meeting.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second. by Bob to defer the Bews annexation request until the
December 5, 1995 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED AUGUST 15, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL
USES BY E.L. BEWS:
Kingsford: Entertain a motion to table that.
Yerrington: So moved.
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table the third item to the December 5, 1995
meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
Kingsford: Does the Council have questions on that? Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question I guess with respect to the procedure for Highlands
Ranch. When we approved the findings of fact and conclusions in September, the decision
was essentially that the Meridian City Council hereby decides that the annexation and
zoning shall not proceed at this time but shall be tabled until October 3, 1995 that the
i •
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 3
applicant shall be given an opportunity to make the changes suggested herein and applied
for approval of a new plat, approval of Comprehensive Plat amendment. That if the
applicant does not send a written statement to the City by October 3, 1995 at 5 P.M.
stating that he agrees with these suggestions and will meet these findings of fact and
conclusions of law the application shall be denied based on these findings of fact and
conclusions of law. What has transpired since then is in our October 3, 1995 meeting he
had in fact sent a letter that he would comply with these things. In the interim and as was
brought up at the October 3, 1995 meeting there were some suggestions that would
indicate sale of property to perhaps the school district and there were subsequent
meetings I believe between the four of us on an individual basis and the school district and
the applicant. So I guess my question is that it appears on tonight agenda but what are we
supposed to do with it. There is no new plat, we have received the letter, it would indicate
that there is ongoing activity now going to be done since October 3, 1995 and yet there
is nothing for us to act upon in terms of the presentation of a new plat or dealing with the
issue of the perhaps purchase by the school district and so on and so forth. I guess the
question in terms of the Comprehensive Plan amendment would also be brought forward
because if there is in fact a purchase by the school district then there wouldn't need to be
a comprehensive plan amendment with respect to the light office area. So, what are we
doing?
Kingsford: Well, as you indicated, the four of you met individually with the applicant, I did
not, so you would be a lot more in tune with that then I would.
Morrow: But none of those things are present.
Kingsford: Is the applicant here, Mr. Forrey? Has the Council reviewed the letter of Mr.
Forrey of October 17?
Morrow: Well, having read the letter I am still not comfortable with taking any action
without a total presentation by either the developer or his representative because there
are a lot of open ended things involved here and I would like to see it tied together a little
closer. That is just my opinion.
Kingsford: Other comments of the Council?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, the findings of fact and conclusions of law, are these the ones that we
received and tabled at this meeting, is that correct?
Kingsford: That is correct.
Corrie: Okay, I understand what they are trying to do here but I think we need to have two
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 4
questions answered for me anyway. They are asking that we approve the findings of fact
and then they could proceed with the preliminary plat after that. So what they are asking
is that they can go ahead and have that central sewer system.
Kingsford: What is your pleasure?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, 1 would. move that we table it and notify Mr. Forrey of our action
until the next regular meeting which is November 8.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table this until the November 8 meeting and
notify the applicant to that effect, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Counselor, do you have any comments on the CC&R's?
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, the only comment that I had was that at the last Council meeting
they were tabled because the Council felt that there had to be something done with the
existing owners within the subdivision. I have not seen anything showing what they are
doing with that. Other than that, excuse me, the other thing, there was the square footage
on the house sizes, the applicant's attorney is here. He would be able to explain some of
that if that is the Council's desire. I would like to know what they are proceeding with as
to the amendments.
Kingsford: Counselor?
McCall: Thank you Mr. Mayor I appreciate the opportunity to address you on this issue.
I know these CC&R's have been before you numerous occasions and if we can get some
sort of direction on how the Council would like us to proceed. These are the CC&R's for
the second phase of Los Alamitos Subdivision, phase 1 and phase 2 were all annexed and
zoned as one parcel and subject to that annexation and zoning in the findings of fact and
conclusions of law came in at R-4 with a minimum square footage of 1400 square feet.
When we came to do the platting on phase 1, the developer at the request of the City
Planner to move to get our development agreement done agreed to make the minimum
square footage on phase 1 1500 square feet. Then we proceeded to phase 2, final plat for
phase 2 has been approved by City Council at 1400 square feet. Phase 2 is also subject
to that original findings of fact which state 1400 square feet. So when I was asked to
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 5
prepare the CC&R's I really had two choices. Number one I could prepare a brand new
complete set of CC&R's for phase 2. And we would still be prepared to do so. I would
prefer not to for the following reason, this is just a second phase of an existing subdivision.
They are contiguous and have the same name. My experience has been if you as you
bring your phases in if you just keep one set of CC&R's the homeowners are much more
likely or much less likely to get confused. In other words they have one set of CC&R's,
they have one Homeowners Association, and we don't have a great disparity of conditions.
Now, what I have prepared therefore is a supplemental declaration, the original CC&R's
passed by this Council, recorded of record, in Article 10 say the developer can bring in a
new phase, annex that phase, make it subject to the existing CC&R's and impose
additional restrictions on that phase only. So the document that I sent to Council last
Friday is a two pager, it does two things. It says here is the new phase, make it subject to
the CC&R's and on this phase only the square footage will be 1400 square feet and
Council had asked the City Attorney to ask that we put in some different language with
respect to first and second (inaudible) and I think we have all that in there. So that is kind
of where we are and if it complies precisely with the existing CC&R's except for that
square footage, it complies with the findings of fact and conclusions of law. It complies
with the Zoning and if the Council would like it to be done any other way we are happy to
accommodate you but we would like to get this moved along. So that is kind of where we
stand on it and I appreciate it.
Kingsford: Does that answer your questions Wayne?
Crookston: Well, partially, I am still not quite sure about, or that the existing owners do not
have to consent to a change in the existing CC&R's.
McCall: I think my response to that would be the existing owners are on notice that under
their CC&R's if they read it and they can go down to Article 10 and Article 10 advises them
that some time in the future there may be a different phase come in. When that phases
comes in it may be subject to additional and different restrictions. I can read you the
precise language. So they are already on notice that the rules might be slightly different
for that second phase. We could clearly do this by just doing a brand new homeowners
association and call it Los Alamitos Homeowners Association No. 2. But again I would
rather not do that because then I think we have confusion amongst the homeowners. I
think the first set of CC&R's put those existing homeowners on notice that there might be
slightly different rules for the next phase. I suppose if some of them want to challenge it
that would be something that we would have to take on. 1 am absolutely confident that
would not be a problem because of record attached and as a lien against their property
are those CC&R's that say the second phase is coming in and it can come in with different
restrictions.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 6
Crookston: I guess that I would prefer that the, let me back up for a minute. The current
CC&R's for Los Alamitos No. 1 require 1500 square foot size homes. Then to me it is a
decision as to the City Council as to whether or not they want to change that for Los
Alamitos No. 1 because there are structures or lots that have not been built on if they
desire to change it then that is fine. If they don't then I think those CC&R's need to stand
and I think that they need to be kept separate from the CC&R's in Los Alamitos No. 2.
McCall: Just in case there is confusion we are not requesting that the CC&R's for phase
No. 1 be adjusted to 1400 square feet that CC&R's that the Council has before them
clearly says and any lot of the annexed property shall be subject to a minimum of 1400
square feet. So there is no suggestion that any unbuilt lot in phase 1 would now be subject
to the lower square footage of 1400 over the existing 1500.
Crookston: I don't see that because you are going to have new covenants that are going
to apply to Los Alamitos No. 1 and 2.
McCall: No, the existing CC&R's that are of record are the only restrictions against Los
Alamitos No. 1 when we move over to Los Alamitos No. 2 we add one more restriction.
And it says only with respect to the lots in the annexed property. That additional restriction
is a minimum square footage of 1400 square feet which is consistent with the plat that the
Council approved and consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Crookston: But Brian, if you change the CC&R's a homeowner that buys a lot in phase 1
six months from now, would he not get a copy of the CC&R's that you are now changing?
Which would indicate 1400?
Kingsford: Well if it is in the annexed area, does it stipulate that specifically?
McCall: Yes, it is a two liner and I can read it if you like.
Crookston: The problem is that when you say the annexed area and you have a legal
description most people can't read a legal description and tell where their lot is.
McCall: Well, I suppose there is the potential for that confusion. I think that the
supplemental declaration is perfectly clear by reciting that there are existing CC&R's for
phase 1, that there is additional property coming in and is described as the annexed
property and attached is Exhibit A. And then is says only with respect to that annexed
property shall there be that restriction. There can always be some confusion and I think
think it is a trade off. We can go ahead and start from scratch, I think that creates even
more confusion because then you have people on different sides of the block, different
sides of a street that have got completely different CC&R's. Maybe in these ones the
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 7
developer will decide he wants to permit parking of ftfth wheelers where you can't in phase
1. That is the reason that I am arguing so strenuously to just do this supplemental
declaration because then we will have consistency throughout the entire subdivision with
this one exception. If we did different CC&R's when again we can if that is the Council's
wish and we are free to impose any type of restrictions that we want. So I think with all
do respect but I disagree and I think this would be less confusing.
Morrow: Let me see if I understand you correctly, what you are proposing is that one
master homeowners association for all three phases of Los Alamitos?
McCall: Correct, when we come back for phase 3 we will ask to do the same thing.
Morrow: Having said that, that means that phase 1 and the people that purchase lots in
phase 1 purchased under one set of CC&R's. What you are proposing for phase 2 is the
same set of CC&R's with the addendum of reducing from 1500 square feet to 1400 square
feet the minimum house (inaudible).
McCall: Exactly correct.
Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Is there a motion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the CC&R's for Los Alamitos
Subdivision subject to the addendum for the change of square footage that all other parts
of the CC&R's remain the same as for phase 1 which have already been approved by the
Council.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the CC&R's for Los Alamitos
Subdivision No. 2 with the addendum stipulating the smaller house size of 1400 square
feet, all the things remaining the same, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR SALMON
RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: Does the Council have a question on that?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, was not Salmon Rapids No. 3 originally tabled because of problems
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 8
with road alignment?
Kingsford: That was the major item. I think there was a question with regard to drainage.
I think Gary had a problem with drainage, am I right Gary, was that Salmon Rapids No. 3?
Let's speak to the street issue first, Mr. Sale is here, do you have comments on the
alignment of that street on Locust Grove?
Sale: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, for the record I am Lany Sale with the Ada
County Highway District. On one day last week I visited the site with City Engineer Gary
Smith, looked at the location and vertical alignment of the road, I believe it is East Lake
Creek Drive intersecting with Locust G rove Road. t found no problem with the grade of
the road entering the street. I found no problem with the site distance along Locust Grove
Road with regard to that intersection. A minor concern was the fact that a vehicle could
drive through the intersection and drive into Eight Mile Creek which is very close to the
east side Locust Grove Road at that location. I discussed that with our maintenance and
operations manager, Mr. Harold Morgan, Mr. Morgan .looked at the site and while it isn't
an item that is necessary for the Highway District to participate in as far as Locust Grove
Road is concerned Mr. Morgan volunteered the District's participation in extending the
guard rail south from the bridge or the box culvert. By providing the materials for the
extension for the extension of that guard rail if the developer would install the guard rail
the current guard rail extends about 60 to 65 feet south from the end of the box culvert of
Eight Mile Creek. And the Highway District will provide sufficient material to extend that
to 120 feet south of the box culvert. That will place the south end of the guard rail about
depending about the accuracy of pacing about even with the south right of way line of East
Lake Creek Drive so that a vehicle entering the intersection should be stopped by the
guard rail whether that is better than going in the canal or not might be debatable. We
don't have any problems with the alignment of the intersection or the location of the
intersection or the site distance at that location. Are there any other questions?
Kingsford: You were aware of the pick up that was in that Eight Mile Drain?
Sale: I heard about it, Mr. Smith informed me of that. I observed about the last 15 feet of
the guard rail that was in the creek, something put it there.
Morrow: Mr. Sale, if I understood you correctly, the District will provide the materials and
the contractor will do the installation, the developer will do the installation?
Sale: That is our proposal to you, they have as a requirement for the approval of the plat
and I have discussed it with the developer and he verbally indicated to me that was
acceptable.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 9
Morrow: Would you perform the inspection procedure also?
Sale: Yes
Morrow: And would you require a bond, completion bond?
Sale: No, we would require a one year warranty.
Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Sale?
Tolsma: You are aware of the (inaudible) Ranch?
Sale: I am
Tolsma: Their proposal right now is to run north of the canal for an entrance onto Locust
Grove and we have made comments to them and possibly they would work on (inaudible)
with Salmon Rapids (inaudible). If that was the case as close as that canal is to that road
right of way in there which is about where the end of that guard rail ends (inaudible) 12
feet from the side of the pavement (inaudible). Would that be more feasible (inaudible)
to widen Locust Grove out and if they do it at that time where will that road end up and
how close to the water will it be?
Sale: Mr. Mayor, Council member Tolsma, I can't answer the question with any certainty.
We obviously will be widening Locust Grove Road in the future and will be replacing the
box culvert. We tentatively have a mapped site in connection with the review of the
Highlands Ranch Subdivision because that intersection is also a concern to the district.
We are undecided now if the alignment of the culvert should be in line with the lateral
which would make it a very long box culvert, very expensive or if the lateral or the creek
should be aligned to allow a perpendicular crossing of Locust Grove which would reduce
the cost greatly for the length of the box culvert. Obviously Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District will have a role to play and vote to voice in that decision. We need to coordinate
that decision with them. I think I indicated our earlier review of Highlands Ranch was that
we did not approve the preliminary plat. We are still waiting a revision of that and I think
we have meetings with your staff and the school district to discuss some other issues. We
have not approved the location of that intersection and with Locust Grove Road. Whether
it should be moved to the south or how far south I am not prepared to say tonight. But
frankly I don't recall and I don't have that file with me, I don't recall the specific layout to
know how far south we could move it.
Kingsford: Other questions of Mr. Sale? Thank you Larry. Mr. McCall
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 10
McCall: I anticipated your question, for the record, on behalf of the developer we would
be prepared to meet those conditions suggested by ACHD, as I understand them the
developer would construct the approximate 120 foot guard rail with materials provided by
ACRD and that would come with a one year warranty. Thank you.
Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Gary did you look at your file on that drain,
was that Salmon Rapids No. 2 or is that Los Alamitos?
Smith: No, Mr. Mayor I didn't have a question on the drainage.
Kingsford: Thank you, what is the Council's pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to propose that we approve the amended findings but
would like to amend them to include that the developer would extend the guard rail as per
Ada County Highway District's recommendation the number of feet. ACHD would provide
the materials and he would provide the labor. It is to be inspected by ACHD, it is to have
a one year warranty and he is to post a completion bond for 110% of the value of the work
to complete the guard rail.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the amended findings of fact to
be further amended to include that the developer will extend the guard rail the additional
120 feet I believe that it bear a one year warranty and that a performance bond be posted
in the amount of 110% of that work, all those in favor, excuse me roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: We need a motion on the decision then. Is there a conflict again on house
size, I think that is to be 1400. I think that is true on both Los Alamitos and Salmon
Rapids.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would recommend that the City Council of the City of Meridian
recommend the approval of this annexation and zoning as stated above and those stated
herein for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Including that the minimum house size shall be
1400 square feet, that surtace water shall be used for pressurized irrigation if possible.
That the applicant shall meet the provisions of the conclusions regarding the monitoring
of wells. That there be title transferred to the City for the school/park site be given prior to
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 11
the obtaining building permits for housing. Specifically complying with Section 11-9-905
G1 regarding planting strips being a minimum of 20 feet wide and not a part of the street
right of way and utility easement. Tile all ditches, canals and waterways. All as condition
of annexation and 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. That the conditions of these findings of fact and conclusions of
law as amended and that if the conditions are not met the property shall be deannexed.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the decision, Counselor?
Crookston: I think that was prepared along with the Los Alamitos decision, there is no park
or school site within Satmon Rapids.
Morrow: Then I would wish to strike that from my motion.
Kingsford: Would you strike that from your second?
Corrie: Yes
Kingsford: Okay, your motion is amended to strike that, do you still second Mr. Corrie?
Corrie: Yes
Kingsford: Moved and seconded, is everyone clear on the motion then? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: The big issue you had on that again was the street alignment. Gary do you
have any comments that have not been approved or worked out with their engineer?
Smith: Well, Mr. Mayor and Council Members 1 just have one, there is a lot that appears
to be smaller than 8000 square feet. But that can be determined on the final plat.
(Inaudible) final plat to be 1400 square feet then, is that what I understood?
Kingsford: I believe that was consistent throughout too. There was controversy on a
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 12
couple of different points on both of these as to whether it is 1500 or 1400. I think our
records indicate, Shari you might (inaudible) 1400 throughout the approval stage.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the reason for the problems on Los Alamitos and Salmon
Rapids No. 1 and 2 were those were annexed and zoned without a reference in the
ordinance that they be 1500, it mentioned 1400. This is a new annexation, it has not been
annexed yet, you need to order the ordinance and Council can put whatever conditions
they want on a new annexation.
Kingsford: Okay, there had been no reference to house sizes before then. Have your
requirements been dealt with Shari that you have given the developer?
Stiles: I believe they have on this project.
Kingsford: Comment Mr. Morrow.
Morrow: If I am to understand staff correctly, the preliminary plat you are satisfied with it
all the necessary conditions that have been placed by both of you and the completion of
those conditions that were problems prior to this evening is that correct?
Smith: That is correct from the Public Works Department.
Morrow: And Shari?
Stiles: Yes sir.
Morrow: Thank you,
Kingsford: In light of Shari's last comment in this annexation, the confusion has been with
each phase of this subdivision and Los Alamitos is it still your pleasure to stay with the
1400 square feet in that decision? Or is it your decision to go back to the 1500 that was
originally (inaudible).
Morrow: From my perspective I think in terms of consistency the 1400 square feet is fine.
Kingsford: Go ahead with your comment then.
Morrow: I move that we approve the preliminary plat for Salmon Rapids Subdivision No.
3 subject to all of the staff conditions within the City and ACHD.
Tolsma: Second
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 13
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the preliminary plat for Salmon
Rapids Subdivision No. 3 conditioned upon all the staff requirements being met and ACRD
requirements being met, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: We have received a request from Hubble Engineering the applicant's
engineering firm requesting a deferral of that to the November 7 that should be the
November 8 meeting.
Tolsma: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to table this until the November 8 meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #713 -LOS ALAMITOS
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 ANNEXATION:
Kingsford: Does the Council have any question about that at this point? Counselor, would
you look (Inaudible) do you recall?
Crookston: Yes I do, that was tabled in this case regarding the school site that was
referenced in Salmon Rapids that was not in Salmon Rapids, but it was tabled to obtain
a deed for that site. It is a park and a school site.
McCall: Thank you again Mr. Mayor, I can update the Council on the status of the school
site, park/school site. It is approximately 2.2 acre piece that sits on the extremity of this
phase that we are now requesting annexation for. I think actually back in early September
the Council passed the findings of fact, recommended annexation and asked the City
Attorney to prepare annexation ordinance. This school site, it was always the developers
understanding that if we could accommodate the Meridian School District with this school
site they would be happy and this Council would be happy. As a result of that in July of this
year we entered into a binding contract with the Meridian School District No. 2. The terms
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 14
of that contract identified by legal description is approximately 2.2 acre parcel, we had it
served. It gives to the Meridian School District an exclusive unrevocable option to have
this school site donated to it. That option runs for 7 years. I sat down with the attorney
and with Dan Mabe, and Dan Mabe explained to us that there were several conditions why
they did not want to take that property at that point in time. Number one is that this
property has to be merged up with three other parcels that he has to acquire from three
other developers. Secondly they obviously don't have the bond for it. Thirdly they don't
know what the course of development is going to be obviously we are in front of you right
now seeking development that will push the improvements of sewer and water out to that
property. They don't want to be in a position of having to put the sewer and water out there
if for example the Council doesn't approve phase 3 or doesn't approve Mr. Johnson's
development or whatever. So the terms of that binding agreement which indicate that at
any time within the next seven years upon a one paragraph written notice of election we
deed it over to them. So, when I heard from my client at the last meeting that there was
some request that we actually execute the deed today or maybe before development it was
of some concern to me because it really interferes with the contractual relationship that we
have already negotiated with the school district. That is their wish, we can't force that
property on them, on the other hand they have the absolute right from us to take it.
Mon•ow: Mr. Mayor, I wish to address this situation, Mr. McCall, it was clearly spelled out
by myself at the start of this process that none of those properties were to be deeded to
the school district, that was clearly understood within these chambers when that process
started. The property is a school/park site to be used by either or and the City would be
the recipient of that ground so that it could be put together, in conjunction with the other
three parcels In that manner the City could determine the manner of development of that
property. It is my intent (End of Tape) that ground never go into the situation that you are
describing, the control of that ground belongs with the City and the City will jointly with the
school district if the decision is made to put in a school at that site, put in a school
combination park site. If the decision is made not to put in a school at some point in the
future then all of that ground will become a park site. That was the intent of the
requirement from the very beginning. Your client here has obviously missed that, over
looked it or chose to do it in some other manner. But that is clearly my intent in terms of
requiring the deed prior to the execution of the annexation agreement so that it can be filed
upon approval of the final plat.
McCall: I am absolutely flabbergasted here at this time because prior to tonight at least
from client, as what my client communicated to me because we sat down with the school
board and I was a couple of other meetings, we were only doing this, we were primarily
doing this to accommodate the City Council because the City Council wanted a
commitment from us. Had I known that the City Council was to be a co-beneficiary if you
will of that gift we would have not proceeded in the fashion that we did. It is not a
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 15
significant consequence to my client whether this property goes to the City or whether the
property goes to the school district. It was identified on the plat as a school site and I
understood from him that we had to make progress on this. We could go back now, the
school district has the exclusive option on it, that is a done deal unfortunately. We could
go back and get a secondary option to the City, that is in the event the school district does
not take down the option the property would be donated to the City for a park purpose.
Quite frankly 1 think there is additional property in the other contiguous parcels that are
also going to be subject to whether there is a school in there or not. And so there would
probably be additional property available for a park. There is no difficulty in us getting a
secondary option but we can't go back to the school and take away from them what is now
legally theirs. I apologize, I was not familiar with the Council's wishes on that. My client
who I meet with regularly and talk about these matters in a lot of detail had never, I never
heard the word park (inaudible) raised before.
Kingsford: It is clearly in our minutes Counselor, all along there are probably 3 or 4
different times it was referenced, that the deed should go to the City.
Morrow: And clearly for the sake of consistency here, with everything that we have done
as a City Council over the last two years that I have been involved we have required deeds
from whoever may be developing something for those types of sites. We are doing that
with the golf course properties. We are being consistent with fire stations or well lots or
school/park sites or park/school sites. And so I think we have a problem here, this is not
an issue that I am willing to back off on.
McCall: If I can understand that the Council's position is however is that it be a multiple
purpose piece of property or is it that it be a school site but in event that the school doesn't
want it then it be available for a park.
Morrow: That is not the purpose at all, it is a purpose of being a combination of both and
to have maximum flexibility so that either the Council or the school or both can jointly
develop it and do that upon their time frames that they may wish to do it. So the very option
is that the deed come to the City with no restrictions from my point of view.
McCall: I understand it, I will have to go back and look at the record myself to see how that
mistake was made. At this point in time given that the school district for whatever reason,
oversight or attach any motives that you wish to it, I assure you there was no ulterior
motive. Given that option belongs to the school district is it the Council's wish that we try
and negotiate to undo that?
Morrow: It would be my wish, but I don't speak for the other people.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 16
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure on that? While you are thinking where are we
at with the well lot, has that deed been, I am not aware of it having shown up at City Hall,
it may have I am not aware.
McCall: I haven't prepared it.
Kingsford: It probably hasn't shown up then. That was one of the conditions as well
believe.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, we did receive a deed for a lot, unfortunately it had the wrong lot and
that is being redone. The revised deed has not come back to City hall.
McCall: As I say I didn't prepare it.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Mr. Morrow and I find it difficult that he didn't understand
that because we went back and forth for almost an hour trying to figure which was subject
to a deed and the ordinance and what have you. He stood there and I hard that he didn't
understand it either and I am not saying that he didn't. I would suggest that you go back
and we will put it in a motion if you so desire, that you get the school system to rescind on
that agreement and come back with it the way the Council it earlier.
Kingsford: If I understood you correctly too, you are talking about a seven year life on that,
if they don't option that in seven years then does that go back to the developer?
McCall: That is correct, in others we were prepared to donate it to the school thinking that
quite frankly is what you all wanted, but Dan Mabe said no. I don't know when they are
going to pick up the other ground or whether this development will go forward.
Kingsford: That was our logic for having it come to the City and we are coordinating with
those other three properties and (inaudible) handle on insuring that the other three
properties do come around. I certainly concur with the Council that we ought to have that
for the City and we have no problem working with the school district. (Inaudible) next
seven years or not. The school site would then be available.
McCall: So, it would be, this particular property will not be annexed unless the developer
deeds to the school deeds to the City Council this particular piece of property that they
have already optioned?
Kingsford: I think that goes back if you look in our minutes that was our request then.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 17
McCall: But I am just trying to get a fix on, a month ago there was I believe action by the
Council going ahead with the annexation, suggesting that annexation ordinance be
prepared. So I understand where we are, we are now holding it up for the failure of the
developer to deed this property to the City.
Kingsford: I believe the well lot should be there as well. I think that, that is in a different
part, but I think the ordinance even spoke to that deed as being a requirement for
annexation. It has been a little while since I have looked at this. At any rate our minutes
clearly required that.
McCall: I do have those minutes from the last meeting in front of me.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure?
Morrow: I would move that we table item 9 the annexation ordinance #713 for Los Alamitos
Subdivision No. 3 annexation until this issue has been resolved favorably.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: It has to be to a date certain.
Morrow: Well, let's try November 8 and we can keep tabling it until it is resolved favorably.
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table the annexation ordinance #713 until the
November 8 meeting pending resolution of the deed on the parkr'school site, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
McCall: Just so the Council is aware that at least my source of confusion the Council
minutes on September 5, in which the annexation was approved by Council and a motion
on the decision approved by Council and a recommendation to City Attorney to prepare
the zoning ordinance. The language from Mr. Morrow indicated evidence of transfer of
school site property must be given prior to obtaining building permits for housing. So, at
least at that point in time the feeling of the Council was that we had to have evidence of
transfer of the school site property. I believe that to be a transfer to the school district.
Kingsford: I think you will find in proceeding minutes we spoke about it being to the City
Council.
ITEM #10: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 18
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Kingsford: Having it not be annexed, I suppose you can't deal with that. Entertain the
same motion.
Yerrington: So moved
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table item 10 to November 8 meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5 & 6
BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Kingsford: Does the Council have any question on those findings? Does the Council want
to grant Mr. Tolsma a conflict of interest?
Morrow: 1 think that is consistent with our last meeting.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure on these findings? Counselor, you might
address to the body what you have done with those and what would need to be done
depending on if they go with an R-4 zoning on the lots on the southern portion, you need
amended findings, or pardon me if they went with the R-15 they need amended findings.
If they adopt the ordinance that is an R-4 for that as they discussed at the last meeting
then these findings would be correct.
Crookston: Yes, I have prepared two ordinances at the request of the Mayor and the City
Council. One ordinance zones the strip of land that is adjacent to Cherry Lane Village No.
5 I believe zones it R-4. The other ordinance zones that property R-15 to be zoned in that
fashion as requested by the applicant but it requires that strip of land meet the R-4 zoning
requirements. To have the findings of fact be compatible with the ordinance that you pass
if you pass the R-4 or if you desire to pass the R-4 zoning ordinance the findings do not
need to be changed. If you desire to pass the ordinance zoning that strip of property R-15
but require that property to meet the R-4 building standards then the findings of fact would
need to be (inaudible) to state that property needs to be zoned R-15 and meet the R-4
requirements.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 19
Kingsford: As if we hadn't heard from attomey more than enough, Mr. Campbell has asked
that Steve have a minute, actually he asked for five minutes, you can have one to plead
your case.
Bradbury: Steve Bradbury, I am the attomey for the applicant, I should be able to handle
this in about an hour and a half, rf that will be alright. Given the choices, the applicant had
hoped that we would be able to find a way that satisfies your concerns with respect to that
strip of land on the southern boundary without requiring an R-4 zone or requiring an R-4
lot sizes, find another way to do it. It doesn't sound tike we are going to get there. Given
the choices that the City attorney has suggested I think that the simplest and straightest
line is just to simply zone it R~ because you have the ordinance and you have the findings
and then you won't have to see us again until we come back with a conditional use permit.
Kingsford: Bless you, your time is up.
Bradbury: At that point maybe we will try to convince you othervvise.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the amended findings of fact and
conclusions of law for the annexation and zoning request for the Lake at Cherry Lane No.
5 & 6 with the understanding that is the R-4 zoning.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the amended findings of fact and
contusions of law for the annexation and zoning request for the Lake at Cherry Lane No.
5 & 6 by Steiner Development as stipulated in terms of the R-4 zoning on the southerly
lots, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Corrie -Yea, Yerrington -Yea, Morrow -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that the Meridian City Council hereby decides that the property
to be zoned R-4 and R-8 shall be annexed and so zoned that the property north of
Sagehen Drive as shown on proposed preliminary plat request to be zoned R-15 shall be
annexed and so zoned under the condition that a conditional use permit be applied for and
granted showing more spec'rfically how that land is to be developed. That if the conditional
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 20
use is denied that the property shall be de-annexed and the land south of Sagehen Drive
requested to be zoned R-15 shall be annexed and zoned Rte. That all houses constructed
shall meet the minimum house size requirements of the zone in which they are located.
That all lot sizes shall meet the minimum lot size of the zone in which they are located.
That all homes in the R-4 and R-8 district shall be single family dwellings. That the
applicant shall grant the land for a fire station and would grant to the City which is shown
on the proposed preliminary plat. Enter into the required development agreement and
submit a new preliminary plat for the land to be zoned R-15 and for the land south of
Sagehen Drive to be zoned R-4 that it is additionally decided that the applicant meet the
conditions set forth in these amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically
including the adoption of a homeowners association with mandatory dues, that the
applicant and owners are specifically required to the all ditches, canals and water ways
and install a pressurized irrigation system as a condition of annexation. And the applicant
meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including the development
time agreements. That rf the conditions are not met that the property not be annexed or if
it has been annexed that it be de-annexed.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve the decision, Counselor, I see a
vigorous shaking of the head that you want to comment before the vote.
Bradbury: Yes I do, the only part that I heard that was of concern to us is the requirement
that a new preliminary plat be submitted. I don't think we need to submit a new preliminary
plat, we simply have that portion of lot 10, block 11 the southerly portion, the southerly 100
feet of it be zoned R-4 and the northerly however many feet of it zoned R-15. I don't think
it would require us to submit a new preliminary plat however.
Kingsford: I think you would have to have an amended plat to meet the R-4 requirements
of those houses along the southerly strip.
Bradbury: When we come in with the conditional use permit and that is what you are
talking about.
Kingsford: That is what it is talking about.
Bradbury: Alright, no problem.
Kingsford: Okay, you heard the motion and the second, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
n
u
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 21
~~
ITEM #12: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: ORDINANCE #717 -THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 5 & 6:
Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE
SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T.3N, R.1 W, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Anyone from the public that would
like to have Ordinance #717 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve Ordinance #717 with suspension of the
rules.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve ordinance #717 with suspension of
the rules, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: TABLED OCTOBER 3, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT
CHERRY LANE N0. 5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Kingsford: Does the Council have questions of staff or the developer on that?
Morrow: My question to you would be this preliminary plat now would not work, it needs
to be amended?
Kingsford: No, it is fine until they get ready to do something with that portion, it is part of
it is zoned R-4, for them to do anything with those lots in the southerly portion they will
have to amend the plat.
Morrow: So we can press forvvard if staff is satisfied with this preliminary plat?
Kingsford: Oh, we have to talk to another attorney, Wayne your comments?
Crookston: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Mayor, I think if you approve the preliminary
plat that is controlling. If you approve it without the change to that part of the land that is
adjacent to Cherry Lane Village than you have approved that in that and it is controlling.
Kingsford: Then what you have to do is stipulate then on the approval that those lots in the
southerly 100 feet have to be platted to accommodate the R-4 zone.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 22
Crookston: That you can do. Your process was to approve the preliminary plat only.
Kingsford: Other questions of the Council?
Morrow: Of Gary and Shari, are alt your questions and conditions been satisfied?
Smith: I received this revised preliminary plat yesterday, some time yesterday, I am not
sure exactly when. I haven't looked at and compared it to the previous preliminary plats
that we have received. It doesn't show anything for a plat along that area north of Cherry
Lane Village No. 5 in the R-15 zone and that is consistent with what they are requesting
because I cannot follow the request. But, the plat does not show any platting in that area,
it is an R-15 zone and that is consistent with what they are requesting from you, is that
correct?
Kingsford: They did, but we zoned it R-4 anyway. They requested that but we didn't grant
it for the southerly portion.
Smith: But it is not part of the plat.
Kingsford: It is part of the plat.
Smith: It is not part of this plat.
Kingsford: Yes it is part of that plat, but we would have to have a note on there that row
of or 100 feet of on the southerly portion would have to be replatted to accommodate R-4.
Smith: There isn't any, there are no lots shown.
Kingsford: That is correct, it is one big lot and they are going to deal with that in some
fashion anyway.
Bradbury: That is right, it is one big lot, Lot 11, Block 10 The Lake at Cherry Lane
Subdivision.
Smith: Lot 10, Block 11.
Bradbury: It is one big lot and the southerly 100 feet of it I understand is going to be zoned
R1t and the rest of it is going to be zoned R-15, just really that simple. And it is a platted
lot in the subdivision. When we come back with the development plan under the
conditional use permit proposal that you folks have required then you will see a new
preliminary plat for that lot. Resubdividing an existing lot subject to all of the conditions
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 23
that you folks are inclined to impose at that point in time. Does that make it clear enough?
Kingsford: Probably as good as you can do. The other requirements though Gary are you
satisfied with regard to the plat there, you don't know if it is even consistent with the one
you had before?
Smith: It appears to be, I did not check off the items that we reviewed previously on the
plat.
Kingsford: Shari do you have any comments?
Stiles: I just glanced at this after receiving it yesterday. There are some modifications
minor modifications that will have to be made to comply with the ordinance but other than
that it is consistent with everything they have submitted before.
Kingsford: Other questions of the Council?
Morrow: So where we are at here is that we received this revised plat yesterday afternoon,
both staff are not totally comfortable with the revised plat meeting the conditions that you
had set for them is that correct?
Smith: Mr. Morrow, I just haven't had time to look at it. Shari has apparently, if it is
conforming with what she looked at previously then that is, 1 am comfortable with that.
There aren't any contour lines on this plat but we have got a plat that was previously
submitted that does have contour lines on it. That is not a big issue.
Morrow: Are you comfortable enough with the plat that there are no major issues that it can
press forward from this point?
Smith: Shari Advises me that is true, yes, if that is the case then I don't have a problem
with what Shari is saying. I am dealing with the sewer and water issues and we can iron
those things out as the development plans are developed. The lot sizes are going to have
to conform to the ordinance.
Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Is there a motion on the preliminary plat?
Cowie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the preliminary plat with the conditions that a
note of the 100 feet south of the Sagehen Road to accommodate an R-4 zoning plus being
subject to the minimum modifications to the staffs recommendations.
Yerrington: Second
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 24
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max, discussion Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: It seems to me like that maybe I didn't understand the motion fully, but I think that
we should include in the motion subject to the replatting to R-4 of the portion 100 feet
south of Sagehen Drive. Did we have the language for the replatting in there?
Corrie: I didn't say replatting, but a note to accommodate the R-4 zoning which would be
the same thing. We can add to the replat.
Kingsford: If you want to use the term plat that is your prerogative, you can speak to that
100 feet meeting R-4.
Morrow: I think the term replatting sign~es that there is going to be a procedure by which
the R-4 is going to come about. It would clear up or signify at least in my mind how it would
get done.
Kingsford: Is there an interest in withdrawing the second?
Yerrington: 1 will withdraw the second.
Corrie: All we have to do is insert the word Replat before the R-4.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve of the preliminary plat for the Lake
at Cherry Lane No. 5 & 6 subject to a replat of the 100 feet south of Sagehen to meet the
R-4 requirements and that it meet the requirements of staff, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION N0. 5 BY RAMON YORGASON:
Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed those findings? Any question or comments?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law
for a variance request for Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5 as written.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the findings of fact and
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 25
conclusions of law for Waterbury Park No. 5 as written, Joe did you have a comment on
that, we are talking about the tiling of the ditch?
Simunich: I am Joe Simunich I reside at 955 W. Ustick Road in Meridian. Mr. Mayor and
Council, to me it is irrelevant whether this ditch is left open or tiled. But I think the Council
should realize that this also acts as a creek. This Creason Lateral also drains surtace
water and subsurface water. Meridian city put a sewer line through my place in 1992 this
sewer line raised the water table. Keller and Associates has six test holes there. I have
four letters to the City Council and the City Engineer in 1992. I have not been addressed
yet except Mr. Keller told me last year in July that the water table. is higher on our property
because of the sewer line. If this Creason Lateral is also tiled and no consideration made
and not engineered adequately it won't accept the water from the adjoining properties and
therefore it will raise the water table again on our property on the north side of the
Creason Lateral. So I think before firm decision is made, there should be some good
engineering done on this project. Thank you.
Kingsford: You have heard the motion and the second, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington - No, Corrie -Yea, Tolsma -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yeas, 1 No
Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that the decision is essentially it is decided the
application for variance from 11-9-605 M is granted under the conditions stated herein.
The ditch shall be fenced with either chain link or rod iron on both sides of the right of way.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the decision, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yes, 1 No
ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR REQUEST TO REDUCE REQUIRED MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE OF 1800 TO
1500 SQUARE FEET FOR ENGLEWOOD CREEK SUBDIVISION:
Kingsford: Does Council have any questions of the applicant on that?
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 26
Morrow: Can we have a short presentation from the applicant?
Kingsford: Is the applicant present, Englewood Creek? It was notified, not present.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would like to hear a presentation from the applicant, if the applicant
is not here I would suggest that we table this to our November 8 meeting.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table this to the November 8 meeting request
that the applicant make a presentation at that meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5
ACRES TO C-G BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public and invite the applicant or his designee to
speak first.
Russell Keithly, Langly Associates, 3633 136 Place SE, Suite 205, Bellevue, WA, was
sworn by the City Attorney.
Keithly: How long are you going to allow Mr. Mayor?
Kingsford: Try to keep it brief. Our comments speak to three minutes but I know this is a
large project but try and keep it brief.
Keithly: By way of background on Langly and Associates is a Bellevue based developer,
we are 11 years old. Our primary are of development is Seattle, we have done projects in
Portland and Denver and this is our first attempt to do a project in Idaho. We have done
similar projects to what we are proposing. The most similar one is in Issaquah,
Washington. It is approximately 550,000 square feet of retail and 650,000 square feet of
office about 1.2 million square foot project. Getting directly into this project, and I am not
sure how to deal with this. I think it is important that I talk from the site plan so you
understand it without blinding the audience. I guess there is just no way to talk to you.
Kingsford: Maybe Mr. Keithly you can come over here and speak into this microphone and
the audience can see that as well as the Council or take the hand held over there.
Keithly: First, I think you are all familiar with this site location, it is at the intersection of I-84
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 27
and Eagle Road and Overland Road is here. It is in an area that your comp plan has set
up as a priority area for commercial development and approximately a year and a half to
two years ago we started looking at this area we obviously agreed with that and took a
position on this particular site for a retail center. Getting to the specifics of the site, first,
on site relative to utilities similar, (inaudible) come to approximately the point at which the
west bound on ramp intersects the freeway. We will be bringing the sewer from that point
over to our project. Water is currently in Overland Road to our west, we will bring the
water to this site, city water and we have been requested and agreed to then take the
water under the freeway to the St. Luke's site so you will have a loop system.
Transportation has been a significant issue, we have agreed prior to opening our project
to widen Overland Road to 5 lanes to the intersection from our point of entry and
approximately 500 feet beyond our point of entry. Our site is accessed with a 5 lane road
which includes a right turn only lane which feeds into a lane that then feeds into Eagle
Road so exiting the property will be a straight shot onto Eagle Road. Two left turn lanes
out of our property if you wish to go Eastbound Overland, two left tum lanes into our
property off of Overland Road. The traffic analysis done by Bell Walker, Gary Funkhouser
and a single point of access is not our choice but we and our traffic engineer are
convinced that it will handle the traffic. We have what is not shown a second point of
emergency access into the site and when Eagle Road was constructed there was a
property here and a property here they were given access with a road that basically
parallels Eagle. That road will stay in place and will become the emergency access. It
intersects Overland Road far too close to Eagle Road to be used as a commercial access.
The turning movements conflict but it can be used as an emergency access. We currently
have an agreement with ACRD, we had anticipated being in front of you with this meeting
approximately in June. We had significant delays in negotiations with ACHD which are
generally resolved. You will notice in your report on page 9, 4C of the findings ACRD has
indicated that we will not get an off set against impact fees for the improvements that we
are doing on Overland Road. We believe that is an incorrect contravention of their own
ordinance and at the point in time that we are assessed we, I want you to know we plan
to appeal that decision if that decision remains in place. Other that than we are in general
agreement with ACRD. On page 33 of the findings of fact, item 8B states that proper
adequate access is a problem. Again, I am not sure why that is there other than to
encourage us to find other means of access. We are convinced that given the size of our
project and the traffic projections that the access (inaudible) there simply isn't another way
to get into the project without going through a residential subdivision which obviously they
(inaudible) and we don't think is appropriate. Any access between, we are only 1200 feet
from the intersection of Eagle and Overland and our traffic engineer believes if we put an
ingress and or egress point closer to Eagle that it will create more problems because of
conflicting turning movements that we can get the most traffic moving through it
(inaudible). The site design issues, one of their things that is in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan is their concern about Meridian entry way corridors in which the east
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 28
r~
u
end of Overland is considered (inaudible) divided median it is burned on both sides and
for the first, until we get to the creek at this point we will have a stonewall on top of the
berm, extensive landscaping so we will have an elaborate very attractive entryway which
will be your first impression of this project from the east. We have (inaudible) staff relative
to the buffers around the site. Your development guidelines really only provide fora 4 foot
buffer, we had on this plat 12 to 24 feet of buffers. There is in the conditions of their
approval a reference to a 35 feet in the comprehensive plan which we aren't able to find
as a target goal. But in working with staff we have agreed to increase these buffers which
we are showing at 12 feet to 20 feet that will allow us approximately a 4 to 5 foot berm with
a 3 to 4 foot fence on top of the berm which will give us an 8 foot solid buffer from all
residential neighborhoods with extensive landscaping. Your ordinance requires a high
number of 3 inch diameter trees and we will use a lot of those in that area. Our landscape
architects believe we can do an extensive amount of landscaping in the 20 feet. and
inconsistency in the conditions, and I hope I am misunderstanding is we did not show a
fence along the freeway, we do not believe a fence is appropriate. We believe again a 4
to 5 foot berm and extensive landscaping is appropriate. A fence is simply going to be
another wall with a wall behind it where the buildings are. We think extensive landscaping
will be more attractive there and that is what we have shown on our plan. We have
chatted with staff, we are not showing any pathways at this time, we do have the creek
running along here. We have left a buffer and we are more than happy to provide a
pathway there and to commit to that. There doesn't appear to be any other appropriate
spots for pathways that might ultimately connect with other paths in an overall trail system.
Some things that we have done perhaps a little different than is called out for in your
guidelines. We have aggregated our landscaping in the parking lots, our experience and
we have done large projects like this. Instead of lots of little planter islands all over it is to
make fairly and consistent long areas of planters so that we can get them large enough
so we can keep the trees growing. The little ones the cars run into the trees and they are
not effective. So you can kind of see throughout the site we have lines of trees which
break up visually as you are looking across the parking lot. We have reasonably extensive
tree plantings within the parking lots. There is a little misunderstanding on our building
designs. There is an indication in the findings of fact that we plan to use metal siding. That
is not the case, we plan to use (inaudible) metal roofs and sloped roofs on the site.
Basically all of the buildings are masonry and they are planned to be concrete mason units
which is blocks, split face block (inaudible) which from a distance really has, we tend to
use the brick colors and have very much the appearance of brick. It is a larger block than
brick but (inaudible) is the material that we plan to use in general. But we do like to get
some roof structures to break it up, to break up the (inaudible) and we are trying to get an
agrarian, this is a farm, this has been a farm and field to it and we think the standing seam
metal roofs help do that with some roof effects. (End of Tape) page 4 of the findings of
fact it indicates there will be separate buildings for deliveries, I hope I didn't say that. I am
sorry, we plan to screen all of the delivery areas with solid walls, if you look at this
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 29
structure here is where a truck would pull behind so when a truck is at the site you cannot
see it from roads or parking lots. But all the delivery and trash areas will be screened, but
the indication there will be separate buildings for deliveries is not correct and would not
be practical. I already touched on the fact that we have never planned a wall along I-84
we think berm and landscape is more aesthetically pleasing. The findings of fact indicate
a plan of Spring of 1996 construction start for the Fall of 1996 completion, those dates
went by the way as we got slowed down about 6 months in the ACRD process. Best case
now we are looking for a Fall of 96/Spring of 97 construction start for this project with a
mid to late 97 occupancy. One other point of clarification on page 28 of the findings of fact
there is kind of a blanket statement that the development agreement will include and this
is number 5 I believe on page 28, impact fees for parks, police and fire. We are not aware
of any impact fees currently in place for that specifically and don't wish to agree to
anything that open. If there is something we are certainly willing to discuss it and do what
is appropriate. But again we are not aware of that. One thing we would like to work with
as we get to the final findings on this you and hopefully the City Attorney is we are getting
a conditional use permit that has the specific site plan. We have specific tenants in mind
for many of these buildings but as we actually complete our marketing and whatever some
of these sizes will undoubtedly change that is our experience. What we hope you will do
is give your staff some flexibility to modify this site plan within reason as we actually bring
tenants in and that is typically how we have worked in other jurisdictions. This is our best
estimate of what it is going to look like that specific tenants will change that site plan
hopefully in minor ways. That is a real rush job.
Kingsford: Does the Council have any questions? Thank you. Anyone else from the
public that would like to offer testimony on this issue?
Robert Nelson, 1185 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Nelson: I don't have a problem with the Oliason's developing their property, what I have
a problem with is a shopping center with a single entrance. I think we can allow the
Oliason's to develop something there with less traffic impact. Such as an office complex,
light industrial. I realize this won't make them as much money but a single entrance to a
mall is ridiculous. Boise Town Square Mall and these are ACHD's numbers develops
45,000 trips a day, the mall itself, it has 4 entrances onto 3 arterials. ACHD says it will
take 25% of their budget for the next 20 years to correct the problems at the Boise Town
Square Mall. The power mall is going to develop 25,000 trips per day with one entrance.
Now I had a little problem trying to decide with 25,000 vehicles looked like so I took a
design length of 20 feet times 25,000 and came out to 94.7 miles worth of traffic. That is
roughly from Mountain Home to Ontario trying to squeeze in one entrance. They say they
are going to have an emergency entrance. How are you going to keep that open once the
public finds out that entrance is there, how are you going to keep them out of it? I think
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 30
you are putting your emergency people at a great risk. I question the profitability of it. With
the traffic congestion and everything else I am going to avoid that thing like the plague.
I think a lot of other people will do the same thing. And again how many shopping centers
do you see with only one entrance. Last Wednesday's announcement gave you an
alternative. I think it has better location, the one at Fairview and Eagle and better access.
You can afford to be a little bit choosy gentlemen. You can get a mall that will enhance
Meridian not detract from it. I would like to see you table this thing until the other
gentleman comes in with his plans and you can compare them and take a look at which
will do the best for Meridian. Thank you.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public?
Larry Strow, ITD, 8150 Chinden Blvd, 6120 N. Drake, Garden City, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Strow: We have some concerns, we being the Transportation Department, has some
concerns at the Eagle interchange. At the time of build out at this mall we feel that there
is going to be some intolerable congestion and we would like for Langly and Associates
to meet with us and work out some of these congestion problems then they can be taken
care of fairly easy with the change of signals, that are already there. The installation of
another signal and possibly in the distant future another left turn lane. We would urge the
Council to make this a condition of their approval.
Morrow: Have you studied this entire proposal and the traffic flows and that would be the
sum of what ITD's comments would be?
Strow: Yes, I didn't bring details with me, I didn't think this was a technical type meeting.
Our assumptions are based on Bell Walker's projected traffic.
Morrow: My point here is long ago someone from ITD wrote a synopsis of what was going
to happen at Boise Town Square Mall and unfortunately nobody paid any attention to that
either he or she who wrote that nailed it right on. Of course today we have a major mess
there. The point of my question is that your projections are far reaching and you feel that
in the build out of that area those things can accomplish good smooth traffic management.
Strow: The build out for this project, not the entire area. That is two different things, if you
make assumptions on what is going on at the other quadrants of Overland and Eagle Road
no, what we are asking for tonight will not handle all of those. We are addressing only the
power center, projected traffic volumes.
Morrow: So ITD has done no work at all in looking at what the potential build out for the
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 31
area might be and how it would affect that interchange?
Strow: No
Jim Rogers, 1115 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rogers: Members of the Council, Mr. Mayor, we had hoped to have a larger turn out by
the Rolling Hills and Jewell Subdivision people here tonight but after the statement by your
Meridian City Planner in the Idaho Statesman that this was a done deal it was difficult to
generate much interest. I hope this isn't the case. We do have some general things. You
received a letter from us, us meaning the residents of the Jewell and Rolling Hills
Subdivision outlining in very good detail what some of our concerns are. I will just
summarize some of them. Bob Nelson a neighbor summed up our traffic concerns very
well but these traffic studies made by the Ada County Highway Department and Ada
Planning clearly indicates traffic input on the area what will be needed to meet this impact.
The approval of the Langly proposal will open a Pandora's box for development in this area
requiring a massive infusion of money into the Ada County Highway Department to pay for
road improvements. Which is as we have seen in other parts of the County lag
development by 5 to 10 years. Other items of concern which we have, if approval is made
for this development the buffer proposed by the developer is adequate. His plan showed
a 12 foot wide buffer initially. Tonight he says he is since changed that. A 12 foot wide
buffer narrower than one lane of traffic on Overland Road and a 20 feet is less than 2
lanes. As a minimum we would like a 50 foot wide 10 to 12 foot high maintained
landscape buffer required as part of the approval. This would provide complete isolation
between the neighborhood and the development. The neighborhood mainly the east side
of the development and the south side of the development. Lighting and signs should be
minimal with low level, non glare parking lot lights. Delivery should be restricted to late
a.m. only. The large building proposed for the northeast comer of the development should
be relocated to the northwest corner which would place it at the Eagle interchange area
on the property. And a restriction placed on the developer that no structure greater than
12 feet high will be constructed within 200 feet of the eastern and southern property lines
of that development. Storm water run off has not been adequately addressed by the
developer. Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has stated they will not allow non-treated
run off to be placed into the Five Mite Creek because of existing irrigation water rights
down stream from this development. If this is the case the retention basin will most likely
be required. Run off from over 70 acres of hard surface land during 1 hour thunder storm
event will be significant as anybody who has been in the down town Boise mall area can
attest to during a thunder storm. Water is 6 inches deep in some places in that area. The
Meridian City Planner and some of her statements has indicated that this would not be a
problem. 1 will address this issue as a registered professional geologist in the State of
Idaho with 20 years experience as an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 32
in private, State and Federal Government. Much of my experience is in development of
ground water and surface water resources that the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US
Forest Service. At the present time the static ground water level in the property just east
of the development, which is a high elevation area at 25 feet below ground surface. In the
lower areas to the south of the development the ground water surface is at about 10 feet
below ground surface. If the developer puts in a retention basin that means in some cases
there will probably will not be more than 5 feet of soil between the bottom of his basin and
the regional ground water table in that area. No detailed studies of ground water
hydrology have been made in this area. Therefore we have no idea which way ground
water moves. If the developer retained the water in a storm water basin as Fred Meyers
has done in the area of Five Mile and Overland a real potential exists for parking lot
contamination to enter the ground water system. Real property located on the east, south
and west of this development all depend on water wells for their local water supply.
Regardless of which way the water table moves a very real danger exists for water
pollution to enter our domestic wells. In addition, a recent issue of the civil engineering
states under the resource conservation recovery act regulatory consequences can arise
with this type of water treatment system. For instance retention pond, infiltration basins,
(inaudible) created wetlands and other facilities not intended to contain or manage
hazardous waste could be characterized or identified as hazardous waste treatment
storage and disposal facilities. Parking lots create some of the most toxic run off due to
oil, automobile oil leaks and other forms of heary metal pollution. These issues are
serious have long term legal consequences for the City of Meridian. If water well
contamination takes place due to this development the City of Meridian as well as the
developer have been forewarned of the potential of failing to address the issue and can
be held liable by the property owners who depend on these wells for their domestic needs.
We would request that the developer be required to have a complete hydrological study
completed as well as a series of ground water monitoring wells be placed around the east,
south and west side of the development to facilitate long term monitoring by the developer.
This study should be completed prior to approval by the City of Meridian. In summation,
very real problems exist with the development of this property. Yery limited access near
a major intersection. Malls of this size in other cities require at least 4 points of ingress
and egress. Potential ground water problems, inadequate site planning by the developer
and major traffic problems on Overland, Eagle and the Eagle/I-134 interchange created not
only by this proposal but by other developer who already have property for sale in the
immediate area and who will be requesting annex and a rezoning if this is approved.
Meridian does not have to take the first offer of the developer. This city can afford to be
selective and wait for a developer who comes in with fresh ideas. This developer offers
nothing new in the way of malls. His ideas are old and tired and he is already whining
about impact fees. Meridian already has another developer proposing a similar mall in the
area of Fairview and Eagle. The area is already zoned, has utilities and good road
access. Let's look at his proposal before making any decisions concerning this one. In a
•
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 33
C~
recent court case Lenardis vs. City of Greenville, the Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
The Court stated in part an adverse economic impact on an individual property owner is
not the controlling inquiry a zoning takes where the interest of the individuals are
subordinate to the public good. I would emphasize the last part of this and this Council's
decision should be for the public good not that of the developer. I would request that this
application be denied or at least tabled until the issues we have discussed be addressed.
Thank you.
Morrow: What is the average depth of wells in the area?
Rogers: About 90 feet, that is the upper part of the Rolling Hills Subdivision. They are a
little bit shallower and some of them are a little bit deeper in the Jewel area to the south
of the subdivision.
Morrow: And educate me a little bit on water strata, you are talking about the surface
ground water being at depths of 10 to 25 feet.
Rogers: That is the static water table, in other words if you lower a plumb down the well
you will find water at about 25 feet on the upper level and about 10 to 15 feet on the lower
level.
Morrow: Okay, the ground water table that the water from this parking lot drainage system
would percolate into is that (inaudible).
Rogers: That would be what is called the shallow ground water system in Ada County.
That is the water table that is considered generally less than 300 feet in depth. We are not
sure in our area where that ground water table exists, obviously it is less than 90 feet and
deeper than 25 feet. Because the ground water is always at a little bit of pressure so it will
rise in your well casing. This is one reason we are asking that this hydrologic study be
done in the area of this mall, we don't know where it is and if he excavates or he disposes
of his wastewater or storm water run off in and area for instance that has a lens of gravel
in it or something like that, that would allow access of this water into the water table, this
then will pollute that as they have found out very fast in the Boise Town Square mall area.
We don't know, as I say there is no information available as to what the water table
movement in this area and that is why we are asking that this be accomplished and that
there be monitoring wells placed along the periphery of his property. So if we do see a
contamination flume moving then something can be done about it immediately and not wait
until everybody wells goes bad because of heavy metal contamination oil or some other
problem. Asphalt is not water proof, asphalt by design is generally put in with about a 2
to 4% of an air void in it, it is what we call flexible pavement. That asphalt will allow water
to move vertically from the top of the parking lot into the sub strata. So anywhere within
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 34
that 73 acre area this surface water can find a path into the ground water system.
Morrow: Dces ground water work such that there are different strata of ground water and
do, is it possible for water from one strata to get into another strata?
Rogers: Usually if it is a perch system like you are talking about where you find water at
different levels in the ground. Generally a perch because there is no path from one to the
other. In other words we are looking at a vertical migration path. Based on work t had
done back in the 70's for what was then called the Ada County of Government out of Boise
is that there is not a perched water table in this system down there that these water tables
exist in the pervious gravels probably within the 35 foot area below the ground surface in
there.
Morrow: So that within that 35 foot area by percolation one water strata has access to the
other.
Rogers: Right
Morrow: But once you go below that at the 90 foot depth that may not be the case.
Rogers: That is true, generally like I say about 300 feet that there is a impervious layer
that separates the shallow aquifer from the deep aquifer which most of the cities get their
water from, most of the cities get their water out of the deep aquifer system below 300 feet.
There is not an interconnection between those two aquifers. The state has very strong or
rigid requirements on if you drill through these on sealing and casing so there is not a zone
for water to move from one to the other. Our shallow water aquifer systems recharges
generally from irrigation in the area, the canal system and things like that.
Morrow: Thank you
Kingsford: Rolling Hills Subdivision, is that on central sewer or septic tanks?
Rogers: It is all septic tanks. In fact Mayor the entire area both the Jewell and Rolling Hills
Subdivision are septic tanks. We are not overly concerned about the septic tank problems
in the area because most of our septic tanks are within 10 feet of the ground surface and
we have a good buffer between the septic tanks and the water table. There has, as far as
I know there has never been an indication that septic tank effluent has ever percolated
down into the water tables that we know of. The water tests that I have done on my well
shows we have high quality drinking water out there still. There is no contamination, a
little bit of fluoride but that is about it.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 35
Kingsford: Other questions for Mr. Rogers? Thank you, anyone else?
Betty Bermensulo, 1970 Canonero, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bermensulo: I am here tonight has spokesperson for the Southwest Ada County Alliance
which is a neighborhood group that has its boundaries south of the freeway all the way to
Kuna, east all the way to ColelCurtis area and west all the way to Ada County/Canyon
County line. I understand that is probably the largest neighborhood group that has ever
existed and I don't intend to try to be responding to all of the issues both in Meridian and
in the Boise area of impact. However, our board of directors, we have 8 board or directors,
we are a group that has monthly meetings that are attended by Meridian, Kuna, Boise
residents and I would like to talk to you a little bit about some of the reasons that we have
for feeling it important to present our concerns to you tonight. Number one as the
spokesperson for the Southwest Ada County Alliance 1 felt if very important to contact the
developer and ask that he come to our neighborhood group and put before the group as
a whole this proposal. This has been going on for several months and the reason 1 haven't
been here earlier is because I had hoped the developer would try to present this proposal
to the group. As yet, although I have had a conversation with the developer this hasn't
taken place. I do feel that a development that goes in or a proposal that is considered with
this much impact to an area should start with a neighborhood that it is going to impact or
a neighborhood group that is in existence in that area. That is my feeling, but I think it can
certainly speed the process for both developers and end up with a better project for the
entire area. I would like to start though by saying that the board of directors in looking at
some of the information that was presented to me in the mail by the developer voted
unanimously in opposition this proposal. One of the reasons as I indicated is that we felt
that we had offered and yet not been given an opportunity to share this proposal with
interested citizens. Secondly, I think that everyone is concerned about the development
going in along Overland and I was apprised last month of a change in plans for widening
that was to occur along Overland between Meridian Road and Locust Grove. Now there
is a great deal and we have somebody here from ACHD so if anything has changed since
these things happened I hope someone will speak up. At the present time the 1996 date
of expansion of widening of the road of Overland between Meridian Road and Locust
Grove has been revised so that there is no longer a date of actually doing this work. I think
that is troubling since there is so much commercial build up already on the north side of
Overland as well as on the south side with Sportsman Point. I think that it doesn't seem
to be enough that we could get impact fees from the development and still be assured that
this road widening will occur. I was told at the transportation improvement plan
presentation that these funds that were allocated for this expansion in 1996 had been
deemed more appropriate in another area. That concerns me because we have a
developer here tonight that certainly would be paying a great deal in the way of impact
fees but we are not really assured that once the impact fees are generated will that road
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 36
improvement actually go forward. That is one thing that really concerns me, there is
certainly, Overland is a long road and we are still undergoing what seems to be a change
in what the widening between Five Mile where Fred Meyers sits to Cloverdale or for that
matter all the way to Eagle, is it going to be three lanes, is it going to be 5 lanes. There
has been some movement to the three lanes only recently and I don't, I think that again
we are talking about substandard road system that would be very used road if a mall of
this magnitude went into place. If you look at the pasture land and I have in front of me
the, a colored rendition of the proposal, and I guess it is overpowering to me how little
green you see. I guess it was Mr. Rogers right before I think, was excellent in bringing
forward our concerns about turning that much pasture land into asphalt and not being very
concerned about the amounts of storm water detention area that maybe the Department
of Environmental Quality should mandate. If it is ACHD I would really be concerned in
knowing if they have assigned whether or not this is an adequate amount of detention area
that is earmarked for a project of this size. So, I ask that question if there is someone that
could provide me with that information. I did ask Shari to look into the availability, is it a
percentage, is it 10%, is it 5°!0, 3%, but how much should be there considering the amount
of asphalt that is going to be replacing recharge from all of that pasture land. Also taking
it in to perspective with how much is being removed by the existing development on the
north side of the freeway now with the medical center. So, I too am very concerned about
contamination of our shallow aquifer, I think this and again I didn't know a lot of the things
Mr. Rogers brought up but I think we ought to be very careful in going ahead with
something that hasn't bee scrutinized more fully. Now, this mall is located at the furthest,
almost the furthest boundary of Meridian's impact area. It abuts up against at least over
20 to 25 existing acreage. I would invite the Council members to drive down behind Fred
Meyers on a nice warm day and some of those parcels that are up against the creek which
is up against the back side of Fred Meyers. What you will hear is the air conditioners in
Fred Meyers and you will be amazed at how easily you hear the street sweepers at night
time. Granted there is a lot of highway traffic, maybe you would say you wouldn't notice
it but I think that no one needs to be subjected to even this additional impact if there is a
way around. Now Meridian has another choice and that is the one that everybody read
about and everyone was excited about that I talked to. An opportunity for a change for us
to have traffic impact minimized because we have a road, Eagle and Fairview at a point
where they could better handle the demands of the mall. So, the mall location at Fairview
and Eagle certainly in our estimation seems to have less impact on a rural community and
less concerns in terms of vital issues such as water pollution. That seems to be one of the
things that people keep asking for is that infrastructure and certainly traffic being in place
is certainly a complaint these days of being in place at time the growth goes in. We have
an opportunity to see that is actually is a reality in this case. Again I would echo what has
been said before, Meridian is fortunate to have an alternative here. I urge you to consider
that alternative before you approve the one that is being looked at tonight. As far as
recommended uses, you don't come to a neighborhood alliance meeting without the
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 37
neighborhood wming forward and giving some of these suggestions or comments to the
developer, the earlier the better. But also we also say it is a nice time to say what would
you like to see there. It is not my land, I don't pretend to say that they should do it the way
that we are indicating. It seems that medical office space business satellite office space
would be a pertect location. It is a 9 to 5 operation, it is certainly a lower trip generator and
it still would afford a great opportunity for the developer to have a return on his investment.
Probably with a lot less heartache. I would say that I mention this to developer and it was
disturbing, his comment to me was when 1 mentioned why wasn't there more office space,
because I felt that the proposal that 1 viewed in this building that was done in Washington
was very creative. I hope that the Council had an opportunity to look at it, it had a mixture,
a real solid mixture of retail and office and it had a great deal going for it. t am very
disappointed that Mr. Keithly didn't go further. I understand he is from this area and I am
very disappointed that he didn't attempt to go further with the proposal that we see tonight.
It looks like a lot of asphalt, I don't think there is nearly enough concern given for a creek,
high water area. I really feel that we could see a much better proposal coming from this
developer. So, I guess these are the items that I really wish we had an opportunity to bring
before the City Planning and Zoning Commission but we still had hoped that we would
have the opportunity to meet with this developer and I feel that it might have been time
well spent had we had that opportunity, should that opportunity even have been one that
the City had I hate to say mandated but had required considering the sensitivity of this
project. But I appreciate your interest and concem in looking at some of the things that we
have brought up and I hope that you give it a great deal of concern before you make a
decision. Thank you.
Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public?
James Ballantyne, 10250 Whispering Cliffs Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Ballantyne: I am before you as a concerned citizen and a strong supporter of the school
systems. And although looking at the color of my hair you might think that I vote against
most of the bond issues. I have in fact voted for all of the bond issues for Meridian School
District and have actively campaigned for those bond issues. I understand the agony of
the homeowners in Rolling Hills because of a similar problem that exists in my
neighborhood, Whispering Cliffs the north end of Five Mile Road. Which is being
proposed, in fact I think it is past the proposal stage now that it be connected with Chinden
being maybe a major arterial to the north. So I do empathize with the agony of the
homeowners. However, this County and Meridian has to address projects that will give
money to the schools We have consistently been turning down the bond issues, need
commercial development in order to up the tax base. I am not a hydrologist, although I did
have knowledge in geology so I cannot address the contamination of the water tables, but
I will say that there is a safe water source in that neighborhood. City water in fact is
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 38
coming in. I would be in favor of this project having done development myself. Addressing
the competitive nature of the other mall to the north on Fairview, I have owned land on
Fairview. The real attraction of this type of a mall is not an arterial like Fairview which is
strictly a local arterial, but is the Interstate. That is the reason why these malls did not
locate on minor arterials but they aim at the Interstate. I think it would be a mistake to turn
down this project. It is a chance for the school systems to get some more tax dollars and
the Meridian School District does in deed need this. So I am making a plea on behalf of
the school kids to please I encourage you to approve this mall. Thank you.
Pam Rogers, 1115 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rogers: I just want to say as a parent of a student at Meridian High School that I feel the
reason why Meridian's bond issues have been defeated is the people, the public, the
taxpayers are trying to tell Meridian City, Boise City and Ada County to slow down
development. Let your services such as schools and roads catch up. Everything on the
agenda has been subdivisions being approved. What does that bring in, more students.
I think that the reason why the bond issues for Meridian City schools are being defeated
are people are trying to say please slow it down. That is all I have to say.
Kingsford: Anyone else?
Jack Miller, 940 Ash Street, Kuna, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Miller: As a land owner, I own in Kuna, but out in the proposed mall, since 1978 I have
watched Paul Quong development be turned down which was a great tax base for the City
of Meridian as well as the education system and all the other social services. I think this
represents a great opportunity for Meridian because now you have an opportunity to get
both of them. You have the site that is already approved down there on Fairview and
Eagle and Langly and Associates mall out there should be approved as well. t think that
can be done tonight. From a personal stand point I empathize with the people that live in
location where the proposed mall is to go because just across the street from me, the
reason we moved to Kuna was for the peace and quiet. About six months ago we found
out that our 5 acre subdivision was being subdivided by a couple of people that owned five
acre lots. We were all up in arms about it, the fact was that we didn't want anybody move
in, that was the thing that drove it. We had some logical thoughts behind that which was
another septic tank would pollute the waters aquifer out there and could even deplete the
water aquifer and we couldn't have our, we'd have to dig deeper wells etc. Progress is
something nobody likes, the Native Americans didn't like it when the settlers came out
here. The settlers didn't like it when everybody else came out here, I didn't particularly like
it when I moved to Kuna and I am sure these people don't want it as well. Facts are it is
here, it isn't going to change. We are going to get more people in here. So, let's approve
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 39
things that will be beneficial to the City, beneficial to the State of Idaho and bring in some
tax revenues for us before it is too late to do something about and get some control into
it today. Thank you.
Kingsford: One comment Jack, Quong was approved, likewise that same site was
approved for Price, they just didn't built.
Miller: Couldn't get tenants.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? This is a great opportunity to close the public
hearing. However there is another public hearing for the same applicant following this
one. I will close the public hearing. Counselor, do you see additional findings required?
Crookston: (End of Tape) conclusions of law prepared.
Kingsford: Entertain a motion to that effect.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the City Attomey to prepare new findings of
fact and conclusions of law for the annexation and zoning request of the 73.5 acres to C-G
by Langly and Associates.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to have the City Attorney prepare new findings
of fact and conclusions on the annexation and zoning request for Langly and Associates,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RETAIL PROJECT OF APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FEET BY LANGLY AND
ASSOCIATES:
Kingsford: I will announce that the pertinent testimony that was given at P & Z will be
included in this record. If you want to say the same thing you are certainly welcome to but
it will be included. At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his
designee to speak first on the subject.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 40
Russell Keithly, 3633 136th Place SE, Bellevue, WA, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Keithly: Effectively I included in my earlier testimony items that were specifically related
to the conditional use as well. I will use this forum very quickly to comment on a couple
of things. And I think you are all very aware this is not a technical approval, we will do
extensive hydrologic studies and whatever before we proceed and we are very aware of
ground water conditions and those can be dealt with. One kind of over riding thing is why
we didn't more office here which would help traffic, the fact is we have been confronted
with this before, we have been in a City where they have done extensive tests or extensive
traffic studies where we converted office space into retail, the fact is the critical traffic
periods are the a. m. and p.m. peak rush hours. Those are the traffic periods when offices
put conflicting traffic on the streets and in fact when we converted a 55 acre site from
office to retail the p.m. peak hour traffic which was critical at that point when down 25%.
So while retail puts more total trips on your streets it puts far fewer trips versus none
during the a.m. peak if you have been in this area during the a.m. peak there is a lot of
traffic already. There will be more and if we put office in there, there would be tremendous
amount of conflicting trips. Again people don't tend to shop during the p.m. peak. Your
wife if she is coming home from work might stop but if she is home at 5:30 gee I think I will
go shopping and fight the traffic. So the fact is a retail center during the critical periods
provides less traffic than an office center.
Kingsford: You obviously don't know my wife. Anyone else from the public?
Jim Rogers, 1115 Rolling Hills Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rogers: Since the developer has so generously agreed to do the hydrologic study I would
request that this issue be tabled until his study is complete and there has been time to
review that information and make sure it is adequate and complete. Just as a side
comment, I find it interesting that in every meeting that I have attended now in Planning
and Zoning, the Ada County Highway District meeting, the only support the developer has
been able to gamer for his development has been those people who either own property
in the area and have a direct financial interest in it. Thank you.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? I will close the public hearing. Counselor?
Crookston: I would say that there has not been significant different testimony.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure on the P & Z findings?
Crookston: Before, however, you can really address the conditional use the property does
need to be annexed.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 41
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, my preference would be to table this until we see the findings of fact
and conclusions of law and act on them at our next meeting.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table the findings of fact and conclusions of
law on the conditional use permit until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.17
ACRES TO L-O AND C-G BY JIM BALLANTYNE:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Janelle Sanford, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sanford: Bear with me this is my first time doing this Mayor and Council members 1 will
be brief and do the best I can. I work with Mr. Wayne Forrey, who is the designated
representative of Mr. Ballantyne, he was unable to be here tonight and sent me in his
place. We appreciate the staff review and the agency comments we have received and
have reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. We agree with them, they are acceptable. We urge you to approve these
findings of fact and conclusions of law and hope you ultimately approve annexation of this
property. There were a few concerns mentioned in the Planning and Zoning public
hearing. Namely the connection through Pennwood or Barrett, that is not necessarily
desirable to us. We already have access to Franklin Road. The connection to Highway 69
we have been in meetings with the Ada County Highway District and understand that will
be a very integral part of the conditional use permit process. Mr. Ballantyne did have
some comments that he would like to make and I will rescind to him.
James Ballantyne, 10250 Whispering Cliffs Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Ballantyne: I have several, I noticed several conflicts within the findings here. The first
is on page nine, is the 35 foot landscape setback on Meridian Road and we do not own
any of that land there. That land is owned by Norman Fuller and we have an access, we
own an easement through his property that he has agreed to annex along with our project.
But we can hardly dedicate his land to a 35 foot setback and landscaping and sidewalks
and all of this. Then in the ACHD findings they address this and did not require the 35 foot
landscaping and setbacks. So there is a contradiction between the findings of fact and
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 42
conclusions of law and ACHD findings. On page 10, (inaudible) road entrance, our access
that easement that I alluded to through Norm Fullers property fails to line up with a curb
cut across the street in a commercial development being done by Rick Thomas it is off
center. Their center lines are 10 to 15 feet off center. They almost comply by they are off
a little bit. There is a variance in ACHD regulations that say if they don't line up exactly
well then you have a 125 foot off set. They can go either way, but it would be impossible
on this piece of property because of the narrowness of Mr. Fuller's land and the easement
that he gave us is the best one I think for both of us. I am refercing to the owners of the
land in the back and Mr. Fuller. On page 5, I have some problem talking about access to
the backyards of the neighbors. I can see some future problems there on having the
neighbors in the subdivisions having access across the greenbelt so to speak that
landscaped area and coming in at the wrong time of the year and tearing up the grass. So
the owner of the land gets upset because they are tearing up the landscaping. 1 think that
we can come to some agreement there as far as giving access to the neighbors but maybe
there is an off set by us not having to actually landscape quite that much land. I think that
35 feet is an excessive amount of off set there. And so, that. is something that we have to
negotiate with those neighbors that are right contiguous to our development. I am sure we
can resolve it, they can have access to their backyards although every, I might point out
too that every other land owner in that subdivision has to access his backyard not through
somebody else's land but through their own. So this just pertains to the people that are
actually contiguous to our development. Thank you.
Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public?
Joe Kutch, 625 Hanover Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kutch: If I am understanding what he is talking about he said there are some
discrepancies in the middle of all of this with ACHD and the findings of fact and all that
stuff. If there are discrepancies I don't see how anything really can proceed without this
all being addressed. Also, he was talking about, me being one of them with my property
at the back, being right behind where they are trying to develop. I asked before, he said
that we don't want to force him but to try and purchase any of this property. 1 asked are
we going to have the opportunity to purchase any of this property and I still haven't heard
anything about that myself. But those are some of the questions that I have.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public?
Ballantyne: In answer to our neighbors question, I have no objection to approaching the
solution of maybe selling a strip of land to the neighbors there so they have deeded
access to their backyards. So that is my answer if that is satisfactory.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 43
(Inaudible)
Ballantyne: I think we can get together and work out that strip there. The only people that
are impacted truly visually by the development are the neighbors that actually have lots
contiguous to the development. I am sure that we can work out something satisfactorily
to where they have their access and we provide some strip in there for visual also.
Kingsford: Jim, this is from memory, but it seems like in looking at the P & Z minutes, was
there an issue with regard to annexing an easement?
Ballantyne: There was and Mr. Fuller has in fact agreed to the annexation of that 50 foot
easement.
Kingsford: Counselor, is there a problem with just annexing a 50 foot strip with regard to
a shoe string annexation? I can't remember how this sits relative to that, so I just ask this
question.
Crookston: There is not a problem in this particular situation.
Ballantyne: Here is it visually.
Kingsford: Thank you.
Ballantyne: I would like to get together with the neighbors immediately after this. And we
can kind of get our heads together on this.
Kingsford: I have no control over them but if they are willing to get together with you that
is their privilege. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing.
Oh excuse me, Walt.
Morrow: I have several questions with respect to this in terms of staff. First I would like
to hear Lany Sale from ACHD address the issues that have been raised with the road not
lining up. How this gets adequately serviced from the Highway Districts standpoint and just
a general presentation of what the Districts thoughts are here.
Larry Sale, ACRD, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sale: For the record I am Larry Sale with Ada County Highway District.
Kingsford: Just as a point of reference I re-opened the public hearing since you swore him
in.
•
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 44
Sale: With regard to the off set of the driveways, I need to know which direction they are
off set to see if it really makes it a problem. If they are off set, if the driveway on the north
side is west of the driveway on the south side there is less of a problem.
Morrow: There is no reference point that I can tell.
Ballantyne: We did the best job we could with our scales to scale out the engineering and
the surveys. The problem being exactly what he pointed out, Mr. Morrow is that the plat
on the east side does not, there is no connection between the two plats. So we had to
scale that on one side. To the best of my memory the drive one the west side which is this
strip is about ten feet, the centerline of that access is about 10 feet to the north of the
centerline of the access on the east side. There is about a ten foot but of course that is
using the scales, that isn't an actual survey.
Sale: This driveway we are talking about is on Franklin Road?
Ballantyne: No this is on Meridian Road.
Sale: Okay, say that again please?
Ballantyne: Okay, this strip that we are talking to, the 50 foot easement into our property,
the centerline of that easement is approximately 10 feet north of the centerline of the curb
cut into Rick Thomas's development there where he is putting in some office buildings.
Sale: If that is correct, the off set is to the detriment of the two driveways and vehicles
turning left from Meridian Road into the two driveways at the same time would be in each
others steering wheels. I would suggest that perhaps the location of the 50 foot easement
could be shifted a few feet, we can work with up to five feet without a major problem.
resist encouraging you to approve anything with an offset greater than that in this
direction. If the driveways happen to be the other direction it wouldn't be so severe. I
apologize for misunderstanding where the driveways were, I thought we were talking
about one on Franklin Road, the other side. What was the other question from
Councilman Morrow?
Morrow: The access and traffic circulation within the parcel. I am having a problem with
this project because there is nothing here in terms of a development plan. Has anybody
seen a plan by which traffic circulation works here?
Sale: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, we have not, we assume that we are looking
at the annexation here and expressing some concerns about the things that are obvious
to us. But, we anticipate prior to development there would have to be either a conditional
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 45
use permit application or a subdivision application filed with the City that would then give
us an opportunity to see how site circulation within the property. It is a goal of the highway
district that a fairly significant roadway be extended out to Franklin Road through this
property to get traffic from the interior of this square mile out to Franklin and then you are
probably familiar with our longer range plan to extend Corporate Drive west past this
property, south of this property into the interior of the square mile to really serve as a
collector out of that area. We have received a request to have that placed on our capital
improvement plan for qualification for the use of impact fee revenue. Beyond that I can't
speak much to the circulation pattern. Any other questions?
Tolsma: Mr. Sale, (inaudible) stub street in the Landing Subdivision (inaudible) and then
that was supposed to come clear back to Meridian Road (inaudible).
Kingsford: That is what he was speaking to.
Sale: That is correct, that would be extension of Corporate Drive and I think you will have
a chance to give us some comment on that.
Tolsma: Part of that was supposed to go through this parcel.
Sale: Maybe not this one but I think Corporate Drive aligns perhaps, well it comes in just
about the north boundary of the property that has the storage units on it. t think that is a
few feet south of this property. We would expect this property to have access to that
collector either directly if that collector goes through the southern portion of the property
or though some adjoining property or intervening property between this and the collector.
Kingsford: So you would look at the stub to the south of this property. Other questions for
Mr. Sale? Thank you Larry.
Morrow: My next question would be of Gary Smith and Shari Stiles, any input that they
may have had with reference to this project thus far?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, the sewer service for this property, that portion of the
property to the north and the east of the Eight Mile Lateral as it crosses would be towards
Franklin Road and we do not have a sewer line in Franklin Road at this time. However, we
do have some preliminary plans to construct one prior to the improvement of Franklin Road
so that it would be available. Water does exist in Franklin Road, a 10 inch water Tine exists
there that would serve into this property and it would be looped back through the Franklin
Square Subdivision and could also be looped through the access road onto Meridian
Road. The portion of the property to the south of the Eight Mile Lateral would sewer to the
south and west probably into Franklin Square Subdivision. We haven't chased any invert
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 46
elevations on that project but to the best of our thoughts and I think the preliminary work
that has been done by the applicant that is the direction that it would sewer.
Kingsford: Gary, how far down Franklin is that sewer, that is not all that far where we have
it in Franklin is it?
Smith: There isn't any on, well, on Franklin from East 1st towards Meridian Road, it comes
over to Meridian Road and then ducks into the Rose Park Circle at an angle. There is no
sewer in Franklin from Meridian Road to the west.
Morrow: Plus, we have an elevation problem slightly west of this in terms of sewer line
anyway.
Smith: Yes, we won't be able to carry this sewer line much farther than the western
boundary of this property because of the elevation problem. That is the grade of Franklin
Road is going up to get over the Eight Mile Lateral. We will be able to get that far with the
sewer without any problem, we won't be able to get any farther than where Eight Mile
Lateral crosses Franklin Road.
Kingsford: Don't we have a sewer line that goes back of Hoff?
Smith: Yes, we would tie onto that one and bring it out to Franklin Road and then extend
that west in Franklin, correct.
Kingsford: What else Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Shari, your comments?
Stiles: Councilman Morrow and Council, I guess I can't have really any specific comments
at this time without a plan. Mr. Ballantyne addressed the 35 foot landscape setback, I
don't believe that is an unreasonable requirement, we have been requiring it on new
annexations along those entrance corridors. Like I say it is very difficult to assess the
compatibility with adjacent development with no plan to look at.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might I would like to make some comments here with respect to this
project. I think that clearly in the case of consistency we have required plats to be coming
in conjunction with annexations. Clearly based on tonight testimony there is no plan, plat
and there is a bunch of unanswered questions with respect to the project. I am not totally
convinced when you look at our coning map that portion that is currently west of the 1/4
mile section line and south of the Eight Mile Lateral had ought to be maybe residential and
compatible with the other residential. Part of my thinking there is that we have commercial
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 47
uses and office type uses and so on and so forth on our main zoning map that line up
parallel to Meridian Road and also parallel to Franklin Road. This portion that is south of
Eight Mile and west of the 1/4 mile section line or what appears to be the 1/4 mile section
line clearly jogs outside of what we have already approved within that area. We don't
have a resolution with respect to traffic flows and traffic plans. It seems to me based on
Mr. Sale's comments and my knowledge of the rebuild of East Corporate and Franklin
Road that there may be some conflict with the alignment of Corporate Drive and the
entrance to this particular subdivision. It seems to me that those things had ought to be
all addressed in some sort of presentation before us so that we know what it is we are
buying if we choose to zone and annex. So, from my perspective, I think until I see all of
these questions answered in a plat or some sort of development plan that I am not
comfortable taking any further action on this proposal.
Kingsford: I guess I would just offer an exception to part of you statement. I agree with you
with regard to the zoning questions. I am not sure I agree with his zoning questions, I
have applauded the Council's consistency on annexation with regard to seeing
development plans first. In most areas however we are talking about an infill project that
makes a lot of sense that we annex but it ought to be the right zoning when we annex it
at least in my viewpoint. Any other comments of the Council? The public hearing is
closed, what is your pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, 1 think that I would move for amended findings of fact and conclusions
of law to be drawn.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have amended findings of fact and
conclusions of law drawn. discussion?
Corrie: Would you kind of clarify just what you said on why you want to change the
findings?
Morrow: I want to look at the, I want to change the findings to reflect in the findings, we
have two avenues we can go. We can move to deny in terms of not upholding the findings
of fact and conclusions of law as written. In our findings of fact and conclusions as written
the P & Z raises the issue of the confusion with respect to the plat and the plat not being
there. It is my intent to make the motion to amend the findings to further spell out what it
is we want to see if that was the will of the Council that was certainly my preference and
that is the point of the motion.
Kingsford: Okay, you have heard the motion and second, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 48
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.3
ACRES TO R-40 BY BILLY QUINN:
Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
Billy Quinn, 2310 N. Meridian Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Quinn: Mr. Mayor, distinguished members of the Council good evening and (inaudible).
I wrote a long well thought out letter to you all which I was going to pass out to you then
I read the findings and found everything I said in my letter was already said in the findings.
So I will just cut straight to the chase as it were. In reading the findings I am generally in
agreement with the findings of fact. I do have one or two questions, on number 7 in the
conclusions, page 12, it states that the annexation application has been initiated by the
applicant which is true, I am being virtually surrounded by the City of Meridian so it seems
to me to be just a question of time whether you invite me in or 1 initiate it. The reason I
bring that up is in item #17 addresses the specific zoning, zoning of property in the area
from (inaudible) R-20. To be frank with you I don't have a problem with that, except that
in #23 I fail to see how (inaudible) then draw a conclusion that R-40 (inaudible) be
appropriate (inaudible) my request would be to stick with item #17 and to (inaudible) R-40
and restricted to R-20. Also I have some questions about the ACHD report, I would like
it to be just a matter of record that there is access to the property presently from Meridian
Road and that Chrisfield Road (inaudible) across the street from the property and probably
(inaudible) from Blue Heron Lane just as a matter of record. ACRD has mandated some
pretty specific directions as far as access to the property being only from Blue Heron Lane
and there seems to be some conflict and controversy as to the ownership of Blue Heron
Lane whether or not it is a private lane or a public road. (Inaudible) undeveloped, untaken
care of and unattended for a protracted period of time and the developer of this property
is then going to be required to bring Blue Heron Lane completely up to date. That is a
question that occurs to me is (inaudible). Those are my questions and I respectfully
request your approval for zoning to R-40 restricted use to R-20.
Kingsford: Just a comment, in those findings is a real problem and you have addressed
that with regard to, the City of Meridian doesn't have an R-20 zone. The R-15 is what is
should have been and there is a conflict there. We do not have an R-20 zone, there is R-
40, R-15.
Quinn: Well, it is not an R-20 zone but restricted to 20, it is R-40 restricted to 20 units per
acre.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 49
Kingsford: That would need to be spelled out if that is the Council's pleasure rather than
an R-20 zone.
Quinn: I mispoke that then.
Kingsford: It does say in the findings R-20 and that is what I am suggesting is we don't
have such an animal.
Quinn: It is consistent with the properties surrounding me with the exception of the two
residences to the east that have also been approved by the City Council to R-40 with
restricted to 20 units per acre. The Wolfe property to the north and
Kingsford: I wouldn't have a problem with that, it would just need to be clarified that there
is no R-20 zone. Any other questions then of Mr. Quinn?
Morrow: I have a question, in our packet there, your original submittal there is a little
schematic of the ground (inaudible) that essentially shows what appears to be 5 four
plexes, I am sorry six four plexes. You intend to develop at that density or you are looking
at a higher density?
Quinn: My intention at this time is to annex the property and get a rezone so I can do the
lot split which I am allowed and split my lot, put my house on a lot that I can work
financing. As far as the (inaudible) the findings and conclusions will call for annexation
to be in my understanding to be PUD which mandates that I procedurally come forward
with a development design and an application for a conditional use (inaudible). That
particular schematic was provided as a part of what I though might either be necessary or
enhance my package as a request for annexation. That is not necessarily a final, certainly
not a final plat. It is merely a possibility.
Morrow: This particular possibility was six 4 plexes which was essentially 24 units on a 2
acre or about a 2 acre piece of ground is that what this says?
Quinn: That is the way that was drawn yes.
Morrow: And what you are asking for in terms of zoning is an R-40 that could have 40
units?
Quinn: Correct.
Morrow: And the findings of fact and conclusions are written R-40 with an R-15?
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 50
u
Quinn: No, the findings of fact and conclusions state R-40 restricted to 20 (inaudible) R-40
and restricted to R-15 in another. In my original application requested R-40. In
consistency with the surrounding areas is R-40 restricted to 20 units per acre. (Inaudible)
to your comments with relative to the Los Alamitos Subdivision, I am just trying to get as
much flexibility as I can.
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? I
will close the public hearing, Council members. Obviously no change to the findings, there
would need to be a change with regard to that zone.
Crookston: I would explain the reference to the R-20 that is to R-20 development. We do
not have an R-20 zone, we did the same thing in the Wolfe annexation which is to the
north of Mr. Quinn. That is all I was referencing there, the reference to the R-15 must be
in error.
Kingsford: I think really rather than to say, since we don't have an R designation that we
have to spell out 20 units.
Morrow: Let me ask the Counselor a question, on the Wolfe property to the north then
what we did was give them R~0 zoning but we restricted the development to 20 units per
acre.
Crookston: Yes
Morrow: Because our next zone would be R-15 which is 15 units per acre.
Kingsford: Right, which limits, you wouldn't be able to do the apartment type things
because you have some lot designations and so forth.
Morrow: Mr. Johnson, you are shaking your head as Chairman of the P & Z could you give
me the input of the shake please?
Johnson: (Inaudible) no reference to 20 anywhere.
Kingsford: So the reference in the findings with regard to the 20 was an error?
Johnson: Yes
Crookston: That could be.
Kingsford: Would you offer up comment then Mr. Johnson then with regard to the Wolfe
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 51
property versus that and the 20 units per acre there, just your thoughts from a planning
standpoint.
Johnson: I don't recall the Wolfe property situation as well, my mind doesn't work that
well. But on this speck incident, the only thing I remember is we were talking about R-15
and R-40 in our discussions and R-20 never came up. The intent is as the applicant
presented it. He was agreeable to conditions of R-15 and wanted the flexibility of R-40 and
we couldn't see a problem with that.
Quinn: My recollection of the P & Z is that I was asked about R-15's and I maintained a
position of R-40. The questions as I am reading the minutes were asked, Mr. Hepper
asked me twice about R-15's but we didn't have a collateralized agreement that I would
like to be annexed at R-15. He had some discussion with the City Planner regarding the
difference in R-15 and R-40 pertaining to parks and park requirements and adjacent, as
you stated some of the requirements. Again, consistent with the surrounding properties,
the 20 unit designation (End of Tape)
Kingsford: I would suggest to you that the Wolfe property is a larger property if that is in
fact 20 units per acre it wouldn't be inappropriate to maybe be consistent but I would like
to know that was in fact true, do a little research on that from my perspective.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, my thought here is in a quick glance at the minutes apparently in my
packet the minutes from P & Z don't get to the final conclusion so I am short a couple of
pages, but I think what I would like to see is I would like to defer on this until we do some
research here to make sure that we address the Wolfe property and that we address these
things and I wouldn't think it would be inappropriate to table until our November 8 meeting
pending doing that research.
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I would also question this Blue Heron Lane is a private lane, who
owns, who maintains it and if he has to have access off of it who grants him the access?
Corrie: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: I am not sure of how much width is dedicated too, that is something that needs
to be established.
Smith: Excuse me Mr. Mayor and Council members, we still have not received a legal
description prepared by a licensed land surveyor, before this thing can progress to the
ordinance stage we need to have that legal description in hand and checked by myself,
my staff.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 52
Kingsford: So you realize you are short that?
Quinn: (Inaudible)
Kingsford: One by a certified land surveyor.
Smith: I have an update today from my assistant and no legal description has been
submitted as of this date. So I don't know, if it has come in we don't have it in my
department.
Quinn: It was submitted with the original package.
Smith: No it wasn't, the original comments that we prepared on August 3, item number
stated that the applicant shall submit an annexation perimeter legal description for
(inaudible) that was prepared by a licensed land surveyor. So in our review of the packet
that we had it was not included.
Kingsford: At any rate that would be necessary, if you have it then that would be
necessary, we need to have it here.
Morrow: Mr. Mayar, I would move that we table this request for annexation and zoning of
2.3 acres to R-40 by Billy Quinn until our November 8 meeting.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table the request for annexation and zoning
to R-40 by Billy Quinn for 2.3 acres until the November 8 meeting, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Mr. Quinn, you might check and make sure if there is anything else on that list
that we have that prior to that meeting.
ITEM #20: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A DAY CARE FOR APPROXIMATELY 6 TO 12 CHILDREN BY JUDY WILSON:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Ms. Wilson or her designee
to speak first.
Judy Wilson, 1239 Elm Court, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 53
Wilson: I come before you tonight to request a permit so I can do day care in my home.
We went to the Planning and Zoning meeting and I did get the facts and findings and read
them. The only thing I didn't understand was the variance on the fence regarding the
fence. There was a fence that was already there that we just improved up on. At that
meeting something was stated to Shari Stiles that she might check to see if a variance had
been applied for previously by previous owners. In talking to my neighbors there is one
that has been there since the house was new and said that fence has been there as long
as she can remember so I didn't understand that. Then there was a discrepancy, I have
been told it needed to be moved back 20 foot and then I was told it needed to be moved
back 5 foot and I have been told two different prices for the variance. So if we could get
that cleared up, other than that I didn't have anything.
Kingsford: Just when you want her she leaves. What was the scoop on the fence Gary do
you know? x
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I didn't check into the variance file that I have to
see if a variance was approved for that fence.
Kingsford: What was the need for the variance, explain that?
Smith: Well, the fence has been built out to the back of sidewalk I believe or was built out
to the back of the sidewalk. Since we have had the fence variance committee we have
held pretty tight to, I think we started at a 5 foot off set from back of sidewalk but we have
moved that to 10 feet now. It gets to be a question of safety for the traveling public in
vehicles and pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Kingsford: If this fence went in when Elm Court was built we are probably talking about
well before we had any fence committee we are probably talking about going back into the
1970's.
Smith: Right, if it is that old that is probably true. I don't know where our fence, I don't
know how long our fence ordinance has been in effect that restricted the height of the
fence in the setback area. The fence variance committee hasn't been in operation that
long that is for sure.
Kingsford: As old as I am getting I hesitate to say anything about grandfather rights but
would think that there would certainly be some because that subdivision was in for a long
while. I used to jog out there when I was still able to job and that has been a long while.
What is your opinion Counselor?
Crookston: I think we have to look into it because the fence ordinance, we have had a
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 54
fence ordinance for a long time, quite some time before 1 came to Meridian, that has been
over 20 years ago. We did have a variance procedure under our old ordinance for
adoption of the new zoning and the subdivision and development ordinance in 1984.
Kingsford: What about subject of (inaudible) they have used that area with that size fence.
Crookston: Adverse (inaudible) doesn't apply to the using, the owner using his own
property, adverse possession would apply to an owner using an adjacent land owners
property. It doesn't even apply.
Kingsford: I can't think I was wrong.
Crookston: I am not saying that, just that you are mistaken.
Kingsford: Well that is something that we need to look in and I don't know as it would
necessarily have to hamper tonight's action but it would have to (inaudible)..
Wilson: I was just curious because where Elm Court comes out and runs into Maple it kind
of jogs over there and everybody has a fence right out there that has been there as long
as I can remember.
Kingsford: A lot of fences have a tendency to go up during none daylight hours, especially
back in those days. But at any rate that I guess would answer that question and it would
require we look into it a little further.
Wilson: I didn't know if I needed to move it or get the variance.
Kingsford: It might me that it would require a variance but whatever it is we will let you
know.
Wilson: Thank you
Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this
conditional use permit? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Counselor, what is
your advice with regard to, is it approving or disapproving whichever the Council's will is
pending resolution of the variance?
Crookston: What the findings require is to have a variance. So I think it would be
appropriate to table it until we can find out if that is necessary, if it is not necessary then
we can change the findings. If it is necessary you can hold the conditional use until the
variance is approved.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 55
Kingsford: What is your position now, are you, in terms of day care, you have people that
you
Wilson: I do have some children there that I am watching now. They told me that when I
applied for this, went and got the fingerprinting and everything that I had a temporary
license I guess but until I get this permit I cannot get with Child Care Connections on the
food program or get the health inspection or the fire inspection or any of those things.
Kingsford: I guess what he is suggesting is that we are going to have to table you probably
until the next meeting and hopefully we will have remedied what the situation is on the
variance.
Wilson: Okay then I wouldn't be able to get my permit until next month.
Kingsford: That would be after the November 8 meeting.
Crookston: You could, assuming, I think we need that 3 week period to determine what the
status of the variance is. You could approve the conditional use subject to, if the variance
is needed you could approve the conditional use subject to Mrs. Wilson obtaining that
within X number of days.
Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure?
Corrie: How many days would you suggest?
Crookston: Well, I think right now I think we need to table it and we will find out what the
status of the variance is. If you table it until the next meeting at that time I can report to
you what the status on the variance is and then you can proceed to grant the conditional
use. If you deny it you can grant her so many days to obtain the variance and grant her the
conditional use.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: No, you table it tonight.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move we table this application for a conditional use permit to operate
a day care by Judy Wilson until our November 8 meeting.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table this until the next meeting on November
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 56
8, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TIME AND CHANGE THE NAME FROM MERRYWOOD
SUBDIVISION NO. 3 & 4 TO PINE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 & 2 BY RUSSELL
HUNNEMILLER:
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Russ or his designee to
speak first.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I have to declare a conflict of interest in this, I can stilt swear the
witnesses however, but if we need findings, I understand we would on the findings, I would
have to request the Council to nominate another attorney to prepare those.
Kingsford: We can't declare your conflict to be minor?
Crookston: No
Kingsford: Well you are saying we can do that, I had to sit up here. That is fine.
Russ Hunnemiller, 3299 Davis Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hunnemiller: Let's see I am asking for a request for a variance to extend the preliminary
plat approval time and change the name from Merrywood Subdivision I believe it is No. 3
and Pine Creek Subdivision, I can't have that name so it will be Morning Glory 1 and 2.
Basically that is all I am asking.
Kingsford: Counselor if this doesn't represent a conflict to you, I am not clear on why we
have to approve a variance to extend. We have approved extensions, that has never been
a variance.
Crookston: I agree with you (inaudible).
Kingsford: I think really, Shari explain that to me, has it already expired, is that the reason?
Stiles: Yes
Kingsford: But still we have approved without a variance when they have expired before
or turned them down. It has never been a requirement to have a variance to my
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 57
knowledge.
Stiles: The ordinance is pretty clear it says must and shall and had they requested it prior
to the expiration date the Council could approve it without going through the variance.
Since the time has expired that is why these people have been going through a variance
permit.
Kingsford: If it is must and shalt I understand the King's language very well.
Morrow: Question, why the name change?
Hunnemiller: I just want to break it off from Merrywood Homeowners and have my own.
Morrow: You did not own phases 1 and 2?
Kingsford: No, if you will remember that is Linda Arnold did 1 and 2. Any other questions
for Mr. Hunnemiller? Thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to offer
testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close that public hearing. Mr. Hunnemiller, the
CC&R's have those been submitted? We would need to have those prior to the final plat
certainly. I think there ought to be some continuity at least that we can see fairly close to
Merrywood, you can be more stringent certainly but there ought to be some continuity.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move we instruct the City Attorney or his appointed designee to
draw findings of fact or conclusions of law for the variance request to change the name
from Merrywood to Morning Glory 1 and 2 and for the extension of the preliminary
approval.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have a City Attorney designee without a
conflict prepare findings and conclusions on the variance request and changing the name
from Merrywood 3 &4 to Morning Glory 1 & 2, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #22: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ON STREET
PARKING, PERMIT LIMITED OUTDOOR SEATING WITH PERMISSION FROM ACRD,
WAIVER FROM STATE REGULATION THAT BEERlWINE LICENSE CANNOT BE
ISSUED IF WITHIN 300' OF A CHURCH OR SCHOOL UNLESS WAIVED BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT BY ALBERT AND SUSAN BERNER AND MARIE NANNI:
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 58
Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee
to speak first.
AI Berner, 2050 West Sandalwood, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Berner: First of all you have convinced me never to run for public office, I hate long
meetings.
Kingsford: Notice that most of the people that are running left quite a while ago.
Berner: I would like to address the two variances first. First I would like to talk about the
proposal to use the sidewalk in front of this location at 906 E. 1st, that is the NE corner of
E. 1st and Pine. This is a seating area in warm weather months, we are talking about 4
or 5 months out of the year and according to Ada County Highway District draft report that
I have we need only to obtain a license agreement from the Ada County Highway District
to use this public right of way for commercial activities with some limited restrictions, i.e.
a clear pedestrian walkway be maintained and that anything that is set up out there is at
least five feet or more from any utility poles. t have also noticed that at least one other
business on E. 1st has outdoor seating and the sidewalk at this proposed location that we
are at 906 E. 1st is much wider than the one that already has outdoor seating on E. 1 st.
The parking variance I would like to address next and these are from my own
observations, I don't have any scientific studies about it even though in their draft Ada
County Highway District did estimate that this business would generate approximately 300
additional vehicle trips per day and I don't know how they arrived at that, but some formula
for maybe that type of business and what the amount of seating we are proposing. But the
thing I have noticed gentlemen from 5:30 P.M. until the time we are proposing to close in
the evening at about 9 or 10 o'clock on Friday and Saturday. That intersection there at E.
1st and Pine Avenue is virtually vehicle free. The existing businesses are generally closed
by 6 p.m. or earlier. Nearly all of the marked parking spaces are empty as well as those
that are parallel parking down Pine Avenue. Additionally the City has chosen to develop
a public parking lot along Pine Avenue on the opposite comer even though at this time I
understand there is no money to fund the paving or whatever is necessary to get that
public parking lot in. However when that is completed I am sure that will go a long way
to alleviate the times when parking spaces are at a premium. Also, our plans call for a
restaurant seating 60 to 70 people. Usually I think you can count on in this type of
business at least 2 people per vehicle to arrive at a restaurant, so at most whenever we
have a full house I think you would be looking at 30 vehicles and perhaps less. Now I
would like to talk about the waiver from State regulation for permission for a beer and
wine permit. As you know existing commercial space is nearly non-existent in the City of
Meridian. We were very lucky to have secured the proposed restaurant location. It is a
fact that many restaurant patrons enjoy beer or wine with their meal. It is also helps boost
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 59
the bottom line for any restaurant business. We never had any intention of asking for a
liquor license for a distilled spirits we would just like to do beer and wine. My wife had a
telephone conversation with Pastor Cox at the Nazarene Church recently and he stated
that he had a neutral position on this and that he neither opposed or was in favor or it, but
he was in neutral on that. I was also told about a week ago that the board at the same
church also has no objections to a beer and wine permit being issued should the City grant
that waiver from the State regulation. The simple truth is that is a restaurant focuses on
serving food not on serving any alcohol. Even though we would like to be able to serve
alcohol. Like I said again the focus is on serving food, the beer and wine is a side that a
lot of people would expect to come in and say hey I would like a bottle of wine with my
meal or a beer or two. I also spoke with the alcohol beverage control at the Department
of Law Enforcement office and they informed that even though they have no statistics on
it or numbers that it is routinely done by other municipalities in the State of Idaho that
waivers from that State regulation on that 300 foot requirement are routinely granted by
other municipalities. Once again I would just like to emphasize the focus here is on a
family type restaurant serving food.
Kingsford: Thank you, any questions?
Morrow: Is it an Italian restaurant?
Berner: Yes sir.
Morrow: Do you make good lasagna?
Berner: Okay
Kingsford: Any other questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer
testimony on this? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council Members?
Crookston: I would also comment that she is also a teacher and I don't know what the
heck she knows about cooking.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would instruct the, or move to instruct the City Attorney to prepare
findings of fact and conclusions for the requested variances by Albert and Susan Berner
and Marie Nanni.
Crookston: There does not need to be findings on the variance on the liquor related item.
Morrow: But it does on the other?
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 60
Crookston: Yes, the street parking and the sidewalk use.
Kingsford: You don't have to have findings on it you would just grant the waiver (inaudible)
and I would just for the record stipulate that church not school, that is the way the code
reads. We are more than 300 feet from a school.
Crookston: We don't have anything in our ordinances that prohibits liquor, wine or beer
to be sold near a church. We do for a school. So that is why we do not need findings, we
are operating under the State statute.
Kingsford: Which we would have to grant that in order for the state not to apply.
Crookston: Yes you do.
Kingsford: So we need findings on the street parking only and the sidewalk.
Morrow: Do you wish me to rephrase my motion?
Kingsford: Please.
Morrow: My motion would be that we instruct the City Attomey to prepare findings of fact
and conclusions for a variance to allow on street parking and permit limited outdoor
seating with permission from ACRD on the request for variance by Albert and Susan
Berner and Marie Nanni.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law on the on street parking and the license agreement to use the
sidewalk for seating, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 YEA, 1 NO
Kingsford: Is there a motion on the issue of beer within 300 feet of a church?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we grant that waiver for beer and wine within 300
feet of the church.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to grant the waiver of beer and wine within 300
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 61
feet of a church, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 YEA, 1 NO
ITEM #23: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A CELLULAR
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY BY US NEWVECTOR GROUP, INC:
Kingsford: Is there someone from NewVector Group that can enlighten the Council on
that?
McFadden: My name is Tim McFadden my office address is 11201 SE 8th Street,
Bellevue, WA, I am an acquisition and zoning consultant for US West.
Kingsford: Counselor, is this a public hearing, it was not dully noted on the agenda. Do we
need to have a public hearing in that zone?
Crookston: No
McFadden: With regard to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, I have one
correction that I would like to suggest and which is a typo in one comment or request. The
correction is on page 3, paragraph 9, I believe there is an extra zero in there. This site has
got to be 360 feet west as opposed to 3600 feet west of Meridian Road. The comment or
the request that I have is on page 7, item #7, that the applicant would be required to get
a variance from the Height restriction of 40 feet. The reason why I am requesting some
action on that is that during apre-application meeting in discussions with staff the P & Z
hearing there was no discussion or mention of a variance being needed. At the pre-
application meeting, let me first of all tell you that I have done this work for 3 years,
typically the height and the use are considered under a single zoning function being with
the antenna height for us is a critical part of the use. In other words if you grant the use
without giving us the height that we need for the antenna the use is basically non-
functional to us. We have to have the height for the cellular antennas to get the coverage
that we require. The second point was that the Meridian code, my reading of the Meridian
code, subject of course to correct, on page 50.1, section 2-410, it seems to give an
exemption for this type of facility from the height restriction because I will just read it to
you. It says exceptions to height regulations, the height limitations contained in the zoning
schedule of bulk and coverage controls do not apply to spires, belfries, (inaudible) pole
antennas, water tanks, public utility power poles. This is a situation that we run into all of
the time, because cellular is so new it is typically not called out by name in all but the very
most recent zoning codes. But we are a public utility, we are regulated as a public utility
and in some of the other jurisdictions that have added us to their zoning codes, amended
the codes to include cellular uses they do it under the auspices or under the category of
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 62
public utility. And typically treat us like power poles basically. Either high tension poles
with a higher height where your typical telephone poles. So for that reason I would
respectfully request that item #7 be deleted from the findings of fact. Other than that one
item all of the other things are certainly in agreement to the company, we would certainly
comply with every other regulation.
Kingsford: Apparently they didn't photocopy the whole (inaudible) and he reads it
accurately, the applicant should be required to get a variance from the height restriction
of 40 feet is item 7 on page 7.
Morrow: How high is it?
McFadden: It is a 100 foot monopole which is about, it is the height, to give you an easy
explanation, this is going to be almost identical in size and structure to the McDonald's
sign. McDonalds sign is a segmented pole, the one that we are going to be using here I
don't believe has any segments to it. In other words it is going to be a straight taper right
up, it is basically going to look like a large steel telephone pole.
Corrie: (Inaudible)
McFadden: The only difference between that and the McDonald's sign is that the antennas
will be smaller than they have. What that sign is sitting on is a monopole that is the
industry term for it.
Yerrington: What color are you going to paint it?
McFadden: They come kind of slightly lighter than the color of that wall, a pale gray, we
can paint them just about any color but that is the typical manufacturers color. A little bit
lighter than that gray. The equipment, the facility will consist of, we are going to be renting
one unit at the existing storage facility and enclosing what is now open storage and putting
the radio equipment there and then putting the pole next to that storage unit. So the two
way radio equipment will be in the enclosed storage unit and then the pole will be next to
it. I might also add that there was some question that came up after we had applied
concerning a road that is going to be going along the North property line. Our original
diagram or site plan was submitted without knowing that and so on the original site plan
we had suggested that the pole be located north of the building. Once we found out that
road way was going in we instructed our architect and in fact I have an example here
which is just a rough drawing. We got approval from the owner to move that pole from the
north side around to the east side. We weren't quite sure how close the right of way was
going to be to that facility, but it was never our intention to put that pole out close to the
highway. So basically what I am saying is this is the north edge of the building, the edge
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 63
of the roadway is going to go in here and the pole is going to be around on the east side
of the building. Final plans would be submitted once approval is granted and like I said the
architect has already drawn that up.
Morrow: I have one other question, do these types of facilities intertere at all with any other
electronics?
McFadden: None whatsoever, that is a question that is commonly asked that is an FCC
granted frequency and as I mentioned at the P & Z hearings, in some areas, in remote
areas for instance Forest Service sites, you can have 5 or 6 users on one tower all
transmitting at different frequencies and there are no problems. The most commonly asked
question has to do with radio and T.V., it is a different wave length in fact we have a site
over on the Olympia Peninsula we are mounting our facility on KSTW11's tower. We need
a little, if there is more than one user on the tower you need 20 or 30 feet of vertical
separation to keep the radio waves from interfering with each other but this does not affect
surrounding radio or T.V. reception at all. Another question that was asked at the P & Z
hearing just for your information was if this tower would be lit, the answer is no. The FAA
minimum requirement for lighting one of these is a 200 foot pole, the State of Idaho
Department of Transportation requirements is 150, this is going to be well below that so
it will not be lit.
Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council.
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Morrow brings a question to my mind,
we have just recently converted our control system for our wells to a telemetric system,
does that have any effect on our radio frequency?
McFadden: We can certainly have our engineers confirm that but I can also tell you 1 have
worked on other sites where we have located on water tanks as a permanent structure and
they all of telemetry too and it has never been a problem.
Smith: And they were regular frequency controlled telemetry also.
McFadden: Correct.
Smith: I would appreciate it if you could check that for us and we can give you the
frequency numbers.
McFadden: What I will do is have our project engineer contact you directly to make sure
the frequencies don't intertere. But to my knowledge that has never happened and I have
worked on several tank sites.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 64
Smith: Thank you
Kingsford: Counselor, what is your reaction to his comment about #7 and the variance for
height?
Crookston: The reason I put that in there is because in our bulk coverage portion it says
we have a 40 foot height limitation, I did not check the rest of the ordinance, 1 see this, he
gave me a copy of this section 11-2-410 D, subsection 5, the only thing that I would
reference there it says that they don't need, that statute of the ordinance doesn't apply
where it says this structure will constitute a hazard to the safe landing and take off of
aircraft at an established airport. I think we need to just make up a finding that it will not
cause any problems. 1 don't have any information as to whether the McDonald's sign
causes any problems or not.
McFadden: If I can comment, we have a, US West has a full time employee who does
nothing but FAA determinations which is what it is called. If this, and the reporting
minimums that I quoted you the 150 feet for Idaho and the 200 feet for Washington for the
FAA presume that there are no airports around. But the gentleman, AI Conquest is his
name at US West that does our determinations the additional step that he has to go
through is to check the FAA's for the lack of a better term pilot maps to confirm that there
are no airtields within a certain radius around the site. If he finds one of those then we
have to notify if it is under the 200 foot level. He did that in house determination,
determined that there were no landing areas within the reporting, what they call a reporting
area and therefore the tower would not need to be lit. So the answer to your question is
it has been determined and it would not be a hazard to aircraft.
Kingsford: That is in the (inaudible) don't we have a light on top of the tower Gary?
Smith: No sir (inaudible).
Kingsford: Any other questions on that?
Crookston: I would just say that if he submits the report that he referenced.
McFadden: I would be happy to provide it.
Kingsford: What is your pleasure Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as submitted to us by P & Z with the added condition that US West provide us with
height information document and having satisfied that requirement that we would approve
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 65
the conditional use permit for the facility.
Kingsford: Just a comment, in approving those, that item 7 still stipulates that they have
to have a conditional use permit or a variance pardon me, is that still your desire?
Morrow: My desire would be to eliminate the variance by having the document furnished
to us by US West.
Kingsford: I wanted to be sure that was your desire in the motion.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law for a conditional use permit for a cellular communications pending the submission
the of US West's height restrictions on the FAA, FAA determinations, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Walt, was your intent to approve the conditional use conditioned upon that or
do you want to wait on that until we have that document?
Morrow: My intent would be just to approve it upon receipt of the document, I don't it to
carry over to another meeting is what I am after here.
Kingsford: You do not want it to carry over to another meeting?
Morrow: No I want the action to be final tonight and the conditional use permit would
become effective us receiving the documentation.
Kingsford: Was that understood by you in your second Mr. Yerrington?
Yerrington: Yes sir
Kingsford: Is that clear for the Council?
McFadden: Just a point of clarification submit that to staff?
Kingsford: Yes I would say so, Mr. Smith's office and likewise the determination be sure
that he comes (inaudible).
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 66
ITEM #24: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FORA FULL SERVICE
RESTAURANT, LOUNGE, AND MICRO-BREWERY BY SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS:
Kingsford: Is there a member representative here for that? I was hoping to have breakfast
there. Does staff have any comment on that? 1 know we have had some plan there for
some time. Councilman do you want a presentation or are you satisfied with what is in
your packet?
Cowie: Mr. Mayor there was a comment about the extension of Central Drive by Larry Sale,
he is not here tonight, he was but he left.
Morrow: I really think to be consistent we ought to have someone make a presentation.
Kingsford: Motion for table.
Yerrington: So moved
Morrow: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Walt to table this until the November 8 meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #25: MARTY GOLDSMITH: REQUEST TO PHASE CONSTRUCTION IN LOS
ALAMITOS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION:
Morrow: Mr Mayor, during the break, Brian McColl slipped me a note that says feel free
to table #25.
Kingsford: You guys have never needed a note for that before.
Morrow: We do now.
Kingsford: Do you want to make that motion then?
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table the request for phased construction in
•
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 67
C~
Los Alamitos No. 2 subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #26: DOVE MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS: CONCERNS ABOUT NON-
COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPING:
Kingsford: Are there representatives of Dove Meadows here, can we hear that
presentation please.
Riley, Rob Riley, 1 am a homeowner in Dove Meadows Subdivision. The reason why we
are here as residents of the Subdivision of Dove Meadows and have some concerns about
the entryway to our subdivision. Basically it is not completed at all, 1 had wanted to buy
a home in that subdivision around August of last year and was told by my realtor and
builder what would be done with the subdivision and the entryway and everything (End of
Tape) It was stated that the church would be the first entryway and then as it gets back to
the subdivision that the developer would continue on that. Winter came I bought the
house, not too much was being done. Spring came and trees were put in along the berm
on the east side of Hickory Road that is the entry way there and also on the west side.
Irrigation was put in on the east side but not anything on the west. I am surprised the trees
survived but water was not actually turned on until it was pretty close to the middle to the
end of August. We as residents contacted our developer many times to try and determine
what was going to be and when it was going to be done. I think primarily our concern was
the appearance of the subdivision. Obviously resale value is an important thing, taxable
items, things like that. We were kind of put on the back burner, nothing was really ever
done. About two weeks ago sod was laid on the east side berm on Hickory, it looks great.
The west side however still does not have irrigation, there is no water, weeds continue to
grow, they have a team come out once a month to pull the weeds. There are islands as
you enter into both streets, Grapewood and Apricot and there are little islands, it is about
4 or 5 feet wide, about 20 to 30 feet long. He came in the other day and he put in two
different kinds of rock, there are no trees, there are no plants, no grass. There is a water
meter in the middle of that, both islands where we thinking he may be able to tap into that
and get some kind of irrigation, some kind of growth could happen there. A couple other
concerns that we have is the entrance from the church and coming forward, they have
hydroseeded some of that and then they try to plant the rest and is overtaken with a lot of
weeds and that. I guess the appearance to our subdivision is really important to us. You
drive around and actually listening to the previous testimonies here a lot of landscaping
is important. We would like to have that evaluated. Whether our developer Dave Leader
is really doing what he has promised to the City Council would be done. A couple of other
items, to the north of the homes on Apricot to the south of the homes on Grapewood there
are open fields where new development will eventually take place. Those are just filled
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 68
with high grass, they are fire hazards we feel, they go right up to the back of the
homeowners. We feel that needs to be taken care of. The parking lot to the church is
huge it holds a lot of vehicles. But every Sunday and every like Wednesday nights along
that Hickory Road it is just packed with cars on both sides. It narrows that road down the
entrance is very narrow and we are concerned about that. I don't know if you have ever
driven down Fairview Road towards Eagle and tried to turn in there and looked at that
Capital Christian Center, but there is no lighting at all. You don't know really where to turn
and we feel that is a hazard going in and out of that subdivision. We feel there should be
some kind of lighting in there, we don't know if that should be the church's responsibility
or what or our developer but we feel like that is a hazard. We are also concerned, we
investigated some of the Planning & Zoning, we found out, we are not sure that the church
should even be occupied. They are still doing a lot of building on that. We would like to
find that out, I am not a personal member of that church and I know some people are and
I love them to death, but 1 want what is done what is right in our neighborhood. I guess
what I am requesting as a resident of the subdivision is to evaluate the conditions of our
subdivision and possibly have Dave Leader here at the next meeting on November 8, after
the facts have been determined as to what he is planning on doing. Maybe put a time limit
on that, when it should be done and when it should be completed. I know he is also
planning on doing phase 2 which is a continuation of that off of Hickory Road. I feel that,
until our landscaping is completed and up to a par that is approved by the City Council 1
think that should be stopped. That is pretty much all I have.
Kingsford: Thank you, here is a copy of a letter that our Assistant to the Engineer
prepared that may be of interest to you. We are following up on some of those items.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question, is your homeowners association activated at this
point or is not enough of the subdivision sold yet for it to be annexed?
Riley: No the subdivision actually is almost completed, I think there is only one lot that has
not been sold yet. Actually that is not true, when you pull into the subdivision on the left
there are two streets that tum left, the first one is Grapewood, the next one is Apricot. On
your right there is Apricot Court, it is a culdesac that has 4 or 5 homes and several lots are
undeveloped. The first house on Grapewood on your right is undeveloped so really that
whole subdivision on your left is completed. We were kind of told not to form a
homeowners association because a situation that I was referred to, actually Chateau
Meadows had a similar problem. Their developer and I don't know the whole logistics
about it but their subdivision was not completed at the entrance way and their
homeowners association formed one and therefore they felt like because that was
developed and they were no longer, the developer was no longer responsible in
completing that. So we have been told and maybe you can inform me othenroise that we
should not form an association until that is completed and the developer has done is duty
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 69
I guess.
Kingsford: Well, I don't think the formation of a homeowners group would preclude the
developer from meeting his obligations.
Crookston: It would not, I don't know what the requirements were, but if there is an
obligation there the developer was to fulfill it is still his obligation.
Kingsford: Shari, would you work with Bruce and give the Council an updated information
as to what the status of some of these items are. I see that Bruce Freckleton has checked
on the street lighting and so forth. Get a time line on when that is going to take place and
research what kind of landscaping was supposed to be done and so forth. Let's make sure
that has been.
Johnson: (Inaudible) responsibility if a homeowners association is adopted with respect
to covenants?
Kingsford: That is true of covenants.
Johnson: That is probably what he has been told, not necessarily the developers
requirements (inaudible).
Riley: We kind of looked into that, it didn't seem to say anything about the developer's
responsibilities as far as landscaping. I am not sure if it is a given, you have to do this. So
we just wanted to kind of back off and wait until it was completed.
Kingsford: I couldn't tell you what was required of that particular development, we have
so many of them but what I am suggesting is that Shari will research that and we will find
out what was required and if that has now been done and we will follow through and
pressure Mr. Leader into doing it.
Riley: What do we need to do I guess as a group?
Kingsford: Well as a group I would say or maybe a spokesman, check with Shari in a
couple of days and see where we are at with that. If things have not been met that are
required we will put the heat on Mr. Leader to do so.
Morrow: I think the other think that applies there is that you need to review your CC&R's
because generally speaking in the CC&R's is the mechanism that triggers taking over the
homeowners association by the homeowners. Usually it is as some point that when the
subdivision is 75% full.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 70
Riley: Which we are, we just were wondering if that was the situation. I know Chateau
Meadows they ended up spending like $6000 to finish and complete their entrance. I am
not sure maybe you guys can, anyway
Kingsford: Maybe they chose to do something additional, I couldn't speak to that.
Riley: We just don't want to fall in the same situation and we just wanted to present that
to you.
Kingsford: Be in contact with Ms. Stiles and she will advise you of what was required and
where we are at with that.
Fuller: That is what started us to even come out here is we came out and looked at the
public files for both the Capital Christian Center and Dove Meadows and there are no
landscape plans. Because we have all been in touch with Mr. Leader and asked him what
he is going to do and we came out and talked to Shari and were here a couple of hours
and went over everything and there is nothing saying what he has to do as far as clean us
up. So from there we did the letter and had people sign the signatures, we just, how are
we going to know what he has to do for us as far as the entrance and that. There is
nothing in those files.
Kingsford: If there is nothing in those files I don't know that we can necessarily after the
fact require that he do something. Certainly with regard to any kinds of weeds and there
was mention of that and I don't know if that is Mr. Leader necessarily, but we have an
ordinance that deals with weeds and a fire hazard, we can deal with that. I think there was
reference made in the files to lighting. You commented on that, we can do something
there. If the Council in approving the subdivision didn't require landscaping on that
entrance I don't think we can go in after the fact and require him to do that.
Berg: Shari, what was required for Fred Lotridge on his development that was supposed
to be, we required some landscaping on that.
Stiles: In Fred Lotridge's it was a conditional use permit that he had to show all the
landscaping and every tree. When I have gone out to Dove Meadows it has been a mess,
I just thought maybe he was going for some desert theme or something. What I had told
the homeowners is the only thing I could see as being able to do is when he comes in with
phase 2 condition it that he complete what he should have done in phase 1. Because
there is really no reference to (inaudible).
Kingsford: Well certainly we ought to be in contact with him to illustrate to him the
discontent of the homeowners in phase 1. You had a comment sir?
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 71
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: I don't know that we had at that time, we now require on entry certain amount
of berm off of street and that sort of thing. I don't think there was with Dove Meadows. And
that is something again we are going to ask Shari to research and we will find it.
(Inaudible)
Kingsford: We will follow up on it and now, I am not sure that we completed, you wanted
to be the contact person? Shari did you get that? She wrote the letter originally. We will
certainly follow through and do our best on dressing that up.
ITEM #27: MICHAEL PRESTON: FRANKLIN LOCUST GROVE PROPERTY
RECONSIDERATION:
Preston: Thank you Mr. Mayor, I appreciate having this time tonight and I will keep it very
brief. I am here to request your consideration for granting a re-hearing on my annexation
and C-G zone request at Locust Grove and Franklin Road. Primarily because when we
had the public hearing you people unawares to me did not have the plat that the findings
of fact and conclusions of law spec~cally refers to. There is a tremendous amount of detail
that you didn't have in your possession. I was talking about this detailed thinking you had
reviewed it and not know that you hadn't even seen it before. So we were talking apples
and oranges. There are several things with the findings of facts, it says in here that Mr.
Preston agrees to pull back, the applicant did state at the Planning and Zoning
Commission could certainly pull back and that he would do so. I don't know what
reference that is but I can assure you that I am not use to spending $7000 or $8000 and
just voluntarily pulling back for some unknown reason. What I did say at the Planning and
Zoning hearing my initial submittal on this plan was very conceptual in nature. I had a
meeting with the neighbors and I thought I had an agreement which I didn't, but I thought
I did with the neighbors that I thought I would circulate the traffic, roadways, sewer and
water in such a way as to tie them into this development. They accused me of trying to
develop their land, I wasn't trying to do that. I was just trying to provide them access and
service for sewer and water. It is something that will be invaluable if it is ever needed. But
I did say that I would pull back those roadways from their properties. I made that statement
but I did not say in any way or stretch of the imagination that I could pull back and come
at this some other time when I had more information or anything like that. The Planning
and Zoning Commission said I didn't have enough information so we stopped and I
developed this plan which has a tremendous amount of detail to it. They unanimously then
recommended approval for this. That was the findings of facts and conclusions of law that
I was going by at my public hearing with you. Then of course a month later it was denied.
I would like to rehear this with the proper maps, all the proper information so that we can
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 72
perhaps arrive hopefully at a different conclusion and maybe not. But I don't feel I had a
fair hearing.
Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Preston? Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: I have a question or a comment, my understanding and the very label on this
schematic is that it is a concept, annexation concept. What we have done here before
tonight and historically and I think the point has been brought up in your hearings before
us before with reference to a particular parcel of property just north by the railroad tracks.
Very candidly, I don't think the we are in concept zoning and annexing any parcels of
ground as per earlier projects tonight. What we are asking for is detailed preliminary plats
addressing all of those issue. With respect to this parcel of property, this is at least the
third or fourth proposal for here. None of which have been received well by the neighbors.
The issues that needed to be addressed to protect their interest or to satisfy some of their
concerns have never ever been addressed apparently to the point that they feel
comfortable with the proposed project. 1 think a lot of that is because everything was
conceptual in nature. I think that from my perspective what I am looking to see is actual
projects, what are we going to get for zoning and annexation. The issue is that means that
is a commitment on the part of the developer to start through the platting process to begin
the project and to get on down the road. I don't see zoning and annexing parcels of
property that may be 5, 7, 10 years away from being developed. There is no benefit to the
City, as a matter of fact there is somewhat of a liability in doing that. With this or with all
of these different proposals there has never been a commitment to a project that we are
seeing with the other things we are doing. So, I think, there again, I see this particular
project and it is a concept thing, it is not a preliminary plat. So I don't know, I would have
to be really sold in order to change my mind and revisit this issue.
Preston: Okay, Mr. Mayor, in relation to that, that is a fair comment Walt. There are a tot
of details that are very factual about this plan, where the road it, where the parking lots
are, where the landscaping is, all of those are factual. I don't, I was very upfront with this
Council and P & Z, I don't know who is going to occupy the specific tenant, that restaurant
or that professional office complex and so forth. We have a tremendous amount of interest
on this property from various people but we can't get to first base without the zoning. Now,
the City Council many times has zoned property annexed and zoned property, we sat and
watched the Nahas thing sit there for a long time and it is developing but he couldn't have
every got anything without that zoning. So, people are just telling us get your zoning and
then come back and talk to us. That is essentially what they are saying. Now the
Comprehensive Plan calls for C-G, there is language in here that you don't know what you
are getting. Well this plan is pretty specific on what you are getting and not only that but
every single one of these buildings has to come back as a conditional use each time we
propose it. So, if I vary at all from this, the one thing, I totally disagree that I didn't totally
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 73
handle the neighbors concerns because 1 put the quietest neighbor they could possibly
have. I put a neighbor quieter than a residential neighbor to them. I don't think I can do
anything to satisfy them short of a public park maybe. But I did my level best to specifically
address their concerns. I gave them, they had this map because I gave it to them along
with everything else I submitted to the City. They had everything but evidently you didn't.
Yes they weren't in favor of it but I don't expect to ever get their approval. One of the main
reasons I asked for commercial development on that property was because of one of those
neighbors. Mr. Brown specifically stated that he wanted it to go commercial out in the
meeting that we had in the pasture with all the neighbors. I said, okay I am tired of fighting
maybe I will go that way. I had a meeting with you on site Mr. Morrow and you said that
it should be specifically commercial. Give me a chance, if I don't develop this next Spring,
when you say that it is seven years down the road, the retail commercial, if I said anything
differently I would pulling your leg, but I am starting next Spring on this development on
that part that is viable now. I don't believe that you can have retail on Franklin and Locust
Grove, I really don't. We don't have the traffic to justify it, but we do have need for those
other uses. 1 want to put that in reserve until the other can be used. If I don't perform you
de-annex me and another factor here is that I cannot buy this property unless it is zoned.
Mr. McClure has owned it for years and years, I have an option agreement with him
subject to annexation and zoning. I will buy it for very high price but I can't do that unless
I have zoning. I would be a fool to, if I own the property I can sit back and do as you
suggest find a user and then come in and present it and so forth. But I can't buy it under
those terms you see. So I know the City has done it the other way all the time annexation
and zoning is one thing it either meets your comprehensive plan or not. This does, so I
didn't think I had any problem whatsoever. I have got a good plan, it is fairly detailed, I am
showing you that I am going to meet your landscaping, your circulation requirements, all
of that stuff and I feel that it is a very viable plan for the City of Meridian. Evidently the
Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with me, I don't know. If we had another public
hearing I would certainly bring people with me that said there was a need for what 1 am
doing here.
Kingsford: Other comments of the Council? You have heard the request what is your
pleasure? At issue is did you turn it down with the information that you have before you
now, do you want to rehear it?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I think this was not presented from the findings of fact, this is one of the
things we were asking for. I would think we should consider it and request the, approve
the request to rehear it. I have seen some other things about the same principle here so
I guess I can make a motion and we can see where it goes. I move that we reconsider the
Franklin Grove property of Mr. Michael D. Preston.
Yerrington: Second
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 74
Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to rehear the Franklin Grove property for Mike
Preston, Counselor?
Crookston: I don't mean to slow the vote down in any fashion, I just wanted to inform the
Council that to my knowledge we do not have a procedure for reconsideration in our
ordinance. So I guess what I am saying is it is really up to you whether or not you want
to grant and what procedure you want to follow. But we don't have a written procedure
for it.
Tolsma: It would be dully noticed and all of the (inaudible).
Kingsford: There would have to be notification of the public hearing certainly.
Crookston: That is probably correct, 1 am just saying that we don't have a procedure. It
would be nice if we did.
Kingsford: You have heard the motion and the second, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 2 YEA, 1 NEA
Kingsford: If you will get with Mr. Berg or Shari and get that renoticed.
ITEM #28: FIRELIGHT ESTATES: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON FINAL PLAT:
Kingsford: Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, Fire Light Estates has expired, however at the suggestion
of the Planning and Zoning Chairman he went ahead and asked for an extension. He
wanted to know if his being new to the area and being ignorant qualified him for any
leniency and I said no. Another problem with Fire Light Estates is that they are having to
redo their sewer and water problems because they were expecting it to come through
Englewood. That is why he is up on the agenda tonight. He had come in and purchased
this property from the previous developer. He was happy because it had gone through all
the process and it was done and pretty much ready to go but he has requested the time
extension. However the time has lapsed, it, I don't know what kind of problems it is going
to cause Gary, Gary still is waiting for revised plans for the sewer and water. If this
doesn't go through he will go back through and go through the variance procedure.
Kingsford: Well, Counselor in the way of consistency we required another applicant to do
a variance, I think you would be way out in left field if you didn't follow your same structure.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 75
Crookston: Our ordinance requires it, the application is basically terminated when the time
lapses. If he wants to get around that requirement he has to request a variance.
Kingsford: You are so notified, excuse me, I guess I had better have a Council vote on
that.
Crookston: It would be suggestible.
Morrow: Well, if I understand this correctly then from what Wayne is saying that a motion
should be that we deny the time extension and require the applicant to submit for a
variance to the time requirement, that would be my motion.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to deny the application and advise the applicant
to file a variance to the time extension or for a time extension, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #28: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Kingsford: Mr. Smith?
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members, I would like another delay on the pick
up bids. I am waiting for some information from the State of Idaho, their department of
purchasing to see what arrangements they are making with their State wide vehicle bid.
That hasn't come through yet so if I could get another 2 week postponement I would
appreciate it.
Kingsford: Anything else?
Yerrington: I make a motion we table that.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to table the bid issue on sewer and water
vehicles until the next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 76
Kingsford: Chief?
Gordon: Nothing your honor.
Kingsford: Mr. Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission?
Johnson: Nothing
Kingsford: Shari?
Stiles: I have one item, Harold Leatham working with the Meridian School District has
approved me with a project that would be immediately west of the administration building
and south of the elementary school. There is an old house there that is all weeds and old
trees and everything, they want to make that into a parking lot. But they would like to wait
until they, I guess they typically schedule all of the paving at one time during the year and
they would like to use it as a temporary lot until they get their bids and are able to pave it,
Kingsford: That is typically in the Spring, does the Council have any problem with that?
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: They are purchasing it, they would like to use the house as office and then they will
pave the rest of it. Thank you.
Kingsford: Does the Council have any problem with them using that temporary parking
until they can pave it?
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move we allow the School District to use that property unpaved until
Spring for a parking area.
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to allow the school district to use the property
south of the Meridian Elementary and west of the district office for parking, temporary
parking until it is paved, all in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Anything else Shari?
Stiles: No that is it.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 77
Kingsford: Mr. Crookston?
Crookston: At the last meeting I requested that we consider the legal budget.
Kingsford: Is the Council prepared to act on that?
Crookston: Do you want me to make a quick presentation? What we are asking for is the
criminal hourly rate remain at $50.00 per hour which it has been for I think the two
previous years or three. We are requesting that the general City business be increased
from $77.50 to $80.00 per hour. We have budgeted a less number of hours, we have
budgeted approximately the same number of hours for criminal. The development matters,
also we are requesting an increase from $77.50 to $80.00. We are also requesting an
increase in the hourly rate for the secretarial time from $15.00 to $20.00. We are
requesting an increase in the mileage, we have been at $.25 a mile for ever since we have
been billing mileage. Federal mileage rate is $.29 cents per mile. We are requesting that
be increased to the $.29 per mile. We also bill the cost to use the Boise Prosecutors office
at the traffic court just to pass onto Meridian what we are charged for that use, right now
it is $50 a month. It may go up and I suspect it will.
Morrow: is this the same presentation you gave us at the budget hearing?
Crookston: Yes
Berg: What do you charge us for copies?
Crookston: $.15 per copy.
Morrow: We are losing money on that, what do we charge a dime.
Crookston: We don't have as nice a copier as you do.
Kingsford: You mean whatever we want to do with the whole thing? Is the Council
prepared to take action on that or do you want to digest it or what?
Morrow: Very candidly I thought we accepted this proposal at the budget hearing.
Kingsford: I think that you all thought that, I think it is a procedural matter every year when
there has been a request Wayne has made that in a council meeting and done that on or
around the first of the fiscal year. I think what he is doing is being consistent with what has
happened in the past. I agree with you 1 think you did hear exactly these items at that
budget meeting.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 78
Crookston: Actually what was budgeted in attorney fees was a greater amount than what
we have asked for.
Morrow: That doesn't mean that we are going to spend it. Now that we are down to a dime
on copies, that is the price for making us go through this presentation twice, you have
gone from 15 to 10.
Kingsford: Well, and the other thing that I just wonder a little bit about is and we have to
make a finding to, but in terms of policy the City is still, is it 25 or 26 Will Berg?
Berg: 25
Kingsford: $.25 a mile, I would suggest that we need to be consistent there. If the City is,
if you guys drive and charge the City for that mileage you get 25 you are suggesting that
Wayne do it for 29, I think whatever is realistic ought be realistic for all.
Crookston: I would totally agree with that, I was just going on what the Federal law is. I
think that is what the State does too.
Kingsford: I don't disagree with that, but I think whatever it is that you ought to be the same
as the City.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the legal fiscal year 1995/96 fiscal year
budget proposal with the exceptions of the mileage being 25 cents and the copies being
10 cents per page.
Corrie: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve of the attorney's request less the
mileage and the espying that they remain at 25 cents per mile and the copies 10 cents per
copy, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Crookston: I would like to raise just one other issue. I have received a fetter from John
Trailer who is the Fourth Judicial Traffic Court or Court Administrator. He is saying that the
County Commissioners are considering a new court house at the intersection of 3rd and
Front Streets, he wants to know if the City of Meridian wants to negotiate with the County
for some space allocation in the new building. He wants to know whether or not I would
like to get together with the Commissioners or with him.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 79
Kingsford: So they are saying even though we didn't build a court building now they want
us to pay for some of it over there?
Crookston: We are still not totally settled on that issue about contributing for establishing
a court here.
Kingsford: Guys don't be caving into those guys, we are all in the County that is a County
function. I don't think we ought to be building court space period.
Crookston: That is a different issue than this.
Kingsford: I don't think so. If they are wanting us to negotiate space over there, that space
would only be for court and I am suggesting to you that we ought to not be involved in that.
Crookston: I think what they are talking about is similar to what we are doing now in
paying Boise $50 a month to use some of their facilities.
Kingsford: I think you are being awfully generous in your consideration. My bet is they
want us to provide money for that court room space.
Crookston: That could very well be, I guess what I am asking is do you want me to get a
hold of them and see what they are asking for?
Kingsford: I think that one of the Councilman and myself ought to.
Crookston: I have absolutely no problem with that, the letter came to me that is why I
raised it. I think that we should find out what they want. To be able to say, no, maybe, not
at all, yes.
Corrie: Who do we talk to?
Kingsford: John Trailer, he is he Fourth Judicial Court Administrator, nice guy, I have told
him to forget it several times and we are still friends. Mr. Morrow, being the only person
here not running for office outside of myself, would you be willing to talk to Trailer about
that issue?
Morrow: Sure
Kingsford: I think you have a pretty good understanding of the Council's position on that.
Anything else Counselor?
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 80
Crookston: Nothing
Kingsford: Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Two things only, that I will bring up. One is that I have negotiated the contracts
for our Building Inspectors for fiscal year 95/96, the changes and modifications to each are
very small. What I would like to do is have the Council do is authorize the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest those contractual agreements for 95/96. If you have any questions
I will be happy to answer them.
Kingsford: The only thing was a slight adjustment in the dollar amount that the percentages
(inaudible).
Morrow: The issue is primarily for commercial stuff and reinspection is a change of
address on one on before for the 40% fees we were $30,000 and $45,000 would not be
$30,000 and $50,000. The 30% we were $45,000 and $60,000 we would be $50,000 and
$75,000 and the 25% we would be over $60,000 we would be over $75,000. On the
reinspection fees, typically the reinspection are $30 to $45 deals most would like to get up
to I am song 85°~ of the reinspection fees collected and so that was the issue with respect
to that. That is essentially it.
Kingsford: Walt, did we cover the issues of Workers Compensation stipulating that in
there?
Morrow: What we covered, last year, and we didn't talk about in our negotiations this year,
but last year they had to have cert~cates of Workers Compensation, certificates of liability
which their corporations, each of them (End of Tape) require to furnish us with copies of
those two documents. So that was a stipulation of the employment contract of the new hire
in the electrical inspection. Also in this proposal we would propose bringing him current
and in line with the other three inspectors so that his contract expired fiscal year to fiscal
year instead of June to June. So that the negotiations in the future could be all kept at the
same point in time. Those in essence are this issues that we discussed.
Corrie: Where did we come out on that audit, about on payroll, not on payroll?
Kingsford: I don't think we have a problem with that so long as they are incorporated.
Corrie: So they are individual contractors and they agreed to that?
Morrow: Well, we believe that they already are incorporated Bob.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 81
Kingsford: Our auditor has said that take exception to that (inaudible) will be discussed.
I don't think there is any problem with that, problems we had were with regard to the health
insurance, that gave the indication of them being a city employee because they had a
benefit. That is being remedied so I don't think we have a problem with that IRS audit in
that regard.
Berg: Eagle is going through this same situation and Joe is keeping right on top of it, they
have already appealed one thing to the superior of this auditor. As soon as they get
information back we wilt find out what steps we have to take.
Yerrington: In this dollar wise in the amounts on say last years (inaudible) how much
difference would it be?
Morrow: You mean in terms of the gross amount we paid them, what will be the change?
I can't answer that, at the time that we did this stuff we didn't have the gross amount
numbers for the year.
Kingsford: Likewise, we don't know how many reinspection, a significant part of that real
is on reinspection. I don't fault that they ought to get a higher percentage.
Morrow: On some of that stuff after they hit us here at the mark, the issue clearly was that
we were giving them 20°h of reinspect of $30 and 20% of $30 is $6, so the motivation them
is to hell with this I am not driving out there for $6. So that was the issue that I was
dealing with and I was in agreement that we ought to maybe move to 75 or 80°~ of the
$30.
Kingsford: With regard to your gross amounts, in no case did they go up in any of those
positions more than $5000 before that next percentage drop kicked in. You can just about
calculate that in your mind. Is there a motion on that?
Yerrington: I would make the motion to approve it.
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk
to attest to those contracts for the inspectors, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Yerrington: I would like to keep copies of things like that.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 82
Kingsford: As soon as we sign those we will make copies, all of you desire those.
Morrow: The other thing is we will make sure we get Harold to fiscal year to fiscal year,
also make sure we have a corporation on him.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Morrow: That was part of his, on the interview process when we hired him we made that
a condition of employment.
Kingsford: (Inaudible)
Morrow: I don't know, Will or Janice should have that. Okay, last item for me is we need
to roll over the speedway agreement in terms of the parking area. 1 have the same feeling
about that, we should just move for the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest the roll over for
that parking area.
Yerrington: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Kingsford: Moved and seconded, discussion?
Corrie: I am not up to speed on that?
Kingsford: That is for Hamilton Enterprises for the area (inaudible).
Corrie: What do we get for that?
Kingsford: It is kind of an insignecant figure, but we covered some of the areas (inaudible)
public access and those things we covered last year.
Crookston: Are you talking about his main lease?
Kingsford: That is correct.
Crookston: That is $200 a year.
(Inaudible)
Morrow: I think we went from the $35 or whatever it was to $200.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 83
Crookston: Grant, you had asked me to look into the renewal of that, already is a five year
lease.
Kingsford: Was it an annual renewal? It wasn't?
Crookston: I don't think so.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: I will look at it again.
Kingsford: I can't remember we also discussed I remember that because of the length of
time that the dairy board show had to pay off their seats. We discussed five, maybe it was
five years.
Crookston: I will look.
Kingsford: In any event we have a motion and a second if it is in fact an annual renewal
to authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Kingsford: Anything else Walter?
Morrow: No that is it.
Kingsford: Max?
Yerrington: No
Kingsford: Bob?
Corrie: Yes, two things, one the trees, did everyone have a chance to look at that? If you
want to purchase any trees from the City of Boise for the parks at that price. I think,
Garden City, I talked to Ted today and they got $3000 worth of them. They are trees and
we can have them in a five year period, four or five years and you can transplant them.
(Inaudible) not a bad price, did you all look at that?
Kingsford: I can't remember or I wasn't clear when I read it is that price, do we have to
front that or do we get them at that point.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 84
Corrie: They want you to front them at that point of beginning, the (inaudible}.
Kingsford: I have (inaudible) I have a little problem with that.
Corrie: You lose all your trees and you lose all your money.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Corrie: They do all that (inaudible) but that is just an idea on getting trees.
Morrow: 1 think that is open to some speculation because the fall generally you can write
really good deals with the nurseries on trees. So if we were buying them in the fall we may
be able to do as well as that or better. The other issue is the uncertainty that our bucks
would be gone.
Corrie: You don't need to feel bad about turning down (inaudible) is that what you want to
do then just turn down at this time?
(Inaudible)
Corrie: The other, there is a meeting I guess here at Meridian City Chambers from 1:30
to 3:30 Monday, October 23. It is in reference to this hydraulic modeling process. So, it
should be interesting, they had the executive meeting, I went in your place today. They
started out it is 10 cents a customer on your bill but now it could be as much as 30 cents
a bill so you can talk about. Everybody is invited on Monday (inaudible) That is all I had.
Kingsford: I had a discussion twice with Tucker Johnson with Skyline Development. You
remember the landing No. 7, we required they the a ditch and they (inaudible) to file the
ditch. In any regard there is a situation out there that they have 360 feet I believe that is
the correct figure of ditch that goes along the Landing No. 4. We didn't apparently require
the Landing 4 to the that and it is different ownership. It is in the same family but different
ownership and they are saying they view that as being arbitrary capricious that they are
being required to file that portion and we didn't require Brighton to file No. 4. And
suggesting that they are not going to do the $9000 for half of that unless the Ciry pony it
up or we give Brighton to or something else. What is your guys thoughts on that?
Counselor I mentioned that to you and you were going to do something with it.
Crookston: That is right, and I haven't had the time. We talked about that yesterday.
Kingsford: Mr. Johnson is going to be calling me tomorrow on that subject.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 85
(Inaudible)
Morrow: The issue between that ditch and the one that we did tonight is radically different.
Kingsford: I don't disagree with that. What he is saying is we are requiring Skyline to the
along No. 7 of which 360 feet of that is a common boundary with The landing No. 4 which
Skyline did not do and they are saying why are you making us when you didn't make
Brighton do that along No. 4.
Morrow: tt looks to me like it is a wedge to separate, I think we need to research the issue
and the answer and go on from there. Why wasn't Skyline No. 4 required to tile?
Kingsford: That is a point well taken and maybe they were. Maybe they just didn't do it,
I don't have that answer.
Morrow: I think we need to research that and find out. 1 am not in (inaudible).
Kingsford: If they were not requested to do it, what do you guys want to do? Are we going
to push them to court, our ordinance says we can do that but I think we are in kind of a bad
position that we didn't require the other folks to do not all that far back. An option would
be for us to pony up $9000. Half of it he is saying is $9780, they are right now in a
position of having this pipe made, it is being made in Ogden, Utah.
Corrie: I would like to know why we didn't (inaudible).
Crookston: We have been back and forth on the tiling. In the first instance we never, years
ago we didn't have a tiling requirement, then we had a tiling ordinance. Then we repealed
that ordinance and more recently we required people to do it and then we did not require
them to do it. In talking to Grant about it yesterday I am going to look at and see what tiling
requirements, where they were in all of that sequence of events. If they were required to
do it depended upon when they developed. If it has been too long that is beyond the
statute of limits and we can't force them. If they are within the statute of limitations then
you have the option to go back and say you are right we didn't' require it but we still can
so you do it.
Kingsford: Well, let's get that researched and have some sort of an answer to me next two
days please.
Morrow: I think clearly the police of dealing with (inaudible) below that it is a slam dunk
deal. You are alluding to the we have been all over the board on it. We have something
that is consistent now and we remain consistent on it.
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 86
Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Johnson: I have something, and you may already know about this. I had a discussion with
Gary Fletcher of St. Luke's. We talked about the Breast Cancer Detection Center and their
dispersal of that building when they move that into the hospital. Have you had any
discussion with him on that. He (inaudible) that the City could benefit from that in some
way maybe even to the point of having that donated or something and I just wondered if
you were pursuing that or if you would like me to set up a meeting or if you were going to
set up your own meeting.
Kingsford: He alluded to that to me some time back and I would be interested in following
up on that certainly. You guys are all familiar with the building over here on First Street.
I don't know rf they want to give it, they are saying to benefit, maybe even to give it to us.
Certainly I don't think that is a bad call to discuss there.
Morrow: So you are going to have Jimmy J discuss it?
Johnson: I will just get a hold of him and set up a meeting and see what he had in mind.
He didn't want to come right out and say he would give it to us but he indicated we could
benefit from that and that was almost the impression I got.
Kingsford: Thank you Jim .
Cowie: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Kingsford: Moved and seconded we adjourn, alt those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:29 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
G NT P. KINGSF RD,
.~
Meridian City Council
October 17, 1995
Page 87
ATTEST:
_ ,
~ W
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI C ERK
- ;
• ~~
ORDINANCE NO. 717
~,fy /'nert oft Q ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING- ERTa~N .
REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LANH~ IN' 4'HEf"; r'.
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3,~~N~., ~X~S~~l'
R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE'. / J~~~J
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of
said City to annex to the said City real property which is
described in Section 1 below:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
Section 1. That the real property described as:
A parcel of land being a portion of the SE 1/4 of the
Northeast Quarter, Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
PARCEL ONE:
Beginning at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section
3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho;
thence along the Southerly boundary of the said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, and along
the Northerly boundary of Cherry Lane Village No. 5
Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada
County Recorder, Boiae, Idaho, in Book 69 of Plats at
pages 7033 and 7034, North 88°55'29" West 768.68 feet to
a point, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence leaving said Southerly and Northerly boundaries,
North 0°19'11" East 95.01 feet to a point;
thence North 11°39'01" West 20.50 feet to a point;
thence North 04°20'56" West 281.15 feet to a point;
thence North 00°26'04" East 177.45 feet to a point
marking a point of curve;
thence along a curve to the right 78.64 feet, said curve
having a central angle of 04°30'21", a radius of 1000.00
feet, tangents of 39.34 feet, and a long chord of 78.62
ANNEEATION ORDINANCE - THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE 5 ~ 6
Page 1
feet bearing South 88°10'53" West to a point marking a
point of tangent;
thence North 89°33'56" West 190.44 feet to a point;
thence North 00°26'04" East 451.79 feet to a point;
thence North 56°39'28" East 79.51 feet to a point;
thence South 89°02'00" East 458.93 feet to a point;
thence North 00°26'04" East 261.01 feet to a point on the
Northerly boundary of the said Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 3;
thence along said Northerly boundary, North 89°02'00"
West 781.04 feet to an iron pin marking the Northwest
Corner of the said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 3, said iron pin also marking the
Northeast corner of The Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3
Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada
County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 70 of Plats at
pages 7167 and 7168;
thence leaving said Northerly boundary and along the
Westerly boundary of the said Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 3, and also along the
Easterly boundary of The Lake At Cherry Lane No. 3
Subdivision, South 00°26'04" West 1323.40 feet to a
galvanized pipe marking the Southwest Corner of the said
Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3;
thence leaving said Westerly and Easterly boundaries and
along the Southerly boundary of the said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, South
88°55'29" East 552.96 feet to the point of beginning,
comprising 14.61 acres, more or less.
AND
PARCEL TWO:
A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section
3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho;
thence along the Southerly boundary of the said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, and along
the Northerly boundary of Cherry Lane Village No. 5
Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada
ANNE%ATION ORDINANCE - THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE 5 & 6
Page 2
County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 69 of Plats at
pages 7033 and 7034, North 88°55'29" West 205.01 feet to
a point, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence continuing along the said Southerly and Northerly
boundaries, North 88°55'29" West 563.66 feet to a point;
thence leaving said Southerly and Northerly boundaries,
North 00°19'11" East 100.01 feet to a point;
thence South 88°55'29" East 563.82 feet to a point;
thence South 00°24'34" West 100.01 feet to the point of
beginning, comprising 1.29 acres, more or less.
AND
PARCEL THREE
A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section
3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho;
thence along the Southerly boundary of the said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, and along
the Northerly boundary of Cherry Lane Village No. 5
Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada
County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 69 of Plats at
pages 7033 and 7034, North 88°55'29" West 768.68 feet to
a point;
thence leaving said Southerly and Northerly boundaries,
North 0°19'11" East 95.01 feet to a point;
thence North 11°39'01" West 20.50 feet to a point;
thence North 04°20'56" West 281.15 feet to a point;
thence North 00°26'04" East 177.45 feet to a point
marking a point of curve, said point also being the REAL
POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence along a curve to the left 147.51 feet, said curve
having a central angle of OS°27'07", a radius of 1000.00
feet, tangents of 73.89 feet, and a long chord of 147.38
feet bearing North 81°42'09" East to a point marking a
point of tangent;
thence North 77°28'36" East 92.50 feet to a point marking
a point of curve;
ANNEBATION ORDINANCE - THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE 5 & 6
Page 3
thence along a curve to the right 20.66 feet, said curve
having a central angle of O1°11'02", a radius of 1000.00
feet, tangents of 10.33 feet, and a long chord of 20.66
feet bearing North 78°04'07" East to a point;
thence North 00°26'04" East 441.10 feet to a point;
thence North 89°02'00" West 458.93 feet to a point;
thence South 56°39'28" West 79.51 feet to a point;
thence South 00°26'04" West 451.79 feet to a point;
thence South 89°33'56" East 190.44 to a point marking a
point of curve;
thence along a curve to the left 78.64 feet, said curve
having a central angle of 04°30'21", a radius of 1000.00
feet, tangents of 39.34 feet, and a long chord of 78.62
feet bearing North 88°10'53" East to the point of
beginning, comprising 5.78 acres, more or less.
AND
PARCEL FOUR
A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at a Brass cap marking the Southeast corner of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section
3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said
Brass cap also being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence along the Southerly boundary of the said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, and along
the Northerly boundary of Cherry Lane Village No. 5
Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada
County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 69 of Plats at
pages 7033 and 7034, North 88°55'29" West 768.68 feet to
a point;
thence leaving said Southerly and Northerly boundaries,
North 0°19'11" East 95.01 feet to a point;
thence North 11°39'01" West 20.50 feet to a point;
thence North 04°20'56" West 281.15 feet to a point;
thence North 00°26'04" East 177.45 feet to a point
marking a point of curve;
ANNEBATION ORDINANCE - THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE 5 ~ 6
Page 4
thence along a curve to the left 147.51 feet, said curve
having a central angle of 08°27'07", a radius of 1000.00
feet, tangents of 73.89 feet, and a long chord of 147.38
feet bearing North 81°42'09" East to a point marking a
point of tangent;
thence North 77°28'36" East 92.50 feet to a point marking
a point of curve;
thence along a curve to the right 20.66 feet, said curve
having a central angle of O1°11'02", a radius of 1000.00
feet, tangents of 10.33 feet, and a long chord of 20.66
feet bearing North 78°04'07" East to a point;
thence North 00°26'04" East 702.11 feet to a point on the
Northerly boundary of the said Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 3;
thence along said Northerly boundary, South 89°02'00"
East 540.00 feet to an iron pin on the centerline of
North Ten Mile Road, said iron pin also being a point on
the Easterly boundary of the said Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 3;
thence along said Easterly boundary and centerline, South
00°24'34" West 1325.91 feet to the point of beginning,
comprising 19.78 acres, more or less.
EXCEPT, the following described property:
A parcel of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter, Section 3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a Brasa cap marking the Southeast corner of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section
3, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., Meridian, Ada County, Idaho;
thence along the Southerly boundary of the said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, and along
the Northerly boundary of Cherry Lane Village No. 5
Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada
County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 69 of Plats at
pages 7033 and 7034, North 88°55'29" West 205.01 feet to
a point, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence continuing along the said Southerly and Northerly
boundaries, North 88°55'29" West 563.66 feet to a point;
thence leaving said Southerly and Northerly boundaries,
North 00°19'11" East 100.01 feet to a point;
thence South 88°55'29" East 563.82 feet to a point;
ANNESATION ORDINANCE - THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE 5 & 6
Page 5
thence South 00°24'34" West 100.01 feet to the point of
beginning, comprising 1.29 acres, more or less.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian; that PARCEL ONE is
zoned R-4 Low Density Residential; PARCEL TWO is zoned R-4 Low
Density Residential; PARCEL THREE is zoned R-8, Medium High Density
Residential; and PARCEL FOUR is zoned R-15 Medium High Density
Residential; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the
conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for
annexation and zoning.
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-
annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements:
a. 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.
b. That the development of the property shall be subject to
and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted
January 4, 1994.
c. 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 inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2,
K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
of Meridian and other matters.
d. 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 11-9-605
M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways.
e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of
the City of Meridian.
ANNESATION ORDINANCE - THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE 5 ~ 6
Page 6
Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of
the legal description and map which shall plainly and clearly
designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada
County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission
within ten (10) days following the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and Approved by the Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this ~ day of October,
1995.
APPROVED:
R -- GRAN P. R G$^ORD
\IIUI It it 11?/;/~
i
~' ~(, ~ ~^- r..~. J psi
G, (. ~)~ii CX j~ ~~ dA. i
/ \~
~- -~-- ~ , t~r,~, '~' q
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. ~~-- CITY CLERK '~~t~ , °r t"'; -/ °Z' `°
1j11iN Nli 11111111`\
ANNERATION ORDINANCE - THE LAKE AT CNERRY LANE 5 & 6
Page 7
STATE OF IDAHO,
County of Ada,
ss.
I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing
is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN
AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, T.3N.,
R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,"
passed as Ordinance No. 717 , by the City Council and Mayor of the
City of Meridian, on the 1~~ day of October, 1995, as the same
appears in my office.
DATED this ~~day of October, 1995.
\,~V VI1 l1pt1~1 rylll !r
4.,! / fir., "'i, r ~., r' ,. ur+~ -i~v
'~' `o ity Clerk, City ~ eridian
A3ia County, Idaho
~~''`_ta
°~
STATE OF IDAHO, ) „,pry; \yN~
County Of Ada, ) ~ O,u7luanlu+'~~~
On this l7+`'day of October, 1995, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM
G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed
to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he
executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year in this certificate ;first above
written. {~ ~ ~'
SEAL
\~~- ~p~9oeo;.a- ~ ~ t ~ r
n cY °'.~. ~' ~`~
Cis ~~~ 1 ~; }'_
< ~ -' V
d
'+t~ ~ o
= `~ ~~ F! !. ~ r"' ~` t' =
,;.
``sll ulnllll
Resdding at Meridian,
My/ Commission Expires
Idaho
Cad U~ ` `
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE 5 & 6
Page 8
1~`
r
i s
~. ~~ T ~ ~ ~1 T iJ1 J["3 T . !~ ~r
/ N. MN6 tlY~
. ~ f
N 00'
~~
E
i n. vncarr ~YpNE g
- Q--,-~
N
S~
~I
b
wl
'I~
1~
I
g~
I E
I
$g
m
'~
I
A
.~
w
B
£
L
7~[
b. ~mv~m~
ggg$u
@ga y~j~
SE
~~§ ~e m;
~
~ yY
~ z U
~+
°~1
_
pp
~ ~+
§=W
~ E~ {
Ito
S
QQ
yD
~~~ E
~~ _ py
T
i
(
!3~
G ~LL
S~
i
1
en
y3
t
---_a
M
~~
~ /
~ ~/
N® 11Y D
n~
NN
.,
~I
N a~
e
I
N. ~YCL
l 5 OOR~']1' W t325.Bt
N ~
~~~~~ ~~ ° ~~~~ ~ e
p]
~ E2 ~ 'b ^m V (~ ~ W N
~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ amO
b
~ ~mO
u1
~ ~
G1 ~ ]
G Z
,~
~
m m D
2
y
~t
y ~~~~
~ Oo-OAS ~
(,~~
~i,_ ~ p ~ o=~o rno~!^
~ ~$.~~~ ~ ~ VOp~ A~~~
l
r1
O .. y -0UN~ A
(nJD
~ a
.~7
n
-Zi p
E r y
'C~1
~~~Ngppp~~Mpp
6~
r
~ o
r
D
"~ f
K
A
~ ~~ ~
~yu~ t 7
I~
J
1
1
I
W
y~
f
l!~ lC
f F
r
~ CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME PHONE NUMBER
~. 334-
i ~l
sr~,~ t;
~~ i~ ~~ g~ ~ 5~~ 7
~ CITY OF MERIDIA~
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
~ ORIGINAL.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
ANNERATION AND ZONING
N 1/4 SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M.
MERIDIAN, IDANO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on August 15, 1995 , at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and
taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing
through a representative, Marty Goldsmith, and having duly
considered the matter, the Meridian City Council makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for August 15, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the August 15, 1995,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
made available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 1
• s
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 23.26 acres in size; it is in the Northeast 1/4 of
Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada
County, Idaho.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the
property be zoned R-4 Residential.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that much of the residential
property in the area is zoned R-4 Residential with some of it
developed at less density than allowed in the R-4 zone; that Salmon
Rapids No. 1 and No. 2, which was previously annexed, is an R-4
development, a housing size of 1,400 square feet.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant, Marty Goldsmith, is the owner of record of
the property.
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 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 applicant indicated that the
intended development of the property is for single family dwellings
with a density of 3.4 dwelling units per acre; Applicant stated at
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 2
the hearing that for this phase No. 3 that the square footage was
1,400 and 1,500 square feet where the houses bounded Meridian
Greens within 500 feet.
10. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can
be provided.
11. That the property can be physically serviced with City
sewer; that there is a question in the mind of the City Engineer,
regarding water service and water service is contingent upon
positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's computer
model.
12. That the Eight Mile Irrigation Lateral traverses the site
in a southeast to northwest direction and is located within an 80-
foot wide easement.
13. That there was no public testimony given at the hearing
before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
14. That Gene Schultz testified before the Council regarding
the type of fencing the developer had planned in using for the
boundary on the south side, between Rachina Estates and the
proposed subdivision.
15. That John Shipley testified bringing up the question as
to the location of the well house; that according to the map he
had, from May, it didn't show it; that it is suppose to be
somewhere on the 23 acres and by the looks of it it ends up
somewhere in the middle of a cul-de-sac.
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 3
16. Marty Goldsmith testified at the Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing that the fencing would be of a non-combustible
type which is chain link with pickets in them that don't burn; that
some construction is being done to address the needs of some
residents; that some weeding can be done to knock down some
overgrowth; that the location of the well house is on Lot 14, Block
5, and that the street does go around it; that the lots in phase #3
of Salmon Rapids are not buildable until the extension of the sewer
is made to them; that he is working as to where which lots go where
and that the southwest corner will go to the Ten Mile Sewer and
that the other lots will go in the sewer main that is a little bit
closer; that he is trying to move ahead with the lot layout and his
intentions for serving those; that water is not a problem and
neither is the sewer.
Mr. Goldsmith testified at the City Council public hearing
that the well issues in Los Alamitos are applicable to Salmon
Rapids Subdivision also; that he can knock down some weeds; that in
response to Gary Smith's and the Mayor's concern regarding sewer,
he stated that there are some lots in the southwest corner of the
subdivision that are not buildable until sewer is extended to them;
that sewer would be to the Ten Mile Sewer line.
17. That Gary Smith, Meridian City Engineer, testified that
the sewer does not have enough depth in Locust Grove or through
this subdivision in order to sewer those lots; that the land falls
away to the southwest where Ten Mile Drain; that these lots will
have to be sewered by an extension of the sewer main in Ten Mile
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 4
Creek or adjacent to Ten Mile Creek that comes through Meridian
Greens Subdivision; that until sewer line is extended through
Meridian Greens, through Kachina Estates along Ten Mile Creek, that
the lots are not buildable; that the development plans will not be
approved until the sewer is extended.
18. Walt Morrow stated that the 20 foot landscape strip along
Locust Grove Road which the developer was instructed to move to an
appropriate place had not been done; that the developer had earlier
assured the City that this would be completed by August 15, 1995;
that the existing fence is falling down and property buyers within
the subdivision claimed the developer has sold them the 11 feet
plus or minus to add to their lot.
19. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, the
Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Street Name Committee, the
Central District Bealth Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District, Meridian School District, U. S. West and the Meridian
Planning Director, submitted comments and such are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
20. That the Meridian City Engineer's assistant, Bruce
Freckleton specifically commented as follows:
a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing
the property to be included in this project, shall
be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M.; plans will
need to be approved by the appropriate
irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users
association, with written confirmation of said
approval submitted to the Public Works Department;
that no variances have been requested for tiling of
any ditches crossing this project;
b. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
shall be removed from their domestic service per
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 5
city Ordinance Section 5-7-517; that wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation;
c. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation,
and submit a profile of the subsurface soil
conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with
street development plans;
d. That water service to this development is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic
analysis by computer model;
e. That a determination of ground water level and
subsurface soil conditions should be made.
f. Applicant will be responsible to construct the
sewer mains to and through this proposed
development via the existing mains installed in
prior phases of this development; manholes shall be
provided to keep the lines on the south and west
side of the centerline;
g. Applicant will be responsible to construct the
water mains to and through this proposed
development via existing mains installed in prior
phases of this development; that the well proposed
to be located in the No. 1 phase of this
subdivision needs to be in operation ahead of this
No. 2 phase development.
21. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator
specifically commented stating as follows:
a. That any existing irrigation/drainage ditches
crossing the property, included in this project,
shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605; that a
variance for tiling of the Eight Mile Lateral was
granted in phase 1 provided the ditch is fenced
with a chain link or wrought iron fence on both
sides of the right-of-way;
b. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic
systems within this project shall be removed from
their domestic service except that the wells be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation, per City Ordinance;
c. Adjacent residential property must be screened with
fencing as presented by developer during Phase 1
public hearings; perimeter fencing and fencing of
SAL1dON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 6
the Eight Mile Lateral is to be in place prior to
obtaining building permits for housing;
d. Submit protective covenants for subdivision in
accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-605.1.;
e. That the Applicant is to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416.L. and 11-2-
417.D.; that the Development Agreement shall
address, but not be limited to, the inclusion into
the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C.,
G., A.2., R. and L, and the goals expressed in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan;
f. That the Applicant indicates a minimum house size
of 1,400 square feet; that Phase 1 development
agreement and restrictive covenants require a
minimum house size of 1,500 square feet;
g. That the Comprehensive Plan indicates that a school
and park site is needed in this section.
Shari Stiles further commented that a new plat was received
August 15, 1995; that she could see no significant major changes;
that with regard to the fence, the City has been making these
planting strip requirements and the idea is that there would be the
road right of way, 20 feet beyond that right of way which would be
maintained as a planting strip and then the fencing; that when the
fence was installed in this subdivision it was put up to match
Sportsman Pointe's which was only 10 feet from the right of way;
that Mr. Goldsmith told her that he is in the process of moving the
fence to where it should be; that her main concern with having that
fence within the 20 foot planting strip was that they would have
part of what would be homeowners owned property, then they would
also have a 20 foot utility easement, so in essence they would have
about 21 feet in the back of their property if the fence remained
where it was, which was all easement; that nothing could be built
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 7
there and they would have to stay back that far from the fence
line; that the developer has said he is in the process of moving
that fence to the edge of the 20 foot landscape lot.
23. The Meridian School District submitted comments in prior
annexations in this area, that there is no excess capacity in the
schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision
could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the
School District asked for support for a development fee or a
transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional
schools.
24. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.;
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone; that in annexation the
City may, as a condition of annexation, require a higher minimum
house size than 1,400 square feet.
25. That the Applicant submitted an application for
preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and
zoning which application included a preliminary plat.
26. That the land is adjacent to the land annexed and being
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 8
developed as Salmon Rapids No. 1 & 2, which is now in the process
of development.
27. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
28. 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 .
.'
29. 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 moat also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
30. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"l.l The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
31. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 9
and is continuing; that the land is relatively close to Meridian
and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming
in the area.
32. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
33. 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
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 10
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.
34. 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."
35. 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."
36. 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;"
37. 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
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 11
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."
38. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Bighway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
39. 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.
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 12
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the
present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation
is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The 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, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and waterways.
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 13
10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer's
office, including those specifically stated in its comments and
those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, U.
S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director shall
be met and addressed in a development Agreement.
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways, including the
Eight Mile Lateral, shall be tiled as a condition of annexation;
that a variance was granted for tiling of the Eight Mile Lateral in
Phase 1 provided the ditch is fenced with chain link or wrought
iron fence on both sides of the right-of-way and if not the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance except as otherwise required herein; that, as a condition
of annexation, the Applicant shall be require#d to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G 1, R 2, R, L, M
and the comments of the Planning Director, Shari Stiles; that since
Marty Goldsmith stated that Salmon Rapids has the same well issues
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 14
as Los Alamitos Subdivision, if the land has surface water rights,
those rights should be used for pressurized irrigation, and that
since Applicant is now using well water from one well for
pressurized irrigation in prior phases of this subdivision, and for
Salmon Rapids Subdivision, it shall monitor its well, its use and
water level, to ascertain the impact of its use of well water for
pressurized irrigation on wells located on adjacent property; that
Applicant shall obtain approval from the City for all equipment,
method and means to perform the well monitoring; that the
monitoring shall be performed bi-weekly during the months of April,
May, June, July, August, September and October; that Applicant
shall approach adjacent land owners to obtain permission to monitor
their wells on the same bi-weekly schedule; that two such adjacent
well shall be monitored; if permission cannot be obtained Applicant
shall not be required to monitor adjacent wells; that this
monitoring of the wells shall go on until wells are no loner used
for pressurized irrigation and shall also be addressed in the
Development Agreement; that the development agreement shall, as a
condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if
required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal
representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, or
transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no
annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if
necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss
of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not
met.
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 15
14. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district may
be increased as a condition of annexation and therefore the R-4
requirement of 1,400 square feet shall be exceeded so that the
minimum house size shall be 1,500 square feet.
15. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that access to and from
the adjacent property owners will have to be worked out and
included in the development agreement, or the property will not be
annexed or, if annexed, it will be de-annexed.
16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owner, and his assigns.
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential, with 1,500 square foot
minimum sized houses, 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
COUNCILMAN
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
TOLSMA
MAYOR RINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED /A.~(
VOTED
VOTED
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 16
DECISION AND
The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby recommends
approval of the annexation and zoning as stated above, and those
stated herein, for the property described in the application with
the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, including that the minimum house size shall be 1,Lf00 square
feet, that surface water shall be used for pressurized illrrigation,
if possible, that Applicant shall meet the provisions of the
Conclusions regarding monitoring of wells, evidence of transfer of
school site property be given prior to obtaining building permits
for housing, specifically comply with Section 11-9-605 G 1.
regarding planting strips being a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide
and not be a part of the street right of way or utility easement,
the all ditches, canals and waterways, all 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:
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 17
o c~ n~o
JAMES E. BRUCE. Presidenr
SriERRY R. HUBER, Vlce ?resident
SUSAN S. EASTLAY.'c. Secretary
September 29, 1995
William F. Gigray III, Esq.
104 Ninth Avenue South
P. O. Box 247
Nampa, ID 83653-0207
Re: D & B Supply Co., Inc.
Dear Mr. Gigray:
I write as Attorney for the Ada County Highway District in
response to your letter of September 13, 1995, addressed to Larry
Sale. Please address any further communications regarding this
drain ditch problem to my attention.
ACHD's policies require that all developers of a particular
site locate all irrigation delivery and waste-water facilities
out of the public right-of-way as a condition of development of
the site.
In this case, the ditch in question served to drain irriga-
tion waste-water not only from several adjoining parcels, but
also from the parcel developed by D & B Supply Co., Inc. There-
fore, in accordance with ACHD's development policies, it was the
obligation of D & B Supply to relocate this ditch out of the
public right-of-way.
Rather than complying with this condition, D & B Supply
chose to relocate the ditch from the northern part of the rigrt-
of-way of Wilson Lane to the southern portion of the same right-
of-way. This was done without any permission, authorization, or
even discussion with ACHD. The new location of the ditch unilat-
erally chosen by your client creates an unacceptable safety haz-
ard. It is ACHD's position that since your client created the
hazard, it is your client's responsibility to correct the hazard.
D & B Supply defends its actions on the basis that its plans
and specifications, "...clearly showed that the waste ditch was
proposed to be moved from the northern part of the right-of-way
of Wilson Lane to the southern part." Unfortunately, this is
simply not the case. A couple of the plans faintly indicate a
depression at the former location of the ditch. These plans do
not specifically call out that an irrigation ditch is present.
Further, the symbols used to show the ditch do not comply with
ada county highway district
3 i 3 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 33714-5499 . nc~ne (208) 345-7580
Letter to Wm. Gigray III
Re: D & B Supply Co., Inc.
September 29, 1995
Page 2
the legend symbols for a ditch. Also, the faint symbols are
almost entirely covered up by the bold new construction plans.
From these plans it is simply not reasonable to expect a plans
reviewer to identify that an irrigation facility existed at this
location.
More significantly, there is absolutely no indication on the
plans of a proposed relocation of the ditch. The developer had
an obligation to show the proposed relocation on the plans.
Accordingly, even if the plans reviewer had noticed the inade-
quate markings for the ditch, the appropriate conclusion to draw
would have been that the developer intended to simply fill in the
ditch in that it was no longer necessary.
In short, there was no approval by ACRD or Meridian for the
ditch relocation and so your client's actions in relocating the
ditch were totally unauthorized and in violation of ACHD's and
Meridian's policies.
Based upon the above, ACRD renews its
gation waste-water facility be relocated at
Supply out of the public right-of-way.
complied with, ACHD will continue to recom~
Meridian that the occupancy permit not
advise the City by a copy of this letter.
demand that this irri-
the expense of D & B
Until this demand is
Wend to the City of
be issued and will so
Sincerely,
A'~CDU IGHWAY ISTRICT
L~ J
David E. Wynkoop, Attorney
DEW:as
cc: Larry Sale
City of Meridian, Attn: Shari Stiles
Daniel V. Steenson
~ Ada Planning association
APA
413 W. Idaho. Suite 100 Boise, ID 83702 (208) 345-5274 Fax (208) 345-5279
Serving Governments in Ada County Since 1977
October 13, 1995
Please clear your calendar for Monday, October 23, fro
at all possible! You are invited at that time to an important
public officials to talk about groundwater in the Lower Boise
s=. ~~
o c r t ~ ~~~~;
C:BTY t7F T~ErtIDlNfti
m 1:30 to 3:30 If
opportunity for
River basin.
As you surely know, the quantity of groundwater in the Lower Boise River
basin has become an increasingly significant focus of discussions regarding this
region's future economic growth potential. Amulti-agency technical committee
recently completed a proposal for collecting data which are critical to local
governments as well as state and federal agencies as they address water quantity
issues. Several private and public sector leaders recently met to review the proposal
and determined that much wider discussion among Boise River basin public officials is
required before moving forward.
This meeting will be held in the Meridian City Council chambers, one-half block
west of the stoplight in downtown Meridian, from 1:30 - 3:30 on Monday,
October 23. Elected officials of all local governments in Ada and Canyon counties
are invited, as well as County Commissioners of Boise, Gem and Payette counties,
state legislators throughout the Lower Boise River Basin, and senior officers of private
and public agencies who produce or manage groundwater resources.
Idaho Department of Water Resources Director, Karl Dreher, and his staff will provide
a technical briefing regarding groundwater issues and how the proposed effort will aid
in resolving them. Private sector officials will supply additional insight into specific
benefits to their companies. The bulk of the meeting will then be devoted to
discussion among participants; likely topics include: 1) unanswered questions; 2)
whether or not to proceed; 3) policy committee membership; 4) policy oversight
procedures; and 5) funding alternatives.
A copy of the technical proposal is included with this invitation. I look forward to
seeing you on the 23rd1
CordiaNy,
! ~~`"-~~
Clair M. Bowman
Executive Director
CB:CP~WATER WATER.MMO
pc: File 540.16/Groundwater
Ada County Highway District, Ada County, Cities of Boise, Eagle, Garden Cily, Kuna, and Meridian
Boise Auditorium District, Boise I ndependent School District, Meridian Joint School District, and Boise State University
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
I'rinLed on Rttycled F'nper