HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 08-19
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 5, 1997:
(APPROVED)
GOOD SAM PROCLAMATION:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT -COUPLET STUDY PRESENTATION:
2. TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: ORDINANCE #760 -COMMISSIONS, BOARDS,
COMMITTEES: (TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 2, 1997)
3. TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: ORDINANCE #761 - TRAFFIC SAFETY
COMMISSION: (TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 2, 1997)
4. TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: FINAL PLAT FOR CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION
NO. 8, 37 LOTS BY RAMON & MARILYN YORGASON: (TABLED TO
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997)
5. TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER FOR
3195 N. CINDER BY GARY AND MARGARET PALMER: (APPROVED WITH A
DOUBLE HOOKUP FEE)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR DAKOTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION BY MAX BOESIGER INC.:
(APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVE VARIANCE)
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE FOR
BENITON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: (APPROVED FINDINGS;
APPROVED VARIANCE)
8. ORDINANCE #767 -MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REZONE: (APPROVED)
9. ORDINANCE #768 - SHERBROOKE HOLLOW ANNEXATION: (APPROVED)
10. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHERBROOKE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION BY
WESTPARK COMPANY; TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: (TABLED TO
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997)
11. ORDINANCE #769 -HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 ANNEXATION:
(APPROVED)
12. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION N0. 7 BY MERIDIAN
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: (APPROVED REVISED R-4 DESIGN)
13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 BY MERIDIAN LAND
DEVELOPMENT CO.: (APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVED VARIANCE)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON THE LANGLEY DITCH
BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
15. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL RETAIL
PURPOSES BY KZ HOLDINGS LLC - SE CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE AND
FAIRVIEW AVENUE: (APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT)
16. USTiCK BAPTIST CHURCH SEWER ALTERNATIVES:
17. SANITARY SERVICES UPDATE INFORMATION:
18. NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED)
19. STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT - ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION:
(APPROVED)
20. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. TRANSFER FUNDS FOR WASTE WATER DEPARTMENT,
(APPROVED)
2. TRANSFER FUNDS FOR WATER DEPARTMENT: (APPROVED)
3. CHANGE ORDER FOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER ADDITION
PROJECT: (APPROVED)
4. ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH CIVIL SURVEY
CONSULTANTS FOR WATER AND SEWER RECONSTRUCTION
(APPROVED)
5. EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT:
B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY RESOLUTION: (APPROVED)
C. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY:
1. LEASE WITH RED CANYON CORPORATION: (APPROVED)
D. WALT MORROW, CITY COUNCILMAN:
$5000 TRANSFER TO SPRINTER COMMITTEE: (APPROVED)
E. CHARLIE ROUNTREE, CITY COUNCILMAN:
1. LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ST. LUKE'S FOR MERIDIAN
YOUTH ATHLETICS: (APPROVED)
21. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 5, 1997: a~p~~~c-
GOOD SAM PROCLAMATION: ieatL by ~" °~"
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT -COUPLET STUDY PRESENTATION:
2. TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: ORDINANCE #760 -COMMISSIONS, BOARDS,
COMMITTEES: ~ar~ ~,,„~~Z ~p~= 2'v-2 /~~~~
3. TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: ORDINANCE #761 -TRAFFIC SAFETY
COMMISSION: ~f,/P le,~~ ~e~t Z ~`!a la~f~r .
4. TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: FINAL PLAT FOR CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION
NO.6, 37 LOTS BY RAMON & MARILYN YORGASON:
~a.~~Ce w>.-~.~ ~~ r, 2 ~2 h~ ~-.
5. TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER FOR
3195 N. CINDER BY GARY AND MARGARET PALMER:
6t~pyvve~ h~~/e-up ~{~i~~erar~~) wi2-~- ~w~e wee
6. FINDINGS OF FACT dND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR DAKOT~4 RIDGE SUBDIVISION BY MAX BOESIGER INC.:
C~prw2 ~~~~ ~ Cl[ G~p~c~-e ~° ctT:b~
7. FIND GS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE FOR
BENITON CONSTRICTION COMPANY:
8. ORDIf~(ANCE #767 -MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REZONE: u~,pru/e:
9. ORDINANCE #768 - SHERBROOKE HOLLOW ANNEXATION: li~~ra vex
10. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHERBROOKE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION BY
WESTPARK COMPANY; TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: -fu ~ a~~~ .T~e~ t_ Z~°-hrf~.
11. ORDINANCE #769 -HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 ANNEXATION: cz~~Jr7„i,c~ O
12. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 BY MERIDIAN
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: a-PPi-o~e 1'er/iuaG /~-¢ ~~
13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 BY MERIDIAN LAND
DEVELOPMENT CO.: ~~,~ro%e ~~~ ~%
cfiypro/.e G~ cir: ~.--~
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON THE LANGLEY DITCH
BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: ~-~~i~ ~f~eo~ ~4:~pr~~owf-c- -~/~ ~ c' /C
15. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL RETAIL
PURPOSES BY KZ HOLDINGS LLC - SE CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE AND
FAIRVIEW AVENUE: cv®~~o,,~c~ ~/~ ~ c% ~c/a~,~~~~Q ~°ec{.7- v~-'
16. USTICK BAPTIST CHURCH SEWER ALTERNATIVES:
L7lL ,~ria~~ ~.ljarm.d-Cvi~i1S~Z a.Ff-o,~ A-tlu Ci~ CAP-n~n~~iTJ; ir»r-../
17. SANITARY SERVICES UPDATE INFORMATION: ~l~-
18. NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: ~,nro~z
19. STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT-ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION: ct~l~'Jrnve
20. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. TRANSFER FUNDS FOR WASTE WATER DEPARTMENT:
21. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 19, 1997
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert
D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree, Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill
Gordon, Ehno Tiddens, Tammy DeWeerd, Jay Johnson, John Shipley, Tom Densley,
Terry Smith, Paul McLeod, Mohammed Alidjani, Relene Johnson, Joe Johnson, Mark
Freeman, David Eberie, Mike Tanner, Steve Patterson, Steve Sedaleck:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 5, 1997:
Corzie: Are there any corrections or alterations to those minutes? 1 will entertain a
motion for approval of the minutes as written.
Rountree: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the minutes as written, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
GOOD SAM PROCLAMATION
Corrie: This is, Whereas RVing is a Gean, healthful and wholesome recreational
activity. Where, the Good Sam Club the world's largest RV owners club inGuding a
number of local residents is staging a nationwide trash clean up supported by
Fleetwood RV the world's largest RV manufacturer to improve our environment.
Whereas, we see this activity as beneficial to all, vue hope it receives widespread
throughout our populace. Whereas, we wish to thank Good Sam for its efforts to make
a better world. Now, therefore, I ,Robert D. Corrie, Mayor of the City of Meridian hereby
declare Saturday, August 30, 1997 as Good Sam Clean Up Day throughout our City
and urge all citizens to join Good Sam in this labor of love.
ITEM #1: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: COUPLET STUDY PRESENTATION:
Rosenlund: Mayor Come and Council my name is Joe Rosenlund, Traffic Engineering
Supervisor for Ada County Highway District. I have been going through this study for the
Meridian corridor study since this Spring. We have had several public meetings. The
basis or the results of those meetings we have come up with two options to handle
traffic through the downtown Meridian corp. One is the one way couplet option of
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 2
making Meridian and East 1~ one way streets. The other one is to widen Meridian Road
to a five lane arterial roadway. At the request of the City of Meridian and also other
attendees from public comment Ada County Highway District extended the contract so
that an economic analysis could be done to see what the potential impacts are of the
either of those two options. The study was done by Dave Eberlie of Eberlie Consulting
of Boise. He has looked at several comparable streets for both types of options.
Rather than get, unless you have specific questions of me I would just turn it over to
him.
Corrie: Any questions?
Eberlie: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council I am David Eberlie with Eberlie
Consulting. My street address is 760 Harcourt Road, Boise, ID. I am the author of the
report that reads economic impact of road design for the Ciry of Meridian. This evening
I have been asked to give you an overview of the study and with the Mayor's permission
perhaps we might start with is there a particular area that you would like me to focus on
as I go through the overview. For that particular area for those of you who have had a
chance to review we might start with that and then 1 can kind of tailor the issues 1 talk
about.
Corrie: Council?
Eberlie: Mayor, with your permission I think I will use this for the audience and it should
help up move through the process. Mr. Mayor, I guess if there are questions just go
ahead and interrupt me and I will try to talk loud enough for the tape recorder. I was
approached to look at the economic impact of two different types of road designs. One
was a one way couplet using East 1~ Street going north, Meridian Road going south.
That is going to be a 3 lane road. The second alternative is a two way five lane road
center turn on meridian Road. After these discussions got started a third alternative was
discussed and that was a no action alternative. So it was added in and I did do some
work on that particular aspect as well. Economists are never going to let you get off
easy, simply a road and all of the sudden we have a matrix. The first thing that has to be
discussed here is roads are just one input to economic activity. Roads in themselves do
not create a particular environment. What we have here initially is an output a new
infrastructure, aroad. It will go in and it will have a particular configuration and there will
be certain types of uses that are more appropriate for a particular road design. The
direct affects of course the change of accessibility both to areas along the corridor as
well as areas adjacent and connecting through the corridor. The cost of the road which
should be considered and finally and as important are the perceptions. With economics
as many of your are in business know if you get a perception it can be just as valid and
real as a physical object. Once a road gets in the way a road becomes developed are
there are a number of participants and 1 have labeled those as actors. You have the
public and the businesses. They are going to have ideas of what is appropriate there.
You are going to have property owners that, who believe there are certain uses that
they want their property for and finally you are going to have the public officials who will
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 3
lay down some sort of rules on which to develop these areas. Now this is terribly
important because as a City you do not control the other two boxes. An example and I
have a slide later if we want to look at it, down on probably one of the most prime pieces
of real estate in Boise down at Front and 9"' Street is vacant. There is nothing the City
can do to have that property owner develop it if they choose not to. They can sit on that
bare ground as long as they want. So when you build a road you will not automatically
expect a certain development. There is a paRnership and a working and if perceptions
are developed in a certain direction that is the kind of development or lack of
development you will get. Intermediate affects, real estate use. Again you can design
roads and we will get into it a little bit the kind of uses that seem to be typical on two
ways and the kinds of uses that are typical on one way. The markets of course once
you get businesses going you will find that successful retailers and used sales find by
clustering their businesses they do better you give the customer alternatives. So if you
get a car lot on a street you are likely to attract a second car lot. If you have a
restaurant on a stmt you are likely to attract a second restaurant. And finally the urban
character which is the overlay of the zoning of the direction that a City tries to move it.
Finally what happens over time these things will take up to 20 years to reveal
themselves you have your new development and the level of economic growth that can
occur. So no matter what alternative, no action, no road improvement, one way couplet
or two way you wilt literally move through this process of which you are only one part of
it for that ultimate development that will occur. Here is 9"' and Front Street, one of the
busiest, most expensive piece of real estate in Boise. The road has zero impact
because that property owner believes the highest and best use will be a multi-use high
rise facility. And that land owner is going to hold out for that irrespective of what the
City or the County may wish for that particular property. 1 think that is an important
lesson to understand that you may be able to guide growth but in fact it is the property
owner who has the rights to that land and what they do. These pie charts give you a
snapshot of where you are today. What 1 have done here is First Street and I have
broken them out by various categories of what seemed appropriate at Meridian Road. In
fact your E. 1~ Street is actually fairly reflective of commercial roads. It would be
considered a healthy mix. You have some residential, as a matter of fact a little low on
the residential relative to the other one way and two way roads in Southern Idaho. A
good strong component of commercial retail, straight commercial. 1 broke out auto
related because it is significant, that is actually categories involving gas stations, parts
and service. Because they will be directly affected by the roads and a very strong
component of eating establishments. If you look in the report you will see the pie charts
for and maybe we will switch quickly here. The one way roads and the two way roads in
the area, you see E. 1~ Street is a fairly healthy road, there is a difference between
commercial, commercial retail, between these in the City on East 1~ Street. But by and
large it is diversified, you have lots of things happening on that street. Where your
affects are going to occur will be on Meridian Road. They will be dramatic, the first thing
to note is look at the percentage here, you are at 65% of residential right now. If you go
to two way averages it drops down to 24%, on one way couplets its 31°h. You will cut
your residential housing in half, 30°i6 of that road character will change irregardless of
what you take. So I think when you look at in your deliberations it is Meridian Road that
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 4
will have the dramatic affects and if you look at the one way, two way character, you will
see that residential tends to be a little more viable along one way couplets whereas two
way roads the residential is rapidly phasing out. Where we have it currently high is on
12th Avenue South in Nampa and Vista Road in Boise. If you drive those you will see
the older infrastructure being rapidly changed over to commercial use. So the roads
that were looked at in this study to get an idea of what would happen in Meridian of
course you have E. 1~ Street and Meridian Road. In Twin Falls it was the 2n° Avenue
one way couplet which surround the downtown and the Blue Lakes Blvd. Which is a five
lane, two way road. Again these roads were chosen on the basis of road width, road
design, traffic load, entrance to the City, location to downtown relative to government
services and unique landscape. So in looking at the various communities the attempt
was to find comparable roads. As we can see here you look at the total traffic expected
to come through Meridian it exceeds all the comparable roads with the exception of the
Capital/ 9"' Street couplet which occasionally is off the Richter scale relative here, You
can expect significant traffic. To get an idea the current freeway traffic is around 40,000
to 50,000 cars a day. Fairview Avenue is in the forties. That is the kind of traffic you can
expect to move through your community. If you have a two way road for example like
Blue Lakes, an interesting exercise to find out is to try to cross it mid-day when traffic is
light. See when you have left hand turns, right hand turns, right on red. It is an
interesting challenge just to make your way across the road. It also happens to have the
highest accident rate in the State currently. I am not sure why that it is, we can blame it
on the county or something else. I felt these were good examples of the types of roads
that you could expect and the types of development. Now the study itseff starts off with
your current economic condition, I have talked a little bit about it, and. that currently you
have a healthy E. 1~ Street, you have an aging infrastructure on Meridian Road. Now
what is important to keep in mind as I discuss this is that infrastructure, investment that
occurs on a road takes anywhere between ten to thirty years to end its useful life. So if
you have a particular road design today you will attract a particular type of investment
and it may be the investment that you desire, it may not. That investment you can plan
on being there for up to thirty years. A good example is on the 9"' Street, Capital
couplet to go look at the old auto dealer across the street from the capital. That
particular property owner rents out the parking and has the old dealership building there
that occasionally gets a campaign office in it and it is a vestige from the days that was a
two way main entrance to Boise. That investment is still there. It is a very low use for a
very prime piece of real estate. So what you realize is that Meridian Road today is at
one of those transition periods. You have a lot of vacant buildings, you have buildings
with low use for example the Paintball and yes I am tempted to try it out. When you look
at that use there is a piece of property ripe for turnover. So depending on the type of
road you pick will get turned over in investment and then you are going to be with that
irnestment. If you go we don't want this particular road design and the type of traffic it
attracts and you change it, it just doesn't disappear. You are pretty well there with that
phenomenon. The anticipated economic impact that I have gone through and
discussed and there is a summary for you starting on page 11 where I do a number of
bullets for you then and f will just him some of them briefly. Based on current traffic
loads as I have observed on the three comparable roads. Now remember what
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 5
forecasts or predictions are for. They are a plan for what you may anticipate if you
achieve these traffic loads. If in fact developers want to move in these directions. You
should be prepared for the kinds of growth or changes that are outlined in this report. If
of course they turn out different you now have a strategy for ability to shift your direction
of managing infrastructure and investment moving into the downtown because you have
planned for it. If you look at the no impact altemative, the first thing is traffic is going to
continue to grow. People are going to continue to move through downtown, you will
have economic growth if you do nothing. However what kind of economic growth you
will have is questionable. A number of things down here today won't be. You will keep
your Circe K you will keep your gas stations, but places like Paisanos you probably
won't. Because they won't have the accessibility for people wanting to come into
downtown because of the delays to get here. The idling of automobiles will make it
relatively unpleasant for Paisanos to put people out on the street and what not. So your
investment will change. Commercial businesses won't locate here, you already see
that. Where are your new offices going? Eagle Road, why, they have access and
parking. These are the things you have to consider, that investment will be there, you
will not recapture that for downtown if you want it downtown. You may not, that is a
different issue. If you do nothing you will attract a certain type of investment, you can
find the more crowded streets, I think Broadway would probably give you a pretty good
idea of some of the types of investments that may come into this area. And take a look,
is this the vision that you have and if it is there is nothing wrong with the no action
alternative. It isn't the strongest economic growth engine however if an objective is to
increase property relative property values, maximize revenues, and sales. The other
road designs will tend to promote that more than no action. The one way couplet itself
provides the greatest diversity and flexibility, in fact all three communities studied picked
the one way couplet for the down town corridor. Each one is unique in itself, Nampa is
very high on auto related industries. Some of them are quite attractive. Others are fairly
typical car lot facilities. Twin Falls and Boise both have a middle street. What they have
chosen to do is to put the parking for the middle street on their one way couplet. So they
have actually reduced some of the density. For Boise it is 8"' Street mall and Twin Falls
it is Main Street where again at the end I can show a couple of pictures of how they
have landscaped that one way couplet for parking to intensify it. That is not necessary
Twin Falls has parking on the street much as you do with the traffic calming curbs to
attract the parking along the couplet itself. The one way gives you the greatest flexibility
in terms of changing it back to two way streets at a later date. Keeping a one way
couplet it doubles your commercial potential for growth in terms of square footages. You
have two streets instead of one. There is some diversification here, your growth will
probably be a little slower than a two way five line road but again you will have more
commercial development along it. You have more street frontage for professionals to
put their signs out, you will have more accessibility for that kind of growth. In here I
talked specifically about some issues. For example Circle K would probably be hurt with
a one way couplet. The restaurants will do better, why, the one way comin~ off the
freeway evening, your entertainment recreation they come right down E. 1 Street.
Morning traffic when you get your gasoline in a hurry and get a cup of coffee you will
see gas stations emerge on Meridian road, applications for it. Whether you choose to
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 6
allow them is another issue. When you look at Meridian Road to five lanes you look at
these roads with some detail. The density of retail that I there is truly remarkable. If you
look at it they have the same density of economic activity that the one way couplets
have together. Not commercial but retail, the retail is extremely dense. It is very high
real estate values. I can promise you the people on Meridian Road will thank your
decision for putting a five Zane road on there. Because you will find it that it becomes
highly franchise oriented retail drive through facilities. You an look in the body of the
report and look at the number of franchise fast food drive through restaurants on the two
way roads versus the one way couplets that tend to attract the more independent
restaurants. It is the look that you want. Go to Fairview, you can see it, there is nothing
wrong with those roads, don't mistake what I am saying but it is the vision and the
direction that you wish to have this area look. Those roads will promote it. What I do
notice is that your zoning is at odds with a two way five lane road. You will have to
change it. You may try to force, it is the old adage take the horse to water, can't make
him drink. You can leave that zoning on there but the land owners and developers will
not develop it the way you want because they will wait for the highest and best use.
They will continue to hold their investment that is one there, eam its return until such
time that they feel they can put the type of investment on that road that will earn them
the highest return. Well this is the economic American system after all and the way that
it works. So that is sort of a brief overview of the types of impacts you can expect. If
you were to look at it you would concentrate the most intense retail sales, diminished
commercial with the two Wray. You would draw initially business off of East 1~ Street.
Many businesses would be hurt, some would go under, particularly like Gordo's,
Hungry Onion, Circle K, auto dependent businesses would be severely impacted. You
have what is called a J curve. There would be a decrease in business for a number of
years but it will pick up because it will become a commercial sector for you particularly
with the residential houses you will find doctors and lawyers and accountants and other
people move here. You will not get the commercial business. They will continue to go to
places like Eagle Road until it gets congested. Five way, two lane does not promote
that. Whereas one way tends to promote it more. You spread out your traffic, you will
see many more of those small businesses that can get a road sign and again if you
keep the two way cross section it is easily accessible between the two issues. We have
been talking about this so we will just leave it be. Here is the zoning that we have been
talking about, when you look at it if you went two way what have you got. You have your
residential low density which is clearly in appropriate, moderate density you have
commercial business specifically prohibiting mini-malls and drive through facilities and
again this is a poor location for light industrial on a two way road. You don't want
commuters competing with shoppers. It is just not a plan for creating harmony among
your community particularly at 4 in the afternoon when not only commuters are trying to
go but also people are shopping for soccer things for their kids practice that evening at
5:30. So clearly on a two way you would to really rethink what this zone looks like.
Again with two way or even one way you have got to be careful what this old town, is
that something that you really want to promote. If so you need to think it through and
create the kinds of incentives that would promote those issues. Before we get to
questions I would just like to throw a couple of pictures. Well I may have to (inaudible)
Meridian City Council •
August 19, 1997
Page 7
what I want to show is two views of E. 1~ Street that shows you the two potential futures
but it looks like one potential future took a hike. This picture is actually fairly consistent
with one way couplets and I can show that quickly by this is your downtown Pine Street.
This is Nampa with their auto parks, they have actually done a nice job, you can see the
zoning or the traffic calming infrastructure much like yours that they have put in. Then
here is the Twin Falls couplet and again they have done no street improvements other
than the off street parking for the whole length of downtown that is all just one large
parking lot. So when you look at the density you have to realize what they have done is
they have taken out that potential commercial and put it into parking for Main Street.
But you look at these and each one, here we have the old canal building that is now an
attorneys office, it is very high commercial not retail along their one way couplet. They
have their City Hall on it, they have of course their post office and what not. I think it
compares with the kinds of development that occurs on a two way and this is what you
see. And actually if you take a photograph or go up and stand on your Stinker station
just south of Franklin it wilt not look that different than this. You start to see this kind of
auto dependent infrastructure being built up on East 1~ Street. It is certainly possible
and you will get more of that on a no action alternative. There is nothing wrong with this.
Twin Falls is proud of this street and it is a real retail generator for them. This thing
makes money for everybody, but it may not be in the location that you desire. Here is
Vista, I remember it all being residential and frankly walking it was a real surprise to me
at the number of residential homes that have disappeared literally in the last 18 months,
it has hit that spark and it is going. There are three new hotels on there, amini-mall
being built a new office structure and they are just tearing out the houses. The houses
have lost their useful life and now they are moving through. What you see on two ways
is there will be the set back the large parking and the aggressive commercial. Now
Boise, Vista Avenue is a little different because of the airport and they are actually
catering to that particular business there. This is the street it is all going to happen to. It
won't be next year the day you put it in but you wilt see, this street will be the one that is
impacted in all. I think you can through proper strategies maintain your E. 1s~ Street as a
viable commercial center. This is the road that you have to pay attention to. What is
your vision for it down the road. Of course that is what this last statement is here. That
when you get down to it the zoning creates the flavor and the look of an area. You have
to remember that the zoning must be somewhat close to the highest and best use of the
land or the land owners will thwart your best intentions. They just will. With that I am
happy to open up for questions and discussion. So thank you very much.
Corrie: Thank you David, questions Council?
Rountree: I just have a comment, thanks for the economics 101 it was very informative.
Thank you to ACHD for listening to us to take a look at this issue. 1 have no questions.
Come: Thank you David, very informative. I appreciate you taking the time and talking
to us and the report as well.
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 8
Eberlie: Thank you Mr. Mayor, I would just like to leave the final word that there is no
such thing as a dumb question and they do arise on the report please feed them
through ACHD and I will be more than happy to try to get those answers back. Like 1
say there is no such thing as a dumb question.
Corrie: I am intrigued with the Meridian Road and the different R-4 and L-O and R-8's
that is very true and I am intrigued with that. Thank you. Does ACRD have any further
comment for Council?
Rosenlund: Probably should go over the time line a little bit. Again we are meeting, 1
assume we are meeting this Thursday our Commission is meeting with you on a work
session to discuss this issue. Then the intend on taking the issue up at a night meeting
on September 3rd to make their final decision on this. There is some urgency to it, we
have our 95°r6 completed plans on the Meridian Road project. The section from Central
to Franklin. If the decision is to go to a Meridian Road widening to five lane we are
probably going to push that project off and just kind of step back and do a redesign so
we can have the five lanes. There is no use in building a three lane road if we are going
to come back within a few years and make a five lane road out of it. What that would
mean would be to, we would have to take a look at where that money would go. We
probably would look to see where else that money would be spent within Meridian and
kind of re-shuffle some of the long range projects that we have for any road project, if
Meridian is to go to a five lane and project that we would probably have to do it
sometime within 8 years. It is not, that type of project is not in the five year program
right now so it would probably be in that five to eight year range. If we go with the
couplet option we, I think that. is something possibly for you and our Commission to
discuss. The timing of that, we could do that fairly soon actually having basically three
lanes on East 1~ and two lanes on Meridian Road and that would work as well for at
least there again for the eight years and we could, at some time within the eight year
design a project to complete the road improvements on Meridian Road. So I guess any
other questions I will try to answer them.
Morrow. Point of Garification, you are indicating to us that if the decision by the Council
is to endorse a five lane street section on Meridian Road then that delay the entire
Franklin Road project?
Rosenlund: No not the Franklin Road project, just the Meridian Road project. We have
two projects Franklin Road and Meridian Road. We would go ahead with Franklin Road,
we would have to look at redesigning the Franklin Meridian intersection but we can do
that as vve are going forward with Franklin Road improvements or Franklin Meridian
intersection. But it doesn't seem wise to go in and build the Meridian Road section of
that project if within a relatively short period of time within about 8 years we would be in
there widening it out another two lanes. The Franklin Road project is on schedule and it
is rolling. We are acquiring right of way for both project and at this point we intend to do
both. But i say the Meridian Road section south of Franklin will probably be delayed if
we do decide to widen Meridian Road out to Five lanes. I say it would be wasting quite a
Meridian City Council •
August 19, 1997
Page 9
bit of money to build all of that and then have to tear out all of the curb, sidewalk and
probably move utilities twice instead of once and that type of thing.
Morrow. I have a follow up question Mr. Mayor, funding for Meridian road expansion
would be from?
Rosenlund: We are looking at if we were to do the whole five lane road section that
would be a combination of the impact fees and ACHD's normal capital budget, same as
any other project.
Morrow. So the impact fees would be used for that would have to come from some
other area that is already paid those impact fees is that correct?
Rosenlund: Right, we would, as a matter of fact, what we would be doing with Meridian
Road, the money from Meridian Road project this year if we don't do it we would be
looking to use those impact fees somewhere else in Meridian and push up some other
project within Meridian and get those fees spent. As Meridian grows we will be
collecting new impact fees that would help support building Meridian Road in the future.
Morrow. We are currently budgeting within the five year work plan some of which is
unfunded. However the impact fees that have been paid by all of the residences along
Ten Mile and Locust Grove in the residential subdivision development on each side of
those roads and those are the impact fees that are going into the pot that are funding
Rosenlund: All of the impact fees within Meridian's area of impact is going into it. As
Meridian grows 1 say we take those monies and use them as each project comes up.
Morrow. So we still have some projects then that even though the impact fees have
been adjacent to them in development in the course of the ground adjacent to them are
still unfunded projects at this point.
Rosenlund: That is correct, we don't just because a development occurs along a given
road doesn't mean that the impact fees will go to that adjacent road. It will be used
somewhere within. Those funds are arterial improvements within the impact zone, not
necessarily on the adjacent street.
Morrow. Thank you
Rountree: Just a point of clarification in the review of the tip for Ada County and
ACHD's projects it does not include any project related to this specific issue at this
point in time is that correct?
Rosenlund: Right
Rountree: So it will be some time
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 10
Rosenlund: At this point it would be outside of five years. Our five year work program
we are trying to hold as you know it is fairly fluid, it tends to change each year. But vre
are trying to hold the line, committing to the first three years within that five year
program to try and make sure those projects go. Anything beyond that three is
somewhat fluid and is adjusted based on projected revenues. Your transportation task
force has input into that as well as the Council itself. It is possible that other projects
could be moved up earlierin the process based on overall needs.
Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you, does the Council wish to have further
discussion of this rather than voting tonight?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, it seems to me to be appropriate that Mr. Rosenlund has indicated
that we do have a work session with the Commissioners on Thursday and that their
meeting on .the 3`d of September to take a formal action. It seems like it would be
appropriate for us to take a formal position on the second, our meeting on the second of
September.
Come: Any further discussion Council?
Rountree: I don't have any difficulty with that, I would like to have an opportunity to
further review the economic impact analysis and have the opportunity to talk to Mr.
Eberlie through ACRD again.
Tolsma: I agree with that
Corrie: Hearing that we will then move on.
ITEM #2: TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: ORDINANCE #760 -COMMISSIONS,
BOARDS, COMMITTEES:
Corrie: Does the Council wish to have this Ordinance, are you prepared to vote on
Ordinance #760 tonight?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, 1 am not sure whether or not we discussed all of the changes that
were made on this final one. I don't recall it being discussed in a planning session on
these final changes.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I believe a good number of these changes were discussed but I
have at least three I guess what could be considered minor comments or possible
con•ections that I would like considered before vve vote. I would not be opposed to
deferring action on this until we have an opportunity to see it again in a planning
session.
Morrow What are your minor suggestions if I may ask?
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 11
Rountree: Well we have a year entry on page 2, item B that needs to be filled in. We
need to decide what are the number of years we want there. In paragraph 4-106 I have
no particular problem with that but at this point that precludes positions on Planning and
Zoning it appears or maybe it doesn't but that is a point of clarification I would like
made. That would limit two consecutive terms.
Morrow. That is 12 years on P & Z
Rountree: That is something we didn't discuss I don't believe. That is just something I
picked up in the review. I guess my last concern is in paragraph 4-107 it seems that we
might be a bit overboard in our approach to handling disqualification for cause on
committees and commissions but I would like to have some discussion with the
Counselor on that if that is the level of effort that we might need in that situation. Down
to and including hearings and attorneys and that sort of thing.
Corrie: With that in mind
Bentley: With the changes that Mr. Rountree has spoken of, I would like to see this
tabled so we can go over these things at our next planning session and get this cleaned
up so we can vote on it. So I would make that motion.
Rountree: Second
Come: Motion is made and seconded that we table Ordinance #760 until the September
2"d meeting to have further discussion on the ordinance, is there any further discussion?
All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: ORDINANCE #761 -TRAFFIC SAFETY
COMMISSION:
Corrie: I believe that we have the same thing here, I was talking with Council President
Mr. Morrow. I believe the verbiage here has some problems in it too.
Morrow. There are some technical issue with respect to that Mr. Mayor and I would like
to see us table that so that those technical issues can be resolved. I guess the caution
to the Council is that we have been working on some of those ordinances now as long
as nine months. The issue is that we need to get them resolved, taken care of and
adopted and (End of Tape) get your comments in so that we can discuss them, give the
City Attorney his directions at the planning session so that we can put these to rest for
once and for all and not continue to work on them past the point of memory.
Corrie: Do I hear a motion, was that a motion?
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 12
Morrow. Yes
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to table Ordinance #761, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: FINAL PLAT FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION NO. 6, 37 LOTS BY RAMON & MARILYN YORGASON:
Corrie: For the audience's information there was a request that from the developer that
item be tabled until the next meeting as well. Council?
Tolsma: I move to table.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Tolsma, second by Mr. Rountree to table Item #4, any
further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Also, just for the audience's information item #10 on the agenda has also been
requested by the developer to table to the next meeting that is the preliminary plat for
Sherbrooke Hollow Subdivision by Westpark Co. So if anybody is here just for that one
you are welcome to stay but just for your information that will probably be tabled as well
as it comes down.
ITEM #5: TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997: REQUEST FOR HOOK-UP TO CITY SEWER
FOR 3195 N. CINDER BY GARY AND MARGARET PALMER:
Corrie: That was tabled to this meeting, is Mr. or Mrs. Palmer here this evening?
Palmer: The reason we are requesting this is for a temporary living permit for my wife's
folks. We are on the understanding that since we are within 300 feet of the sewer that
we couldn't put another septic system in anyway.
Corrie: Your request then is to be hooked up to the City.
Palmer: They would be hooked up to the City, it is just for the temporary living quarters
not our personal home.
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 13
Come: Council questions?
Morrow. Mr. Palmer you are aware of the double fees and you are agreeable to those
and that situation?
Palmer: Yes we are
Rountree: How temporary is temporary?
Palmer: Well that depends on how long they make it I guess, I can't answer that.
Rountree: So it is like a life estate situation?
Palmer: Correct, yes.
Corrie: Any further Comm®nts or questions?
Rountree: Would you be opposed to hooking up your own residence to Ciry sewer?
Palmer: We figured on doing the one hook up just because we figured that within time
the temporary living quarters wouldn't be there anyway so we could hook up to the
same hook up there or within (inaudible) within time we will be in the City and be forced
to hook up anyway since vre are right on the comer of Ustick and Linder. We just see
no reason to put in another septic system in there.
Morrow. Can I have Gary Smith's comments please?
Corrie: Mr. Smith, any comments of staff?
Smith: Mr. mayor and Councilmen, the only comment I might have is the house across
the street to the north of these folks is also connected to the sewer and the came
through the process on a request and were granted permission by this Council not this
Council but by the Council. I believe they also had a temporary living quarters on that
property that is connected to the sewer.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, if I recall Gary, do you have any objection to this from an
engineering standpoint everything is okay?
Smith: No objection to it, I don't believe that a stub was provided to the property, I will
have to look at the record drawings.
Palmer: From what 1 understand there is, the stub is already there, there are two
separate stubs there that are not being used.
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 14
Smith: That is good then because the sewer is kind of deep in that area. No other
comments.
Cowie: Thank you Mr. Smith. Anything else? Thank you very much.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the hook up for Gary and Margaret
Palmer at 3195 N. Linder.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Crookston advises me that I should have had a sentence in
there indicating that they need to pay the double hookup fees.
Tolsma: I will approve that amendment.
Cowie: The amended motion then on the double hook up to be added to that, any
further discussion?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, Mr. Palmer will need to come into Public Works and
pick up and application, fill that out. I don't know if they are aware of that before they
make this connection or not but that is where the fees are paid and the application is
filled out.
Corrie: The amended motion has been made and seconded, any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Cowie: So if you go into Mr. Smith's office, they will take care of that for you.
ITEM #Ei: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR DAKOTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION BY MAX BOESIGER INC.:
Cowie: Council, you have the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the variance
request, questions or discussion? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on the findings
of fact and conclusions.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that City Council approve these findings of fact and
conclusions.
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 15
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve these findings of fad and conclusions
of law, roll cal vote.
ROLL CAL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Absent, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, it is hereby decided that the variance from the R-4 street frontage
of 80 feet and the required maximum block length of 1000 lineal feet are hereby
granted.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the decision, any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE FOR
BENITON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY:
Corrie: Council, you have those findings of fad before you.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the City Attorney, I have two sets of findings,
is there a difference between the two, I couldn't find one at first glance.
Crookston: Not to my knowledge.
Rountree: (Inaudible) in another item tonight I think it was just a doubling copying from
my review of the two, but I would hope in the future that we can avoid having to do that.
Crookston: I don't know anything about the copying but the original should be as I wrote
it.
Corrie: I went through both of them, they are exactly the same.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the findings of fad and conclusions
of law that are attached to the Meridian Ciry Council meeting form, identified at item #7.
Morrow. Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow, any further discussion?
Roll tali vote.
Meridian City Council •
August 19, 1997
Page 16
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea, Bentley -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Cowie: Entertain a motion for the decision.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that it is decided the variance applied for are hereby
granted, but the applicant shall meet these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Tolsma: Second
Cowie: Motion is made and seconded on the decision as read, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: ORDINANCE #767 -MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REZONE:
Cowie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH
IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE SW %. OF THE SW'/, OF SECTION 1, T.3N,
R.1 W OF BOISE MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Is there anyone here from the audience who would like to have Ordinance #767 on the
rezone annexation ordinance of the Meridian Assembly of God read in entirety?
Hearing none 1 will entertain a motion from the Council.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor 1 move that we adopt Ordinance #767 with suspension of rules.
Tolsma: Second
Cowie: Motion has been made and seconded that we adopt Ordinance #767 with
suspension of rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea, Bentley -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: ORDINANCE #768 - SHERBROOKE HOLLOW ANNEXATION:
Cowie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THE S'/, SW %., SECTION
20. T.3N, R.1 E, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 17
Ordinance #768 of Sherbrooke Hollow Subdivision read in its entirety? Hearing none I
will entertain a motion for its acceptance or rejection.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve Ordinance #768 with suspension of
rules.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to accept Ordinance #768
with the suspension of rules, any further discussion? Roll call vote
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea, Bentley -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHERBROOKE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION BY
WESTPARK COMPANY; TABLED AUGUST 5, 1997:
Corrie: As I mentioned it was requested to be tabled by the Sherbrooke Hollow
Subdivision planners. Council, I will entertain a motion.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, 1 would move that we table item #10 the preliminary plat for
Sherbrooke Hollow Subdivision by Westpark Company as requested by Briggs
Engineering.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table item #10 until the September 2nd
meeting, any further discussion?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor the motion may have erred in terms of who asked for the table,
could we have Shari comment please?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council the staff was the one that requested per the memo that
you got tonight requested that it be tabled to clear up some of the items. They haven't
applied for a variance yet on some things that they were requested to apply for a
variance on. They are also missing some soil profiles and some information on the
ground water. I believe that in order for that plat to be approved we would need to see a
revised copy of it that incorporates some of the staff and agency comments particularly
the relocation of a road onto Locust Grove.
Morrow My motion was incorrect and I wish to withdraw it.
Tolsma: Withdrawthe second.
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 18
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Morrow for catching that.
Morrow: At this juncture then I would like to request a table for the planner Briggs
Engineering to provide the data as requested by staff so that vre can have a hearing
covering those items for the preliminary plat for Sherbrooke Hollow subdivision by
Westpark Company.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma on the motion, was there a
date certain there Mr. Moroov/?
Morrow. September 2nd please.
Corrie: Alright, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: ORDINANCE #769 -HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 ANNEXATION:
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE S '/s
OF THE NW '/< SECTION 11, T.3N. R. 1W, BOISE MERIDIAN, IDAHO AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone here .from the audience that
would like to have Ordinance #769 for the Haven Cove No. 7 Meridian Land
Development read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion from the
Council.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, 1 would move that we adopt Ordinance #769 with the suspension of
rules.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea, Bentley -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Council with your approval I would like to switch 13 to 12 and 12 to 13. I think we
need the findings of fact and conclusions of law for variance before the preliminary plat
is that correct Counselor?
Crookston: That would be preferable.
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 19
ITEM #13: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 BY MERIDIAN LAND
DEVELOPMENT CO.:
Corrie: I will entertain a motion whenever you are ready?
Morrow. These are also the ones with the double findings.
Rountree: And again I didn't find any difference.
Corrie: What we found here I think Council is the Counselor brings them down and puts
them in the boxes sometimes Anna sees it and doubles it and puts them again.
Morrow. it is not a major issue, we can work our way through it.
Come: I went through the whole thing and it is comma to comma.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City Council adopts and approves the
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Morrow. Second
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow-Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea, Bentley -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Is there a motion for the decision?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law it
is decided that the application for variance from sections 11-2-410, 11-9-605 M, and 11-
9-605 Eare granted. But the applicant must meet the distances and footages that
applicant represented would be met whether inGuded in these findings of fact and
conclusions of law or just stated in the application at the public meeting.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision as read,
any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
August 19, 1997
Page 20
ITEM #12: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 BY
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO.:
Corrie: Is a representative from the Haven Cove Subdivision here tonight? Mr. Eddy
would you like to come up and answer any questions that we might have on this?
(Inaudible) Council's decision on the preliminary plat then?
Morrow. Shari you have a comment?
Stiles; Mr. Mayor and Council I just wanted to make sure that you are referring to the
revised plat that has been received that shows the R-4 culdesac off of Pine instead of
the R-15.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Haven Cove
Subdivision No. 7 by Meridian Land Development Company, that would be the plat that
Ms. Stiles has indicated that we will call the revised plat and have it subject to all staff
conditions.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree for the preliminary plat
approval, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON THE LANGELY
DITCH BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Corrie: Is there a representative from Brighton Corporation here tonight?
Mike Tanner, 12426 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tanner: Mayor and Council this is kind of a clean up measure from a ditch that we tiled
last fall with phase one of Ashford Greens Subdivision. At the time we put it in we were
not aware that there was an ordinance relating to maximum distances between
manholes or clean out structures in pipelines, an ordinance by the Council. We found
that out with phase 2 and we do have in working with Mr. Gary Smith the City Engineer
we have agreed to put in one manhole, an additional manhole or dean out structure and
then request a variance from this Council for two other distances to exceed the
ordinance by 100 feet approximately a piece. In other words to be 500 feet between
clean out structures rather than an ordinance mandating 400 feet. Reasons for that or
two or three and I would just like to share that with you. Number one we have a pipe line
in a ditch that is fully accessible on it entire length. And Tallimore Btvd. which is the
major blvd. going in from Black Cat Road all the way back to the east to the stub house
this irrigation ditch is tiled in the common area just right adjacent on the south side of
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 21
this right of way. Fully accessible for Leaning, for repair, for whatever purposes. So it is
not a situation where we have a ditch that winds between back yards, it jogs at lot lines,
it is difficult to get into and I think that is the major reason maybe why the ordinance
would speak to a 400 foot length. Another reason is that the flow characteristics with
less clean outs, less manholes, are increased the losses are actually reduced, it is
capable of carrying more water. This is good of course for all the users in the ditch. We
actually get a better pipeline. It is good engineering practices to lengthen those
manholes if you have access and the ability to access for repair and maintenance of the
ditch. We do have cleaning equipment now that will go six to seven hundred feet,
standard by any of our Roto-Rooter, Master Rooter services that can access that right
there at Talimore Boulevard and clean that from manhole to manhole. And additionally I
would say that this is something that is approved and acceptable by both of the users
on the ditch. Those two users are Mr. Dean Langley and Brighton Corporation because
we have co-mingled our waters and we carry our pressure irrigation water in this ditch
down to where we divide it and we pressurize it and we pump it through our pressure
irrigation system and divide it there with Mr. Langley. We have worked well with him,
he, we certainly have let him know fully what is going on and tried to take care of him
and all of his irrigating interests. He has been pleased so far with everything that we
have done. So we do feel like Mayor and Council that this is under these circumstances
it is a good situation, now a bad situation, kind of a clean up item from this past phase
and we ask your approval on this particular variance.
Corrie: Thank you, any questions of the Council? Is there anyone else from the public
that would like to issue testimony in this public hearing?
Rountree: 1 had a question of staff, Gary does this pose a technical problem?
Smith: No it doesn't.
Corrie: Council, any further discussion? I will close the public hearing.
Morrow Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attomey to prepare findings
of fact and conclusions of law for the variance on the Langley ditch by Brighton
Corporation.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to direct the City Attorney
to draw up findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 22
ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL RETAIL
PURPOSES BY KZ HOLDINGS LLC - SE CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE AND
FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
Corrie: Is a representative ftom KZ Holdings LLC here this evening?
Patterson: Mr. Mayor and Council thank you for seeing me here tonight. What we
would like to do is a request for a conditional use permit for retail Hollywood Video at
the corner of Locust Grove and Fairview Avenue per the plans and elevations that we
have submitted. And also per the recommendations of the Planning Commission as
well as the ACHD that we have been given. I am open to any questions that you have
for me this evening.
Corrie: Any questions for Mr. Patterson? Council you have the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared for you by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I have questions for both Gary and Shari. You are satisfied that all
of the staff conditions and all of your requests have been satisfied, Shari?
Stiles: Coundlman Morrow, Mayor and Council, although you have been given a new
site plan I believe that was incorporating some of the changes requested by Ada County
Highway DisUict. Some of the spedfic requirements we discussed at the Planning and
Zoning Commission have not been incorporated in that new plan and that we would
need to refine that during the building permit process. Part of it was having some kind of
pedestrian access through this site. The only sidewalk they have currently is on Locust
Grove and Fairview. We asked for some kind of interconnection to at least get to the
building from those sidewalks as well as a bicycle rack and the landscaping we would
like to review during the building permit process. So it is not merely in the dumps that is
indicated on the current plan before you. Another thing they had requested was some
kind of revision to the existing development agreement. But I think the testimony that
was given at the Planning and Zoning Commission that D & B did plan to complete at
least the improvements on Fairview Avenue as far as curb, gutter or the sidewalk and I
believe they were only intending to complete Locust Grove was only going to be
adjacent to this parcel. I don't believe they planned on extending that to Wilson Lane at
this time. Bill Geyer may want to address those items. It is a little deceiving because
kind of what you have what you are looking at is not really what all has been discussed
on this project.
Geyer: Bill Geyer, I represent the Schrandt Family Limited Partnership. What she was
referring to, we had a couple of items that came up at the Planning Commission
hearing. Vis-a-vis the sidewalk access to the building as well as some landscaping
changes and these guys are the buyers or our property they have agreed to make those
changes. As far as the improvement we wanted to make sure that it is known that we
will be completing the sidewalk from where it ends down at D & B at the west property
line all the way around the comer and down past the curb cut the driveway entrance
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 23
down to on Locust Grove. The balance of it will be completed when the back of the
property is sold. We are kind of on the pay as you go program or would like to be.
Rountree: I guess a question in response to what you just said that based on an
illustration here a sidewalk would be provided on parcel 3 at such time that is sold?
Geyer: Three and four at such time as it is sold. I should say at such time that it is sold
and developed. We meant to actually have a future phase on that bottom half to put on
the map so it wouldn't be so confusing but somehow it didn't make it on the map.
Rountree: Well it is there but it is still confusing.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as
prepared for us by P & Z.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the findings of
fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the Planning and Zoning, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Rountree Yea, Tolsma -Yea, Bentley -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, it is the decision of the City Council of the City of Meridian that it
approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described
in the application with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of
law andlor similar conditions as found justified as expressed by Planning and Zoning
Director Stiles by the Ciry Council. That the property be required to meet the water and
sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, Uniform Fire Code, Parking, paving,
and landscape requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional
use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. The applicant if
determined by City staff to be necessary shall enter into a addendum to the
development entered into by the City and D & B Supply which was entered into as a
result of the annexation of the property into the City of Meridian.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Rountree on the decision and
recommended as read, atl those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: USTICK BAPTIST CHURCH SEWER ALTERNATIVES:
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 24
Come: Is a representative of the church here?
Densley: Mayor and Council, my name is Tom Densley, 1 am here as a member of
Ustick Baptist church. We have bought ten acres on McMillan that abuts up against
Madison Avenue Park and we are planning on building a church there. What we are
looking at right now is what alternatives we have for sewer. We would like to know what
is the City's planning bringing sewer down McMillan and what our possible altematives
could be. We are right across the street from a Boise City manhole. Boise has said that
it would be a gravity that they have the capacity so we were just looking at all of the
options. So I wanted to come in front of you and let you know what we were thinking
and find out what exactly maybe your plans are.
Morrow. 1 guess Mr. Mayor if I might, Mr. Densley where we are currently at is as you
are probably aware of this is that we are discussing with the Ada County
Commissioners what is going to become of that property for the area of impact. I guess
that, I would like to defer offering an opinion as to what we may or may not do until
those negotiations are concluded. It appears that it will be somewhere around the end
of September when that decision has taken place. Obviously if the decision is to have
that area in our area of impact then you would be dealing with us as a City in terms of
how we are going to choose to service that with sewer and other alternatives. If the
decision by the Commissioners is not to put it in any area of impact then that kind of
puts you in no man's ground for the time being and I don't know what your step would
be, 1 suspect it would be to talk to Boise about doing it on a temporary basis. So at this
juncture I think it is premature as a Council to have a discussion about something that
we don't know much more about than you know. It appears that within about 40 days
we should have that answer.
Corrie: Would that be alright to your time table by September 24"'?
Densley: Yes sir it would.
ITEM #17: SANITARY SERVICES UPDATE INFORMATION:
Corrie: Mr. Alidjani?
Alidjani: Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen Council, City Attorney and Mr. Will Berg, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of you tonight. There has been some
changes or will be a possibility of some changes on the stockholder of Sanitary Service.
Tonight I have brought with me my attorney that has represented Sanitary Services in
the past and also my two partners Mr. Bill Gregory and Steven Sedtaceck that you have
already met before and also the Johnson family, Diane Johnson, Joe Johnson and
Relene Johnson. They are the potential, they have some interest in my business and 1
have gone to their operation in North Idaho approximately area of Moscow and
Lewiston. I have seen their operation for the last year. They have done a great job over
there and I believe that, with your blessing that you would be in good hands service
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 25
wise and they would make some presentation to you tonight. If there are any questions t
would be glad to answer at a later time.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I have a very crucial question? Are these Johnson people Vandal
fans?
Alidjani: I will let them answer that.
Come: They assured me in my office that they were BSU 100%. Any questions for Mr.
Alidjani? Thank you Moe. Mr. Johnson?
Johnson: Hello I am Joe Johnson, and as Moe said our family is interested in
purchasing stock in Sanitary Services. We are very excited about the opportunity of
coming down here and providing services for your community. Providing everything
works out but it is looking pretty good. We left some packets here a couple of weeks
ago when we were in that gave a brief history and some of the highlights of our
companies over the years. I hope you have had a chance to look them over or see
some things in there. But to sum it up briefly we have been in the solid waste business
for over thirty years. We are providing services now to two counties and 9
municipalities. Our company offers a full range of services. We have solid waste
collection, we offer recycling, composting, interdemolition, household hazardous waste
collection days. The full range of solid waste services that you would expect from
companies that are staying in the business and moving ahead. We didn't really make a
formal presentation or bring a bunch of stuff. We thought that maybe in the interest of
time we would just turn it over to the Council to ask us questions and we would be
happy to answer anything that you have for us.
Corrie: Any questions from Council? Bill or Steve?
Sedlack: Mayor and Council my name is Steve Sedlack, basically 1 don't have too
much to tell you that hasn't been said already. We are excited about this change. I will
be a minority owner of the business either way which sometimes is good position to be
in and sometimes it is not. Basically I believe this will help up capitalize the company to
the extent that we can keep up with the growth in the City, That has been a challenge
since April when I have been involved and it is a key issue for our company. It is
important that we obtain the financial strength we need to move forward as the City
grows. Tonight we are looking for you blessing, I understand you are not a clergy but we
are looking for some indication from you as to this change.
Corrie: Thank you Steve. Any further questions from Council, staff?
Morrow I guess I would have a question for City Attorney Crookston, by the ~ntract
that we have with Sanitary Services is there a need for the Council to approve a need in
a change in ownership or change in the way the contract is administered. Would they
be assuming the same contract with the same conditions?
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 26
Crookston: I have not reviewed the contract, but I have read it several times years ago.
As I understand it the proposal is that they purchase the stock. So it has no affect on the
agreement between Sanitary Services Inc. and the City of Meridian. It is basically the
same company, you just have new owners.
Gorrie: Mr. Rountree, any comments?
Rountree: I guess I would just like affirmation of that from Mark or Steve or Moe or Joe
or somebody.
Sedlack: I am not an attorney, as I read the contract that is exactly right, the City of
Meridian has a contract with Sanitary Service Co. it will continue to be an S chapter
corporation and it is the same tax ID number. (End of Tape) vre get fired.
Tolsma: You said that all things are staying the same even the day to day operation?
You are not going to improve that?
Sedlack: I apologize, as I mentioned the capitalization of the company will allow us to
improve the situation with the trucks and be more efficient in our operation. We should
be able to operate with fewer larger trucks which are more efficient.
Freeman: Mr. Mayor and Council, Mark Freeman attorney for Sanitary Services and
Mr. Alidjani personally. Mr. Rountree, my reading of the contract is that there is no
prohibition of transfer of the stock that basically as Steve indicated the ownership will
change, the ownership of the stock but the company is the same. I don't believe it
requires approval of the Council and we are really not here asking for approval. But just
trying to be heads up and come to the Council formally and just indicate that there are
negotiations going on. There is a potential purchaser here who has the ability we
believe to continue to provide excellent service to the City. And also I think the City has
the comfort of having some of the Shareholders, not all of the shareholders will change
is my understanding. That Mr. Sedlack and the other shareholders will also be involved
with the City. And that the City has had some opportunity or at least some of the current
relationship to see that the services are provided and I don't think they will get anything
but better. Thank you
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, question for Moe or Mark, either one, the controlling interest
would rest with the Johnson's if the transaction is completed is that my understanding?
Freeman: It would be with the Johnson's or with the corporation (inaudible).
Corrie: Any further comments or questions? Thank you for your presentation,
Johnson's, Moe, Counselor.
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 27
Johnson: Mr. Mayor and Council we wanted to let you guys know that have talked to al
of our officials. So any of you feel free to check on the references.
Tolsma: I have another question (inaudible)
(Inaudible)
ITEM #18: NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Cowie: I guess I have, Steve wouldn't you like to come fonnrard.
Bradbury: You have before you a proposed non-development agreement. I am going to
pass out a drawing that theoretically will help you understand what we are trying to do.
The proposal for the non-development agreement is to permit the Lake at Cherry Lane
Subdivision No. 4 a portion of it to be constructed and a portion of it not to be
constructed. On the map that you have in front of you, you will see an indication of
which portion is subdivision No. 4. The pink portion is the portion of the subdivision that
is proposed not to be developed at this time. The yellow portion is the portion that
would be proposed to be developed. Mr. Campbell advises me that the final plat for the
Lake at Cherry Lane No. 4 was recorded last week. What he would like to be able to do
is simply to construct the improvements for the more southerly portion of it and not for
the more northerly portion the pink part. The reason for it is simply a matter of
economics of providing and installing the sewer line. The more southerly portion of the
property the yellow is severed through those two streets and then into those blue lines
that run down into Ashford Greens. The pink portion though is severed up and through
that orange or red color. What they would have to do is they would have to construct the
sewer line in order to make it work. Construct the sewer line through the pink and then
all the way up through the orange and get it out to the existing sewer line on Black Cat.
So the hope is and the request is he be permitted to do the yellow portion. He would
also have to construct or Steiner would have to construct the lines for the blue portion
that is shown there in order to make the tie in. The non-development agreement is a
document that I drafted based upon anon-development agreement that the Council
approve for another subdivision, the name of which escapes me. I submitted a copy of
the non-development agreement to Counsel here about ten days or so ago. I don't know
if he has had an opportunity to review it. But essentially I followed the same basic
format and tried to include all the same provisions that the Council had approved
before. Do you remember what subdivision that was? (Inaudible). I got a copy just a
few moments ago of a memo that Gary Smith provided to Will making a couple of
comments, actually four of them. Number one he says that in the second paragraph of
Page 1 exhibit A is not attached. That is right, I recognize that and I brought it with me
tonight and I gave it to Gary tonight. Second, he talks about the idea that since the
subdivision is not a matter of record he was concerned about making reference to lots
by lot and block number. Well last week, since the time we submitted the non-
development agreement the subdivision plat has been recorded so I think that wrorks
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 28
now. Item #3 he says that in item 6 page three he questions whether the Council can
declare a portion of a plat as null and void. tt is a good question, I don't know and I
haven't spoken with Mr. Crookston about it. The way the non-development agreement
is drafted it provides that in the event that Steiner doesn't do what it is supposed to do
which is to hold off developing now and then it doesn't ultimately complete the
development then that portion of the plat would be declared null and void. Since I
borrowed it from Mr. Crookston, I can only say that I assume that maybe he feels
comfortable with it. It is an issue that I haven't had an opportunity to really work
through. In the last item on Gary's memo is whether or not the City Clerk should be
added to the notary statement that is fine I can make that fix fi you all would like to have
that. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Morrow. I don't have any .questions at this time, my questions would be for Mr.
Crookston.
Come: Does anybody else have any questions for Steve? Thank you Steve.
Morrow. Can you respond to the points that both Gary has raised through Mr. Bradbury
please?
Crookston: Yes, that language in Section 6 which basically states approval of the
undeveloped lots in the subdivision shall be null and void. What you are talking about is
a rejection of the plat and it is by agreement between Steiner Corporation and the City.
So I think it is completely valid to do that. The other comments by Mr. Bradbury I think
are very Satisfactory. I will say that this language about undeveloped lots in the
subdivision shall be null and void is in most of or almost all of our other non-
development agreements.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, just out of curiosity how do we go about declaring it null and void as
far as the plat that is recorded at the recorder's office. Is there a document that we
would have to file with or the City would have to file with the Ada County Recorder that
so states so they can make that part of the recorded plat record?
Crookston: Yes there would have to be something recorded. It is possible that it would
be best to have an agreement drafted and signed by both Steiner Corporation and the
City which would not necessarily be recorded at this time but could be recorded in the
event that they didn't complete the agreement. It wouldn't be recorded now, it would
just be Tike an escrow thing that could be recorded if it needed to be. It basically is that
type of agreement but it doesn't specifically state that.
Bradbury: If I may, in the last little bit there, Section 6 does specifically call out that the
City would record a statement for the approval of the undeveloped lots in the
subdivision would be voided. If what Wayne is suggesting is that we have a further
document is prepared and signed by Steiner accepting that that would be fine to.
Although I think you are right, I think Wayne is right that it wouldn't necessarily have to
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 29
have such a document. Because this non-development agreement would be set up and
it is set up and 1 anticipate would be itself recorded. So the agreement is already in
place the follow up document from the City could just say declared null and void.
Crookston: Pursuant to agreement declared null and void.
Bradbury: So I think everything is in place to make it work, of course it will never happen
because I am sure Mr. Steiner intends to fully comply with everything and build this
thing out.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion that vre authorize the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest the non-development agreement for the Lake at Cherry Lane
Subdivision No. 4 by Steiner Development subject to City Attorney Crookston, Attorney
Bradbury, and City Engineer Smith working out the procedure with respect to the non-
development issue.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the non-
development agreement for Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 4 by Steiner Development
subject to conditions as stated in the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #19: STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT -ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION:
Come: Do you have any questions on it?
Morrow. I have no questions, I guess my motion vrould be to authorize the Mayor to sign
and the Clerk to attest the street light agreement between the City of Meridian and
Ashford Greens Subdivision and Brighton Corporation.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the street light
agreement and for the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest, any further
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #20: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Corrie: Mr. Smith?
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 30
Smith: Mayor and Council the first item I have is a request from the Water Department,
I actually have two transfer of funds in the budget. I think the one that you have is from
the Waste Water Department, or do you have both? Do you have any questions
concerning the requests? 1 would therefore request that the Council approve the Waste
Water and Water Superintendent's request to transfer funds from one line item to
another.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I think I would like to do this with two separate motions. 1 would like
the first motion to simply state that we approve the request of the sewer department to
transfer special projects account 6004354075 to the grounds maintenance account of
6004354060 in the amount of $5000.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we transfer the funds from the special projects
to the grounds maintenance in the amount of $5000, any further discussion? All those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow. The second motion would be for the water department to request the transfer
of funds from the construction vehicle account 60434450-60 to the water vehicle
purchase account of 60-434503 in the amount of $19,345.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request for a transfer of water
department vehicle funds to the water vehice account in the amount of $19,3445 any
further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow did that also inGude the other request on the
transfer of funds for the construction? Thank you. I have a couple of quick items on
construction projects if 1 could them tonight. They are not on the agenda as agenda
items with your permission. The first item I have is a request for a change order on the
primary clarifier addition and I will pass this out so you can quickly review it. This is
change order number 1 to the Garifier project for Turnkey Inc. who is the general
contractor for that project. The back page of the handout shows on the left middle the
operations building, that is our existing building. Just to the right of that is the existing
fence and gate where the plat access road comes into the site. The architect is working
on the new administration building which will be located within that 160 foot dimension
shown just south of the access road. This change order would allow the existing
contractor that is out there to move the fence that is presently existing adjacent to the
operations building to the east and new location as noted by relocated fence. The price
Meridian City Council ~ •
August 19, 1997
Page 31
per foot is $13.50 and the estimate that they obtained from an independent fence
contractor was $14.25 so it is less than what wve can get it done by a fence contractor
independently. Obviously the reason to have Tumkey Inc. to do the work is that they are
there, they are doing fence work now as part of their Garifier project. The amount
requested is $4,600 to be added to their existing contract of $606,000 which brings their
new contract amount to $610,600.
Cowie: One question first, that fence will they still have the RV dump available there, to
come into that and use that?
Smith: Yes, the RV dump, the gate of course is Gosed between 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. but
that is the only time it is closed. Otherwise it is open an the night shift is there or the day
shift is there. And also this will fence in the dog pound and 1 think that John has
probably talked to Chief Gordon about that. It would put the dog pound inside the fence.
Again it would only be, the gate vwukf only be closed from 2 a.m. to 7 a.m. each day.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve change order #1 in the amount of
$4,600 to Turnkey Construction Inc. resulting in a new contract price with the change
order of $610,600.
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion is made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the change
order to Turnkey Inc. for $4600 additional for a grand total of $610,600, any further
discussion? All those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council, the second item f have is an engineering
agreement with Civil Survey Consultants that is allowing them to complete the plans for
sewer and water additions on Franklin Road and on Meridian Road as part of the ACHD
contract. They are well underway with that project, in fact they are 95% complete. For
some reason or another the agreement just didn't get to us. Well actually it got to us 1
didn't get it on the last Council agenda. I wil- pass a little information sheet out with their
agreement what they are inGuding. This agreement is for the adjustment of a water line
and the installation of a new sewer line, no sewer line, there is some sewer line in
Meridian Road south of the Eight Mile Lateral, south of Gem Avenue and adjustment of
water elsewhere on Meridian Road because of the cut and elevation of the road and
new sewer in Franklin Road from it is just about Farmer's Club west to Eight Mile
Lateral and then from Linder Road east to I think Mr. Schlekeway's place out in that
area and that sewer would flow to the east. The other sewer would flow east and west
ultimately going north through the, it used to be the Hoff property, I guess I will always
call it that, but now it is, I think still Hoff and it goes north through the Hoff property along
the east side of the Hoff property and dumps into a manhole at the Dairyman's near
Taylor. Anyway, all of those improvements are as noted in their letter of explanation.
Meridian City Council
August 19, 1997
Page 32
The next to the last paragraph on page three is their basis, their fee, time and material
basis with a not to exceed of $18,400. 1 do not have an estimated construction cost for
you at this time.
Morrow: What you are asking us then to approve is this proposal, design proposal for
Civil Survey Consultants in the amount of $18,400 not to exceed $18,400.
Smith: Yes sir
Rountree: Gary, on the amount of the work, is that consistent with your independent
appraisal of what the work entails?
Smith: Yes, they have been really good with their cost, their per man hour cost is
substantially less than other consultants and they are very efficient and they provide a
good product so we have been very pleased with their work in the past. They have been
doing all of our well houses for us for example, parking lot design on Pine Street, Tully
Park.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, 1 would move that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to
attest a design services contract, time and material not to exceed $18,400 between the
City of Meridian and Civil Survey Consultants Inc.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve of $18,400 not
to exceed that amount to design services for the water system improvement, any
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Just an item of interest or information we have an Eagle Scout that is wanting to
do a project in the City of painting fish signs on storm drain inlets around time. It is
similar to what is going on in downtown Boise to let people know that the water that
goes into the storm drain does end up in the river to eliminate some dumping of of-s and
gases etc. They will be asking the City or this Eagle Scout candidate will be asking the
City for about $100 to cover supplies which would include stencil's and paint and
informational brochures. It apparently would be an ongoing project. They contacted
Assistant Engineer Brad Watson and Brad suggested that they pen a letter to Mayor
Corrie and request and explain this project and request your approval to let them do
this. So that will be coming, it sounded like a worthwhile project to both Brad and I.
Thank you, do you have any questions on anything that we are doing that I can answer?
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 33
Rountree: Gary, I just had one question, what is the close date on the proposals for
Tully?
Smith: 1 believe September 11 is bid opening. After I talked to Brad a little bit more
about it, he was concerned that as complex a project as it is and there are a lot of parts
and pieces to it, that if we cut it off even a week shorter that he was afraid that the
contractors wouldn't take the time. Especially with the Labor Day holiday the first part of
September.
Cowie: Shari?
Stiles: This policy was adopted two or three years ago, it has an annual publication
requirement. If it had a resolution number on it 1 wasn't able to find that before the
meeting tonight. It is a resolution of the City of Meridian adopting a policy of non-
discrimination on the basis of disability in accordance with the section 504 of the
rehabilitation Act of 1973 which requires that no otherv~rise qualified individual with
handicaps in the United States shall solely on the basis of his or her handicap be
excluded from participation, be denied the benefits of or be subject to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal Assistance. And that the City has
received a grant and failure to comply with the terms of this act could result in our losing
the grant or declare us ineligible for future grants. It requires the City to make sure that
all programs or activities are accessible to and usable by qualified persons with
disabilities. It requires the City to undergo an evaluation and make revisions or
modifications to existing policies and programs. And that if building modifications are
required that the City will implement a transition plan for the elimination of those
structural barriers. I would ask that it also designates myself as Planning and Zoning
Administrator for people to be able to call for any assistance or questions. The City has
budgeted I believe $10,000 or $5,000 toward elimination of some of these structural
barriers. The City put in the new automatic door up front, that was part of that. I would
ask that you adopt this policy so that I can publish that in the paper.
Cowie: Any questions of Shari or what she is requesting on the resolution? I will
entertain a motion to approve the resolution.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City Council adopt the policy resolution
regarding non-discrimination on the basis of disability and authorize the Mayor to sign
and the clerk to attest.
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion made and second that we adopt the resolution, adopting a policy of non-
discrimination on the basis of disability, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 34
Stites: I would also like to update you on the new employees. I received 26 applications
for the planner and 47 applications for the P & Z secretary. Dean Elhert our Code
Enforcement Officer was one of the applicants for the Planning position. I did after
consulting with the Mayor offer him one of the Planning positions. He had been offered
a job at Central District Health Department and would have been leaving us. I think
Dean has done a good job with the City, he has been very conscientious and was glad
to be able to give him that opportunity to advance. So, I will be interviewing either late
this week or next week for the other planning position. We will be advertising for the
Code Enforcement Officer and also get the secretary in here. So I am looking for my
space.
Morrow. And you are going to get your space October 1'~
Stiles: That is it, any questions?
Corrie: Thank you, Chief Gordon?
Gordon: Nothing
Corrie: Counselor'?
Crookston: Yes, Red Canyon Corporation and the lease that the City has. That
agreement, the lease agreement has not been executed I can't recall the owners name,
Gerber. I talked to him, 1 changed the lease pursuant to the suggestion by ICRMP and
he approves of the lease. So 1 think that the lease is capable of being executed by the
City and I would encourage the City to do so since we have been paying lease money
on it for four months or five months. I think we should have the agreement executed.
Corrie: Wayne, looking at that what did you change?
Crookston: I changed the language about
Corrie: Is that the one that the tenants hold harmless?
Crookston: Yes, it is indemnification and hold harmless, that is what I changed. It is on
page 8, paragraph 12. And ICRMP also approved it.
Corrie: I guess if the Council wish me to sign that agreement then
Morrow. 1 would move that upon final approval by City Attorney Crookston that we enter
into the lease agreement with Red Canyon Corporation and Lloyd Gerber for the
property on 217 E. Pine and East 2nd, the corner of East 2n° and Pine Street.
Authorizing the Mayor to sign and the clerk to attest that agreement.
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 35
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the agreement for 217
E. Pine, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Cowie: Counselor I would like for you to see me in the morning on that. Mr. Morrow?
Morrow. The only thing that I have is that we do need to make a budget move or
authorize the transfer of the $5000 for the train study to the Meridian High Speed
committee, Sprinter committee.
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion made and seconded that we transfer the sprinter fund to the committee
for $5000, any further discussion? Atl those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Cowie: Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Wayne or Will either one answer this question about the language ftom
ICRMP on the agreement with St. Luke's, do you have that? It would be nice if we had
that agreement signed before they started using it.
Crookston: I agree, I talked to Mr. Thurgood and he was out of town. He said that he
was going to call me yesterday and he did not. So 1 was working with him on the St.
Luke's deal and the Gerber lease. We had the Gerber lease worked out but there are
still some things hanging there on St. Luke's. I think it is the same idea.
Rountree: It is the same thing about indemnification. Iwould make a motion that the
Council authorizes the Mayor to sign and Clerk attest the lease agreement with St.
Luke's on their 20 acre parcel for Meridian Youth Athletic complex conditioned on the
resolve of the ICRMP insurability clause.
Morrow Second
Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second
the City Clerk to attest the 20 acre parcel
statement, all those in favor? Opposed?
by Mr. Morrow on the Mayor to sign and
with the condition of ICRMP's approval
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council • •
August 19, 1997
Page 36
Cowie: Charlie I also have, Dr. Patton brought me some material on the pathway on
Tully Park and I have got that for you. Dr. David Patton, he is the contact with Bureau
of Reclamation, it is a letter it says that we can have it all we have to do is follow the
outline. I have that for you and I was going to give it to you today. They want us to have
it, regardless of who says anything they o~nm it and they want us to give it to us.
Rountree: (Inaudible)
Cowie: Simunich we will have another discussion with him. Anything else? Mr. Tolsma?
Tolsma: Nothing
Cowie: City Clerk? I need a motion to go into Executive Session.
Morrow. So moved
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion made and seconded to go into Executive Session, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Cowie: We are back from Executive Session, no decisions were made at that point,
whatever we discussed we will bring in the next meeting. I will entertain a motion to
adjourn.
Rountree: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
Meridian City Council •
August 19, 1997
Page 37
ATTEST:
C-~~~
ERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
G. BERG, JR., CI C RK ~~L
'~, q ,~P ,
• CHANGE ORDER •
No. 1
Date: 8/12/97
PROJECT:
OWNER:
Primary Clarifier Addition
NAME & ADDRESS
CONTRACTOR:
CONTRACT FOR:
ENGINEER:
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
AUG t 9 1997
CITY ~F I~ERI~}~1~~
Turn-Kev. Inc.
Primary Clarifier Addition
Keller Associates, Inc.
ENGINEER'S PROJECT NO: 196030-003
You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents:
Description: Fencing revisions as shown on the attached drawing and description
Purpose of the Change Order: Relocate existing fence beyond the new administration buildino
Attachments: (List Documents supporting change)
1. Turnkey Quote
2. KA Revision Description
Change Order
(Rev 4/89)
~i
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: $ 606.000
Original Contract Price: $ None
Previous Change Orders No. _
to No. $ 606.000
Contract Price prior to this
Change Order $ 4.600
Net Increase of this
Change Order $ 610.600
Contract Price with all approved
Change Orders $ 610,600
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: 180 Davs
Original Contract Time: 0
Net change from previous
Change Orders 180 Davs
Contract Time prior to this
Change Order 0
Contract Time with all approved
Change Orders 180 Davs
•
RECOMMENDED: .0..,,,-..-~ ~]~. ENGINEER
APPROVED:
APPROVED:
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
0
Change Order
(Rev 4/89)
h
0
~i
a°~
00
'L['A
~,
~,
r
~-~
De/eE~
Fc ncc Eo 6e ~
~clo<u[erf ~.n ~
con ESA CE.I 'k
~.
D= /~ Ee/
I
/-5 e..Ee \\
C'^ ConEjaC~EJ
Ne`„ ~
~~~
c -z
r~
-v
c
610
°a
A
~K.
1~aw ur+'°u
~i~w
EX~Sr F'GUCE. ~8we~l Ta"i6c
CRELOLR{E\
/
.~ .~
.e.._ P-~~~•ss -
Rd.
EXIST Gq~
z
~ °
iRl;~
~REL~i1T~
.+~~
--- i6o ~
157 FEUCE
C RED-oCATE> ~~~
ua~~a
1
80~~
ScAl6
_ / ~ i ~ / ~
~Bw
u
R~/oufa d
{mncc
'Lim
~,/ofd Gate
•~
~"
~~
cs
RECEI~7ED
AUG 1 9 1997
(7TH OF 1~IE~f1t~lAh
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ROAD DESIGN
ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE CITY. OF MERIDIAN
Economic Activity By Road Type
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for Earth Tech
August 18, 1997
PREPARED BY:
W. DAVID EBERLE CONSULTING
760 HARCOURT ROAD
BOISE, IDAHO 83702
(208)383-9625
Table of Contents
Title
Page Number
Executive Summary ......................................... ...... 1
Scope of Work .......................................... . . ...... 2
Compazable Profiles ........................................ ...... .2
Road Characteristics ........................................ ...... .3
Summary of Economic Impact ................................. .......5
Analysis by Type of Commerce ................................ ...... 12
Restaurants .......................................:.... ...... 14
Auto Related Services .................................:.. ...... 17
Retail Commerce ........................................ ...... 19
Commercial ............................................ ...... 23
Social and Government Services ............................ ...... 26
City of Meridian Comparable Profile ............................ ...... 29
City of Boise Comparable Profile ............................... ...... 30
City of Nampa Comparable Profile ............................. ...... 31
City of Twin Falls Comparable Profile ........................... ...... 32
Tables Charts and Graphs
East 1st Street by Commerce Type ............................ ....... .7
Meridian Road by Commerce Type ............................ ....... .7
Composite of One-Way Couplets by Commerce Type, .... .......... ....... .8
Composite of Two-Way Roads by Commerce Type ............... ....... .8
Investment on One-Way Roads by Road By Type ................. ........9
Investment on Two-Way Roads by Road By Type ................. ....... 10
Table One -- Restaurants by Type by Road ................
...... ....... 15
.
Table Two -- Auto Related by Type by Road ..............:...... ....... 18
Table Three -- Retail Commerce by Type by Road ................ ....... 20 .
Table Four -- Commercial Services by Type by Road ............... ....... 24
Table Five -- Social and Government Services by Type by Road ...... ....... 27
• a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Study
This report analyzed the potential economic impact of two alternatives for upgrading East
1st Street and Meridian Road. The two alternatives are 1. Create cone-way couplet, East 1st
Street north and Meridian Road south or 2. Upgrade Meridian Road to a five lane two-way street
leaving East 1st Street in its current configuration. Also, the study reviewed the economic impact
of leaving the roads "as is".
The study developed the economic impact analysis from three comparable sites in southern
Idaho: Nampa, Boise and Twin Falls. A number of criteria were established to identify the
comparable roads. The criteria included traffic levels, road design, proximity to downtown core,
and access to the freeway.
The Current Condition
East 1st Street is an economically healthy and well diversified street. It's economic
makeup is consistent with what is found on similar roads in the study area. Meridian Road is a
street with old investment ready for transition. With either road design the community should
anticipate significant changes to occur along Meridian Road.
Anticipated Economic Impact
Under either road upgrade alternative as well as the no road improvement alternative, the
community will experience net new investment to the area. This will occur because auto and
pedestrian traffic will increase along this corridor. However, each of the alternatives will have
differing consequences as to the amount, type and location of the investment that will occur.
The no road improvement policy would have the least positive economic impact on the
downtown economy. This would occur because as traffic increases past the existing street
capacity it would "push out" many patrons using the area. Investment, appropriate for
downtowns, would move to other areas where employees and patrons could drive and park
without the congestion, while investment appropriate for peripheral areas would occur in the
downtown area. When the roads are eventually upgraded the downtown core would have lost one
cycle of high quality investment at a significant cost to landowners, business and city government.
The one-way couplet provides the greatest road traffic configuration flexibility. New
commercial investment will occur along both East 1st Street and Meridian Road. Service stations
and other auto dependent businesses on East 1st Street will experience some decrease in business.
Retail and restaurants should continue to do well. East 1st Street should become more desirable
for commercial office locations. Residential houses can support professional suites: It will be
possible to promote a greater diversity of investment that includes residential housing and cultural
activities. The couplet design can accommodate the current zoning along the street corridors.
The two-way Meridian Road could create a strong commercial engine. The current zoning
on Meridian Road is incompatible with this road design. R-4, R-8 and I-L should be changed to
accommodate the highest and best use of land along such a high traffic volume street. If the
zoning is changed, the new investment along Meridian Road should "explode" and will offset the
loss of investment along East 1st Street. Applications for new retail and service ventures along
such a corridor could easily exceed forty to sixty new ventures within the next ten years. Many of
the business ventures will be franchise operations. This activity coupled with the loss of traffic on
East 1st Street will cause investment to move from East 1st Street to Meridian Road.
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this study is to provide ACHD and The City of Meridian with an economic profile
of the type of development most likely to occur along the two proposed road design alternatives.
The designs call for upgrading both Meridian Road and East I st Street. Since roads are but one
factor in the success or failure of a commercial district the profile developed will also include such
factors as basic demographics, the comprehensive plan, and existing development to establish a
comparable basis. The compazable locations will be selected from the Treasure Valley and Magic
Valley areas. It is preferable to maximize the number of sites to strengthen the statistical validity
of the sample. Due to time constraints three samples for each of the road designs will be
considered sufficient to develop a viable profile.
COMPARABLE PROFILES
There are a number of attributes that will impact the economic development of a road segment. A
specific design will encourage certain types of development. Thus, in reviewing roads for
comparable sites, the proposed design and function were considered. However, zoning
ordinances, property owners' perceptions, location of road segment, surrounding neighborhoods,
available services, unique or identifying characteristics of the area, and the population of the area
will all effect the type of development that will occur on a road segment. Thus, road design and
function are not the only criteria used. Digraph One shows the relationship between infrastructure
and economic activity. There aze direct effects such as the increased accessability of autos
through an azea, the costs of the project and the perception of the road characteristics. The
perception is very important because perceived attributes and future expectations guide economic
activity as surely as taxes and revenues shape economic activity.
Once a road is in place the other factors will determine thfirslt of these factors are the existing uses
DIGRAPH ONE
New Infrastructure
Pubiic Businesses ro ert ®wnars CitylConnty
Otboals
Use Estate M(3oodst t servtees rban
Economic Growth
that are already on the road. Property
owners-will want to get the useful life
from their investment and therefore
there is a transition period of five to
twenty years where as current
investment wears out, it is replaced
with new investment that is more
appropriate for the new road design.
This process can be inhibited or
accelerated by several factors.
Two factors that are under the control
of local government to shape the speed
with which the transition will occur are
2
the zoning ordinances and public investment. There are examples of prime real estate in desirable
locations remaining undeveloped because the zoning ordinance is in conflict with the highest and
best use for the land. The most vivid example of this was the redevelopment of downtown Boise.
The city policy of trying to put a regional mall downtown stalled redevelopment of the area for
over twenty years at a huge cost in revenues to property owners and lost tax revenues to the city
and county. There are smaller examples today in the study area discussed below. The second
tool, public investment, also can have a dramatic impact on the character of an area if it creates
investments su has Eagle Days to lazlger investments us ng urban renewal taxsincrementalall
financing.
What local govemments cannot control are the property owners', the businesses', and the public's
perceptions. These issues can be as influential as actual zoning policies. To promote the support
of landowners and businesses it is important to be consistent in city policy. Reducing uncertainty
promotes investment. The second step is to promote policies that are consistent with the "highest
and best" use for the land adjacent to the new infrastructure. The goal here is to create a
consensus that the community's highest and best use of the land is consistent with the vision of
the property owners' opinion of highest and best use. While there is almost never complete
consensus on these issues there are many successful examples where the community interest and
the individual interests coincide.
In selecting comparable sites there were a number of variables that were considered. Once the
sites were established then the unique attributes of each compazable site were identified to
account for unique attributes that are a result of the unique variables.
ROAD CHARACTERISTICS
In choosing comparable road segments for this analysis ten criteria were considered.
1. Road Width
A. Two-way road, 60-70 feet curb to curb
B. One-way couplet, 40-52 feet curb to curb
2. Traffic Volume
A. Traffic volume from 16,000 to 30,000 AADT
3. Road Configuration
A. One-way couplet with street parking
B. Two-way five lane road without street parking
4. Gateway to the Community
An important access to the community center
5. Leads to or Goes Through the Downtown Core
A. The road actually goes through the downtown center
B. The road is a major access to the downtown core
• •
6. Location of Local Government Services
A. City Hall or other important government services nearby
7. Unique Landmark Characteristics
A. Identify unique landmarks that may attract traffic
8. Unique Commercial Charactertstics
A. Identify unique commercial activities that may attract traffic
9. Road Segment Zoning and Land Use
A. Identify the zoning along the road segments and the current land use
10. Area Population
A. Community Population
B. Trade Area
The first three characteristics were considered the most important criteria and therefore the
comparables chosen tried to match these chazacteristics. The next seven characteristics were
desirable but not as important. There are instances where no perfect match of the first three
characteristics were found and the remaining characteristics became more important. The three
downtowns surveyed have gone to one-way couplets with street parking on portions of their
downtown one-way couplets. The road widths vary from a low of 45 feet to 60 feet for three
lanes of traffic and two lanes for parking. Approximately one mile segments were selected for
each road to compaze with the one mile segment of East 1st Street and Meridian Road from
Franklin Road to Fairview Avenue in Meridian. The road segments selected for the comparative
analysis were:
Two-Way Five Lane Roads
Vista Avenue (Canal Street to Kootenai), Boise
12th Avenue South (Hawaii A to 14th Street), Nampa
Blue Lakes Boulevard (Falls Avenue to Addison Avenue ), Twin Falls
One-Way Couplets
9th Street and Capital Boulevard (State Street to University Drive), Boise
2nd and 3rd Streets (2nd Avenue to 16th Avenue), Nampa
2nd Avenues East and West (East 7th Street to West 7th Street), Twin Falls
4
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT
FAIRVIEW
c-c c•c CHERRY
R-4
'o R-15 R-1S ~ ~ „~ „~
PIYtE R-4
e
City of Meridian -Area of Economic
Impact
The adjacent map of the area of impact
for the City of Meridian shows the
current zoning designations. It should
be noted that the map is not to scale.
However, the map provides an overview
of how the City of Meridian sees it's
.future growth in the area.
BROADWAY R-a a y
t-I. a ~ The two road designs under
wnw ~ ~ o-T consideration will have significantly
'"d ~-T differing impacts on the design and
i-L PRAHRI.I2I °`flavor" of downtown. One of the most
important tools to control the ultimate
"look" of the area and the types of
business that ultimately succeed in the
area will be how carefully the zoning
ordinances are enforced. The proposed road changes will create intense pressure for certain types
of commercial designs and certain types of business that may or may not be in the City of
Meridian's vision of their downtown.
City of Meridian -Economic Vision
The following are excerpts from the Meridian zoning ordinance pages 38 through 40.1.
O-T Old Town District is defined to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the
historical core, to delineate a centralized activity center, to encourage its renewal,
revitalization and growth as a public, quasi public, cultural, financial and recreational
center of the City. Development in this district must give, attention to the handling of high
volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement.
I-L Light Industrial District is to provide for employment opportunities for Meridian
residents near to their homes. The type development is hoped to be clean, quiet and free
from significant environmental disturbance. Strip development within this area is strictly
prohibited.
C-C Community Business District is designed to permit general business uses ,larger than
neighborhood business such as shopping centers with adequate off street parking facilities.
Developments in this area must have access to transportation arterials or collectors.
R-4, R- 8, & R-15 The residential component of the downtown area is composed of three
zoning designations: 1. R-4, low density, single family homes and public schools. Uses
incompatible with residential use are prohibited. 2. R-8 medium density, single family and
multiplex units are allowed as well as conversions of lazger homes to multi units. 3. R-15,
medium density, single family or attached multifamily not to exceed I S units per acre are
permitted. The larger units must have access to transportation (arterial or collector) and
abut or have direct access to open space.
The expected growth in traffic through the downtown corridor will substantially change the
character of the azea. The expected traffic flows exceeding 20,000 average annual daily traffic
(AADT) on each road approaches the current level of traffic on I-84 today. The goal of the City
of Meridian is to retain the character of the old town and create a cultural social center for the
community that includes both low and high density residential housing. Road design will have an
important impact on achieving this goal. There are two alternative road designs that this study
analyzes to determine their potential impact. A third alternative was requested, a "no action"
alternative. There is no in depth analysis of this alternative because there are no comparables
available to determine a "likely" outcome scenario if the City of Meridian chooses to leave
Meridian and East 1st Street in their curcent configuration. It should be noted that since traffic is
expected to increase along this corridor there will be a net increase in economic activity under any
of the three alternatives.
Current Economic Activity
The curcent economic make up of East 1st Street is favorably close to other high volume traffic
streets reviewed in this study. The character and makeup of the retail and commercial centers will
prosper from an increase in traffic if the perception continues that the downtown area is accessible
and business and property owners believe that the City will continue to support the economic
growth of the area. On the following four pages there are four pie charts and two bar charts. The
four pie charts separate the economic activity of East 1st Street, Meridian Road, a composite of
two-way five lane roads and a composite of one-way couplets. The pie charts show the similarity
between the composites and East 1st Street. East 1st Street in percentage terms has a slightly
higher percentage of investment in commercial and slightly lessan residential than the average of
the other streets under comparison. There will be changes to the character and diversity of
business along East 1st Street depending upon the alternative chosen. The baz charts show a more
balanced distribution of investment between commercial, residential and government sectors
The street that will experience a dramatic change will be Meridian Road. Under either of the two
alternatives it can be expected that significant new commercial investment will be made along the
road once traffic begins to use this road. The City can expect the percent of use currently in
residential to fall from sixty-five percent of the structures to as little as twenty-four percent under
the two-way alternative. There will be increases in both auto related business as well as new
commercial ventures putting pressure on the remaining real estate to convert from low density
uses to higher density uses. The chazacter of the change will result from the way that the City
handles building permits and from development plans on the part of developers and (and owners.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
EAST FIRST STREET
GOVT/SOCIAL (7.84%}- r-AUTO RELATED (7.84%)
rEATING ESTABLISHMENTS (9.80%)
COMMERCIAL
(34.31 %)
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN ROAD
UTO RELATED (1.05%)
GOVT/SOCIAL (9.47%) ATING ESTABLISHMENTS (0.00%)
COMMERCIAL (1
(14.71 %)
COM/RETAIL (8.42%r~ ESIDENTIAL/TRANS (65.26%)
•
ONE-WAY COUPLET COMPOSITE
AVERAGES FOR THREE COUPLETS
GOVT/SOCIAL
COMMERCIAL (2.49
RELATED (4.15%)
j1TING ESTABLISHMENTS (4.77%)
(31.95%)
COM/RETAIL (51
TWO-WAY ROAD COMPOSITE
AVERAGES FOR THREE STREETS
GOVT/SOCIAL (1
COMMERCIAL (2.7i
RELATED (6.42%)
ESTABLISHMENTS (12.84%)
COM/RETAIL (52.70°/ ~RESIDENTIAL/TRANS (24.32%)
INVESTMENT ON ONE-WAY ROADS
By Road By Use
As Compared to East ls` Street and Meridian Road
GOVT/SOCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMM/RETAIL
RES/TRANS
RESTAURANTS
AUTO RELATEC
0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
endian, Meridian Road
•dan, E. 1st Street
,:.
omposite One-way
Tampa, 3rd Street
~,_
ampa, 2nd Street
ise, Capital Blvd.
oise,9th Street
wm Falls, 2nd Ave. E.
win Falls, 2nd Ave. W.
9
INVESTMENT ON TWO-WAY ROADS
By Road By Use
As Compared to East 1St Street and Meridian Road
GOVT/SOCIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMM/RETAII
RES/TRAN
RESTAURANT
AUTO RELATE
p% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
omposite Two-way
~~
ampa, 12th Ave. S.
oise, Vista Ave.
T•Falls, Blue Lake;
endian, Meridian Ro
endan, E. 1 st Street
10
that will take a number of years to depreciate and be removed slowing down the process
of achieving a downtown core consistent with the comprehensive plan. Many examples
exist of inappropriate investment in or around a downtown core. On all the one-way
couplets reviewed, original automobile sales lots were located on each couplet. This
investment is a remanent of old traffic patterns. As downtowns mature, this type of
investment moves to areas of appropriate zoning and high traffic visibility. If road
improvements aze delayed for a long period of time this type of investment may continue
to locate in areas that aze not in the long term interest of the community. The removal of
this investment can take many years. For example, the old automobile dealership in Boise
across the street from the State Capital still remains an underutilized real estate parcel.
Economic Impact of a One-Way Couplet
A one-way couplet with three lanes and street parking option on East 1st Street is the most
common road design for downtown streets in the study area. Boise and Twin Falls have a third
street between their one-way couplet providing a slightly different set of economic consequences
than the City of Nampa. The most significant difference is that both Twin Falls and Boise have put
off street parking for the middle street along the couplet reducing the frontage available for
commercial activity along the couplet.
1, This road design is the most flexible road upgrade of the two alternatives. It is possible in
the future to return the roads to two-way with center turn lanes if East 1st Street and
Meridian Road are no longer required as arterial routes.
2. This type of road structure has been chosen by theot eemmentrand sot al services have all
downtown core. ComrnerciaUretail, commerce, g
been successfully located along this type of road.
3. Independent eating establishments, low and medium density residential housing, and
pedestrian orientation have all been successfully integrated into one-way couplet road
designs.
4. There will be pressure to rezone portions of Meridian Road so that the allowed uses are
more compatible with the highest and best economic use of the land.
5. Economic impact of the one-way couplet on East 1st Street and Meridian Road would be
as follows.
Restaurants
The restaurants would continue to prosper on East 1st Street with the exception o
the drive through restaurants. Any decrease in business in sit down restaurants
would be due to opening of new facilities along Meridian Road and not due to loss
of traffic. Meridian Road could expect application for one to two new drive
through and one to two sit down restaurants within the next ten years.
12
A ~to~elated
Service stations would see a decrease in business. The auto service/repair would
not see much difference because it is a destination business. There should be at
least one application for a gas station on Meridian Road and possibly one new auto
repair service.
Belail
Retail would continue to prosper on East 1st Street. It would be expected that a
lodging facility would locate along East 1st Street. Meridian Road could expect
applications for ten to fifteen new retail stores within the next ten years.
Commercial
Commercial would continue to prosper on East 1st Street. It could be expected
that there would be five to ten new applications for commercial businesses along
this segment and a new drive through financial service.
Corial and .overnment Sen^ce
The services currently provided to the community would not be adversely
impacted on East 1st Street or Meridian Road. If Meridian takes an actively role
through providing new public facilities or an urban renewal district the economic
expansion along the one-way couplet could be accelerated.
Economic Impact of Widening Meridian Road to Five Lanes
A seventy foot two-way five lane street option on Meridian Road would have a dramatic effect on
the downtown corridor as well as the character of Meridian Road. A similar road, Blue Lakes
Boulevard in Twin Falls with an sixty-two foot curb to curb surface, has the highest accident rate
in the state. High traffic volume roads will attract auto dependent retail activity. Much of these
types of retail activities are franchise operations that can be found along any high traffic volume
road in the intermountain west.
1. With the projected traffic load approaching 32,000 AADT there will be very little
pedestrian traffic across this street. This will result in a border for the downtown core that
will not be crossed for many years. The type of vision described in the comprehensive
plan is not compatible with such a barrier. . _
2. This road structure attracts auto dependent businesses and strip mall design. Franchise
stores are very popular as well as off street parking and drive thru facilities.
3. Residential housing is compatible with this type of roadway as can be seen on both 12th
Avenue South and Vista Avenues. Both older residential homes as well as apartments
exist on these roads. However, the older homes along Vista and 12th Avenue South are
being torn down and replaced with strip malls, apartments or commercial structures better
suited economically for a high traffic arterial. The final evolution of this road design is
Blue Lakes Boulevard where there are almost no residential homes left. The land value no
longer supports such a low density use of the land. R-4 zoning along Meridian Road is
untenable.
13
M
4. There will be intense pressure to rezone portions or all of Meridian Road so that the
allowed uses are more compatible with the highest and best economic use of the land.
5. Economic impact of the two-way Meridian Road upgrade on East 1st Street and Meridian
Road would be as follows.
RP t¢y ~r~any
The restaurants on East 1st Street would experience a decrease in business with a
serious impact on the drive through restaurants. Meridian Road could expect
application for two to three new drive through and two to three sit down
restaurants within the next ten years.
Auto Related
Service stations would see a decrease in business with one station probably
closing. The auto service/repair may see increased competition from new
businesses on Meridian Road. There should be at least one to two applications for
gas stations and one new auto repair service on Meridian Road.
Retail
Retail would continue to prosper on East 1st Street. Meridian Road could expect
applications of up to 40 new retail stores within the next ten years. It is also
possible that a new lodging facility would open along Meridian Road.
Commercial
Commercial would continue to prosper on East 1st Street. It is expected that there
could be five to ten new applications for commercial businesses along Meridian
Road and a new drive through financial service.
Social and Government Service
The services currently provided to the community would not be adversely
impacted on East 1st Street or Meridian Road. If Meridian takes an active role
through providing new public facilities or an urban renewal district the economic
expansion could be redirected towards East 1st Street.
ANALYSIS BY TYPE OF COMMERCE
RESTAURANTS
Table One Restaurants by Type by Road illustrates that either road design can promote this type
of economic activity. Since the roads under study have similar traffic patterns to what is
anticipated along East 1st Street and Meridian Road this type of activity will continue to be
successful. The most revealing portrait this table provides is the split between sit down
restaurants and drive through restaurants. There are fourteen drive through restaurants on the
two-way roads reviewed and only two drive through restaurants on the one-way couplets. In
comparison there are twenty-nine sit down restaurants along the one-way couplets and only
twenty-one along the two-way streets. Additionally, the one-way couplets are in a downtown
location and they have attracted the independent restaurant owners similar to the current make up
of restaurants located on East 1st Street in Meridian.
14
¢A _ ~
v
o
C
E ~
ms ~j m
v5-
q
C '
~ o
~FfA
U `
c ~
~
W v N
X~a
W A ~ ~~
q
F ~C
A4W~aW[~
u
..
~
~
~
" U
eta
~
U v qo~ ~ g
y
6 'O A ~ m N
7 ~
A
d m
F ~ ~ N~ OA G C x C Q N W N
~
w >
~° coo
o ~ ~ ° ~
~ ~° ~ NN
~r ~w
a ° ~3~5°s N
~r ~ , . E~j
y
~. Q O G
~ `
O O TOODG L~
~ L~ O L~`~~Y~~
$ ~
~ F U
A
L-y
['+
O o
ax ~ A '2 7 u
~e
~Fam3a m A
aF i
~3 ~ u o
aa~~F3 Fa
a ~ d
as v~
F,FZ ~
c
~
a
~ ~ ~,
" ~
a
~
'N ~. CCa 1l 'y~ ~
N .
~ ~ ,~'
_ pw
(
V_ C ~
~ ~~ ~..r
d XQ c ~ OaQ"
3a C
V N l~
Qj
7H ry
~
~
am ~ x Qa
Ey W .0 y
~'O iii- d ,tea C}
a ~j v /y
~!~ Ll ~ o ~ o
V7
W e00E0 ~ ~ ,C
"a °~
" Z QNQ ~ Yn '>'r ~`
B
3 g C A
E~
•- A 7 c~~. a~
N
~ in o
a ~ .
+ d N C
SFa~ ~ ~ G ~
~~c7'w~ r ~
Ea
n Q ~+"5 V
a~
i0
~ y ~
N
<wc7w
= 'O (~i
N
v
o r a
i [ c
o
y
~
g
~
La
c
La
'C o
~ ~° v
N
o .C
N u
~ L°
o 0
,7
~ v
°
' ~
RI
s =
~
,~ A
'
° ~
ro a
'
~ P3 ~
y K N
; ..
a as
a
A~
G . o
m
a~ e~~
~ ~ " C$ y a
'" ~+
G~
i S C ax p
OD ~L: C v v
$
eC0 e0 C ''2'' q ~ dw
[
~ ~
m ~~
' (
e
0
0 O $
a ~ °
Sa0.
' W .d v
i in
~ W Fa. W .:1UV ti ¢~
n~0.l aC C7x~
W yF
c W WW ~ 3w ~ °z Fx
F..
v,
fY.
'
W ~
~
W
~ p
Z O
U ~~ W ~
D
OF
~ E., ~ dG '
~ i~ 2; rZ a d z y
a ~ H ~ 3 ~~ ~F~
'" ~~
~ W ~~ ~, ~a Qa x a~
F W ~" W W ~ .NrO O NN a V!A NM
East I st Street has ten restaurants and Meridian Road has none. The average number of
restaurants on the comparable sites averaged twelve restaurants. Blue Lakes Boulevard had the
highest number of restaurants at twenty and Vista Avenue had the least number of restaurants
with two. It shows a wide variability in the number of possible restaurants that can exist on a road
segment.
One-Way Couplet
East 1st Street There will likely be little change in the make-up and charact~o ularln noon and
establishments along East 1st Street. Restaurants will continue to do well, p Y
evening oriented establishments. The functional character of the road as a commuter arterial will
occur predominately during times when restaurants are typically not frequented (7:00 to 8:00 am
and 5:00 to 6:00 pm).
Meridian Road Meridian Road will experience the most dramatic change regardless of the road
type. It is anticipated that there will be development of eating establishments along this corridor,
though it is not as desirable a location as East 1st Street. It is quite possible that there will be one
to two applications for drive through eating establishments and one to two sit down restaurants as
traffic increases through this corridor.
Two-Way Five Lane
East 1st Street Under this alternative East lst Street will not change from its current design. The
impact on restaurants will primarily be on the drive through. They should experience a decrease
in traffic particularly during high traffic periods such as the morning commute, noon hour and
evening commute. There are two restaurants that are particularly at risk, The Hungry Onion and
Alberto Gordos. The other restaurants would experience some negative impact under this road
design. The impact will come from the number of restaurants that are allowed to locate on
Meridian Road. It is possible to have a J curve effect where there will be a period of depressed
business as customers experience the new attractions on Meridian Road and then they will return
to their traditional haunts on East 1st Street. The goal for restauranteurs on East 1st Street will
be to minimize the J curve effect through promotion and advertising which could last several
years.
Meridian Road Meridian Road will experience a significant increase in high volume tr is
related restaurants. There could easily be applications for three to four new drive through
restaurants and two to three sit down restaurants within ten years of the completion of the
Meridian Road upgrade. The timing and number of restaurants that will be developed are
dependent upon the relative land values, city policy towards these applications and the anticipated
growth of traffic volume. This growth will be dependent upon the change in zoning or allowed
conditional use permits.
16
AUTO RELATED SERVICES
Table Two, Auto Related Services by Type by Road illustrates the type of auto related
development that can occur on the two road types. The first observation is that two to three
service stations within one mile is the norm for high traffic volume roads. The exception in this
study area is the one-way couplet in Twin Falls. The second observation is that there is a high
density of auto related services in Nampa. It is ar. economic phenomenon that like businesses are
attracted to each other giving customers a choice. This tends to increase the economic activity at
all the businesses within the economic group. Thus, auto parks tend to cluster either by zoning or
on their own. Nampa has its auto park along its one-way couplet.
One-Way Couplet
East 1st Street This street has a normal distribution of service stations for gasoline for a higher
volume of traffic. There are three places for fuel if the Circle K is included. A one-way couplet
would negatively impact these businesses as motorists would be bypassing these facilities on their
way to work by shifting business to the freeway entrance facilities or onto Meridian Road. The
other auto related businesses are more destination dependent and probably will not see
much of an impact. There will not be many new auto related businesses moving in as under this
configuration they would probably locate near the couplet's intersections or at the freeway.
Meridian Road Under the one-way couplet it is reasonable to anticipate at least one new service
station desiring to locate on Meridian Road. The actual number will depend upon the relative
land values and the actual traffic flow counts along this road. This is a highly traffic dependent
type of business. The new service stations will pull business away from East 1st Street in the near
term. Other auto related businesses may well spring up along the road as the residences are
depreciated and it becomes economical to teaz down the houses. Repair shops will prefer this
side of the one-way couplet because they will catch people going to work for auto drop offs.
Two-Way
East 1st Street Under this scenario the auto related businesses will be most adversely impacted.
The majority of the commuter traffic moving to Meridian Road will siphon off the business. The
speed at which Meridian Road is redeveloped will determine how quickly the impact will be felt.
There will be an immediate effect on service stations as motorists move to Meridian Road.
Meridian Road The shift of auto related commercial activity to Meridian Road would be
immediate. It is likely that one, possibly two service stations would locate on this road.
Additionally, it is probable that applications for other auto related services particularly at the
southern end of the road segment would occur. This is a type of service that may stigmatize an
area. Aggregation of auto related services will attract more auto related services. As an azea
gains a reputation as an auto alley, other businesses will not locate in the area. The one-way
couplet in Nampa is a good example of this phenomenon. How development applications are
handled by the city will help determine the character of Meridian Road and auto related services.
17
s
m
C o
7 ~
.3
C v
•~
Y
3 ~ a o~
z •~
~ ~~
•
~ ~
~
> a
O O 4
e E .°e N
°= P
fn Q O. 'q !' ~n
A a s m
.
fn oto (~.
U `~ aCi~fno~. d
P.
'
a u
d s
m;J p
d
~
a u
p~d w
° a, o W.
~ o
md~
`
c~ o
?~°
~ ca d
v
Fzd
G~ C
ad ~ a ~' ~a~ ,
c
~~zwoz
c
d a ~ y no a ~' °~ F
N
C4 °
' o w a oar' Ca uV a o3 ~•~ ~ ~
d
FC ~ E
`u
N ~d•~ d Y ~~
~ ~~ a x d ~a 9 a a,:yU o
•
d
0a' c~~~ ~ ~
x
a"i~ ~ O
ea:o ,
..1 {p
L°~ _
N v
~V aQaA
ca J
w y
~ N_ x
•
~ a R ~ z
~
W
F y~ o ~ J o 0
'
'
da ~ ~_-
C ~ ohs d ~5~sd
¢
~
9b
h V+ 6
6~~
.0. 'S LL fA ~cO .bd
Ic, ~ Q O~ ~
O
~ m~
UX~S C
O ~W m ~ ~~ .
3 ;~Q eyg X33 ~ ~'
H O 7
~ >
aj
~~ ~ C E E C C J 7
a
aaw .
a c
aa~wwcaawu
G
~
C
O ~
C .7
~ G
. C O
•O
..
~ O
y y
y
~ O
~ y
U
y R ~
p
G J ~
N C.
j ~
d .
. ^
NN ~G
U ..
w .
~
O
.~ ip ~
N ~
~ F
~~ (
~
y y
J
, L
~ w ~ '
~Oy
°~ ~
u u1 C
~ O O X
C
U L
~ ~
Cl Sri N ~+ y
•
~ ;cd ~~' v~ 'J
~
'~ ti o~ a
_ J
~
invsi E
U E x
OF ,g
C
,2tnU ~ ~
W.J., r =
p„~y
F
N
~'
w
'~ a
c ~
w a
C w
3~ O w
z C~
zo
y z ~
r"~ ~
w z v ~~ ~
w ~ ww
S d d ' a
~ ~~
3 ~ .
aW d
d ~
d 3 ~
~ eW
~ F
a F ~ wa
ao
~
~
z dd
as ~a
m hr
i,
a
F a
W w
~"
0.1W
~
N
O
NN ho ~
N
, .
i o~U0.1 t7
RETAIL COMMERCE
Table Three illustrates the type and diversity of retail ventures on the two types of roa
configurations under consideration. Retail These activities arse dnstinguished from commerciallmg
of goods, selling of a service, and lodging. rofessional services, and
activities such as commercial offices, financial services, social services, p
government services. The distinction basically is whether or not the business is primarily individual
related or corporate related. There are exceptions to this categorization scheme. There are many
businesses that fall into several potential categories and could arguably be organized in a different
manner. Financial services that may have an individual client base rather than a corporate client
base provide a good example of a busi of expos t on to the reader. cSo a 1 financ al services were
overriding decision criteria was clarity P
categorized into one group and similar decisions were made with the other businesses.
The first observation about Table Three is the lack of retail activity on Meridian Road. This
implies there will be a dramatic change in the character of the road under either scenario. The
second observation is that East 1st Street has a solid diverse retail center that is comparable to any
of the other streets under review.
One-Way Couplet
East 1st Street This street is already well diversified. There are thirty-five business retail orients
businesses located on this street. As traffic volume grows and because it is the downtown core the
street should remain well diversified. Some increase in diversity may occur particularly with a new
lodging facility as the community grows. This could be encouraged to help create the desirable
character outlined in the comprehensive plan. Other communities hav io develo dtheir landmar~kg
facilities into motels/hotels. The City of Meridian has the opportunity P
buildings into new facilities either as shopping or lodging that would retain the existing character
of the community. The venture would be supported by the higher expected traffic flows.
Meridian Road This street curcently has eight businesses located along the survey area. If
conditional use is permitted and the neighborhood begins its transition it can expect to gain an
additional ten to fifteen new retail ventures along the road.
Two-Way
East 1st Street If East 1st Street remains as a two-way road the traveling public will move to
Meridian Road making this the logical place for an additional lodging facility. Additionally, the
number of mini malls with off street parking that are allowed on Meridian Road will control the
amount of impact on retail activity on East 1st Street. Under this scenario it is important that the
retail community on East 1st Street create an identity that will attract customers. The road
configuration and proximity to Meridian Road should provide adequate access to keep retail active
on this street.
Meridian Road There will be intense pressure to rezone or allow conditional use by the retai
segment of the economy is this alternative is chosen. The retail explosion that could occur on
Meridian Road is dramatic. It is possible that up to 40 new businesses would desire to locate
along this road. It would effectively eliminate the residential component of the investment mix
19
0
T
~ W `S
" u
e o ep
~~yx~
eo
O
.~ a
~ ~~.o ~ ~ e
q C •d u 'O
~ C
F
3
~
°
~ wa
'c~
s
T
E c
y 9
c
g
8
°J, ..
u
Q x ~ .. d 5 e
V C Y ~ ~ ~ ~ Y
-
p `~V
C~ w ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~
3 ~ O ~ N
A dw
A
c
O
9~w .. ~~ 8, yt? y~
~
u g u~~o ~3•c
w c
~
:a .g ~
..
~ ~SE
w ~~
e
" °3
~
°
a~~ mm
`~~w
d
a
a U
G
x
z a
O ~
~ ~
O
~i
~ "x~e E
wY~ 8 x ~
: m°~ ~ .a
O° ;~ ~
x
=
u
R
~' ,
~' ~ ~
a
~x v'
3
~a
W
p., 0
~ ~.. ~
~
~ C ~ y Q ^I6 3
a ~ ~
C `° qv ; 0 5
~!
eY R~ ~` C .c C •
O :: m Y ~
Q F
{ c~
W r a
~ A ° Cy°. R' W ~~~
wu'~ a
~q
~y. 9oQUP. 40.u, V C `J
~
~ X
~
~ vF Z`{a,
W
(Yi F'~
~ CC~.u°~9e~NV ~~~
uu`~wA~i•°•u,,., eo N
.°.
~ C ~...
;3 ~i
:°.a 6~n~
a.:oo oAUU~
~~
~
~ $' ~y
o~~co
C$
FRi ~~Ua:Fdd~vfnu d 3
ink>c~
xF xa>
L1
W
~ a o u
i
Q W
F~ a
C .°C o
~
~ y
{T
y A Ln
~
~ 0. A 6~
~~L
~ 6
b
G
~ ° ~ ~
vsiva rn ~t+. t
.Le
9
r
°~z ?~ C
E~CV
$ eo A a Pe'
my 2 ~ ]°C uF
G ~ T
o
~ U
n o v ..
x
?
e
o Q
E
o~c
a
U
nai
H L' T v ~i' v v 'g
83O u a~~v ~ ~
A .~ r
~•O~ ~ e .~. u
u
t~
~ o. _~ v
'^~~'a,U~ ~°a ~V m o `a4 "
' ~
'
~' ^ C
~ A -Yg'
~'~
'-
w.-
N
F>~o~~c`3c3
uc~au A A
~wr~a,udc~~~3uvx~ _
n.aw
'a
.
~ ~ € •-
.. _
~, .c ~ a
7 Op v C '~
~ ~ p u ~p
~ ~ C •' N ap
- . •a
~ ~
gee €~ c L"u
~A~ ~ u o~
.e~ '- C7r ~'o
~ o,~
z ~. > °o.o? ~e
eu
c7v~ixci~i+,c7.'a~'n~~ amain ~aixa~3waernw~5~?u, ,S~a"~~
w
w
N a -
~ zz
~ a
~d >
A ~ aW
a d
d
F
w
w
~ F
F ~ ~ ~ >
O
N
v v~
=~z~
_~
o~o~
` x ~~ v
0
y x'
~ti
::
~ o °~ ~e
~m3a
'~
z
•z
'~
(7 F
Gi
Y o y
oV.r
~ F d
~~
~
L y ~ '
~i
~
~ C
•_ u
R1 @jN ~Wn
H
y
=z ~
~.2 °~
~.
c
t
~ ~
~ ~
d a ~
e°'o
n4 V
a~ g ~ 3
QE
~•~._ '
a`
~
Fa E
Ed~S ~"'
~x~ °~ o
0~7.~
z~OF ~aa C7a~'r°n?~
w g is C " ~ a,
e
r
~~
~ °'
v ~
=
~w
g~ ~ ti
= v, '
~
~
3v 2v ~<3 ~°
~~ ~ ~ o v
~$ ~
R~
w o•`=Q c~,
U Dp
°3 _
~xi C ~ °/ao
00
~ ' g
~
_u'~ uFZ.+cw y d0$
~+
`
-o`e°~A
~ pp
U
rn=s10~E ~~~N"o°e'CAt~L°.°E2
<FC7
LZa -C7vi~G:; W m W wW[-~U3tnwW a
u
O O '~ ~ ~
a
~
. Y C vN~
$^
y
a
=
d ~ c w
a L C
o ~
Caa
~
~
d
O N _° ^"
~ _
o u~~
A
v C~
'~
~ °~
u
o L°E..
G d r 8~ O
Q o o°yy~O~
U
L'
~~ ~
o~~+
~ e
O ~~
~ Q~ G V~
~
. ~
N (..
4~ N
$j
o
N~ O L 7 4= •C
v~
~ '~ C ~~ C ~'e O O ewe ~
G
U..~G1 c~W aw~
VC7 aL ma~ca3xxFa~ca
m
W
a ~"' [.
w ~,
C 3w
z ~ as w ~a
~ ~ ~
<F 3
< xH
yH~aF
F~ z as as as
~O
°
~° o NN a°
w
z
N
•_~~a ~b e
a 6 c ou $7
c
,
° A
3H~x~FZauoo~a
.,
vo
~
~~v zb~
~
a
~
aA~ aW^
aw~~`;_g~ °'
~
~
V ... •~
fA V] 'O A C
4 .0 .
a07=U~~O~Fa°U~
a o.- c
o°. a °~' s° = tO
ai C.
~ .°.
C
~9 N `Y C~ `nom C7 v O.C
,S g 7~ N C 7 y C~- V y G .~ D
O
aac~ ~° aU °¢w tOa3 y O
~F°e~~
ma
'~`"win °~'`o cy ~~ A ~
.G~ g A3 `~.`~
.
~ A.°•vU~ o mA~ A~ v 'r m~'^. A m
d ~
H v = aY S
[ ~ _. ~~
~~ ~' ~
~i
F
C7a•~'C~aa~~
~o
d5~ 'w'E•~~j g
,
,
a°a°3a~c`~¢~°,3oacx'~ xv~w'¢Sx
m
F
a
O
y
F F
k] WW
~
W
aF
+
QO
Nz~
N
N
along this segment. New lodging facilities would likely locate on this road and the amount of off
street parking allowed will determine the amount of retail that will develop along this road
segment.
COMMERCIAL SERVICES
Table Four Commercial Services by Type by Road illustrates the type of diversity of commercial
enterprises by road type. Both road types will support commercial activities. There is a higher
density of businesses on the two-way roads but more business enterprises on the one-way couplets.
East 1st Street already mirrors the similaz commercial diversity of the other streets with the
number offinancial services available as well as commercial activities. Combining the numbers and
types of business on both Meridian Road and East 1st Street provides a very similar profile to what
has developed in the other downtown cores of Boise, Nampa, and Twin Falls.
One-Way Couplet
East 1st Street There would likely be little impact on the commercial sector of commerce. Given
the two-way cross streets for access most of the businesses would continue to prosper.
Meridian Road The one-way couplet would continue to encourage the expansion of commercial
services along this road. It is quite possible that five to ten small commercial ventures may move
into the houses as a near term expansion into the area. These would likely be the attorneys,
accountants and financial advisors taking advantage of the increased visibility and close proximity
of the downtown core. It is unlikely that any new financial facilities would open in the near term
with the possible exception of US Bank and Idaho Independent Banks who may wish to have a
presence in the downtown azea.
Two-Way Road
East 1st Street If this alternative is chosen it is likely that Drive. Thru Financial services would
reconsider their location on East 1st Avenue. Those businesses that can afford to move their
facilities may well do so if auto traffic is a major portion of their business. I would not expect much
other migration to Meridian Road from this sector.
Meridian Road This road configuration would attract different commercial business to this site
than the one-way couplet unless off street parking and office complex and mini malls are permitted
to be constructed. There could be five to ten new commercial activities along Meridian Road.
23
v
Y
~ ~ ~
r ~
d
=
• °• L~<
°
~ ~
d
a
iio ~
Y~.
'o .- ' 3
vLa~Ga
a ^
~ a~ G 8 E G y
`
°
`
~
8 cc°~~ ~ w
V~
o
. U dU
i~0.
P].
.
a w
~
W
a
d as
•v
~c~~ =
'c
80,,
IC
~~~
a
u
~Q a
.o
o o,~ N
~ 5~ ~ a
A Goa ~
gAea s ~_ ~
8
~ ~~ ° ~ x
Ua~ ~-
a'9e a° ~~s
~
~Sp~
~ '~ ~ d~ E
..
v E c~ a Y ~e o 8 ~'~3 5~ 2
"
' ,
~ c 3 8
~
~~aar~c~ via~4~a v~c~~aaw >
x~ .~~
zc~
A ~v~° ti,~~ '~~ ~d
~ N ~ ~
p
O O N a
O
`
b
v E U
O
yL
OOO u
cis °Q e$ ~ ~ c°'i C E
~^
E
y
F d
7W
5'~,
y,
W eG
R
e
L
~4 3
~ ~> >~ o U_~ ~
y~ ° €
co ,~
W ci¢w
3~n'v
' v,~m~c¢in 3¢o cL~~
R .
}i C
[.y
a~ C
k,
N
'n
eue
•s~F
8
N
u ~
A o c~
o ~
!n ^J v
~
W W 3 ~L° ~~ ~~ o
C e
N E ~
~~gg ~ C
WU xV~€aS .au °eA~'~s°oo
~ wL'x mUed '~x^~
Ca I Y~ d k" Q '~S o C O m .C ~^ .~'~ ~ G
~ ~
F W ~
N A E CC
~
A~ C J V) R U
> C O F N ~ C
FV
C
y
T
C A
3
G ~.
'N•• U
N
C
V 3 R c x E oF., A~ V~ a
V1
% g y~ H •C in
~
-
~ ?~°, e E
p ZD.d $>
1O ~ are i ~
Ea O ~y a
N
O y i R
~ °>
ySc.~ ",~,
fn EQy to c 33 o Uv u'" o,~ o °'
E
o
U
uri ~
~ N •~
1'f •8 (~'~ E
~ ± F y y 8
~ ~
'
^
u °JiE R1
v E
p
9
~
F
~ S E.•^uo
° °~ ti ~.? O ~
U 5 N^oy d
F y 8 E v °'
d
~ e
G E
°
~
E
"'~
x~ ~=OU~
~ A8~
~~ EEm
e°
•Nejue,
°~
V~ U P] ~~'
.e
a
°'
W v
of v
L iv yW w y
°'° t m
u G R
~m~ ~ .. w
°
e~ 8 `~
w c n A
r
~ uvi ~~ cR• c
Cp~
`
Q
a
~
" a o
o uU
u
~
'^a~,~ qfn>Win FW~d ~
.
w<
i>
d. F
~
a
z ~~ i
3
F HW AA ~~ FzW x'a
W~ X S ^O
-~fl 0.1 d
V'
N
_
~ ~ E °"
W
d a
z ~ m ~~7 y
C
Q V
U~ ~
U
~ ~' $$~~~j l
~
a~~
?
r O -d ~ ~.e
N
~~ .
..
d
a W
O e~ ~
°'
° 3
'
o
~
ic~8a3
iac
~ac ,:~
~ x
w <
= C
Q nd. ~ u
.
,.~ a u ~ ~' 3 ~
~ U .o ~'
~
a.. °'o8aa °g
~- °'' ~~ ~~
W
.G.
O C C. y AG'
~.33 ~ ~ A e ~~ G ~{ ~ 'NO
.vlty u 8 C T D
P, a3 0~ o
<Zda>6inc~a fnOad ~nis.~wxw
'.] $
u
?E~ ~ N g
v~CF
`'
~ ~ < ~
~ '~ .n [= ~ ~ o
Y
~~v ~mr~ ~~A°~~
~a .
k3~ ,
~F
a~~'
2
i m .
w
2
,e
~
•~ F c
~
~
~••'
~ C 7 ~v 00D ~
{p
W
G
3~ u
~ ~
www
~
~
w 0
'C Q
~ V ?.`
yC y
w
y L'
~ OODN C U C (~. O C
u 400
..
.
E
~
~ ~~
u
~`
' Q~w~e
'µ9jR
C
~aC^
~•'
~
E
~o '
~
~„
e
oum~~L"`~~ 0
m~ N C
3~+uA~
c
C7
i
izoxu`°,a~nc~ 'a.3'Omiic~w 3c733fn
".°_ u .~ a u u e y c
~ ~ 0] 6 GP7
T
OpE ty( B
~6Q
d
V
J
~~ o E y v aEiO~ Q V 0.1
a oia Gam. % "'
~ psazC7
.°~.1C cU o 3E' a,u tO ~U•.~. ~ a~~~ ,
°-
er o, ~cp
00 OO L A u 0~3~ O` .O U
~
~ ~ L E C .C E
°
3 ~
p
U 7 00 V O C
o
~
~
9
c
~ A
m A °'_'
o~ ~
~n'Oc7a~.a'Oa~a~ ~g 0
c°,
c
z~U~2U a
i..
a#y
L°
iO. E
iLV~add
.;; U
G~ A .. R] i. N L'
C b y °> v
u ~a
acv°i0.
~
cr
a ~~q
~ ? w E5
.
n
o
CP:O a3i~`3~arn~ ~
ov'~v33
~ 3 `°~Ev «
v a~.zxf?7 b7 ~'~y V Sn a
i A y W y° aCgW S
w Ed ~ E•c•A d o d $ h7 '9 0 ~ ~ ~ ~h7 ~ B o ~ ~
d~twHm3aw~~ ooudw> .,omwx~o
a
~v
0
W W
~ ~
F ~
ww
F F
w
w
a
w ~
~
~
3
~FQE..,
]F
inFF,,'.
' .,
.,
inFinF
W ~
w fn P C
i
P
~O
° C4
°
~
o N3Nw a°
m
z N
z
O
h
N
SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Table Five illustrates the number and types of services available on the selected roads. Meridian
has a number of social services available in or near the downtown core. These social services are
compatible with an upgraded road system. There are noticeably more social services on the one-
way couplets which is consistent with the current diversity in Meridian. The other aspect to note
on this table is the level of government investment that has occurred along the downtown one-way
couplets.
One-Way Couplet
East 1st Street The one-way couplet would not adversely impact any of the current social or
government services currently located on East 1st Street.
Meridian Road The one-way couplet would not adversely impact any of the current social or
government services currently located on Meridian Road.
26
~e
~ ~ ~U ~ S C
E fn v !c
~
'
~~~o N °.
~.
c7 A a a ~. E m Z.9
~A
C °U g E g
E
7 °~ ~~ ~
pL~Uarn z W v~ U w
a
E
A u H
d
°
c~
a
~ N ~
w
w
a
~ E ~ Y3
W o
~ p
0 UO
°
W C~
r a 0 a
M
i ~
a vi
~a
ww
~H
z ~~ ~~
~ ~ .c a :: c g a
~~jy
W ~ o .~°'. Cam. ~
v N~ o ~
m a~ ~aC~
V ~ pp
C O PO pp>+ .] o
C
~
W
ti
~, c~~?~
,°~o
:: .
~Q c
i d
~ao~Ea
z ~xa`n'~ dy¢ ti ax ~
d
a a,; _~
U ~~~
~
t 8g
U
~ .c =
~ ~ ~
v eE;
'v $ s ~~.
°~' ,a o
'c c~
~° 'a
V ~ d
U ~ o T ~ 0.l
a
i
A m d C
iV X A e
o .d C
C
v
C
`~ ~. U 7
C
c 7
`~
c ~
$
A
V PL ,Z~ v
UU~
tsal u
NP]
~
a F
h
~ e c a N
3w
`~ w
a No~ z `~' v ~~
~> ~ z d zz
w
H .. a
w
w
~ ~ Qa 5 ~'. O N N
N
U yy
~ O
_
L° ~ °~ e
e ~ aai Ce
g a
~
t°.j ~0.`~a ~~ oU v
~ c x S
a ~
~a0~,s5 e C B.~
~Td a
~GcG .~ A & v 3°
t0
~
~
O e 6
~
~~x
U0
V G0~0.
1
. C
zU
07 ~ .01.
_
fn S m
1. O a
o
~
O
Y v'= O
xx S
:~
m
x
N~~~
m~9m
d
_U
N
a
A
e°'o n
G
p
o. ~° .a
~ V Y
~3
s >~
~~A~
°
~w
'~
a~2~
c ,~U
~ 4 y
N L a
tU
C
.
e v
UU ~ H
z ;2 U a
~n A
L ~
O
O
PDT ~ Fyhi
u`~w~'w'
D
O
e
a
~
~
~
x~"
a a
o~aoo oo
F
o~v,Umz z
NzM
00
N
Two-Way Road
East 1st Street The two-way road would not adversely impact any of the current social or
government services currently located on East 1st Street.
Meridian Road There are two entities that would be adversely impacted by the Meridian Road
upgrade alternative. The first would be the local grade school. The road would create a barrier
for children to navigate during the morning rush hour and the two local churches would find
parking to be an issue for their patrons.
Street Profiles
City of Meridian Comparable Profile
For East 1st Avenue Meridian Road One-Way Couplet
1. Road Width for the One-Way Couplet
For both streets - Franklin Street to Fairview Avenue (40-52')
Road Width for the Two-Way Meridian Improvement
For Meridian Road 70 feet and no change for East 1st Street
2. Traffic Volume
One-way couplet
E.lst Street
Meridian Road
Total
AADT 23,227 21,898 45,125
Two-way 16,848 31,561 48,409
951
39
No Change 19,161 20,790 ,
3. Road Confrgraation
One-way couplet will have three lanes of traffic in each direction with street parking on
East 1st Street. Currently there are plans for a bike path and sidewalk improvements on
Meridian Road.
Two-way Meridian Improvement will have four lanes of traffic with a center turn lane and
bike path on both sides of the street.
4. Gateway to the Community .-
Currently East 1st Street is the gateway to Meridian.
5. Leads to or Goes Through the Downtown Core
Currently the two roads define the downtown center.
6. Location of Local Government Services
City Hall, Library, Fire Department and U.S. Post Office are all located in the corridor
under consideration.
7. Unique Landmark Characteristics
There are no unique landmarks on this road segment.
8. Unique Commercial Characteristics
There is the Meridian Speedway just outside the road segment under consideration that will
attract traffic outside of normal commute times.
9. Road Segment Zoning and Land Use
The zoning along this section of road is a mix of special district, Old Town (OT),
29
commercial (C-C), and mixed density residential(R4-15). The residential zoning is mostly
along Meridian Road and the northern portion of East lst Street. Commercial and retail
area de small clommercialg enters and nd vidual buE nesses SUses foa the eomme caal) and
inclu
district include retail, wholesale, service, office, and limited manufactunng.
10. Area Population
The City of Meridian Urban Service Planning Area was estimated to be 19,300 in 1994 an
it is approaching 30,000 today. However, because of its location within Ada sounficantlch
has an estimated population of 270,000 it is possible that the roads will carry gnt Y
more autos than a town of similaz size in a different location.
City of Boise Comparable Profile
For Vista Avenue and 9th-Capital One-Way Couplet
1. Road Width
Vista Avenue, Canal Street to Kootenai (Canal to Overland 61', Overland to Kootenai 45'
9th Street, State Street to University Boulevard (State to Front 42', Front to University
60')
Capital Boulevard, Jefferson to University Boulevard (Jefferson to Front 42', Front to
University Boulevazd 60')
2. TraJf c Volume Total
One-Way Couplet 9th Street Capital 38 889
15,210 23,689 60,055
Low Volume 44 g45
High Volume 23,759
Vista Avenue
3. Road ConfrgYrration
The two-way road, Vista Avenue, Canal Street to Kootenai is a two-way five lane wnt
sidewalks but no bike path or street parking.
The one-way couplet, 9th Street, State Street to Park Drive is a one-way three lane with
street parking to Front Street. Capital Boulevard from Jefferson to Front Street is a three
lane with street parking and from Front Street to University Boulevard Capital Boulevard
is a four lane street with no parking. All segments of the one-way couplet have sidewalks
without bike paths.
4. Gateway to the Community
Vista Avenue is an important entrance into the city for both the university and
the state capital
5. Leads to or Goes Through the Downtown Core
The 9th Street-Capital one-way couplet moves traffic through the center of the downtown
core.
Location of Local Government Services teen belts, and the
The one-way couplet has the Library, City Hail, two city parks, the g
State Capital Building.
Unique Landmark Characteristics
The unique landmarks for the one-way couplet are the Boise River, state govemment
30
buildings and the city parks.
8. Unique Commercial Characteristics
The downtown core of Boise has become a cultural as well as an economic center for the
city. In addition it has the convention center as well as a new ice arena that will be opening
along the couplet.
The Vista Avenue road segment is located within one mile of the city airport contributing
to the traffic on Vista. Airport administration estimates a three month average of daily
tickets issued for incoming vehicles at 1,728 vehicles per day.
9. Road Segment Zoning
The one-way couplet is zoned commercial (C-2D, C-SDD and 5-HD) and open space (A).
Vista Avenue is primarily commercial zoned C-2D from Kootenai to Spaulding and Targee
to Canal Street. From Spaulding to Targee Street the designation is medium density
residential (R-3D).
10. Area Population
The population for the City of Boise is currently estimated at 163,363. The MSA or trading
area which includes the City of Meridian is 385,383. While Boise City is eight times larger
than Meridian it does not mean that it's economic activity is eight times larger on any
particular road segment. First, both cities are in the same MSA. Second, the local users
are major contributors to the traffic on any road segment. Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
Population estimates are available for Ada County and estimate the local traffic by road
segment. Using the TAZ estimates for the Vista Avenue road segment and comparing it to
Meridian Road, the TAZ population estimate shows there are 3,577 households using Vista
and 4,591 households using Meridian Road. The local population users are actually higher
on the Meridian Road-East 1st Street than on Vista Avenue.
CITY OF NAMPA Comparable Profile
For 12th Avenue South and 2nd-3rd Street Couplet
1. Road Width
12th Avenue South, Roosevelt to Hawaii 60'
2nd Street North, 16th Avenue to 2nd Avenue 60' ~-
3rd Street South, 16th Avenue to 2nd Avenue (2nd to 11th Avenue 50', 11th to 16th
Avenue 60')
2. Traffic Volume
2nd Street 3rd Street Total
One-way couplet 15,500 12,200 27,000
12th Avenue South 25,150
3. Road Configuration
The one-way couplet has street parking through the downtown core and in the residential
neighborhood. There is no parking from 6th to 2nd Avenues. There are also intermittent
sidewalks on this section. There are no bake paths on the entire segment.
The two-way five lane road has sidewalks for most of the segment but no bike paths or
31
street pazking.
4. Gateway ro the Community
12th Avenue South is the southern entry to Nampa and leads directly into the downtown
core.
5. Leads to or Goes Through the Downtown Core
The one-way couplet passes through the Nampa downtown core.
6. Location of Local Government Services
City Hall, Canyon County Court House, Police Department, and the Civic Center are all
located along the one-way couplet.
7. Unique Landmark Characteristics
There are no unique land characteristics.
8. Unique Commercial Characteristics
The one-way couplet has the downtown area and the civic center. 12th Avenue South has
the city high school and hospital in or adjacent to the road segment reviewed.
9. Road Segment Zoning
The one-way couplet is defined as CB, central business district, with residential areas one
street to the south. The couplet also has a CB PUD with a light industrial designation. It
should be noted that this parcel of land remains open with no immediate plans for
development. This land would be developed commercial if the zoning restriction was
removed.
12th Avenue South is also primarily designated as BC with a small strip of the road
designated as )tP, residential professional. This section is where there are a few single
family homes remaining. Additionally, the city has designated a section for RMI.,
multifamily development.
10. Area Population
The City of Nampa estimates its 1996 population at 40,600 almost double that of the City
of Meridian. Nampa is in the same trade area as both Meridian and Boise. The area around
Nampa is more rural than Meridian.
CITY OF TWIN FALLS Comparable Profile _
For Blue Lakes Boulevard and 2nd Avenues Couplet
1. Road Width
Blue Lakes Boulevard, Falls to Addison Street 80'
2nd Avenue East, West 7th Street to East 7th Street 60'
2nd Avenue West, East 7th Street to West 7th Street 60'
2. Traffic Volume
One-way couplet 2nd Avenue 2nd Avenue Total
(Shoshone) 9,400 10,000 19,400
Two-way Blue Lakes (Falls to Filer) 27,000
3. Road Configuration
The one-way couplet has three lanes of traffic, sidewalks and street parking but no bike
paths.
32
The two-way five lane road has turn lanes with sidewalks but no bike paths or street
parking.
4. Gateway to the Community
Blue Lakes Boulevard has freeway access across the Snake River and is considered the
gateway to Twin Falls.
5. Leads to or Goes Through the Downtown Core
The Second Avenues define the downtown center.
6. Location of Local Government Services
City Hall, Fire Department and the U.S. Post Office aze located on the one-way couplet.
7. Unique Landmark Characteristics
Blue Lakes Boulevazd crosses the Snake River and is a north south state highway.
8. Unique Commercial Characteristics
The one-way couplet is separated by Main Street. Main Street has been narrowed to a two
lane road with diagonal pazking and curb extensions and other traffic calming techniques to
provide an atmosphere of a pedestrian mall. Additionally, off street parking for Main
Street parking has been provided along both of the couplets reducing the available space
for retail and commercial activities. The couplet and Blue Lakes Boulevard is part of State
Highway 30. Blue Lakes Boulevard is approaching its design capacity of 34,000 AADT. It
currently has the highest traffic accident rate of any State Highway..
9. Road Segment Zoning
The one-way couplet is zoned C-B, central business district. Within this district it has
commercial residential, residential/professional and municipal services.
Blue Lakes Boulevazd is zoned C-I, commercial retail, for the length of road segment
under review. Adjacent to the azea, the designation changes to professional office
designation at the point State Highway 30 leaves Blue Lakes Boulevard and the road
narrows to 40 feet.
10. Area Population
The 1994 population estimate for Twin Falls is 28,425 with a trade area of 230,000. Of the
three communities reviewed Twin Falls has the nearest population exceeding the City of
Meridian by approximately 8,000 people.
33
Glenn K. aennett, P.L.S.
President
Timothy A. Burgess, P.E.
Vice President
Civil Survey Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 39
1530 W. State S[ree[
Meridian, Idaho 83680
(208)888-0312
Faz 888-0323
July 30, 1997
Gary Smith, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Franklin and Meridian Road Water and Sewer Improvements
In Conjunction With ACHD Project 52091.B.
Dear Gary:
RECti1VEll
AUG 1 9 1997
~X OF N~~~~
Thank you for considering Civil Survey Consultants to provide professional services for water and sewer
improvements for the referenced project. These improvements will be incorporated into the ACHD
roadway design package that we are currently updating. I propose to provide these services based upon
the following scope of services:
I. FRANKLIN ROAD WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
A. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
From the valve cluster at the intersection of Franklin Road and Linder Road intersection
extend a new 12" water main west along Franklin Road approximately 700'; and east
along Franklin Road approximately 1900'. Connect to the existing 10" water main near
the 8-mile lateral crossing.
2. At the intersection of Franklin and W. 12th Street connect to the new 12" water main and
extend a new 10" water main approximately 170' south along W. 12th Street and connect
to the existing 10" water main that runs along Crest Wood Drive. Disconnect and
abandon the existing 10" line that runs from Franklin Road down a lot line to Crest Wood
Drive.
Disconnect and abandon the 10" water main that runs north along the Holstein property
neaz station 70+00.
4. Provide bypass line from Well Nine to either an existing irrigation box south of Franklin
Road neaz station 73+40 or to the new irrigation box for the Eight Mile Lateral crossing
south of Franklin near station 71+70. Provide coordination with Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District. This element of the design assumes Nampa Meridian will grant
permission for the bypass line to discharge to the Eight Mile Lateral.
Smith
July 3Q 1997
Page 2 of 3
5. Provide a new connection into Rose Circle Trailer Pazk and abandon the existing pipes
which aze located in easements along lot lines.
B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Beginning at Linder Road extend the gravity sewer west approximately 700 feet west to
the westerly end of the ACHD project.
2. Beginning at the end of the existing sewer main in Franklin Road at Sta. 50+35 extend
the gravity sewer east approximately 2400 feet to the high point in Franklin Road.
3. Extend the sewer east and west along Franklin Road from the designed sewer for the
Troutner Business Pazk. Extend the sewer west from the proposed manhole at the west
edge of the Troutner Pazcel (Sta. 83+10) approximately 700 feet to the high point in
Franklin road. Extend the sewer east from the Troutner Business Pazk manhole neaz
station 86+83 east along Franklin just past station 93+00 and across from Centennial
Motors. Provide sewer services to each of the existing buildings and small pazcels and 8"
stubs to lazge pazcels.
II. MERIDIAN ROAD WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
A. WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Beginning at East Gem Street replace the existing water main approximately 600 feet
north. Replacement of this segment is necessary due to a lack of cover once the roadway
grade is adjusted. The existing line is also located under the future curb.
2. Beginning at Franklin road replace the existing water main approximately 450 feet south.
Replacement of this segment is necessary due to a lack of cover once the roadway grade
is adjusted.
B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Beginning at the existing manhole at East Gem Street extend the sewer main north
approximately 120 Feet to service a proposed multifamily development on the west side
of Meridian Road.
2. Beginning at the existing manhole just south of the 8-mile lateral extend the sewer main
south approximately 1200 feet. A preliminary design was previously prepared for this
segment by Bell Walker. This preliminary design will be used as a basis for the final
plans and updated as necessary.
Smith
July 30, 1997
Page 3 of 3
The plans will be prepared in a form compatible with ACHD's project. The plans will show all service
and fire hydrant relocations so that they may also be completed under this contract.
We will send a letter to each property owner with vacant ground adjacent to the project. The letter will
advise them of the project, tell them the City will install a service stub to their property at their request,
and advise them the cost of the stub will be charged to them following completion of the work. A copy
of the letter will be sent to you for approval of the content and wording prior to being issued.
We will contact each property owner with an existing structure and obtain the information necessary to
design the sewer main to service their existing structure.
We will contact the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for permission to discharge the Well No. 9 by-
pass line to the Eight Mile Lateral. It will be the City's responsibility to negotiate and execute any
license agreements required for the dischazge and pay any fees associated with the agreement.
We will submit the plans to ACHD, and DEQ for review and approval prior to construction. It will be
the City's responsibility to negotiate and execute the Joint Effort Agreement for construction with
ACHD.
I anticipate that the plan set will include a cover sheet, general note sheet, 16 plan and profile sheets, and
the three city standard detail sheets. The total set is anticipated to include 21 sheets.
The current city detail sheets aze on a 24"x36" format. This project is on a 22"x34" format. If possible,
I am requesting electronic AutoCAD files of your standard water and sewer drawings. [f that is not
possible, I am requesting that you plot out new sheets for this project on the 22"x34" format.
We propose to provide the Design Services as outlined above on a time and materials basis with a not to
exceed amount of $ 18,400.00 without prior approval of the Owner. I have enclosed a copy of my man-
hour and fee estimates for your reference.
If the proposed scope of services and fee estimates are acceptable please sign and return one copy of the
enclosed Agreement for Professional Services. Again, thank you for considering Civil Survey
Consultants for this project.
Sincerely,
Civil ey Consultants, [nc.
~~~~
Tim Burgess, P.E.
No. ~s ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANQINa THE
ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THS CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH IS
DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THB SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF THS BOISB MERIDIAN,
IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN BFFSCTIVS DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the beet interest of
said City to change the zoning from R-4 Residential to Limited
Office (L-O), for the following described parcel in Section 1
below: ~7~v~i3~
NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT ORDAINHD by the Mayor and City Council
~' -=~;
of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: -'
Section 1. That the aforementioned rea~(g$~p~rty which is
described as follows: ~}~'~~h-~-c~'t-~e.~`-
~~7 X1;:1 nr '.~.° :-+ q!I
A portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the St~~t'14`Gi~~ 1'/$' ~f "
Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West _o~athe Bois~~y~~J~~n
Meridian described as follows: d8 r
tt't~e...,__ ~. _ ~r
Beginning at a point that is N 0°28'10" W 350.00 feet and
N 89°41'10" E 45.00 feet from the Southwest corner of
Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise
Meridian (said point being on the East right-of-way line
of North Linder Road) and running thence N 89°41'10" S
755.00 feet; thence N 0°28'10" W 456.79 feet; thence N
89°43'45" E 72.35 feet; thence N 4°49'42" W 74.95 feet;
thence N 3°21'29" S 146.99 Eeet; thence N 22°41'06" W
30.63 feet; thence S 89°45'20" W 521.66 feet; thence S
0°32'30" E 139.64 feet; thence S 89°54'53" W 298.41 feet
to said Sast right-of-way line; thence S 0°28'10" S
568.65 feet along said right-of-way line to the point of
beginning.
Parcel contains 11.71 acres.
be, and the same is hereby rezoned from R-4 Residential to Limited
Office (L-O) and Section 11-2-425, Official Zoning Maps is hereby
amended to reflect the same. This rezoning is subject to the
REZONE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE -
MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD -
PAGE 1
conditions referenced in the Findings bf Fact and Conclusions of
Law as adopted by the Meridian City Council on the request for
rezone.
Section 2. The Applicant shall comply with all of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian including the Fire Code, Life
Safety Code, the Uniform Building, Electrical, Plumbing Codes and
all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. That the Applicant
shall enter into a Development Agreement and/or the property shall
be developed under the conditional use permit process.
Section 3. That if the Applicant shall fail to meet the
above conditions the property shall be subject to rezone back to R-
4.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency,
which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval
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 August,
1997.
APP 8 D:
j'f`~\I
R -- ROBERT D. CORRIE
a~.
-- wttw.ttsw vv aaac~, uac.
REZONE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE -
I~RIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD -
S~111! -
s ,p =
'~ ~T 18t • 1~~` ```~
oq ~UrtTY ,pl, .~
PAGE 2
STATE OF IDAHO,)
sa.
County of Ada, )
I, WILL BERG, 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 ORDINANCE OF THS
CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY IN THS CITY OF MERIDIAN WHZCH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF
THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 3
NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN
BFFSCTIVB DATE"; passed as Ordinance No. 7,F~ 7 , by the City
Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~ day of
August, 1997, as the same appears in my office.
DATED this 1~~~l~ay of August, 1997.
7
STATE OF I~O ~~~
r -
County of Addy' ~~•(., ~P````~~~
On this ~kclay of Auquat, 1997, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Publs.c 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 name.
IN WITNESS WHERBOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year in thin certificate first above
written.
SEAL
CITY\RSZONE \ASSEMBLY. L„(~,,,,,
~~ ~'~~ u
~ ~ ` ~ ~~
d~ .~~:
,~
ei+~ ~.`
.P'", ~~'~i.
- 's ty C er City o e an
a~L _ Ada County, Idaho
at Meridian, Idaho i
sion Expires: G~" o yO
REZONE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE
MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD - PAGE 3
~'.
a T
p ~ w n a a. a'
,a a
N i
n 7 '
u In Iw
s
' I %\ / ~:.~ / III I \ I_ NOJ 1
PL~E ~I I .~ /~~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 6U 6. ~. l; ~ ,~ ~O. ~2 „
` J.y~ I~
~M V per, ~ (.
,
~'
G ~
Q T
~y@/
I.V~ f/-
~
N!
' t84.~4'
~.~ I
~
~ , ~
'
29Y. 41 „
~ , w
~ ~srr u cr , '
/?
' %'
~;
~ u1 aet A56EN01.Y~4oo ~ ,,
~ 3 TE
app
-
~ I
i
Y03'
I` LTA
'i
..
~ „
,
~ i ~ -- -P - ---- ;
~
, ~ I w
o ~{ ~ ~ I ;
N.B9'4!'tdE. ~~~~ ~ zi i i ; i
I I ~, I ~ sw c~+~, ~. ~. ~. I I 1
~vo. /IEEE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN
REAL PROP$RTY WHICH IS DBSGRIBED A3 THE SOUTH 1/2, SW 1/4, SECTION
20, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHBREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the bast interest of
said City to annex to the said City real property which is
described in Section 1 below:
.~ .. .. __
NOW, THEREFORE, B8 IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
.. r.
Section 1. That the real property described as• ,,;~;
A parcel of land being a portion of the South 1/2 of ~yG(,GGq .
Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, ~Qxae,-. _ OO
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, said parcel being`indYe c~ ~~
particularly described ae follows s f ~'~ ~~'~~/~ ~„
Commencing at the iron pin marking the corner common to <-=~sr~~J
Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30, T. 3N., R. 1E., B.M., Ada
County, Zdaho;
Thence N. 0°44'50" E 1,327.36 feet to an aluminum cap
marking the south 1/16 corner common to said Sections 19
and 20, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence S 89°49'11" E 2,228.88 feet along the north line
of the South 1/2 SW 1/4 of said Section 20 to a point on
the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal;
Along said centerline the following courses and
distances;
Thence S 20°43'05" E 111.76 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence along a curve to the left 168.45 feet, said curve
having a central angle of 12°52'06", a radius of 750.00
feet, tangents of 84.58 feet and a long chord of 168.09
feet which bears S 27°09'08" 8 to a point of tangency;
Thence S 33°35'11" S 233.60 feet to a point;
Thence S 52°22'11" E 44.27 feet to a point;
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - SHSRBROORS HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 1
Leaving said centerline;
Thence S 0°25'48" W 206.24 feet to a point;
Thence N 89°34'12" w 538.36 feet to a point;
Thence S 0°34'22" W 126.54 feet to a point;
Thence N 89°32'04" W 639.99 feat to a point;
Thence S 0°34'24" w 531.00 feet to an Aluminum Cap
marking the west 1/16 corner common to said Sections 20
and 29;
Thence N 89°34'22" W 388.90 feet along the line common to
said Sections 20 and 29 to a point on the centerline of
tha Bight Mile Lateral;
Along said centerline the following courses and
distances;
Thence N 3°04'10" W 319.40 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence along a curve to the left 155.25 feet, said curve
having a delta of 74°07'42", a radius of 120.00 feet,
tangents of 90.64 feet and a long chord of 144.65 feet
which bears N 40°08'01" W to a point of tangency;
Thence N 77°11'52" W 523.60 feet to a point;
Leaving said centerline;
Thence S 89°22'14" W 323.49 feet to the line common to
said Sections 19 and 20;
Thence N 0°44'50" E 792.41 feet to the REAL POINT OF
BEGINNING of Chia description, said parcel containing
48.70 acres, more or less.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoned R-4
Residential; that the reason for the R-4 zoning is to allow
development for a single family residential subdivision to be known
as Sherbrooke Hollow Subdivision; 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; that all
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - SHERBROORE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 2
ditches, canals and waterways shall be tiled including those that
are property boundaries or only partially located on the property.
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 and rezoning, 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 development the requirements of 11-9-605 of the
Revieed and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and other matters; that the property may be de-annexed if
the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are
not satisfied.
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, 11-9-605 M.
which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways,
and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized
irrigation.
e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
f. That the Applicant shall meet the requirements and
conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
g. That the Applicant shall place sufficient fill
dirt on the land adjacent to the land owned by
John Shipley, and his wife, ao that there
shall be no drainage of water from the annexed
property onto the property owned by Mr. and
Mrs. Shipley.
Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of
the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - SHSRBROORS HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 3
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) dnys following the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency,
which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this l y ~~ day of August,
1997.
APPROVED:
~J
_n~iw~ t
-- ROBERT D. CORRIE
ATTESTz
-- wlLL¢nliyv. aaacu, ua~.
C~~{,~ B~I:
ANNEXATION ORDINANCH - 3HHRBROORH HOLLOi4 SUBDIVISION PAGE 4
STATE OF IDAHO,)
se.
County of Ada, )
I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Citp 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 Amended Ordinance entitled
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTH 1/2, SW 1/4, SECTION
20, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE"; passed ae Ordinance No.
by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the
~~+-day of August, 1997, as the same appears in my office.
DATED thisr ~ ,j~ay'of August, 1997.
`1` .fib '_ .L~iA--/"` ~~~ 7~-
B~,~L s City Clerk, City of Me idian
_ ~ c Ada County, Idaho
~~ ti r
STATB OF IDAHO,)
sa.
County of Ada, )
On this ~gtti day of August, 1997, 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. .~~~`~~~~•.,
.• .,
or`~G E L . ~ •.,~
C\ .r ,~
SYg e
SEAL =~i'°(JBt~S, w ~:
,4, .
Jj. "
l .,;< .`;
city\annex.zon\sherbroo
at Meridian, Idaho
sion expires: 4.~ <<'
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - SHERBROOftE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION PAGE 5
i.
_•
•
i '~
/,
'
'
~ - -------- ----------
ql. aa
.44
6d
E
/327.3` ~ ~~
~,
~, ~
~ (~ O
I
~1
~
~~ ~ y
1~
' ' •
`
1
a.~.
z .n
z
_ ~~ * ~
~
~
i
, '
~
' ~
~~
~Q
i
~
~
~ ~
~
~
.g N
~.
I
I
'
;
~
N
~ Z
i
~ °_
O'34~24`W. S3l.W~ I
Z
Z
~. ~ Q
N ~~
N
o
~, w
' ~ ~' ~
' ~'.
~~
~~
~ • N S~
~~ ~ ~`
a
_ p
Si
G w, ~
y 1~ 1'
,~
''
~
•;
l
`~'
.~
I~I~I ///~~i
_~ ._... _.~.q
• r
ao. ~6 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNE%ING AND ZONING CERTAIN
REAL PROPHRTY WBICH I3 DESCRIBED A3 A PORTION OF THS SOUTH 1/2 OF
THS NORTHW83T 1/4, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN BFFECTIVE DATE.
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, THEREFORB, BE IT ORDAINHD 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 South-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 11, T. 3N., R. 1W., B.M.,
Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described ae
follows:
Beginning at a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of
said NW 1/4 of Section 11, thence along the Southerly
boundary of said NW 1/4 of Section 11 and the centerline
of West Pine Street, South 89°10'57" East 1322.64 feat to
an iron pin marking the Southwest corner of the S8 1/4 of
said NW 1/4 of Section 11, said iron pin being the REAL
POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence along the Westerly boundary of said SE 1/4 of the
NW 1/4 of Section 11, North 00°30'36" East 520.68 feet to
an iron pin on the Northeasterly boundary of Sight Mile
Lateral;
a ~~ ll f' ~ 1 ~ 1
thence along said Northeasterly boundary of 8iY3ht t~il~e
Lateral, North 61°01'27" Weat 589.45 feet to an iron pin;
thence North 39°09'21" West 688.46 feet to an irQ;i Jpin.ou-•~
the Northerly boundary of said S 1/2 of the'•liOP ' i/4' bf ``~
Section 11; ~~`'~'-
thence along said Northerly boundary of the S 1/2 of the :,~
NW 1/4 of Section 11, South 88°54'42" East'~~~t,4?~i f¢8t
to an iron pin; ~ A V 6 3 6 P m
;,:_,. ,
ORDINANCE - HAVEN COVE NO. 7 /
MERIDIAN LAND DBVELOPMBNT PAGE 1
thence leaving said Northerly boundary of the S 1/2 of
the NW 1/4 of Section 11, South O1°05'18" West 100.00
feet to an iron pin;
thence South 10°12'43" West 50.64 feet to an iron pin;
thence South 00°33'12" West 100.00 feet to an iron pin;
thence South 88°54'42" Sast 240.01 feet to an iron pin on
the Easterly boundary of the W 1/2 of the SS 1/4 of said
NW 1/4 of Section 11;
thence along said Easterly boundary of the W 1/2 of the
SS 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 11, South 00°33'12" West
1068.79 feet to an iron pin on said Southerly boundary of
the NW 1/4 of Section 11 and the centerline of West Pine
Street;
thence along said Southerly boundary of the NW 1/4 of
Section 11 and said centerline of Weat Pine Street, North
89°10'57" West 661.32 feet to the point of beginning,
comprising 29.25 acres more or lees.
SUBJECT TO: All existing easements and road rights-of-way
of record or appearing on the above-described parcel of
land.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoned R-4
Residential, approximatley 29.25 acres; that the reason for the R-4
zoning is to allow development for a single family residential
subdivision to be known as Haven Cove Subdivision No. 7; 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; that all ditches, canals and waterways shall be
tiled including those that are property boundaries or only
partially located on the property.
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-
annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements:
ORDINANCB - HAVEN COVE NO. 7 /
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT PALS 2
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 and rezoning, the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and i1-2-417 D;
that the development agreement shall address inclusion
into the development the requirements of 11-9-605 of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian
and other matters; that the property may be de-annexed if
the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are
not satiafiad.
d. That the development of annexed land moat meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to
development time achedule• and requirements, i1-9-605 M.
which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways,
and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized
irrigation.
e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
f. That the Applicant shall met the requirements and
conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
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. EFFECTIVB DATE: There being an emergency,
which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - HAVBN COVE NO. 7 /
M$RIDIAN LAND DEVBLOPMENT PAGE 3
~J
be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this -F--i--- day of August,
1997.
APPROVED:
ATTBST:
ANNEXATION ORDINANCB - HAVEN COVE NO. 7 /
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMBNT FAGS 4
STATB OF IDAHO,)
as.
County of Ada, )
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 Amended Ordinance entitled
"AN ORDINANCB OF THS CITY OF MBRIDIAN ANNEXING AND 20NING CBRTAIN
RBAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DBSCRZBED AS A PORTION OF TSB SOUTH 1/2 OF
TH8 NORTHWEST 1/4, SBCTION 11, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WBST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO• AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE"; passed as Ordinance No. ~, ~ the City Council and
Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the ~, day of August, 1997,
as the same appears in my office.
DATED this ~-day of August, 1997.
,~`~'at ~ •~~O''a
C~~ sss
ty Clerk,
SB~ lda County,
~~
' p T 18,E ^~ e~``~`r
4 ~ ~~
i,~,'A ~" f, • a````te
STATE OF IDAHO, ) ~""'
ss.
County of Ada, )
On this ~~ day, of August, 1997, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally
appeared WILLIAM G. BBRG, JR., known to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed tha same.
IN WITNBSS WHBRBOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year in this certificate first above
written. ,~~~GE" ~'n~,,,
•.
.>Q~~ •°»°°° 9J~
.~
:~
SOS A/~m s
SEAL n ~r 'O (~ S ~~~'
at Meridian, Idaho
aion expires: Oa'~
ANNBXATZON ORDINANCE - HAVBN COVB NO. 7 /
MBRIDZAN LAND DBVELOPMSNT PAGE 5
•.
,.
' \\
~~
..
~~
I ~
I I yy `.
'` t - h -NSF .~ 4
j w
i'
`•' V ~.
SN
10~~
\ s~ 2
1 3
36 4
~5 1 11
3 34 1
•~ 2 ~
32 30
31 2 27
29 ~ 13 14 SS 16 37 ig 19 20 21 22 23 84 ~ ~SS 1 12 1 13 1 14 I i5 1 16 I 17 I 1
r- - -- -- -- -- - --- -- -- - -
i, 32 33 34 38 38 37
11 3B 39 40 41. 42 4 i 34 33 32 31 30 29 29 2:
s. 88
f 42 E. /e7b9.46'
s.ot'AS to N. SS
i
;
~.:, 1
_
I
._
~
3
d
- 1
- ,
.
~
t
<<J
-
~ K-wawa
f
1e
toO.oe'~' ~~
5.88'54 42' E. a a a s
~ ZQD.ot' °' a
aw~~ c
a
~ a a a s a
O~ ~ ~ D a a ~
J~ ~M1 iiSS
~
a N y
~
`
~~.~~
cY~iNaNCE No.-tfH
3
n tliC70M - Y. dILiGN K
' ~ \\ F41VDJ CGV E 5N6. ND.'1 t~ " ,• Nia ,•
. ..~ b
.. n u w .
~
\ ~ u
n
m
w srgc'-
` ~` h u
,~ n n
vi w
,o
p ~ a
~6 ~ ~
• .
~ 84°!o'67"E. /322.64' 8 ~ ,
__-_ 3®
~~t~~~c~~~~~~~
by the Mayor
Saturday, Aug. 30, 1997
WHEREAS RVing is a clean, healthful and wholesome
recreational activity, and
WHEREAS The Good Sam Club> the world's largest RV
owners' club including a number of local
residents, is staging a nationwide trash cleanup,
supported by Fleetwood RV, the world's largest
RV manufacturer, to improve our
environment, and
WHEREAS We see this activity as beneficial to all, and hope
it receives widespread support throughout our
populace, and
WHEREAS We wish to thank Good Sam for its efforts to
make a better world,
NOW THEREFORE
I hereby declare Saturday, August 30, 1997,
"Good Sam Cleanup Day" throughout our city,
and urge all citizens to join Good Sam in this
"Labor of Love"!
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBI~ MEETING SIGN-U~HEET
NAME PHON N MBF~t
CITY OF MERID
PUBL~ MEETING SIGNLHEET
~,
~ /'
AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 153
POLICY REGARDING NON-DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY
A resolution of the City of Meridian, Idaho, adopting a policy of non-discrimination on the
basis of disability.
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has passed Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 which requires that "No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the
United States ...shall, solely on the basis of his or her handicap, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving federal financial assistance"; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Meridian has received an Idaho Community Development Block
Grant and is required to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and,
WHEREAS, the failure to comply with the terms and conditions of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act may cause the City to lose its grant or eligibility for future grants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Councit of the City of Meridian,
Idaho, the following:
SECTION L• It is the policy of the City that all programs and activities shall be
accessible to, and usable by, qualified persons with disabilities.
SECTION 2: That the City shall undertake an evaluation, conducted in consultation
with citizen groups involving persons with disabilities, of its
programs, policies, procedures and facilities in order to determine
those areas where discrimination may occur.
SECTION 3: The City shall, upon completion of said evaluation, make such
revisions, modifications, or other changes so as to fully comply with
the letter and intent of Section 504.
SECTION 4: Further, the City shall, where buildittg modifications are required,
develop and implement a transition plan for the timely elimination of
structural barriers to citizens with disabilities.
Citizens may contact the PBcZ Administrator, Shari Stiles, at 888-4433, 33 East Idaho,
Meridian, for assistance or to answer questions regarding this policy.
PASSED by the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 19m day of August, 1997.
ert D. Come, Mayor
ATTEST:
,~
William G. Berg, Jr., City
.o~~y ~ .~°'%
a~~r
s$~.
s
7Qr13'~~1
4 ~'
/'
3
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk
JANICE L. GASS, Ciry Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., Ciry Engineer
BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T SHAWCROFt, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI L. STILES, P 8 Z Administrator
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV SupeMSOr
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Flre Chief
W.L. "BILL' GORDON, Police Chief
WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
• HUB OF TREASURE UAGLEY •
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888.4433 • FAX (208) 887-0813
Public WorksBuilding Deperhnent (208) 887-2211
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443
ROBERT D. CORRIE
Mayor
August 15, 1997
Honorable Mayor Robert Come
and Meridian City Council,
Gentlemen,
COUNCIL MEMBERS
WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALD R. TOLSMA
CHARLES M. ROUNTREE
GLENN R. BENTLEY
P 8 Z COMMISSION
JIM JOHNSON, Chalnnan
KEITH BORUP
JIM SHEARER
GREG OSLUND
MALCOLM MACCOV
I am writing to request a transfer of funds from the sewer Special Projects account, 130-0435.40-
75, to the Grounds Maintenance account, 60-0435.40-60. The total request is for $5,000. This
money would be used to extend the field irrigation system, green line on the map, and the
extension of the plant irrigation system to water the pink areas which will be new lawn. These
lawn areas are a result of the fence relocation associated with the Primary Clarifier and
Administration Building additions.
Thank you for your consideration .
Sincerely,
John T. Shawcroft`
Wastewater Supt.
' ~ ~" i
i
/
r
I r
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
~~
Ip
ICJ
r„" I
I
I
~ ~
~*
i
__
n
r
p
L~
~~.-
~~
~~ ~~ ~
~ /
40.~~
y/y+~
N
I ~l
~g
/~~
~ ~~~
~_.. _
~ ~_ ~ ~~
,_;
~ ~ ~
Y ~ a r L
~ - B -o o%.
~_v~, : i -
'~ ~ a
;~`
/ fj\ ~/
Ruc-SB-1997 1s: a1
v
FROI'1 M72IDIRN WRTt72 DF]'T
~.~
TD •
MERIDIAN MERIDIAN WATER DEPT.
„w. >3owEa avENUE
MERIDIAN, IOAN088842
8871297 P.01
MERIDIAN
PNONE1298)88Bd242 RECEIVED
AUG t 8 1997
- IAEIiDIAN CITY ENGINEER
Aullm, Ift, 1997
i~aabk INrvar Robert t~rla
and Maci&sa Chy Caaocll
tientleioea,
I am,-ritia8 to rogaeae a tramfergFLmds 8rom the wager t Vobioto aoomrt fi0-0434.50fi0 to water
Vehicle Pmdmoe aaeoum GO-0L34.50.63. 1Le tohl nxlneat is far 519345.00. 1Lia money waiild 6e tined to
pnraaee a plctr-0p, and agaip~t bo tapp~y tae ~strFak. Abo from the CaoWi~tialt Veffiscls aocoaat
tiD-0434.50~60, we are iegaem:og to ttat~&r the apramt Of f42,t11p.0D. Tali moony woeld bo asal for
an afr atwdiricear, ahgf ogles area, wtriu~ add to a 90wer pioQS, also l4 band a Shed tar
Tlamiry~ flit ymr on_
To Q~:ldk~ n¢N..od¢I gecov.,.i !d]-~3c(.9O-?Z~
9.
A %~~-~
Bacafieuart
WaeQDepmtmem 8opa®m~deat
POSMt•FmcNara 7671 ~
7O am
CoA~pt
AYAa
~~ fart
TOTRL P.01
~~
DSFORE T8E ~RIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OP BBNITON CONSTRUCTION COlIPANY
FOR A V1IRIANCE FROI[ l[BE T~
I[OST OF TSS Il[PROVSMSNT ORDIIiANCBB
AMENDBD FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for hearing
on August 5, 1997, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date,
at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho,
Douglas A. Nichols appearing for the Applicant, and the City
Council having heard and taken oral testimony, the City Council of
the City of Meridian makes the following:
FINDINO$ OF FACT
A. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for August 5, 1997, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the August 5, 1997, hearing; that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
B. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
C. That the property is owned by First Security Bank; that
the Applicant is Beniton Construction Company.
BBNITON CO~ltPANY - FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS LUa~ pgga - 1
D. That the property is zoned C-G, General Retail and
Service Commercial, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance; that the
Zoning Ordinance requires many improvements to be made to property
prior to it being used in any fashion, including paving, providing
parking and lighting, meeting setbacks, landscaping, connecting to
sewer and water, and meeting many other requirements of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
S. That the Applicant has requested that it be granted
variances from meeting almost all of the City Ordinances because
Applicant asserts that the house located on the property is likely
to be demolished within two years because it may be directly in the
path of the extension of Corporate Drive and therefore it does not
make any sense to put the improvements in when they will likely
have to be removed in a short period of time.
F. That Doug Nichols, representing the Applicant, testified
as follows:
That his company is temporarily occupying the home on the
property and the land; that most of the front yard and the
side yard will be taken by the Ada County Highway District
(ACRD) when Corporate Drive is extended; that his company is
on a month-to-month lease while occupying the home; that his
company has no objections to aide agreements and that they
will pave and put in a parking lot.
G. In the Application the Applicant represented, basically
as follows:
That the Company plans to use the property as a temporary
location for their office. The office would have two to three
people working there on a full time basis with a primary
function of bidding projects and office type functions. There
would be occasional subcontractors using the facility to view
plans. There were no plans to use the facility as yard and
$SNIT011 C011PANY - FACTS AND CO1fCLUSIONB ~s ~ - 2
there would be no equipment parked at the property. The
Company plans to improve and maintain the property by
replacing dead shrubs and performing landscape maintenance.
It further stated that no construction is planned and only
minor improvements to the building such as painting and floor
covering.
That First Security Bank owns the property and it is not
a residential landlord and chose not to have anyone live
there. That the Sank has no immediate plans for the property
and has a choice of leaving the house vacant with minimal
maintenance or leasing it to the Company on a month-to-month
basis to have someone maintain the property.
Current requirements call for a paved drive and parking
area. The site has a compacted gravel driveway and parking
area. The property is well landscaped, but has not automatic
irrigation system. ACHD is planning a major road extension of
Corporate Drive and a remodel of the intersection of Corporate
Drive and Meridian Road this fall and they are thinking about
taking a great deal of the property.
That if the Bank decided to start remodeling the property
it would be two years before construction could start.
Beniton is not adverse to improving the site, but is
reluctant to install asphnlt paving, irrigation and
landscaping at this time, only to have it torn out by ACHD,
and then having to re-install it. we would like to wait and
see what impact ACHD will have on the property and address
these items at that time. Beniton will strive to keep the
property as attractive as possible.
Immediate upgrades to the property include the removal
and replacement of the dead shrubs, weed control and widening
the driveway so vehicles can turn around on the site without
having to back onto the street.
H. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles,
and Assistant to the City gngineer, Bruce Freckleton, commented on
the proposed variance and their comments are incorporated herein as
if set forth in full; however some of their comments were as
follows:
1. The property is connected to City water and sewer is
not available.
BSmIT01i COl[PAN! FACTS AIID C01iCLi18I0~16 Asr.~s ueK1i - 3
2. The public nuisance Ordinance must be met and all
weeds mowed and removed.
3. No vehicles will be allowed to back onto Meridian
Road.
4. It would be deaireablc to have a parking pad
constructed and paving a minimum of 30 feet into the driveway.
5. Signage would be attached to the home and approved
by the Planning and Zoning Department.
6. That it would be preferable to have the home
occupied for maintenance purposes.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained prior
to using the building for office use and all requirements of
the uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code must be
addressed.
8. A screened trash enclosure must be provided.
9. The Applicant must supply the Public Works
Department with anticipated sewer and water usage.
I. That no people appeared at the hearing objecting to the
variance application.
coxcLVSSOxs
J. 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 the Application to owners of
property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
Applicant's property.
R. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
L. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
SENITOII COI~ANY - FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Phae ostr9 - 4
Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record submitted
to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice.
M. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual
conditions existing within the City and the State.
N. That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of
the Zoning Ordinance, is noted which is pertinent to the
Application:
11-2-419 A.
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision
and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the
public interest where, owing to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming
use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of
lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
Variances shall be granted only where strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go
to the Commission unless directed by the Council.
O. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-2-419 C. FIIIDINQ8
A variance shall not be granted unless (ss a result of a
public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exist:
DBNITON C01tPA1R - FACTS AND COIiCLU$IOliB ~w °~ - 5
1. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance
would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable;
That strict compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would result in extraordinary
hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer
because of unusual topography, other physical
conditions or other conditions which are not self-
inflicted, or that these conditions wall result in
inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of
this Ordinance;
3. That the granting of the specified variance will
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated;
4. That such variance will not have the effect of
altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
P. That there would be a specific benefit or profit,
economic gain or convenience to the Applicant, if the Application
was granted in that the Applicant would not have to meet the
ordinance requirements which require improvements to property
before it is occupied.
Q. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically
concluded ae follows:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application
of the provisions of the set back Ordinance would
clearly be unreasonable, in that it is likely the
home located on the property make have to be
destructed either by ACRD of First Security Bank
and it was stated that that would likely be started
within two years.
b. That strict compliance with the improvement
requirements would result in extraordinary hardship
to the applicant, because any improvements
Applicant placed on the property would be removed
BA1i~TOli COMPA2iY - FACTS AflD CONCLUSI01i8 11e® Haas - 6
within two years.
c. That the granting of the specified variances would
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated since the Applicant
indicated that it would maintain the property while
waiting for the extension of Corporate Drive.
d. That such variance would not have the effect of
altering the interests and purposes of the
improvement Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
R. That in regard to the first paragraph of 11-2-419 A,
which is quoted above, it is specifically noted that it states, in
part, as follows:
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from
the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision and
Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the public
interest where, owing to special .conditions, a literal
enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result
in unnecessary hardship.
S. That it is specifically concluded the Application for a
variance should be granted because if the improvement Ordinances
were enforced at this time it is very likely that the property
would not be improved and qo into a worse condition than it is now.
Since the property is on an entryway into the City it is much.
better to grant the variances than to allow the property to not be
maintained.
T. The City has not granted any similar variance requests
such as this one; each application must stand on its own merits and
the granting of one variance is not a precedent for granting
others.
U. It is further concluded, however, that the variance once
B81iITON COMpAIiY - FACTS A1iD COIiCLUSIOlfS ~ CBr.1s - 7
•
C'
granted shall not run with the land and the City shall investigate
the circumstances of the property two years, or sooner, from the
date of August 19, 1997. At the time it is reinvestigated, the
City may revoke the any variances granted based on this Application
or it may continue them or change them in any fashion deemed to be
in the best interests of the City.
V. It is additionally concluded as follows:
1. The property be connected to City sewer ae soon as
it becomes available.
2. The public nuisance Ordinance shall be met and all
weeds mowed and removed and consistently rbmoved.
3. No vehicles shall be allowed to back onto Meridian
Road.
4. A parking pad shall be constructed and paving a
minimum of 30 feet into the driveway.
5. Any signage shall be attached to the home and
approved by the Planning and Zoning Department.
6. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained prior
to using the building for any use and all requirements of the
uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code must be addressed.
7. A screened trash enclosure shall be provided.
8. The Applicant must supply the Public works
Department with anticipated sewer and water usage.
W. It is finally concluded that the Applicant and the City
Building and Planning and Zoning Departments shall reach an
agreement as to what improvement Ordinances the Applicant shall not
be required to meet and which ones it must meet for the time period
mentioned herein following these Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law.
BBNITON COMPANY - FACT$ AND COBiCLU$IONS
1-PPROVAL OF FIADIH(i8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby approve
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROiV
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
DECISI011
VOTED ~
VOTED~~d1r9L~lsdL
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
That it is decided the variances applied for are hereby
granted, but the Applicant shall meet these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
APPROVBD: DISAPPROVED:
BEl1ITOB COSS'A1tY - FACTS AND CO1fCLUSiOliB Rage naras - 9
a
\ BEFORE TAE MERIDIAN C1TY COUNCIL
BRIGHTON CORPORATION
VARIANCE FOR A VARIANCE FRAM 11.9.606 M,
REQUIRING ACCESSlCLEANOUT BOSF.B AT
A MABaKUM OF FOUR HUNDRED FEET (400'? SPACING
PROPERTY FS NEAR BLACH CAT BRAD
BETWEEN USTICS AND CHERRY LANE
MEB.IDItAN, IDAHO
FIIVDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled Application came on for public hearing August 6, 1997, at the hour. of 7:80
o'clock gm., the Petitiar~er appearing through 1lfike Tanner, the Meridian City Council having dufiy
considered the evidence presented and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FIIdDINGB OF FACT
1. That a notioe of a public hearing an the Condltionat Use Permit was published for two (2)
consecutive weeks prior to the mid public hearing scheduled for August 6, 1997, the 5ret pub}uxtion of
which was >lReen (16) die prior to mid heeiring; that the matter was duly considered at the August 6,
1997, hearing; that the public was given full oppostuniEy to eaprese comments and submit evidence; and
that copies of eIl notices were available to newspaper. radio and tslevision statiana That copies of all
notices were ava0eble to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet oaf the
external boundaries of the lend being considered pursuant to 11-2-418 E., 11-2-419 D, and i1-9.812 B. l.b
of the Revised and CompIIed Ordiaatices of the City of Mer[disn; that hie requirement hm been met.
8. That the property is located within the Citq of Meridian; it is located near Black Cat Road
between Uetick and Cherry Lane; the parcel is part of a parcel of property that wan annexed by the City
over fourteen yeere ago.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION -VARIANCE PAGE 1
4. The appHcetion for the variance stated that the request was to waive the Ordinance
requirement requirirgs aoceee%leenout hoses at a meamum of four hundred feet (400 that the
developer is Brighter Corporation.
b. That the Appliceat submitted a variance request to be allowed not to meet and comply
with Meridian Ordinance it-9-g06 M, which epeci6cal(y elates in pert es foIIows:
"11-9.806 M, PIPING OF DITCHES
... The pipeline shall have a sloped bar-grated inlet structure and access/clcenout boxes at a
maximum of four hundred feet (400 spacing and at ell single points of the pipeline. ..."
8. That the Applicant submitted a varia~e request as required by 11-2-418 and stated that
the characteristics preventing cemplience with having the cleanout hoses with a meaimum ~' four hundred
feet (4007 spacing between the bones were that it was not aware of the requirement, that the b~ were
ahrea~y comtructed and in place; that the Applu~nt has agreed to put in one clcenout structure and then
request a variance for two other distances that ezceed the ord'mance requirement by 100 feet each;
therefore the dcenout hoses would be at 600 feet separations.
7. Mike Teener also stated that it wee good engineering practices to lengthen the diste~e
between the cl~nait hoses if there is aoceee and the ability to aaxae for repair and maintenance and
there is equipment that inn go sin Eo seven hundred feet for cl~nout purposes.
8. That the ditch puries water that ie, or wID be, used for pressurized irrigation.
9. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, in response to a queellon from Coimrjimen Rountree,
stated that the variance would not, and does not, pose a technical problem.
10. There wee no other public teetimomy given.
CONCLUSION8
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinat-ces of
the City of Meridian have been met includ'mg the ma9ing of notice to owners of property within 800 feet
of the external boundaries of the App}icent's property.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION - VARIANCE PAGE 2
2. That the Clty has authority to grant varia:ices pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning
Ordine~e sad pursuant to $ectioa 11-9.812 of the Development Ord'mances.
S. That the City Council has judged this applimtioa by the guidelines, standards, crltetss, and
policies centaiaed in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon wh~h it may take judkiat notice.
4. That the Counal may fake judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Coinmiseion,
governmental statutes, ordinances, and Polie:iee, and of actual conditions emsting within the City and the
State.
6. That the followingproviaia~n of Section 11-9.806 M, PIPING OF DITCHES, is noted, which
is pertinent to the Application:
R
8. That the epeci6c requirements regarding a variance that moat be evidenced sad found by the
City Council are as follows:
'No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Couten7 unless there is a Ending, as a result of
a public hearing, that all of the following eHet:
e. That there are such epeasl cQCUmstancee or cenditi~s affecting the property that the
strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would be dearT,y impracticable or
iinreaaonable; in such cases, the subdivider shall Erst state his reasons )n writing as to the
apeciEc Provision or requirement involved;
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in
extraordinary hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topogrnpl~y,the nature or
condition of e~acent development, other pbysiml conditions or other conditions that make
strict campliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the cacumstances, or that the
conditions and requirements of this Ordinance will resuk in inhibiting the achievement or
objectives of this Oidmance.
c. That the greeting of the specified variance wffi not be detrimental to the public welfare
or inginioua to other property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provlsione of the Idaho code; end
e. That such variance will not have the effect ~' nullifying the interest snd purpose of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan.
8. That there duce appear tq be a epeclfic benefit ce profit, economic gain or convenience to the
Applicant if thin variance is granted.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION • VARIANCE PAGE S
8. That with regard to the opecific evidence that moat be found it is concluded ris follows:
a There are special circumstances or conditions a@'ecting the ditch that the strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would be deer~y iunpracticeble or unreasonable.
b. That strict compliance with the requiremeata of this ditch ttImg Ordinance requiring
spacing of 400 feet between cleanout boxes would result in extraordinary hardship to the
ApplimnE. eepeciel~y since it wm found that there would be no teclwiumi problems with the
way Applicant constructed the separation between the deanout boas end with what the
Applicant agreed to do.
c. That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
possibly irgurious to the public.
d That the granting of this variance wouild ~t violate the Idaho Code.
e. That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposce of the
ditch tiling Ordinance which is included in the 3ubdIvisIon and Development Ordinance
for safety puuzposes.
10. That it is concluded that the Appliation for a variance from 11-9-BOb M, PIPING OF
DITCHES, should be granted.
APPRAVAL OF FIIdDINGB OF FACT AND CONCLU$ION$
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopts
and approves these Findings ~' Fact end Conclusions.
BALL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MOBItOW VOTED
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED
COUNCILMAN BOI7DrrBF.E voTED r~
~
COUNCi7,MAN TOL$MA voTED d~
MAYOR COR,RIE (TLE BREAKER) VOTED_
BRIGHTON CORPORATION -VARIANCE PAGE 4
DECISION
That it is decided, pursuant to the above stated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of I.aw, that this
Appl&~tion for a variatke from that portion of 11-9.806 M, of the Revised end Compiled Ordinencee of the
City of Meridian, which requires cteanout bases to be separated by a me~snum ~' 400 feet, is hereby
DATED This 19th dqy of August, 1997.
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:-,
BRIGHTON CORPORATION -VARIANCE PAGE 5
~~
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION OF MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO.
(HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7)
FOR VARIANCES FROM SECTIONS 11-2-410, 11-9-605 M,
AND 11-9-605 E OF THE ZONING AND DEVOLEPMENT ORDINANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled request for variances having come on for
consideration on August 5, 1997, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m.
on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and taken oral
and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian
makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Notice of the public hearing on the variances was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled August
5, 1997 hearing, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the August 5, 1997 hearing; and that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. The notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. l.b. of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City
of Meridian and that this requirement has been met.
3. The Applicant requests the grant of variances from the
minimum front yard setback requirements, the minimum rear yard set
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
back requirements, the requirement of tiling ditches, and the
maximum length of blocks of a subdivision. More specifically,
pursuant to the application, the Applicant seeks variances for the
property as follows:
a. The Applicant seeks a variance from Section 11-2-410
of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian, to wit: a variance from the minimum front yard
setback requirements for Lot 40, Block 9 and Lot 8, Block
13 of the proposed Haven Cove No. 7 Subdivision;
b. The Applicant seeks a variance from Section 11-2-410
of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian, to wit: a variance from the minimum rear yard
setback requirement for Lot 4, Block 16 of the proposed
Haven Cove No. 7 Subdivision;
c. The Applicant seeks a variance from Section 11-9-605
M of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian, to wit: a variance from the requirement of
tiling the Eight Mile Lateral coursing through the
proposed Haven Cove No. 7 Subdivision; and
d. The Applicant seeks a variance from Section 11-9-605
E of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian, to wit: a variance from the requirement that a
block not exceed 1,000 feet in length for Block 16 of the
proposed Haven Cove No. 7 Subdivision.
4. With regard to the requested grant of a variance from the
minimum front yard setback requirements set forth a Section 11-2-
410 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian
for Lot 40, Block 9 and Lot 8, Block 13 of the proposed Haven Cove
No. 7 Subdivision, pursuant to the application, the proposed
dimensions of the subject lots are as follows:
Lot/Block Lot Frontace 80' Frontage Total Depth Lot Area
40/9: 40.08 42' from front 140 13,206 sq/ft
8/13 68.59 27' from front 99 8,330 sq/ft
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
The Applicant explains, in the application, that several lot
configurations were reviewed prior to the current layout being
selected. The selected layout utilizes the property most
effectively.
5. With regard to the requested grant of a variance from the
minimum .,rear yard setback requirements set forth at Section 11-2-
410 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian
for Lot 4, Block 16 of the proposed Haven Cove No. 7 Subdivision,
pursuant to the application, the variance is sought for a house
which presently exists on this lot. The Applicant explains in the
application that the house setback from the existing Pine Street
right-of-way is 41.3 feet. The additional right-of-way dedication
for Pine Street and the 20 feet wide required landscape lot will
reduce the setback approximately five feet.
6. With regard to the requested variance from Section 11=9-
605 M of the Zoninq and Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian requiring the tiling of ditches, pursuant to the
application, the Applicant seeks a variance from the requirement,
and, in lieu thereof, proposes to erect a fence along the entire
length of the Eight Mile Lateral adjacent to the proposed Haven
Cove No. 7 Subdivision. The Applicant explains in the application
that the Eight Mile Lateral is currently located inside a 53 feet
wide right-of-way. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has
requested an additional 3.5 feet of right-of-way along both sides.
With the additional 3.5 feet of right-of-way on both sides, the
total width of the right-of-way for the Eight Mile Lateral is 60
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
feet. The existing waterway is approximately 12 feet in width. A
lateral of this size would require a pipe approximately 84" x 56",
which exceeds the generally accepted policy of tiling laterals
which are 48" or smaller.
7. With regard to the requested variance from Section 11-9-
605 E of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of
Meridian, which limits block lengths to 1,000 feet, the Applicant
explains in the application that Block 16 of the proposed Haven
Cove No. 7 Subdivision is 1,160 lineal feet in length for which
there are two primary reasons for this length. The first reason is
the location of the Eight Mile Lateral which is directly adjacent
to the southwesterly lot lines of Block 16. The second reason is
the location of the existing house on Lot 4, Block 16 of the
proposed Haven Cove No. 7 Subdivision. The adjustment of the block
length to conform to the maximum length of 1,000 feet would require
the removal of the existing house.
8. The entire property in question is described in the
variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
9. The property for which the variances are requested is to
be annexed by the City of Meridian and is to be zoned (R-4) Low
Density Residential District.
10. The Applicant is not the record owner of the property;
however, the record owners, John T. Eddy and Betty M. Eddy, have
consented to this application of the Applicant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
11. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, and
the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, submitted
comments. Their comments are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full. Their comments included the following:
a. Block 16 exceeds 1,000 feet in length. There is an
existing bridge at the end of the proposed N. Carla
Place, but it does not meet ACHD [Ada County Highway
District] standards. The access easement which includes
this bridge goes through the adjacent property to Pine
Street, but it is unknown if the easement applies once a
subdivision has been built. At minimum, a pedestrian
walkway should be constructed through Lot 35, Block 9,
with half of the cost of a pedestrian bridge over the
Eight Mile Lateral paid for by the developer of this
subdivision. Hopefully, the existing bridge across the
Eight Mile Lateral could also be retained as a pedestrian
walkway;
b. These excessive block lengths are perpetual problems
in some of our existing subdivisions (Landing,
Fieldstone/ Sunnybrook, Howell Tract);
c. The real lot setback for Lot 4, Block 16, is
justified due to the fact that the house is existing; and
d. Tiling the Eight Mile Lateral should be waived
provided permanent non-combustible fencing is provided in
lieu of tiling.
12. The Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire
Department, and the Central District Health Department respectively
submitted comments, which respective comments are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
13. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted
comments, which comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full and included the following:
a. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's Eight
Mile Lateral courses through the west portion of the
project. The right-of-way of the Eight Mile Lateral is
60 feet; 30 feet from the center each way;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
b. The Applicant must contact the District for approval
before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs;
c. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires a
Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for
review prior to final platting;
d. All laterals and waste ways must be protected;
e. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on
site. If any surface drainage leaves the site, the
District must review drainage plans;
f. The Applicant must comply with Idaho Code Section
31-3805; and
g. It is recommended that irrigation water be made
available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District.
14. The Applicant's representative, Charles Eddy, testified
at the public hearing for the application substantially as follows.
He reviewed the comments of City staff, and commented that the
comments did not mention the requested variance for the frontage of
two lots. He questioned whether such comments on the variances
were purposely or inadvertently not made. In response City
Engineer Gary Smith did not know the answer as to why there existed
no comments to such requested variances.
15. The Applicant's representative testified further
substantiallly as follows. The Applicant has requested variances on
the lot frontage for Lot 40, Block 9 and Lot 8, Block 14. The
original application set forth the technical specifics of the two
lots, which are also referenced in Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law pertaining to this property. With regard to Lot 40, Block
9, there is 40.08 feet of frontage at the right-of-way and 80 feet
of frontage occurs at 42 feet from the right-of-way line. The
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
total depth of that lot is 140 feet with a lot area of 13,206
square feet. Lot 8, Block 14 has lot frontage of 68.59 feet at the
right-of-way line, 27 feet from the front lot line is the location
of the 80 feet of frontage. The depth of this lot is 99 feet with
a total lot area of 8,330 square feet. With regard to the
requested variance for the block length, the driving force of this
requested variance is the existing house. To accomodate the
existing house into the site plan, the stub street had to be
located in such a location that caused the block length to exceed
1,000 feet in length. The length of the block exceeds 1,000 feet
but such length is not greater than 1,100 feet.
16. In response to questions of City Engineer Gary Smith and
Councilman Morrow, the Applicant's representative testified
substantially as follows. The Applicant is willing to locate
respectively the houses on Lot 40, Block 9 and Lot 8, Block 14 at
the setback. More specifically, the Applicant is willing to locate
the front yard setback at the 80 foot width mark for building
purposes on the subject two lots, which will be noted on the plat
for the proposed subdivision.
17. There were no other comments by the public regarding this
application.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All of the procedural requirements of the Local Planning
Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. The City has authority to grant variances pursuant to
Sections 11-2-419 and 11-9-612 of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance of the City of Meridian.
3. The Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
4. The City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, and upon
that which it may take judicial notice.
5. Section 11-2-419 A of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance, pertinent to this application, provides as follows:
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision
and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the
public interest where, owing to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming
use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of
lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
Variances shall be granted only where strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship.
6. Pursuant to Section 11-2-419 C FINDINGS of the Zoning and
Development Ordinance, the specific requirements for the grant of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
a variance which must be evidenced and found by the City Council
are as follows:
A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a
public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exist:
1. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance
would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would result in extraordinary
hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer
because of unusual topography, the nature or
condition of adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions that make strict
compliance with the Ordinance unreasonable under
the circumstances, or that the conditions and
requirements of this Ordinance will result in
inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of
this Ordinance;
3. That the granting of the specified variance will
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated;
4. That such variance will not have the effect of
altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
7. Section 11-9-612 A 1. of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance, pertinent to this application, provides as follows:
Purpose: The Council, as a result of unique
circumstances (such as topographic -physical limitations
or a planned unit development), may grant variances from
the provisions of this Ordinance on a finding that undue
hardship results from the strict compliance with specific
provisions or requirements of the Ordinance or that
application of such provision or requirement is
impracticable.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
~~
8. Pursuant to Section 11-9-612 A 2. of the Zoning and
Development Ordinance, the specific requirements for the grant of
a variance which must be evidenced and found by the City Council
are as follows:
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public
hearing, that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the
strict application of the provisions of this
Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or
unreasonable; in such cases, the subdivider
shall first state his reasons in writing as to
the specific provision or requirement
involved; (Ord. 430, 4-2-84)
b. That strict compliance with the requirements
of this Ordinance would result in
extraordinary hardship to the subdivider
because of unusual topography, the nature or
condition of adjacent development, other
physical conditions or other conditions that
make strict compliance with the Ordinance
unreasonable under the circumstances, or that
the conditions ar_d requirements of this
Ordinance will result in inhibiting the
achievements or the objectives of this
Ordinance. (Ord. 592, 11-17-92)
c. That the granting of the specified variance
will not be detrimental to the public's
welfare or injurious to other property in the
area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the
provisions of the Idaho Code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of
nullifying the interest and purpose of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Development
Plan.
9. With regard to Sections 11-2-410, 11-9-605 M, and 11-9-
605 E, hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Ordinances," of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
the Zoning and Devolepment Ordinance of the City of Meridian, and
Sections 11-2-419 C and 11-9-612 A 2. of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance of the City of Meridian, it is specifically concluded as
follows:
a. There exist special circumstances and conditions
which affect the Applicant's property which makes the
strict application of the provisions of the Ordinances
clearly impracticable or unreasonable;
b. Strict compliance with the requirements of the
Ordinances would result in extraordinary hardship to the
owner because of the physical conditions and other
conditions which make strict compliance with the
Ordinances unreasonable under the circumstances
presented;
c. The grant of the requested variances will not be
detrimental to the public's welfare and injurious to
other property in the area in which the Applicant's
property is situated;
d. The grant of the requested variances will not
violate the provisions of the Idaho Code; and
e. The grant of the requested variances will not have
the effect of altering or nullifying the interest and
purpose of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the
City of Meridian or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
10. It is concluded that the application for the variances
from the Ordinances should be granted.
11. The reasons put forth by the Applicant for the variances,
which reasons are specifically set forth at paragraphs 4. through
7. of the Findings of Fact, hereinabove, are based upon special
circumstances and conditions of the property and which affect the
Applicant's development of the property, all of which makes the
strict application of the provisions of the Ordinances clearly
impracticable or unreasonable under the circumstances, and would
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
result in extraordinary hardship.
The reasons for the requested
variances from the Ordinances are sufficient.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
ROLL CALL: ~
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
DSCISION
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it
is decided that the Application for variances from Sections 11-2-
410, 11-9-605 M, and 11-9-605 E are granted, but the Applicant must
meet the distances and footages that Applicant represented would be
met whether included in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law or just stated in the Application or at the public hearing.
MOTION:
APPROVED.
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12.
MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. - VARIANCE
~`~ ~ ~
BHFORS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
STREET FRONTAGE WIDTH
APPLICATION OF MAX A. BOESIGER, INC.
FOR A VARIANCE OF THE 80' STREBT FRONTAGE ON THREE LOTS AND
A VARIANCE OF THE 1,000' BLOCK LENGTH
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for hearing
on Auquat 5, 1997, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date,
at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho,
Becky Bowcutt of Briggs Engineering appearing for the Applicant,
and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written
testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian makes the
following:
FI1iDI1Hi8 OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for August 5, 1997, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the August 5, 1997, hearing; that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. l.b of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that his requirement has been met.
3. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential; that the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-410 A, requires that the street frontage in
the R-4 zone for single-family subdivisions be 80 feet.
4. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a
variance from the minimum street frontage requirement for R-4 zoned
lots for Lot 19, Block 3, and Lots 4 and 5, Block 4 of the
subdivision.
5. The Applicant proposes to have a 50' street frontage on
Lot 9 of Block 3, and proposes a shared drive-way concept for Lots
4 and 5 of Block 6 because of sewer easements.
6. The Applicant also proposes to obtain a variance from the
maximum block length of 1,000 feet for Block 4, and argues that it
is justified because the configuration of the school site creates
a long block. The Applicant states that it has provided a micro-
path (Lot 10, Block 4) as a pedestrian connection for Block 4. The
pathway would connect the elementary school with the subdivision.
He further states that by providing the micro-path a pedestrian
connection has been provided, which serves the same purpose for
pedestrians as having a block of not more than 1,000 feet.
7. Becky Bowcutt, representing the Applicant, testified that
the Applicant desires nn exception to the 80 feet of lot frontage
required in the R-4 zone and requests an easement to two of the
lots. She indicated that there would be gates or ballads for the
easement rather than 80 feet of street frontage. She also
indicated that one of the block lengths in the subdivision was
greater than 1,000 feet, but stated with the access of the school,
by means of pedestrian accesses, the block is broken up.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2
8. That the Applicnnt is the owner of record of the
property.
9. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
commented that due to the fact that the City Council has already
npproved the Preliminary Plat for the subdivision, the variance
issue is really a mood point. He additionally states that the
variance appears to be justified due to the sewer alignment and
proposed school site plan shown.
10. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that
a land use change/site development application is required for
review prior to final platting, and stated that all laterals and
waste way must be protected, all municipal surface drainage must be
retained on site, if any surface drainage leaves the site the Nampa
& Meridian Irrigation District must review the drainage plans, the
Applicant moat comply with Idaho Code 31-3805, and that it is
recommended that irrigation water be made available to all
developments within the Nampa & Meridian irrigation District.
11. The Central District Health Department submitted n
response and it did not indicate any objection to the variance.
12. The Meridian Fire Department and the Meridian Police
Department submitted comments and they did not object to the
variances.
13. That no people appeared at the hearing objecting to the
variance application.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 3
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice of the proposed
subdivision to owners of property within 300 feet of the external
boundaries of the Applicant's property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record submitted
to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual
conditions existing within the City and the State.
5. That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of
the Zoning Ordinance, is noted which is pertinent to the
Application:
11-2-419 A.
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision
and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the
public interest where, owing to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming
use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of
lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
Variances shall be granted only where strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go
to the Commission unless directed by the Council.
6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that moat be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-2-419 C. FI1iDI~iAB
A variance shall not be granted unless (aa a result of a
public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons bused directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exist:
1. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance
would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would result in extraordinary
hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer
because of unusual topography, other physical
conditions or other conditions which are not self-
inflicted, or that these conditions will result in
inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of
this Ordinance;
3. That the granting of the specified variance will
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property ie situated;
4. That such variance will not have the effect of
altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
7. That there would be a specific benefit or profit,
economic gain or convenience to the Applicant, if the Application
is granted, in that the Applicant would not have to meet the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5
ordinance requirements thnt other developers have to meet,
particularly in near and adjacent areas, including the required
maximum lot frontage of 80 feet and the maximum block length of
1,000 feet..
8. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That there are spacial circumstances or conditions
affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of the street
frontage and maximum block length Ordinances would
clearly be unreasonable, in that the lots have
restricted ability to meet the street frontage
requirement due to reasons beyond the Applicant's
control. The variance of the 1,000 foot maximum
block length is cnuaed by the placement of the
school but Applicant has provided pedestrian access
that breaks up the length of the block for
pedestrian purposes. The requested deviations from
the Ordinance are not substantial.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the
maximum 1,000 foot block length requirement would
result in extraordinary hardship to the applicant,
because of the school which shall be constructed
adjacent to Applicant`s property and because
Applicant placed pedestrian accesses into and out
of the school property, the granting of the
variance would be reasonable and prudent. The
granting of the variance on the 80 feet of street
frontage would also be reasonable because sewer
easements, not placed by the Applicant, cause the
lack of ability to meet the 60 foot requirement.
c. That the granting of the specified variances would
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated.
d. That such variance would not have the effect of
altering the interests and purposes of the 80 foot
street frontage requirement or the 1,000 foot block
length of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. That in regard to the first parngraph of 11-2-419 A,
FINDINGS OF FACT fi CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 6
which is quoted above, it is specifically noted that it states, in
part, as follows:
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from
the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision and
Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the public
interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result
in unnecessary hardship.
10. That it is specifically concluded that the Application
for the variances should be granted:
a. In the case of the required street
frontage, the street frontage on the lots for
which the variance is requested wee not
established by the Applicant, but only
established beoausa the lots are large and
they abut up against a sewer line easement.
b. Because the block length in excess of
1,000 feet will be, or has been, provided with
pedestrian accesses so that pedestrians may
pass through the longer than 1,000 foot block
to gain access to the school grounds.
11. The City has in the past granted similar variances as
requested by the Applicant but has also denied such variances; each
application moat stand on its own merits and the granting of one
variance is not a precedent for granting others.
APPROVAL OF FIRDIN(i8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian dose hereby approve
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY
VOTED=`~~~
VOTED ,1jj„QliUy! ~~
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7
COUNCILMAN ROUNTRBE VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION
That it is hereby decided that the variance from the R-4
street frontage of 80 feat and the required maximum block length of
1,000.e~ua~e feet are hereby granted.
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
city\variance\dakota.ff
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8