HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 07-15MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 30, 1997:
(APPROVED)
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 1, 1997:
(APPROVED)
TABLED JULY 1, 1997: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION N0. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
(APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE OF 9.42
ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8 BY LORIN SAUNDERS: (APPROVE FINDINGS;
APPROVE DECISION)
3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE TO R-8 BY LARRY & KAY
HANSON: (APPROVE FINDINGS; APPROVE DECISION)
4. FINAL PLAT FOR CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NO. 6, 37 LOTS BY RAMON
AND MARILYN YORGASON: (TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 5, 1997)
5. FINAL PLAT FOR HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 3, 23 LOTS BY WILLIAM
HON: (APPROVE FINAL PLAT WITH CONDITIONS)
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DAKOTA
RIDGE SUBDVISION BY MAX BOESIGER INC.: (APPROVED)
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEVLIN
PLACE SUBDIVISION BY D.W. INC.: (APPROVED)
8. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF
FACILITIES BY CLASSIC KITCHEN INC. - BRET JONES: (APPROVED
FINDNGS; APPROVE DECISION)
9. DEPARTMENT REPORT:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. CHANGE ORDER: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ROADWAY REHABILITATION: (APPROVED)
2. BID RESULTS: EMERGENCY GENERATOR PROCUREMENT
PROJECT: (APPROVED)
3. WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ELECTRICAL
MODIFICATIONS & WELL NO. 14 GENERATOR INSTALLATION:
(APPROVED)
5. GREASE INTERCEPTOR PROPOSAL:
B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. OAK HARBOR LANDSCAPING PLAN: (APPROVED)
2. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST LANDSCAPING:
3. WEED REMOVAL: (APPROVED)
• MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY; JULY 15, 1997 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 30, 1997: ~pfvved~
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:HELD JULY 1, 1997: ~rotredd
1. TABLED JULY 1, 1997: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
I~prav2 /Pip-~rUf-~N~~Cct=,~r~her~/i3~ir~y~'Ce~heliliur~fj.~ ~.5/~`/d~,
2. FINDINGS O1~FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE OF 9.42
ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8 BY LORIN SAUNDERS: ~,prcV f Ll~ sic /[,
CLfJpro%( t~eci T.lr~-•
3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE TO R-8 BY LARRY rl< KAY
HANSON: p~prave ~/p ~ %.
~Pprav:e decr~~
4. FINAL PLAT FOR CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NO. 6, 37 LOTS BY RAMON
AND MARILYN YORGASON: ~abl~ ~chf1L fAx~, 5~ /a~ /~y af,a~.c rt~~r./'t
5. FINAL PLAT FOR HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 3, 23 LOTS BY WILLIAM
HON: a-ppi--oVa.. ~i'ka,e, n,P6t .i'rt~ecf {~ ~.or.~ef~i~.t'
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQU/ES_T_`FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DAKOTA
RIDGE SUBDIVISION BY MAX BOESIGER INC.: aypprov-e~
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEVLIN
PLACE SUBDIVISION BY D.W. INC.: a~~rov-ems
8. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF
FACILITIES BY CLASSIC KITCHEN INC. - BRET JONES:
C~prov~-f/~ ~clC c`py'r-ove decr7,~
9. DEPARTMENT REPORT:
A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER:
1. CHANGE ORDER: ASHFORD GREENS LIST STATION:
2. CHANGE ORDER: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ROADWAY REHABILITATION: a-,ap~~R-
3. BID RESULTS: EMERGENCY GENERATOR PROCUREMENT
PROJECT: ct porwe.
4. WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ELECTRICAL
MODIFICATIONS & WELL NO. 14 GENERATOR INSTALLATION: ~p~-ov~
5. GREASE INTERCEPTOR PROPOSAL:
B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. OAK HARBOR LANDSCAPING PLAN:
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
DATE:
ORDER NO.: 2
CONTRACT FOR: Wastewater Treatment Plant Roadway
OWNER:
T0: PARK TOWNE CONSTRUCTION I O L!"' )y
~-
(Contractor) ----~--._- _, '
1;
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract
plans and soecifications:
Description of Changes In
This Change Order
list se aratel INCREASE
in Contract
Price DECREASE
in Contract
Price
1. Add Remove/Replace Asphalt
Pavement (bid item 2) 12,760 sf @ $1.40
$17864.00
2. Delete New Asphalt (bid item 5) 2,855
sf @ $0.85
$2 426.75
3. Delete Striping (bid item 6) 1 Is
$600.00
$600.00
Sum of Increase and Decrease: $17,864.00 $3,026.75.75
Net Chan a in Contract Price: $14,837.25
JUSTIFICATION (attach supplemental documents):
1. Additional areas of pavement were discovered to need replacement due to
damage from on-going construction at the plant.
2. Original quantity was over-estimated.
3. To be coordinated with future Administration Building parking lot.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
Original Contract Price: $27,040.00
Previous Change Orders No. 1 to No. 1 ~ $0
Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $27,040.00
Net (Increase/Decrease) of this Change Order: $14,837.25
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders: $41,877.25
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
Original Contract Time: 30 days (begin
3/31 /97
Previous Change Orders No. 1 to No. 1 ~ 35 days
Contract Time prior to this Change Order: 65 days (end
6/5/97
Net (IncreaselDecrease) of this Change Order : 0
Contract Time with all approved Change Orders: 65
New Contract End Date with all approved Change Orders: 6/5/97
This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions
will apply hereto.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CHANGE ORDER LIMITS BY CONTRACTOR
The increase or decrease in Contract price and/or Contract time stated in each and
every Change Order shall unequivocally comprise the total price and/or time
adjustment due or owed the CONTRACTOR for the work or changes ordered by the
Change Order. By executing the change Order, the CONTRACTOR acknowledges
and agrees that the stipulated price and/or time adjustments represent full
compensation for all increases or decreases in cost or the time required to perform
the Contract as whole arising directly or indirectly from the Change Order, including
costs and delays associated with the interruption of schedules, extended
ovefieads, delay, and cumulative impacts or ripple effect on all other non-affected
work under Contract not changed by the Change Order. Signing of the Change
Order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for the adjustment in
Contract price and/or time, subject to the current scope of the entire work as set
forth in the Contract Documents. Acceptance of this Change order constitutes an
agreement between Owner and CONTRACTOR that the Change Order represents
an equitable adjustment to the Contract, and that CONTRACTOR will waive all
rights to file a claim of the Change Order after it is properly executed.
All Change Orders shall include a written record, submitted by the CONTRACTOR,
that states the basis of cost amount, including time and materials data, that enables
the Owner to determine the necessity and reasonableness of the Change Order.
RECOMMENDED: DATE:
ENGINEER
APPROVED:
OWNER
APPROVED:
DATE:
DATE:
CONTRACTOR
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
DATE:
C~Op
ORDER NO.. 3
CONTRACT FOR: Wastewater Treatment Plant Roadway Project
OWNER: CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO
TO: PARK TOWNE CONSTRUCTION. INC.
(Contractor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract
plans and specifications:
Description of Changes In
This Change Order
list se aratel INCREASE
in Contract
Price DECREASE
in Contract
Price
1. As halt Swee $665.00
2. Add arkin lot french drain $550.00
3. Add concrete slab/sidewalk west end of
re-aeration basins.
$1 276.00
4. Add drainage box and stub-out piping
new stud a la oon access road.
$1,419.00
5. Deduct for water line repair at
seconds Garifier $100.00
6. Deduct for UV power conduit repair $87.28
7. Liquidated Damages, 8 days @
$150.00 $1,200.00
Sum of Increase and Decrease: $3 910.00 $1 387.28
Net Chan a in Contract Price: $2 522.72
JUSTIFICATION (attach supplemental documents):
1) Payment for 2l3 of total cost of power sweeping pavement for excessive mud on
roadway from activities of Park Towne, City personnel and other contractor. 2)
Existing grade around new parking lot prevented free flow runoff. 3) Provide
sidewalk and work area around new valve boxes. 4) Provide adequate runoff from
new road. 5) Insufficient cover provided while Contractor left job-site for extended
period. 6) Damaged by Contractor after exposed (see attached invoice). 7)
Contract end date 6/5/97; substantial completion 6/17/97(4 days removed for
weather-related reasons).
See attached Exhibits: change order worksheet, contractor change order request,
Electric Service & Contracting invoice # 10003.
CHANGP IN CON• CT PRICF• •
.~%
'-:~
\t7rigina Contract Price: $27,040.00
Previous Change Orders No. 1 to No. 2 ~ $14,837.25
Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $41,877.25
Net (Increase/Decrease) of this Change Order $2,522.72
Contract Price with all approved Change Orders: $44,399.97
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME
Original Contract Time: 30 days (begin
3/31 /97
Previous Change Orders No. 1 to No. 2 35 days
Contrad Time prior to this Change Order: 65 days (end
6/5/97
Net (Increase/Decrease) of this Change Order: 0 days
Contract Time with all approved Change Orders: 65 days
New Contrad End Date: 6/5/97
This document will become a supplement to the Contrad and all provisions
will apply hereto.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CHANGE ORDER LIMITS
BY CONTRACTOR
The increase or decrease in Contrad price and/or Contrad time stated in each and
every Change Order shall unequivocally comprise the total price and/or time
adjustment due or owed the CONTRACTOR for the work or changes ordered by the
Change Order. By executing the change Order, the CONTRACTOR acknowledges
and agrees that the stipulated price and/or time adjustments represent full
compensation for all increases or dekxeases in cost or the time required to perform
the Contrad as whole arising directly or indirectly from the Change Order, including
costs and delays associated with the interruption of schedules, extended
ovefieads, delay, and cumulative impacts or ripple effect on all other non-affected
work under Contract not changed by the Change Order. Signing of the Change
Order constitutes full and mutual accord and satisfaction for the adjustment in
Contract price and/or time, subject to the current scope of the entire work as set
forth in the Contract Documents. Acceptance of this Change order constitutes an
agreement between Owner and CONTRACTOR that the Change Order represents
an equitable adjustment to the Contrad, and that CONTRACTOR will waive all
rights to file a daim of the Change Order after it is properly executed.
All Change Orders shall include a written record, submitted by the CONTRACTOR,
that states the basis of cost amount, including time and materials data, that enables
the Owner to determine the necessity and reasonableness of the Change Order.
RECOMMENDED: DATE:
ENGINEER
APPROVED:
OWNER
APPROVED:
DATE:
DATE:
CONTRACTOR
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 15 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, Charlie Rountree, Ron Tolsma
MEMBERS ABSENT: Glenn Bentley:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, John Fitzgerald, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Chief
Gordon, Jim Johnson, Bret & Judy Jones, Jeff Foster, Dixie Lee Roberts, Kevin &
Rebecca Winston, Pat Tealey:
Come: For those in the audience that may be here for item #4 which is the Crossroads
Subdivision No. 6 they requested that v~ table that item so we will probably table that
as the item comes up. If you are here for that one specifically I just want you to be
aware of that.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 30, 1997:
Corrie: Are there any corrections or alterations to those minutes? I will entertain a
motion that we accept the minutes for June 30.
Rountree: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Moved and seconded that we accept the minutes of the special meeting held
June 30, 1997, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 1, 1997:
Corrie: Are there any corrections or alterations to those minutes? I will entertain a
motion to approve those minutes.
Morrow. So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded we approve the minutes of July 1, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 2
ITEM #1: TABLED JULY 1, 1997: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Corrie: Is there a representative from Packard Subdivision here this evening. If you
would like to kind of give us a little background here.
Tealey: I am Pat Tealey, representing the developer Sigmont and Edmonds for
Packard Subdivision No. 2. I thought I would start with just a little chronology of what
has happened in the past month so everybody can understand what we have been
going through and what we have been trying to do to solve. the problems. On May 27tH
we had written a letter to Shari concerning the original comments about the subdivision
that were part of her original 16 comments. This was her letter in November 13, 1995.
We had originally commented but somehow the letter was misplaced by either us or the
staff. We indicated in that letter rather than discuss who did what it was best just to
make the comments and get over that hump. We then had a meeting on Tuesday June
3`d for City Council. The discussion was deferred because comments, staff believed that
the comments had not been answered. The meeting was deferred to June 17tH. On
June 17"' the staff called I the afternoon and said most likely the meeting would be
cancelled because there was a problem with the annexation, the wrong description had
been used to advertise the annexation in the paper. The annexation was we had
requested was for 35 acres somehow a description was used that comprises only a half
acre of that 35 acre parcel. We then faxed over a copy of the annexation description to
Mr. Crookston the City Attorney and 1 believe that has been readvertised. That
description again was originally written in 1995 as part of our annexation package. We
met, that night we did meet with the Council and the Council directed the staff to set up
a meeting between us and the staff and the neighbors requested that they could attend.
At that time the Council indicated that the neighbors could be there to observe not to
participate. We called on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of that week and on Friday,
late Friday the staff called and scheduled the meeting for June 26 only givin~ us
essentially 3 days to make comments after that meeting. At that meeting on the 26 we
went over our letter, we were sitting at that table right over there. We had the
preliminary plat out, I redlined all the concerns that staff had. We went through every
comment, one by one specifically. I took down any concerns that were noted by staff
and went back to the office to then fix up the drawing to address those. It should be
noted I think in the comment, the comments from the City of Meridian by staff the 17`n
article in that original letter is applicant is to address all comments in writing and submit
to the City Clerk. We have addressed those comments in writing, there was never any
mention in the fact that we should modify our preliminary plat. I think that has been a
sticky point between us and interpretation. Hopefully we solved it at that May 27tH
meeting. We came out of there with 5 concerns according to the notes that I kept at that
meeting. We wanted some details of the fences, where they were and what they were.
In other words noncombustible fences as opposed to 6 foot cedar fences and how they
would relate to the surrounding land uses. The non-combustible chain link fences
against rural uses and the cedar fences against residential uses. That was supplied in
the fence detail plan that was submitted that next Monday. There was then talk about a
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 3
turn around in phase one, this wasn't part of the original 17 items, 16 items. However
we agreed that this was needed and it shows up on the plat, the preliminary plat of
revised preliminary plat of Packard No. 2. There was some concern about the lot
configuration in Block 6, the property that is adjacent to the Sharp's and the Reichert's.
We went back and looked over, there is a question about whether or not we could count
the square footage of the Stokesbury Lateral in the calculation of the lot areas. Meridian
City code indicates that minimum lot size shall be determined exclusive of land that is
used for streets, highways, alleys, roads, right of way, irrigation easement unless the
water is conveyed through pipe or tile. We indicated that we were piping this and felt
that we could then use that square footage in the inGusion of the calculation of the
square footage of the lot. This later proved evidently that foot note 1 the City code is
not, we can't use it. The staff has made an interpretation I believe on two prior
subdivisions that for some reason they won't allow that square footage to be calculated
even if it is piped. We wanted to have some contact and discussion with the City
Council on that item and as a result we didn't agree with what the staff wrote in the
comments. The fourth item that was of concem at that meeting were Gary Smith the
City Engineer wanted us to provide sewer profile. Well that was also not part of the
original letter of the staff. We agreed to do this, it was a short time period to provide this
but Gary agreed to work with us and review those things on Tuesday the day before the
meeting. As I stated before we got the corrected legal description to the City Attorney
for the annexation. We have no idea where the '~ acre subdivision came from or
excuse me '/ acre description came from for that annexation. It wasn't checked by the
City of Meridian and when they did do it the day before the meeting they found out that
it was wrong and we have gone and corrected that. Then at our Tuesday July 1~
meeting we were ready to deliver the sewer profiles to Gary Smith at noon and I got a
call from staff at 1:30 that said Gary Smith was sick for the day and that he would not be
able to review the sewer profiles and the meeting would have to be cancelled. I called,
that was called into my office. I then called Shari to confirm this and asked if Gary was
the only one that could review it and we agreed that in fact that he had requested them
and was probably the only one that could review it. So the meeting that night was
cancelled. We then waited for the July 15"' meeting however on July 8~h after not
hearing anything from staff again I wrote a letter and asked for a response. The letter
essentially said that we had our meeting, we have gone over these items, we
understand that we have addressed. If you have any more comments or discussion on
this please let us know. On Friday at 5:10 after working hours we received a fax from
City staff indicating there were in fact 16 conditions that they were concerned about. We
have been scrambling since then essentially addressing it since Monday trying to
address these 16 items. They are different from the original 16 conditions. They are
legitimate concerns and we feel that we should address them. We addressed them in
writing as requested at the bottom of the letter that the applicant needs to give a written
response to these comments prior to approval of the preliminary plat. We did provide
that in writing to the staff. Again we have modified some of the preliminary plat to take
care of some of the new concerns that have arisen. As I understand it this property is
annexed and zoned. There is a subdivision that will take place on this property.
Whether it be this one or some other one that somebody else might come in with. I think
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 4
we are down to the Witty gritty, there are very few things that are left on this. We are
willing to work with both staff and the surrounding neighbors to make this a good
subdivision for anybody and I believe it is a good subdivision. We have addressed all of
the concerns I believe of staff. There may be some differences between us as far as
interpretation again they asked for it in writing and I gave it in writing. There have been
some modifications to the preliminary plat which were asked for as part of that meeting
that we had. But I believe we are real close to having this thing done. Essentially every
two weeks that this is postponed or deferred it cost our client quite a bit of money. It
wouldn't be bad if it were just two weeks, essentially this has been a period of over two
years. We would like to tonight call an end to discussion on this and make a decision
one way or the other and move on. As I stated we are very Gose on this, the items that
are of discussion are very minor. I believe that we can come to an agreement tonight.
How would you like me to proceed?
Morrow. I guess from my perspective Mr. Tealey obviously if you have a new set of
requirements that were faxed to you at 5:10 or whatever Friday evening and we just
now within the last 30 to 45 minutes have the response would you please review your
responses from your letter dated as of today the 15 or 16 responses verbally to bring us
back up to speed here?
Tealey: What 1 will do is I will read the staff comment and then I will read my answer if
there is any discussion 1 assume it will take place at that time. Item #1 of the July 11~'
letter is that "the Stokesbury Lateral easement needs to be designated as a separate lot
even though tiled. Downstream water users need to have ready access to weir
structures at all times and cannot expect to enter back yards of people to get their
irrigation water. As Nampa Meridian Irrigation District also uses the adjacent access.
road on a daily basis it is not appropriate to enclose the access road along rear lot
lines." My response is, "the Stokesbury lateral will be designated as a separate lot. We
are piping the lateral and as such its easement area should qualify for square footage
requirements. We will provide access for downstream water users and of course will not
impair Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's access to their ditch. If the City of Meridian
will not use the easement for lot areas the lots will still satisfy frontage and area
requirements. We will obtain a letter from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for lot
encroachment." What this refers to is a discussion that we had today after teaming that
could be a solution to it yesterday was a discussion with Bill Henson of Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District. He had promised us a letter for tonight's meeting but it has not
arrived. I would assume that we could somehow condition the plat that if we can't get
that letter we have to wipe out a lot. I am confident we can get it, he promised it to us.
This would only concern lot 1 of block 6 which is the problem area in front of the Sharp's
and Reichert's, all the other lots will qualify. This is the Stokesbury lateral easement
here it is down as a 40 foot strip, we have designated it as lot 1 and then renumbered all
of the other lots. The lot in question is this one down here this lot 2, as of right now it
has 70 feet of frontage and 7,000 square feet. However according to staff both Shari
and Bruce if we can obtain this letter for the 10 foot they call it an encroachment letter
we can satisfy the frontage requirement and the area requirement. The second item
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 5
from staff, "The full easement for Stokesbury Lateral has never been depicted on the
plat. Lot 1, block 6 will not meet minimum square footage requirement exclusive of this
easement.' Our response to it was Lot 1, block 6 will meet the square footage
requirements per City of Meridian code 2-410 A footnote 8 which is the one that says
you can, you have to exclude those easements unless you pipe them. That is what I
was relying on, however, given the fact that we can get this letter from Nampa Meridian
we don't need to rely upon that part of the code. The third item, "what accommodations
will be made for downstream water users to access clean outs of the ditch?" My answer,
"downstream water users will have direct access or specific easements for access to all
clean outs. This arrangement has been standard practice in other subdivisions such as
Dove Meadows and Packard No. 1. Once the ditch is piped the need for access to the
system will be greatly reduced. See the irrigation plans for easements and access." On
our irrigation plan vre have noted that we have ten foot easements for the irrigation
system and there was one irrigation box to Mr. Alleman that was over in the middle of
these lots here on the Dixie Roberts Property. We thought that we could aMrays, he
could work on an agreement with Dixie Roberts to walk back there if there ever was a
problem. None of these boxes are to divert or control water, they are maintenance
boxes. In other words it is nothing that you will have to go to on a daily basis to divert
water to his property. We will however move this box back as far as we could and then
provide a ten foot easement here. We will fence it off for him so he can get out on
Wingate Lane out of his truck walk down that ten foot easement to get to this box if he
so desires. All the other boxes are accessible either street frontage or Wingate Lane's
frontage. The fourth item and is one that may prove to be a sticking point. 1 don't know
how this is going to come out. "Property owners to the vrest of Wingate lane have
furnished a 15 foot wide easement for the private roadway. Meridian Fire Department
needs a minimum access with 20 feet. Properties to the east of Wingate Lane should
provide an additional 5 feet for the road right of way." My answer was, "we do not feel
that we need to dedicate the additional five feet. We have been denied any access or
use of Wingate Lane and feel we do not need to solve their problem." In other words
there is a 15 foot strip for Wingate Lane that comes all the way from Ustick Road to a'/
mile south to the center of the section. No matter what happens in our subdivision even
if we were to give them that additional five feet which we don't feel we have to there
would still be a 15 foot strip for over'r4 of that road. Wingate Lane starts here at Ustick,
it is 15 feet down to here, it is 15 feet all the way down here to the center of the section.
There has been 15 feet dedicated by us as part, we own the land that underlies this 15
foot easement and then this 15 foot has been dedicated out of the Reichert and Sharp
Parcel. They need the 20 feet to be able to have emergency access down to the Sharp
and Reichert Parcel. We have provided a road stub out to the Reichert Parcel so that
actually they can get there by pavement much faster then coming down this'/ mile. We
feel that is their problem to solve. We have been told repeatedly that we will not touch
Wingate Lane, we have been denied access or any use of it even though we own the
land underneath it. I just don't feel that this is an issue that needs to be solved by the
developer. Item #4, "the line shown for fence construction coincide exactly with the
proposed irrigation plan, fences may not be constructed on top of irrigation lines." I
thought that was a very simply explanation, 1 would assume that the first time we go to
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 6
drive a post through a pipe we will realize that hey you can't build a fence there. We will
not build the fences on top of the irrigation lines. Number 6, "it has been brought to our
attention that the subdivision boundary as described in the legal description submitted
for annexation does not appear to follow the established and monumented boundary
along the south slough. It was our understanding that this line was established and
monumented when the original parcel was split and that the monuments are still
existing. Please explain the reason for not recognizing and using the existing
monumentation." (believe Mr. Alleman came in and made a comparison between his
legal description and the one we supplied for annexation and saw a difference. That
was the reason for this item. My response was that the property was surveyed from a
legal description supplied by Stuart Title Company and is similar to the adjoining parcel.
The boundaries are identical according to the legal description, there is no conflict here
whatsoever. 1 explained this to Bruce this afternoon. Seven, although the applicant's
representative stated that there are two accesses to this site only one presently exists.
There is no access from Hickory Avenue at this time as only the first phase of Packard
Subdivision No. 1 has received final plat approval. Construction equipment for phase on
Packard Subdivision No. 2 cannot have primary access across Wingate Lane. My
response was that, "the access to Packard No. 2 will be provided for by Hickory Lane as
part of Phase 2 of Packard No. 1. Right now we are constructing phase 1 of Packard
No. 1 and phase 2 will bring the access road up to this first phase and that will be used
for the access. Further state that the condition should read that the phase 1 of Packard
No. 2 which is this phase right there will not be allowed until Hickory is constructed or
built in conjunction with that first phase. Item #8, house orientation designation needs
to be added to the plat on those lots that do not conform to the minimum frontage
requirements. My comment there was "as requested in your prior letter item #8". On
further review staff had requested and I may have misread the original letter that the lots
she was interested in were lots 1, 3, 4 and 6, block 7, I missed the last part of it the etc.
There were about 3 or 4 lots that needed to be corrected and (inaudible). They meet the
frontage requirements and they area requirements. The 9th item, Lot 7, block 2 contains
the nonconforming uses there is more than one building being used as a dwelling unit
on the lot. This separate unit was not built by us it was built by the Brown's the former
owners and as we understand and have been told by the Brown's that is was approved
when it was in the County. It was built by the Brown's so a family member could stay
there. What it is is a shop out in the back, I don't know if you have been out there with a
living unit on the end of it. I also said refer to item 7 of a prior letter that 1 had written.
Which essentially says that we don't own it, we didn't build it, if there is a conflict with
the City ordinance I would assume that the Ciry would take care of that situation. Item
#10, the Borup property was illegally split by the developer with their full knowledge.
The response to the Brown property will be "legalized" by this subdivision it will be
known as Lot 14, block 9. Item #11, "The City Attorney needs to further explore the
legality of crossing Wingate Lane with public utilities and right of ways. The response is
that "the crossing of Wingate lane should be left to discussion between the respective
lawyers for the Wingate Lane uses and the developer. It seems that the Wingate Lane
users are whining to the City to fight their battles. Wingate Lane users have an
easement for ingress and egress and it is not an exclusive easement." In other words
Meridian City Council ~ •
July 15, 1997
Page 7
an exclusive easement would bind that piece of property to only one use and that is the
one stated in the easement. This is not an exclusive easement. And as such does not
prelude other uses which would not interfere with their rights. We have an opinion from
our lawyer, I can submit it to you. Again, this has been the pressing question all along
and I believe that if the adjacent owners wish to pursue this they should use the right
venue and not use the City to create a conflict that would then preclude this subdivision.
Number 12, "proposed phasing sewer easements will have to be dedicated and phased
(inaudible) to access the lift station with gravel accesses built in accordance with City
standards." 1 said "the access roads for the sewer will be built in accordance with City
standards." This refers to the fad that this lift station down here that was in Packard
No. 1 can be eliminated and moved to the northwest corner of this subdivision. That
was the reason for the sewer profiles and us putting together a sewer plan through the
subdivision. If we have to build this the City will require gravel roads be over the top of
this for access and maintenance. This statement I have agreed to that. Number 13, "the
lift station maintenance agreement and detailed conditions of approval need to be fully
worked out prior to submittal of the final plat on any phase." This condition really
doesn't concern this preliminary plat however I stated "if the lift station agreements are
needed they will be worked out as part of the final plat application." I am saying as
needed because we may well be able to conned that thing to gravity sewer and
eliminate the need for the lift station. If things can be worked out with the adjacent land
owner. Fourteen, "a turn around is needed on the east side of Wingate Lane on East
Challis Street. A turn around will be provided and shown on the revised preliminary plat
I believe if you look at the preliminary plat you can see the 50 foot radius on the original,
I believe it was lot 10. It will be built in accordance to the Ada County Highway District
specifications. Number 15 is fairly lengthy, but it is an important one. It will be the last
one, "the applicant's representative indicates that adequate buffering has been provided
where they believe full development potential of the adjacent properties has occurred."
What I am referring to there is the adjacent development being Carol Subdivision and
the 5 acre lots along Wingate. None of these lots along Wingate will be allowed to be
subdivided any further because of the access problem with Wingate. Unless somehow
this becomes a public road. Many of these lots on the east side of Wingate are built on
illegal parcels. They will not be allowed to subdivide their land or rebuild on there the
way I understand it. Unless this road situation is cured and that means a public road
and we all know that will never happen as discussions have taken place. In the case of
Dixie Roberts property as her only access is Wingate Lane further subdivision will not
be possible and adequate buffering with transitional lots in accordance with the
comprehensive plan as needed. Dixie Roberts property is this parcel right in here. We
have provided buffering here with 14,000 (inaudible) 3 14,000 square foot lots, a 12,800
square foot lot, 11,000 and right over here in the adjacent corner we do have four 8,000
square foot lots which are the minimum lot size in the R-8 zone. We feel we have
buffered her as requested. tt also means that because the Sharp's have been vocal in
their opposition to the project the applicant has intentionally provided the smallest lots
adjacent to their property. I was a little upset at this when 1 first heard it. It seems to be
fairly judgmental and certainly doesn't represent the facts. The applicant when he
submitted this preliminary plat in 1995 had no conversations whatsoever with the
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 8
Sharp's as a matter of fact I have a copy of the original subdivision has we had
proposed it. At that time we had foolishly thought that we could use Wingate Lane as a
public access and that is why we had the road in this place. And this was before we
even knew who the Sharp's were, had not heard any testimony whatsoever and once
we found out that Wingate Lane could not be used we switched the road over here and
put some lots along their frontage and that was our and that is what is represented here
on this application in 1995. This was before any public hearings, before we had a
chance to talk to the Sharp's or anything. In my comment I say "it was never the
intention to place smaller lots adjacent to the Sharp property to spite them. The plat was
drawn and submitted prior to any testimony by the Sharp's. We resent this implication
by the staff has absolutely no basis. The other part of the comment here is Lot 1, Block
6 cannot meet minimum square footage requirements and the fact that an additional 5
feet of road easement should be provided. Larger tots need to be incorporated at this
location. The comprehensive plan does not differentiate between existing rural
residential lots and existing rural residential lots that may someday be further
developed. My response to the second part of this comment is that "we believe we have
provided the transition from R-8 and R-8 is the sun-ounding subdivisions, Kearny Place
No. 3, Chateau Meadows Estates East No. 8 and Chamberlain Estates Subdivision."
You will notice that Kearny Place and Chateau Meadows are adjacent to the Sharp
property, these have 7,000 to 7,500 square foot lots adjacent to them. No problem.
Chamberlain Estates comes in adjacent to us which is a total agricultural use with an R-
8zone no problem. As a matter of fact it is against the Apeman property over here in the
corner, no problem. Yet when we try to do the same thing there is a problem. I then
finish by saying, "I thank you for your attention to this matter, please call at your earliest
convenience." Now I think we have addressed them. In my mind I have, if my
discussion here tonight raises some questions I would be glad to answer them. I am
sure staff has some comments and we would like to proceed from there.
Morrow. Mr. Tealey I have a question with respect to item 15, if memory serves me
correctly when we were dealing with Packard No. 1 in its initial presentation to us at the
City there was some issues with a first concept by which vue as a Council suggested
that the buffering would create a transition from Carol Subdivision which are estates.
We required the lots to be larger buffering them and that change was made. I think our
sense of direction was that you were to transition from Carol Subdivision over to
Chamberlain basin subdivision which was R-8 and make an orderly transition between
the two. Does this plat that you propose today continue that same theme that does in
Packard No. 1?
Tealey: Yes I believe it does, we have, I will just quickly go over this. We have 95 lots
on 35 acres, we are getting 2.7 lots per acre in this zone that allows 4 per acre. The
minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. We have 34 lots that are in the 8,000 to 9,000
square feet which represents approximately 35 percent of it. Fifteen Tots in the 9,000 to
10,000 and 46 lots 10,000+ which represents nearly 505 of the project. I believe we
provided that transition.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 9
Morrow: A follow up question please with respect to those lots sizes and your CC&R's
what are you doing in terms of square footage of those homes?
Tealey: I haven't been part of that discussion I really don't know, you would probably
have to ask the owner and developer.
(Inaudible)
Tealey: The developer has indicated that 1600 square foot minimums.
Morrow. Thank you
Corrie: Thank you Pat, questions from staff?
Morrow. Yes, 1 would like to hear a response from staff in terms of the issues raised by
Mr. Tealey.
Corrie: Shari, do you want to start or Gary do you want to start?
Stiles: Is there something specifically?
Come: I guess 1 had one if I may Council, on this item #1, using the easement, is there
a possibility that on those lots that they can fence that easement since it is part of their
lot they can fence or it is put in the development that they wouldn't be able to put fences
in that easement area?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council the City has permitted that to be incuded as part of lots
when the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District does not have an easement existing there.
If it is just like a user ditch where they do not have control of it is and it is included in the
back of the lots. However since they do have an existing 40 foot easement there the
City has required that be fenced outside the lots unless they can obtain an
encroachment agreement with Nampa Meridian and that is what they have indicated
(inaudible).
Rountree: I just ask Shari or Gary are there any of the responses that are not
addressing the issues that you brought up?
Stiles: I guess the only item I still have a question on since I did receive a plan that
showed the fencing and the irrigation the fencing was exactly on the property line as
was all the irrigation piping shown. So I guess if the public works department is satisfied
that they will meet the requirements for access as part of their review of the
development plans that will be up to them to review.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, follow up question for Gary, Gary you were working in terms of
where are we going with this either lift station or gravity flow. When we last met and last
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 10
discussed this I believe 30 days ago you were working towards a potential solution that
would allow the gravity flow to take place, is that still out there?
Smith: I think the major stumbling block at this point is a request by Vern Alleman that
his property not be annexed by the City without his approval. I haven't received any
kind of confirmation that this is possible. He wants a letter from the City of Meridian so
stating.
Morrow. 1 think that my preliminary response to that would be is that this Council cannot
make thaf kind of a deal binding future councils. As you well know from time to time for
sake for fire and police issues vue have encave annexations that Gean those things up
and allow those two life safety departments to conduct their jobs as they are supposed
to do it. I would not be willing as a councilman to put either citizens of that area or the
fire and police department in a position where the City in a liability position by virtue of
agreeing to something that doesn't make good sense from our standpoint as a City.
Now the practical matter there is that until the ground was a legitimate enclave and as
you well know, we are due for one of those clean ups now or overdue and will probably
do so within the next few months. It is a substantial amount of time before that
becomes a legitimate enclave that would be susceptible to a if you will a forced
annexation.
Smith: That is his requirements or one of this requirements to submit to an easement for
crossing his property.
Morrow. That being the case let's move away from the gravity flow and because that is
not likely to happen and go to the issue of the lift station. It seems to me if memory
serves because we are going back some distance here that the maintenance of that lift
station was to be done by the developer, the owners association. Do I have the right lift
station in mind?
Smith: That is correct.
Morrow. The changing of this based on our prior conversation was the reason for the
profile and the sewer because we talked about we had some height issues and some
fall issues that we were trying to get resolved, was that satisfactorily resolved with this
profile?
Smith: The profile that they submitted to me shows that it can gravity at the minimum
grades from the interceptor from the lift station location back to Packard No.
Subdivision. There were some mod~catior~s that were made in Packard No. 1 field
changes to raise the grade of some sewers to allow it to gravity flow all the way through.
So from the stand point of requiring the profiles I think we aborted a problem in the
future by not being able to gravity Packard No. 1 to the interceptor. Secondarily the
profile requirement although I have mandated that it me submitted and part of the
preliminary plat submittal it has always been a requirement of a preliminary plat as far
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 11
as the ordinance is concerned. It is not a new ordinance requirement it is simply a
requirement that I have required to be done because we have had some problems in
some past subdivisions of sewers fitting the ground.
Morrow. My question is that I don't disagree with your actions there and I don't disagree
with the ordinance.
Smith: That did prove to be a benefit it did prove that Packard No. 1 can gravity all the
way to the interceptor on the south slough.
Morrow. I think that is a wise decision, I think that probably in fairness to the applicant
whether they were notified should have been maybe sooner or not that is a secondary
issue in my mind. What is important here is that we now have confirmation that the
system works and it works fine. We also have confirmation that if it is going to be the lift
station which it appears it will be at this juncture that the development agreement is
such that they maintain it until gravity becomes available to hook on is that correct?
Smith: That is correct, 1 have an agreement in my packet tonight for your consideration
for this lift station maintenance agreement so that they can submit their plans onto DEQ
for the extension of the gravity line through Packard no. 2.
Morrow. And that is part of the Department Reports, your department reports?
Smith: Yes
Morrow. I have another follow up question with respect to the and where did the issue in
terms of 15 and 20 feet come from. Apparently, it is my understanding by prior
testimony this has been a lane since the early 1900's. So why do we see an issue here
from the Fire Department that they want 20 feet as opposed to the 15 feet that exists for
that time frame?
Smith: I don't have an answer for that Councilman, I will let Shari
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council this issue came up when the fire
Marshall and Fire Chief were reviewing the plat to check actually it was the fencing plan
that was submitted because of the gates that were involved whether they would be
adequate for their use. It has always been their requirement that if there was a roadway
that it should have a minimum of 20 feet. The only problem would be if the Sharp's
decided to fence on their side of their property on the easement line there would only be
15 feet there.
Morrow. Does that no describe the rest of that lane though with the exception of this
small parcel. If property owners on each side of the lane decided to fence the lane it
would be 15 feet (End of Tape) property owners have that same option and choose to
fence then it is a 15 foot lane. So my question is that how do we justify trying to take
Meridian City Council • •
July 16, 1997
Page 12
another 5 feet from the other side when they have already dedicated the 15 feet and
from a practical standpoint you can't get there from here is my point.
Stiles: That was just a comment that was brought up by the Fire Department.
Morrow: Thank you Mr. Mayor, those would be my questions for now.
Cowie: Any further discussion by the Council? Hearing none I will entertain a motion for
preliminary for Packard Subdivision No. 2.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I think what I would like to do as a point of discussion with the rest of
the Councilmen is to move to approve the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision No. 2
and I don't want to have that motion talked about subject to staff conditions. At this
juncture it seems to me that we are all over the board with the potential conditions. I
think that what I would like to do is to maybe move to approve the preliminary plat for
Packard Subdivision No. 2 and then see a Gean up of exactly what the conditions are at
this point and have the staff present at our next meeting or prior to our next meeting a
write up of what the conditions of approval are. It seems to me that we have an original
sixteen conditions of approval and now we have 16 more. Some of them are valid,
some are not valid. So I think that what I would like to see here is a new menu of
conditions of approval.
Rountree: By new do you mean a new listing?
Morrow Well a joining of the two lists that we have and eliminate the stuff that has little
or no relevance to this issue before us and get down to the heart of what really the
conditions of approval ought to be. Those are the technical issues in terms of
addressing how this plat is to be constructed.
Rountree: I think that would be a good point to clarify that for everybody.
Cowie: Before we get into discussion is this a motion?
Morrow No I am discussing my thoughts as to how we go. I don't want to be making a
motion and stumbling all over the place.
Cowie: Comments?
Tolsma: I think Walt is right I think we need to get everything clarified, who is doing
what.
Morrow. That being the case I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for
Packard Subdivision No. 2 by PNE/Edmonds Construction subject to a new listing of
relevant conditions to the technical issues of this subdivision and that new listing of
those issues to be presented to this Council at our August 5'" meeting.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 13
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Okay, Council you have heard the motion to approve the preliminary plat for
Packard Subdivision No. 2 subject to the new conditions set forth and brought back to
City Council at the meeting of August 5~h, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE OF 9.42
ACRES FROM R-4 TO R-8 BY LORIN SAUNDERS:
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I have to step down on this I have a conflict.
Corrie: Mr. Tolsma is stepping down for a conflict of interest.
Morrow. Mr. Rountree you thoughts since it is just the two of us?
Rountree: I didn't have any specifics on the findings of fact.
Morrow. I have no problem with them, I move to approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared for us by the Ciry Attorney.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the findings of
fact and conclusions of law as adopted by the Council, any further discussion? Roll call
vote
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Absent, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma-
Abstain, Corrie -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, the City Council here by recommends that the property set forth in
the application be approved by the City Council for the zoning amendment requested
under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law including
that the applicant or its successors, interests, assigns, heirs, executors or personal
representatives enter into a development agreement. That the property only be
developed as a planned unit development under the conditional use process. That if
the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions of law and it not
agreeable with entering into a development agreement and developing the property only
as a planned unit development under the conditional use permit process the application
for the zoning amendment shall be denied.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 14
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the decision and recommendation as
read, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE TO R-8 BY LARRY & KAY
HANSON:
Corrie: Council, again it is open for discussion.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve and adopt these findings of fact and
conclusions.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as adopted and approved by City Council. Roll call vote
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow Yea, Bentley -Absent, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -
Abstain, Corrie -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Entertain a motion for the decision.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the Meridian City Council hereby decides that the
property set forth in the application shall be annexed and zoned as R-8 under the
conditions set forth in these findings of fact and contusions. Including that the applicant
or their successors, interests, assigns, executors or personal representatives enter into
a development agreement that the property only be developed as a planned unit
development under the conditional use process. And that upon that annexation as
condtions of annexation the development of the property shall restricted to a minimum
of 2 family two house dwellings at a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre. If
the applicant's are not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
are not agreeable to enter into a development agreement, the property should not be
annexed.
Morrow. Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 15
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: FINAL PLAT FOR CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NO. 6, 37 LOTS BY
RAMON AND MARILYN YORGASON:
Cowie: As I mentioned there was a request by the senior project manager to table this
until August 5"'.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I move to table the application for final Plat for Crossroads
Subdivision No. 6 by Ramon and Marilyn Yorgason to August 5, 1997.
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to table to the August 5~"
meeting the final plat for Crossroads Subdivision No. 6, any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: FINAL PLAT FOR HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 3, 23 LOTS BY
WILLIAM HON:
Cowie: Is Mr. Hon or a representative here tonight, Becky.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, I am representing Mr. Hon on this project.
We faxed over our responses to staff comments, Will did you receive those. Just to
address a couple of things. I think we were in agreement, we did speak with Mr. Hon
today and went over some of these issues. The only one of the problems we had was
item 6 in note revisions. They asked us to change the v~rord private road to private lane.
The State code refers to public and private as roads not lanes. The Ada County
Engineer's interpretation of the State code is you cannot put the word lane on a final
plat. I think there are four references to changing private road to private lane. I
addressed that in my responses. We have made the requested modifications to the plat.
Item 11, there is a discussion concerning the roadway widths, the improved width of 37
back to back 50 foot right of way. There is a discussion about ACHD and their
standards for a commercial streets being a 58 foot road right of way with a 41 back to
back. If you recall when we came through with preliminary plat we discussed this item in
length, we were deferred. This was one of the items that vue were told to meet with staff
and try to come up with an acceptable standard. We did state that the construction of
the road would be built to Ada County Highway District standards, that is the structural
construction. The base, asphalt, compaction and so forth will meet Ada County
Highway District Standards. The reason that if you recall that we reduced the right of
way width and roadway width was the fact that we had such a low number of lots and
those culdesacs are very short. We did agreed that we vrould put no parking along
there, we understand it is the responsibility of the fot owners to enforce the no parking
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 16
along that roadway so that we do not have any congestion or emergency access
problems. The third issue was adequate access over the sewer that was one of the
items that we were deferred for also. We discussed that, Stan McHutchinson our
engineer and myself did talk with Gary. I think Stan sent a letter dated July 1g~ of 1996
discussing how we could get access to those manholes. I think we came to an
agreement that we would provide a compacted gravel surface that we would not have
any landscaping, any parking over the top of that sewer main line. So that it could be
accessed whenever the City needed it. We talked to Mr. Hon and agreed that there
would be no fencing over that sewer main line either. So that easement if anyone
needed say a secure site behind their building that they could go in and put their fencing
along the edge of that easement. We also added that note on the plat referencing the
foul balls from Story Park and that the lot owners understand that is going to happen
and that they will not hold the City of Meridian liable in any shape or form in the event
that a foul ball comes over and breaks a window on one of their company vehicles.
Morrow: Becky, with respect to item #11, where we are talking about the private roads,
what provision is made to fund replacement or repair of that road?
Bowcutt: That is in the covenants and I think we discussed that we would supply the
City Attorney with a copy of those covenants for those lot owners. We have separated
each street, those lots which abut or take access on one street are grouped as one
entity. The other roadway those lots are grouped as another separate entity and there
v~rould be provisions in those covenants so that they would be responsible for future
maintenance or any improvements required upon their street. We did that in the event
that someone's street deteriorated say the street to the north that the lot owners to the
south would not be responsible for maintenance of that roadway.
Morrow. With other private roads our requirement has been that a sinking fund actually
be established and contributed to on an annual basis by if you will an owners
association so that at time of rebuild the funding is there for the rebuild to occur. Has
that provision been made within your CCi3~R's?
Bowcutt: I couldn't answer that question, I don't recall reading that provision. But I am
sure that is something that can be included if that is the City's policy then obviously Mr.
Hon would concur.
Morrow. Well our policy with respect to private roads has been that they need to have
some sort of mechanism so that they can be repaired as needed and rebuilt at point in
time when they need to be rebuilt. At that juncture not have them try to be given to the
public and have the public expense rebuild them. That is the line of thinking behind the
funding.
Bowcutt: They will also have the expense of their landscaping along Franklin Road. So
there will have to be provisions for some monetary amount put away in a fund for
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 17
maintenance, upkeep, etc. So the roadways, it is very feasible it could be included in
that.
Cowie: Thank you Becky, comments for staff?
Rountree: Gary, Shari any comments? Any additions to the comments that were
provided by fax? Did they address your issues?
Stiles: They addressed my issues.
Smith: They addressed my issues, Mayor and Council.
Morrow. Do either one of your know the status of the CC&R's or the development
agreement, were they in this process do we know?
Stiles: The covenants were submitted with the preliminary plat application, however I do
not know if Council has had an opportunity review them and make any comments.
Morrow: Let me ask you this, within that document is there provision to fund the road
repairs if private roads are granted as requested.
Stiles: Specifically the private roads I do not believe so.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Honor Park
Subdivision No. 3 by William Hon subject to staff conditions and the additional condition
that within the development and including the CC8~R's a provision be made to establish
a sinking fund to find the private roads as requested by the client on a regular amortized
basis and that there appear notification on the plat there is a requirement of that so that
everybody can be aware that there are special conditions that exist for those private
roads.
Rountree: Second
Cowie: Motion made that vre approve the final plat for Honor Park Subdivision No. 3
subject to staff and additional agreements with the CC&R and conditions as stated in
the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DAKOTA
RIDGE SUBDIVISION BY MAX BOESIGER INC.:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the developer to start the
program.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 18
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, if I could ask for clarification by the Council concerning potential
conflict. The original property owner is not only a friend but a business associate in
terms of I purchase things or have purchased things from he and his family with respect
to my farming operation. I don't feel that it is a conflict or constitutes a conflict but I
would like a declaration by the Council whether it would be in their mind or not.
Rountree: I don't see a problem.
Tolsma: I don't have a problem.
Corrie: Hearing that there is no conflict by the Council Mr. Morrow we will allow you to
stay. With that statement again 1 will invite Mr. Boesiger or a representative of the
subdivision.
Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bowcutt: This is Dakota Ridge Subdivision, it probably looks familiar to you. It came in
approximately two years ago, the previous applicant was proposing to plat the entire
property and it is was approved by the City of Meridian. That particular developer did
not proceed with the project. My client Mr. Boesiger picked up the property from Mr.
Aschenbrenner when vne began this project one of the first things that Hre first did was to
meet with the school district. The school district was interested in putting an elementary
site on this particular property. They had the funds in their to purchase the property,
they do not have the funds to construct the elementary at this time. We met with the
school district and discussed what their needs were, the size of the site and so forth and
configuration. In order to come up with this particular layout we had to sketch a school
site. So Mr. Boesiger did pay us to sketch the school site, this is based on what they
called their canned elementary plan. This is their standard elementary building that you
see here. We did this one to demonstrate that the school could be constructed on this
property in this configuration that they could get access to the property to meet Uniform
Fire Code and building codes and so forth. We submitted to the school district, they
reviewed it they said v~ think that will work for us and then we proceeded forward to
design our development around this school site. As you can see the way this is laid out
one of the things that we wanted to do was to have an entrance that would function for
the subdivision but it would also function for the school site. The school district in the
past has had problems where the entrance to the elementary is internally within the
residential subdivision. There are school busses there are peak hours attributed to the
elementary for drop off and pick up. A lot of people complained to the Highway District,
complained to the school and therefore when we laid this out we put this roadway here
with no lots front on it. So basically they had one shot right into the school this would be
their bus turnaround and then this would be their parking area here. Their second
means of accesses the stub street here and they can either have a full access down
here somewhere or a secondary emergency access whatever will meet their needs. I
would like to stress that this is a concept only, the school district has not retained an
architect to lay it out at this time. This is just for discussion purposes to get the ball
Meridian City Council ~ •
July 15, 1997
Page 19
rolling. It could develop very different from what we show here today as far as the
school site is concerned. We have our second entrance right here adjoining us is
Englewood Subdivision on our eastern boundary. On our southern boundary is the lake
at Cherry Lane No. 3 and then our Western Boundary is unplatted property zoned R-T
rural transition. One of the hurdles that we had to deal with was the fact that there is an
existing sewer line that runs through this property. It is a trunk line, it is 18 inch it
transitions to a 15 inch, comes down into the Lake at Cherry Lane and you can see
these little manholes here, those are existing. We had to work around that trunk line to
make the project fit these parameters. In doing so we worked these micropaths in here
that would function basically for sewer maintenance, secondly for pedestrian or bicycle
access between these two blocks. This particular corner was troublesome for us
because as you well know the City Engineer prefers that we have a separate lot for the
sewer trunk lines so that you don't have encroachment of landscaping, fencing or any
disputes with residential uses. So in putting that separate lot there it isolates these two
lots. So we came up with the idea of a shared driveway concept. It is used in many
jurisdictions around the valley in situations where you have a limited access. They
function quite properly this one is 30 feet wide, it would be paved, asphalted, it
functioned for maintenance of the sewer and a shared driveway for those two lots. I
have one in my neighborhood right off of McMillan in the Hickory Subdivision there are I
think three lots that come off a shared driveway and it basically Y's into driveways
where the garages are. It works very well and we feel that is the only solution to those
lots, however they do not have frontage up on the public street as delineated in the
ordinance. Ada County Highway district did review that situation, their comment was
they wanted it made clear on the plat that those two particular lots had perpetual ingress
and egress to the public street that would run with the land. So obviously they could
never be cut off from access to their lots by any entity, person, etc. The property that
we are developing is approximately 28.6 acres, the school site is approximately 12
acres. We have got 90 residential, single family lots. We have an existing house on
this lot here and our density is 3.15 dwelling units per acre. All of these lots exceed the
minimum 8,000 square feet. All lots meet the frontage requirements with the exception
of Lot 4 and 5, Block 6. Then this lot 19, Block 3, we did have adequate frontage for
that lot, however in Staffs recommendations we had to bend the micropath and their
recommendation was straighten out the micropath for safety purposes and visibility and
reduce your frontage, I think the statement was it appeared to be a trade off that would
be acceptable. This particular lot is on the corner so that allows us the ability to reduce
below 80 because it meets below the criteria. This particular lot 19 is 18,726 square
feet. So it far exceeds 8,000 square foot minimums but you just can't get the frontage
to work because of that sewer trunk line. We have submitted a variance for those three
lots for the frontage requirement. The other issue that we have is the length of this
block here, it does exceed the 1.000 foot maximum length. We did put a micropath right
hereto the school site, that does break up the block. I looked through the ordinance just
kind of glancing through it one day and in pedestrian walkways under section 9-605 C it
states right of ways for pedestrian walk ways in the middle of long blocks may be
required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks,
shopping areas, etc. The easement shall be at least 10 feet wide. We have got 20 and
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 20
it is not an easement it is a separate lot. So we feel that is breaking up that lot, we
provided the 20 foot buffer all along Ustick Road as required in the ordinance. We have
a good traffic circulation, these 90 degree turns make that traffic have to slow down as it
comes through the development. We are making a vehicular connection to the future
phase of Englewood that was coordinated with City staff and Ada County Highway
District. We have also got a stub street on a southern end down here with the future
phase for the Lake at Cherry Lane. So we have those two stubs and then our two main
accesses. In working with the school district our first phase is this area right here, this is
a two phased project. We have told the school that we will build the street into them, to
this perimeter right here. Then this stub street comes in along the school property to
link up the Lake at Cherry Lane. We will construct all of this street here. Sewer will be
coming from this manhole over here to connect to the school. According to Staff their
building will have to be located somewhere in this vicinity due to the fact of the depth of
the sewer as we pull it in this direction. Water is up in Ustick Road, we will bring water in
also. While we are on the issue of the sewer, in conversations the developer has had
with the staff they have indicated that to extend it a westerly direction that sewer just
starts getting too shallow. It will not have the ability to service the properties on the north
side of the street. Therefore extension of that sewer along Ustick Road will not be
necessary. I think one of Gary's comments was referencing the sewer corridor. We
kept that sewer line within the appropriate City corridor within the public right of way with
the exception right here at the entrance. There is a short stretch right in here where it is
breaking out of the corridor. One of the problems that we had is we went to the highway
District, we had it in the right corridor and the highway district asked us to move our
street further west to increase separation between Englewood's entrance and
ourselves. We did, they instructed us to however we did protest and said well if you
make us move this entrance you will be moving the sewer outside that corridor. Their
comment was how come we are always the one that have to break our requirements
and no one else is willing to do so. They said you are going to have to work with the City
of Meridian on that issue. That is where we want the approach, that is where you shall
put it. So we do need a little compromise with staff on that. In their comments, the only
thing I wanted, I addressed the frontage and the block length. We have submitted a
variance to staff. I think that will probably be coming up the first of next month. We
would hope that the Ciry Council would kind of address if what we are proposing seems
reasonable so that wee can go ahead and proceed forward an start getting our plans in
order for the first phase. Do you guys have any questions that I would potentially
answer?
Morrow. Becky, I need to know Ustick Road it is a section line road you have taken into
account the required setbacks and right of way for section line roads?
Bowcutt: Yes we have 48 feet from center line as ACRD required and then an additional
20 foot landscaped lot that runs through here to this point and then runs from here to
this point. Right here that would have to be an easement on this lot because that lot
takes access directly to Ustick and we will have to bring the water and sewer through
here. So this obviously they are going to have to have frontage.
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 21
Morrow. Tell me a little bit about the compromise that you wish us to look at with respect
to the sewer tine and the highway entrance. Does the sewer line corridor now go over
into the lot itself?
Bowcutt: No sir, the sewer line just comes out of that corridor just a little bit. See this
island and here is that sewer line as it (inaudible).
Morrow. So it actually goes under the asphalt as opposed to being under the island.
That is the compromise you are asking us to make?
Bowcutt: Yes
Morrow. That is pretty major isn't it. Talk to me a little bit now about your perception of
the access to the school. Is that road that is coming off of Ustick in your diagram is that
a full width self-contained road so that it doesn't impact the parcel to the west?
Bowcutt: That is a 50 foot right of way which is what ACHD required and then we would
be building a 37 foot full section, curb, gutter, sidewalk, 5 foot sidewalk both sides. The
Highway District gave us the option of building half plus twelve and no, obviously we
wouldn't put any sidewalk on the west side. Our comment to them was no we have told
the school district that we will build this street to the parcel therefore we will build a full
section and grant full right of way width which is 50 feet.
Morrow. My follow up question then would be is how did you anticipate buffering the
parcel to the west?
Bowcutt: The parcel to the west is zoned rural transition, we have not seen a design on
it. We have been told there has been a design, I did talk with Mr. Steiner prior to the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I recommended to my client Mr. Boesiger
that he meet with Mr. Steiner or Mr. Campbell excuse me and Mr. Boesiger did have a
meeting with Mr. Campbell. We talked out here basically what we told them was we are
providing the streets, both streets to the school district. We are bringing the sewer, we
are bringing the water. We have worked very carefully with them, what are you doing for
the school district? The City of Meridian has always prided itself on when we do
developments what are you doing for the community as far as maybe some park
donations or a school donation or something that benefits the public interest other than
just the developer. So, we basically, our position is we are doing this, is 20 foot of
landscaping too much to ask? In your ordinance where you require, there is a
statement on landscaping Section 905 G, planting strips shall be required to be
placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial, industrial
uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum
of 20 feet and shall not be part of the normal street right of way or utility easement. I
think the key in this section is from residential properties. This property is not residential,
chances are it will be yes. It is not zoned residential it is zoned Rural Transition, 5 acre
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 22
minimum lot size. Not annexed into the Ciry and I guess our position is we have done a
lot working with the school district we provided them legal descriptions of their property,
we wrote sewer easements for them out to this manhole. We wrote an easement for
access to this street which they closed yesterday. The school district's agreement with
Mr. Aschenbrenner shows the street being right here. Ada County Highway District
when they reviewed our project and their staff report says, item 6 construct Cedar Creek
Avenue located as proposed adjacent to the west property line. I talked to Mr. Carbury
today, he did meet with Mr. Campbell of Steiner Development. I asked Mr. Carbury
about moving the street and he indicated we like it the way it is. We closed on the
property yesterday, we have already provided them legal descriptions showing that
street right there. My opinion is they are coming in after us and then they will be
residential, at that time I think it is the least they can do is provide some buffering there.
We are just talking about this short stretch. When the school comes in as a conditional
use permit which they will have to under the R-4 designation then at that time their
layout could be reviewed for some buffering along that parameter whether it be 10 feet
or whatever. Typically they don't, the school district does not put their parking right next
to your property. They usually have some arborvitae and some fencing and either bark
or grass.
Tolsma: I have a question, on your lower access (inaudible) where you come in
(inaudible) South and that roads that goes back up you said you were building that in its
entirety?
Bowcutt: Yes sir, this street exists right to this point, this stub street right here is not
there. It will be in their phase. What we will be constructing from this point here all the
way up to make that connection. So the school gets that second access.
Tolsma: will that road there then be fenced off from the school district you might say?
Bowcutt: it is a public street and how they configure their site would probably determine
whether it needs to be fenced off. If there is a playground there maybe it will be fenced
say with a gate, that will be the access for the teachers. Some of the schools now they
do an isolated parking lot for their teachers.
Tolsma: But that is on the school district's property there. That little green area there in
the corner is that green for a purpose?
Bowcutt: That is landscaping and that is for drainage purposes. We located some of
those in this area, that is the function of these in here. We proposed like putting a sub-
surface seepage bed underneath this pathway here. Those are for drainage purposes
only. We need to provide some area other than that which is under the public right of
way for drainage like some retention areas where we can use some bioswales and get
some storage and so forth other than this subsurface. We have installed water
monitoring tubes out on the property and they are being monitored for the ground water.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 23
Tolsma: I know you probably don't have any control over what the school is going to do
but could there possibly be another access right on that street there to get into the
school property, a walkway access?
Bowcutt: Right here?
Tolsma: Down at the lower street down here.
Bowcutt: A pedestrian, I am sure there will be a pedestrian there.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Bowcutt: On this the little sketch that we did, the concept we showed a pedestrian yes
sir.
Tolsma: That is all I had.
Cowie: Any further questions from the Council? Thank you, is there anyone else from
the public that would like to issue testimony at this time?
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6"' Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council as you know I represent Steiner
Development, Lou Steiner, he is the owner of the property which is located to the south
of this proposed project and to the west of this proposed project. The south of course
you know is the extensions I guess it is Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 and 4 which are
immediately adjacent. To the west is a parcel of property that Mr. Steiner recently
acquired with the expectation that it would be developed into a residential subdivision.
Although you don't have a specific development application before you at this point in
time. I have been advised that it is underway and at some time in the not too distant
future you would be seeing an application for residential development to the west. I
would like to make it as clear as I can that Mr. Steiner of course doesn't have any
objection whatsoever to the concept of a residential development on this property and
doesn't have any objection whatsoever to the idea that a school would be provided and
a school site would be provided. What his concerns are with respect to the potential
adverse impacts that this particular layout might have on the future residential
properties to the west. More specifically (inaudible) the concern that he has got is with
respect to the location of this street here. Since it is proposed (End of Tape) some
concerns with respect to the potential layout of parking lot immediately adjacent to the
properties and then the extension of this driveway. As you folks undoubtedly know and
Becky has pointed out to you the primary purpose of this road and the extension of the
driveway is to provide access to the school. What that means is at 8:00 every morning a
line of schools busses are going to be coming in and then going out. About 3:00 every
afternoon a line of schools busses are going to be coming in and going out and people
are going to be coming in and going out in order to pick up and drop off their kids. I
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 24
happen to have elementary age children, I happen to drop them off at school in the
morning when school is in and 1 know how many cars go in and out of elementary
schools dropping off kids because 1 get in the traffic jam about five times a week, nine
months out of the year. It will generate a significant amount of traffic up and down that
street. What, let me back up and say, we realize that this is not in front of you tonight
but it will be before long. This potential interference in combination with this interference
is what really drives the reason that Mr. Steiner asked me to come in and speak to you
tonight. What we would like to be able to do and like to be able to propose and in fact
have proposed to the applicant is that either this street be moved over so that it
accesses this parcel in a more or easterly direction. Or if that can't be done and it may
not be appropriate then at a minimum simply provide an effective buffer between the
property line and this road right of way which is of course going to provide that access.
The letter that I sent into you folks earlier this afternoon I assume you have seen it or ff
you haven't I brought extra copies. What I did is I asked you to consider deferring the
matter until some time in the future so we could have an opportunity that is Mr. Steiner
through his representative Mr. Campbell could meet with the applicant and see if we
can't work that out. Since we had about an hour before this evening before this matter
came up on the agenda we did spend some time talking to him and tried to work out
some sort of a compromise. Frankly it doesn't look like we are going to be able to do it
without your help. We would like to be able to sit down with these folks and see if we
can't find a way to solve the problem. Maybe using your staff or one or two of you to try
to help us assuming you have an interest in trying to accomplish that and to help Mr.
Steiner out on that problem. One potential solution and you all know that I am not an
engineer and so I can only just talk in terms of ideas or concepts is they are providing a
60 foot wide lot right here which is as I understand for drainage and buffering and about
a 30 foot lot here which is for drainage and buffering. Perhaps those two lots and
simply be moved over and the road would go over and meander its way in (inaudible) in
other words by providing some buffer over into this location doesn't necessarily mean
that their lot layout that is the residential lot layout is going to be impact. It is simply a
matter of (inaudible) That was apparently not acceptable to the applicant either. Becky
mentioned the section of the ordinance that requires 20 foot wide buffer strips between
incompatible features such as highways and by the way the definition of a highway in
your ordinance is essentially it is the same thing as a street. It says highway means the
way same thing as street. So what we vrould like to suggest is that the road in this
location is an incompatible feature with the future residential development that is
undoubtedly coming onto this property. It needs to be buffered, under the ordinance it
requires a 20 foot buffer Street. We would like the Council either to direct the applicant
to discuss solutions with us or to simply adopt as a condition of approval that a 20 foot
buffer be placed there. With respect to Becky's point that the ordinance speaks about
residential properties needing buffering. It is a rural transition piece of property. The
rural transition 5 acre minimum lot sizes for residences. In addition 1 was just looking at
your comprehensive plan map your comprehensive plan map shows that this particular
property owned by Mr. Steiner for single family residential uses. I think it is fair to say
that this is a residential piece of property that we are asking be buffered. Mr. Campbell
did meet with Mr. Carberry today and either Mr. Carberry said two different things to two
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 25
different people or somebody got their wires crossed. Mr. Campbell understood that Mr.
Carberry to say he didn't care where the road went. I don't think we are going to have
any problems moving that road over 20 feet. I just can't see that is going to cause a
problem for the school district, for the highway district or for the applicant and it can
provide a significant benefit to Mr. Steiner. What we want to do is the same thing that
these folks want to accomplish, the very same thing. The reason the road is here is
because people don't like to have busses driving up and down their residential streets.
That is exactly why that road is there. What is going to result if the road is built as
proposed is that there is going to be or likely to be building lots assuming they are
approved by you folks, building lots that will back up to that road so they will have a
road behind them where busses go and a row in front of them where they drive, the
owners of those properties drive. That just seems to me that a 20 foot landscape buffer
solution is not too much to ask. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you
may have. I will try to see if we can't find a way to work it out.
Cowie: Council, comments or questions?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I guess Mr. Bradbury I don't have questions specifically I guess
what I want to address this perspective of yours, and your Giants and Mr. Campbell's is
from a philosophical stand point. When I first came on the Council we had a really
strong dilemma between the City and the Meridian School District over these kinds of
issues of site locations and so on and so forth. Former Mayor Kingsford, current Mayor
Come both Councils have struggled long and hard to resolve those things and to be
aware that vue are trying to create a whole community and as such everybody sacrifices
a little. Very candidly we have required of Mr. Voigt, Mr. Goldsmith, Mr. Johnson,
southwest area for them to contribute actual dirt in 3 to 5 acre parcels to create park
and school sites. It seems to me in this particular issue where this subdivision is
creating and granted the school district and either Mr. Boesiger, his representative, Mr.
Aschenbrenner or anybody else can speak to how the school district is going to layout
the school in that property. But by virtue of them providing that site which we
desperately need as a City and a community that it also serves Mr. Steiner and his
properties. They have a direct benefit to that, that from my standpoint as a councilman
when Mr. Steiner's project comes before us I would look to see that he takes this
concept and enhances it and makes it work for our community. I think that the issue
here is that these folk have paid their fair share and some to boot and it is up to you folk
if you expect to be annexed and zoned and approved from my perspective to pay your
fair share and to help out. So very candidly I would not look favorably upon one
subdivision, one parcel of property paying the full price. This is a community it is a
cooperative effort and you will cooperate as far as I am concerned in terms of making
this work. So I have a problem with the position that you are representing from that
standpoint.
Bradbury: I appreciate the position that you are taking and maybe some history helps.
You folks, I have been in front of you representing Mr. Steiner on a number of occasions
for a number of projects. And you all know what Mr. Steiner and his project have
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 26
donated to the City. You have a couple of golf course holes out there that Mr. Steiner
gave and you have a fire station site that Mr. Steiner arranged for, well you almost have
it. There is a deed in your file somewhere that Mr. Steiner arranged for the City to have.
So 1 don't think that, you know that when the City is in need of some help Steiner
provides it and has in the past. I expect that when Mr. Steiner comes in with the
development on this next project you will probably ask Mr. Steiner to do something for
the community and I expect that Mr. Steiner probably will. Now all we are talking about
right now however is trying to keep a road from the back yards of people who are likely
to be citizens of your city where busses are going to be driving up and down it. We are
simply asking fora 20 foot buffer strip along that section of street. So yes I appreciate
the fact that everybody has got to pull their own weight and provide their own share and
I don't think that at least from my perspective that Mr. Steiner has been lacking in that
respect. In addition, 1 guess I don't know this so since I have been put on oath I have to
qualify it with saying it is something that I have been told. I haven't seen any of these
documents but I had the understanding that the school district didn't acquire that site for
free 1 understood they bought. I am not altogether sure that the applicant has provided
quite as much as what maybe they are trying to suggest they have. Maybe that is a
question that you need to ask them, they have the information better than I do. In any
event I appreciate the position, what we are talking about right now though we have an
application in front of you, we simply want to ask you to enforce a provision of your
ordinance which provides for the buffering of incompatible features. 1 think a road that is
primarily designed to access a school is a feature that is incompatible with the future
residential subdivision. I guess we know that for an absolute certainty because that is
what they have done. They have buffered from that road probably because they know
they need to for the very same reasons we are asking for it.
Tolsma: I have a comment, right now in the City of Meridian we have three schools that
are right square in the middle of housing subdivisions that busses go in and out of every
day along with all the people dropping off their children. We have a proposed new high
school that is going to go in that is going to be right in the middle of a subdivision also.
There is no exterior buffers, there is no landscaping. They are using the public streets to
run the busses in and out of. There are probably 15 to 20 busses per day in the morning
and in the afternoon also. There isn't anything different then what we have right here.
The Chief Joseph Elementary, the Linder Elementary, the brand new one that is in the
back of Albertsons. All of them are accessed to school busses and all of them are
accessed to drivers (inaudible) right through the middle of subdivisions to do that.
There doesn't seem to be any problem out there.
Bradbury: Well I guess there must because the school district has asked these folks to
give them a separate access and a different location that wasn't in the middle of their
subdivision. That is why it is there, that is what I heard Becky Bowcutt say a minute
ago. The school district said let's avoid the complaints and the controversies that we get
when we put our accesses through the middle of a subdivision. Let's move it over onto
the corner. That is why it is here.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 27
Tolsma: You have to get in there someway.
Bradbury: I agree with you and we don't have a problem with the fact that they want to
get in, it is great and I think Councilman Morrow is right having a school there probably
provides some benefit to all of the property owners within that vicinity because we are
going to be able to resolve the crowding problems in the Meridian Schools. We will
have a place to send the kids when, as the City grows. All that is granted, all we are
talking about is please move the road over 20 feet and put some landscaping in so that
these busses aren't driving in the backyards of the people that are going to be living
there one day.
Corrie: 1 have a question, how do you know that is going to be a back yard?
Bradbury: Well I guess I don't know that, you are right, you don't have development
plans, that is what I said in the very beginning. The best I can do Mayor is to project
what I think is likely to happen there.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would like to just make two final comments to clarify two points.
One is that historically we've have and yes the ground was bought by the school district.
The issue is there that historically we have had a terrible time to get developers to sell
ground to the school district. We have had a terrible time in the location. Very candidly
the high school site that Mr. Tolsma speaks of was aggressively encouraged by us in
working in conjunction on monthly meetings with the school district, the junior high site
that essentially is off of Eagle Road we worked very hard with the land owners to get
them to sell those parcels to the school district. The Van Auker parcel that is on the
future Pine extension we worked very hard over the course of a couple of years to get
those sales to occur. The second issue with respect to Mr. Steiner's contribution of the
golf course ground those were originally golf course sites with Leavitt New Pacific in
1977, 1978, 1979. He bought with the full knowledge of knowing that it was going to
continue to be a golf course site. Yes he through Mr. Campbell have done a heck of a
job in terms of working with us and designing a class subdivision that has enhanced
that. Mr. Teter has provided the desperately needed fire station and we has a City are
very appreciative of that. From my perspective that is part of what goes in terms of
making a good community. With respect to schools our best investment is those,
sometimes the entrances and the ingress egress issues are not the best. Maybe the
school district has made a mistake by having (inaudible) getting to and from the school
sites. This is a much shorter site, it seems to me that we all benefit from this and so that
Mr. Steiner and the children that are produced and schooled within his subdivision that
are going to come to this site your design can be done in such a matter that it is an
enhancement both to your subdivision and the families that will buy residences within
that subdivision and for us as a community. Those are the two points I wish to make.
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor I have one additional comment that you might here about here in a
minute, I am not altogether sure if somebody is going to stand up and talk about it. So I
will just raise it now. The issue with respect to this private drive (inaudible) and some of
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 28
the concerns that folks have is that there may be some temptation to drive vehicles
across there unless there is some sort of a gate or Ballard system or something put up
to keep people from driving through beyond the end of the driveway across the sewer
lot that is in the Lake at Cherry Lane subdivision and then out onto those roads. What
we would like to suggest the Council do is consider requiring some sort of gate or some
sort of blocking device just at least to keep vehicles from coming across there. I don't
think that should create too great of a problem for anybody and might save everybody a
little bit of a headache. Thank you for taking the time to listen.
Corrie: Steve, just in case your request is not acted on favorably. 1 would hope that Mr.
Campbell and Mr. Steiner would do what Mr. Morrow says is work as closely as you can
with the City and make that a good entrance there as well. I don't know exactly how
they will go but I am convinced that they will work with us, am I correct?
Bradbury: I have not doubt that we will work with you. We may fight with you for a little
while first.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on this?
Rebecca Winston, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Winston: My concern as a homeowner is with the block 6, lot 6 access for the sewer
that you have in the Dakota development. We happen to be residents the Cherry Lane
side of that development that also has the sewer access easement portion of it
designed to it (inaudible). I have a couple of questions to address the Council. One
who's responsibility first is to maintain those easements. Is that something that the
developer is to maintain, is it the City's responsibility to maintain it or is it the
homeowners association to maintain it. If it is the homeowners responsibility to maintain
it we were not advised of that when we purchased our properties because our property
in fact is not maintained and so my concern is the opposite easement also going to be
non-maintained. I realize it access to two homes that are designated for that block 6 and
those two lots back there, but that is a concern we have is it going to be weeds growing
there? Then also the gutters and the drainage that will be on that easement portion
where will that water go. When it is paved or if it is paved will it be cxubed, will there be
a gutter place there to take that drainage. Then my last concern as a homeowner there
is 1 guess hindsight is better than anything but as a homeowner we didn't realize that
property eventually would be developed in such a scale. I commend to the developers
that it is going to be beautiful. But our concern is because we have homes there now is
there going to be a fence placed around the development by the curcent developers so
that we don't have to look in someone else's backyard. Or is that going to be our
responsibility to block the view? That is all I have to say.
Morrow. I think Mr. Smith can talk about, answer Mrs. Winston's question about the
sewer accesses.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 29
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Mrs. Winston was asking us prior to the
meeting and I can't remember for sure but I am fairly certain that is a common lot area
that the sewer exists within. As such that it would be a homeowners association
responsibility to maintain it. I will have to check the plat of the Lake at Cherry Lane No.
3 tomorrow to be sure and I will do that.
Morrow. And you will notify her of what that response is?
Smith: I can do that.
Morrow. Ms. Bowcutt, would you address the issue of drainage on lots 5 and 6 an the
issue of fencing around the perimeter of the subdivision.
Bowcutt: In order to keep that drainage within this channel we would go ahead and put
rolled curb and create a curb and gutter so that water would drain into the right of way
and go into our design drainage, storm drainage system so that it didn't sluff onto the
lots or into the adjoining development.
Morrow: And the question with respect to the fence?
Bowcutt: As far as the fence is concerned we are not opposed to putting up a day there,
obviously we would have to have, if the City wanted a lock on it we would have to have
a City approved lock or ballards something along that line.
Morrow. I guess I am asking the wrong question.
Bowcutt: You are asking are we going to fence this whole perimeter?
Morrow. Was that not your question Mrs. Winston? The question is the fence that
fences the lots or the typical subdivision fences that normally exist.
Bowcutt: They don't have a fence back here, I believe I asked Shari that question. She
said this was developed prior to the requirement for perimeter fencing and I said so the
burden falls upon us to fence and she said no because it is adjoining residential, did I
misunderstand you?
Stiles: On the perimeter fencing issue when it adjoins property that has already been
developed we have not required the developers to fence that boundary.
Morrow. For my clarification the Lake at Cherry Lane that was not a requirement at the
time that it was developed that required a perimeter fence.
Stiles: That is true
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 30
Morrow. And that this parcel of ground since it is being developed as residential is a
compatible use so there is not a fence required is that what you are saying?
Stiles: Yes, it was staffs opinion that it was unfair enrich someone else that had already
developed their lots by having the adjacent developer put up a fence when they have
already developed residentially.
Morrow: So then getting to the bottom line here the fencing between individual lots of
the Lake at Cherry Lane and Dakota Ridge would be like internal fencing within a
subdivision where it is a cooperative effort between adjoining land owners, is that what
you are saying?
Stiles: They would be required to put the perimeter fence adjacent to Englewood Creek
where there is not any development occurring yet. And also adjacent to the west
boundary.
Morrow. But the individual family lots would resolve the fence issue much the same as
they would internally in a subdivision where owners cooperatively fenced their lots. And
that would be the area where the Winston's live.
Stiles: Yes
Rountree: On that point, the record is not clear and maybe you need to get it clarified,
the City's comment letter on this particular development says construct a 6 foot high
permanent non-combustible perimeter fence except where the City expressly agreed in
writing that such fencing is not necessary. Fencing is to be in place prior to applying for
building permit. The engineer's response to that is the applicant understands perimeter
fencing is required. A portion of the east boundary has an existing chain link fence
installed by the developer of the Englewood Subdivision No. 1. The applicant
understands fencing along the boundary is required prior to the issuance of a building
permit. That was my understanding in reading the record on this particular. Well the
question is are we going to do it or not? The record goes both ways at this point so we
need clarification.
Bowcutt: I agree, our understanding was regardless of whether it was residential or rural
the perimeter must be fenced unless an existing six foot chain link or cedar board fence
existed.
Corrie: So then you are going to fence that section that is south?
Bowcutt: Mr. Boesiger indicated that he would be willing to do so.
Corrie: So then that would give you your fencing behind your property.
(Inaudible)
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 31
Winston: That does satisfy us because we are town homes on the end of that
development that corner. Our concern was that there would be a consistent look
through the whole back of our property. So that meets what we would like.
Tolsma: Would you be willing to contribute to the construction of that fence?
Winston: No, because I was there first.
Bowcutt: Just one more point, my client indicates that the condition reads non-
combustible, obviously she is asking for site obscuring. May we have it as part of the
record that we be allowed to put 6 foot cedar board? I don't think chain link is going to
give her the privacy.
Corrie: I think Becky what she is looking at is the consistency all the way across Cherry
Lane to (inaudible)
eowcutt: Our preference would be cedar.
Morrow. To try to bring this to contusion 1 think that the fencing between subdivisions
where you have residential lot backing up to residential lot is to be whatever the parties
agree on in this case cedar or whatever. I think the requirement for non-combustible is
when we are talking non-conforming uses or ag or industrial or commercial or that type
of thing. So what we are after here is I think you have two subdivisions that back up to
each other so that the fencing is compatible with normal subdivision property owner
fencing because they are really lot to lot. And they are no part of a neighborhood
although they are two different subdivisions.
Corrie: Any further comment from the public?
Rountree: I had another question for Becky, with the access road, was ACHD specific
that they would not allow the extension of Niemann Drive to the West? Is that out of the
question as far as they are concerned?
Bowcutt: You mean going westerly? No, we discussed that, I asked the question if there
could be a connection made going to the west. If you align with this intersection yes,
their preference was just don't front any lots on it. So we don't, so it is just traffic
(inaudible) we don't have any backing motion conflicts with school busses.
Rountree: Any development then would front Niemann Drive.
Bowcutt: Yes they could, they could extend that right through and align it with our
Niemann and take it to the west.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 32
Rountree: Do you have a sense where the lateral goes from exiting this property. Dces
it go due north to Ustick?
Bowcutt: It comes, it is piped through here, it surtaces here and goes up and then kind
of goes in a northwesterly fashion. I think it diagonals across there and then goes
across Ustick Road does it not that is what my understanding is. I think with another
map you could clarify that.
Rountree: That is okay that answers my question, it just seems to me that is a
reasonable resolve to some of the issues that have been brought up.
Bowcutt: (Inaudible)
Cowie: Any further questions from Council? At this point I will Gose the public hearing.
Council, discussion, comments, direction?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor I guess for point of discussion from my perspective although I am
glad that Mr. Bradbury by way of Mr. Steiner and Mr. Campbell brought up their points I
am not so inclined to agree with tabling, it seems that there are several alternatives in
terms of designing a compatible subdivision, compatible entryway. I don't see that there
is any injury to any of the three of them by pressing ahead with this project. I think that it
does make sense from our standpoint to do the common drive for lots four and five and
block six. I do think however that there ought to be a means by which the concerns of
access to Cherry Lane sewer access not happen so that there is no cross movement in
terms of vehicles. I guess my suggestion would be that City Engineer smith work out
what is in the best interest of the City in terms of us accessing that for maintenance
purposes. Those would be my thoughts in terms of this project.
Rountree: Good motion do you want a second?
Morrow. Yes
Come: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion on
the motion that was made? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Come: Staff will get that on record and find out what we need to do on that one.
FIVE MINUTE BREAK
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DEVLIN
PLACE SUBDIVISION BY D.W. INC.:
Cowie: Would the representative for the preliminary plat come forward?
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 33
Scott Stanfield, JUB Engineers, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Stanfield: JUB Engineers is representing DW Inc. on this preliminary plat application for
Devlin Place Subdivision. The property consists of approximately 12.2 acres located
north of West Cherry Lane between existing Sunburst and Sunnybrook Farms
Subdivision, particularly it is east of Ten Mile The property is currently zoned R-4 and R-
4zoning basically surrounds the proposed projects. There is a small farm land area
currently to the west that is currently county rural transition. The development is
proposed to be single family residential units as is the surrounding developments in
Sunburst and Sunnybrook, The approved Meridian assisted living project borders south
of this project. To the north lays vacant land. The developer intends to develop an R-4
single family residential subdivision which will meet current City ordinance, ACHD and
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District requirements. The subdivision will consist of 39 single
family lots plus common lots. Two of the common lots will be designated as landscape,
multi-purpose lots. They will also serve as drainage lots. The third common lot will exist
along the west boundary as the plan you have should show. That will be fenced off
chain link and it will provide two mechanisms. One will provide access to the Davis
Drain which will be piped as part of this project. It will also provide a pathway to allow
foot traffic to go from south to north to the future park tliat is part of a different project to
the north of this project. The lot area will range from minimum of 8,000 to approximately
10,000 square feet. Density is at about 3.2 units per acre. City services consist of city
fire, water and sewer services. The project is within the Meridian School District and it is
also within the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The development is bordered by
several streets that stub into it, particularly Chateau Drive to the north. Then a couple of
stub streets to the east from Sunnybrook Farms. This configuration will create several
entrances to the subdivision. We feel that most lot owners will elect to come up Ten Mile
and down Chateau Drive adjacent to Kerrtfield Manor and then tum south to the
development. This should also alleviate some of the traffic in Sunnybrook Farms and
pefiaps Glennfield by encouraging those people to also come down Chateau Drive
versus meandering through Sunnybrook Farms. The applicant would also like to look at
moving the drainage lot that is shown in the NW corner and perhaps locating it in the
future park to the north and perhaps agreeing to putting in some park amenities in
exchange for moving the storm drain lot to the north. This would create a buildable lot.
However the plan you show now does describe it as a common lot. That is basically it,
does anybody have any questions?
Rountree: You talked about a future proposed project to the north. The deal when we
talked about the extended living facility was that would be part of the development that
would occur north of that side. So now we have another project and we are hearing
about yet another project so could you explain what the intent is there as your plat and
other development potentials around this surrounding this subdivision have not been
laid out which they are supposed to be.
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 34
Stanfield: Currently Prestige Homes owns the property where the proposed Meridian
assisted living is and where Devlin Place is at and the future park. As part of the
Meridian assisted living project which is approved I believe it was contingent upon
putting the park north of Devlin Place. So Devlin Place isn't really tied to the project to
the north our project Meridian assisted is through the approval of Meridian Assisted
living. I understand it was part of the conditional use process. Does that answer your
question?
Rountree: It creates another one but I don't think you have any answer for it.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, could we have Shari or Gary address the issue that Mr. Rountree
raises?
Stiles: I am sorry could you repeat what you question was?
Rountree: The question was about the development of that northerly portion into park. I
know it was discussed with the previously approved project off of Cherry lane but I don't
recall that it was made a condition of that approval, is that in fact the case?
Stiles: The improvement of the park, the development of that park was not a condition of
that conditional use permit. The dedication of the land was a condition of it. I also had
one comment on the plat that we didn't note in our comments that some of these corner
lots where they have the curve there. 1 wanted to applicant to be aware that we
measured the frontage based on the Tine length plus one half of that curve length. Since
we do not have exact dimensions on these lots there may be some frontage
designations that need to be made on those comer lots.
Stanfield: We will meet all frontage requirements on this development. Does that
answer your concerns?
Morrow. Shari, for my own clarification the dedication of the park ground has taken
place, do we have deed to that or what is the procedure there?
Stiles: The City does not and I am not aware of where they are in the process. I know
Gary Lee is doing the engineering both for this subdivision and for Prestige Care now. I
don't know if Scott has any information on where they are at.
Morrow. 1 guess what I am after is to make sure that we get the park site. We do have
that as a cast in stone requirement of the conditional use permit for the assisted living
facility.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 35
Stiles: Yes, it is a requirement of the assisted living permit. We don't have a
development agreement in place yet. We will have that prior to them getting a building
permit. We will have that in hand that deed in hand prior to issuing a building permit.
Corrie: I guess Gary on the street it shows that one curb comes in off of I believe that is
Sunburst, is that the only entrance there, the front of this is going to be this assisted
living, is that going to connect into that street at all. Where people are going to be
coming into that assisted living are they coming to come in off of Cherry lane but can
they get out through that subdivision?
Stiles: I don't believe it was dedicated as a public street, maybe Scott could answer that.
There is going to be access through there but Ada County Highway District specially
wanted that choked down a little bit so it didn't provide a thoroughfare through that
subdivision.
Stanfield: I can elaborate on that somewhat. 1 believe you are referring to the southwest
comer of the development and tie into Gemstone. These plans for Gemstone these final
plans may or may not inGude the street construction of the continuation of that street we
are showing to the south and then it will tum to the west and meet Gemstone whether it
shows up on Devlin final plans under property that will then be owned by Meridian
Assisted living is still being worked out. It will either show up on Meridian assisted living
plans or Devlin final plat. But it is on Meridian assisted living property or will be when the
property is deeded out.
Corrie: Any further testimony? Hearing none I will close the public hearing.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Devlin Place
Subdivision by DW Inc. subject to staff conditions.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made that we approve the preliminary plat for Devlin Place Subdivision
subject to staff approval, any further comments or discussion?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #t3: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF
FACILITIES BY CLASSIC KITCHEN INC. - BRET JONES:
Corrie: Is Bret Jones here?
Jones: Mayor and Council, I appreciate you taking the time this evening last but not
least to entertain our application for a conditional use permit for our business. The
business has been growing over the past years we have been experiencing a 26°k
growth rate which has forced us out of our current inhabitants and we would like to build
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 36
anew building in front our current facilities on Bower Street, E. Bower. This particular
(End of Tape) we like the City, our kids go to school here and we would like to maintain
our business here. These plots are in old township which years ago was not planned
an thought out very well. We have applied for maximum use of the property for building
to get the best value of our dollar we can, forcing us to create parking on the other
parcels that we own east of the proposed building plot. We have gone through Planning
& Zoning, Ada County and (inaudible) agreed to their suggestions that they have asked
us to take care. We don't have any real problems with any of the City requirements
there. We have estimated four trees per the front of the property in the landscape area
here. Large circles are trees and it wrorks out about four trees for the amount of parking
that we would like to have. We are regulated by Department of Environmental Quality to
contain our combustible products, our exhaust and sanding dust and things like that.
We are going, we would like to do that also. East of the old Wilkins blacksmith shop
which we currently own (inaudible) will be enclosed, it will unload them into trucks in an
enclosure to eliminate the amount of particulate which float into the air which we are
required by DEQ to control. So we have some guidelines there that we need to work on.
Come: Council, any comments or questions of Mr. Jones? Thank you very much, staff
any comments, Gary or Shari?
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, 1 would move that we adopt the findings of fact and contusions of
law as prepared for P & Z.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve of the findings
of fact and contusions of law adopted by the Planning and Zoning, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea, Bentley -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Entertain a motion on the decision.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City approves the conditional use permit
requested by the applicant for the properties described in the application with the
conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. And that the property
be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes,
uniform fire codes, 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.
Tolsma: Second
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 37
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision and
recommendation as read, all approved? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I don't have a change order for Ashford
Greens Lift station that I know of so 1 will move on to the change order for the waste
water treatment plant. We had a change order for the lift station last Council meeting.
We had one to change the diameter of the dry well but that was the last Council
meeting. Item 2 is the change order on the Waste Water Treatment Plant, roadway
rehabilitation, Park Town Construction Inc. Change order #2 had to do with adding
some, remove/replace asphalt pavement. Deleting some new asphalt and we deleted
the striping. These are in accord with the unit prices as bid by the contractor for a net
change of a net increase of $14,837.25.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that wee approve the change order for the Waste
Water Treatment Plant roadway rehabilitation to Park Town Construction in the amount
of $14,837.25.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the contract
change order, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Also attached to that packet is contract change order #3 for the same contractor
for the same project. There is a list of 7 different changes. One of which is liquidated
damages, 8 days at $150 per day, $1200. The resulting change in change order #3 is
an increase of contract price of $2522.72.
Corrie: Any discussion? Entertain a motion.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the change order at the Waste Water
Treatment roadway project for Park Town Construction in the amount of $2522.72.
Rountree: Second
Come: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the contract
change order No. 3 in the amount of $2522.72, any further discussion? All those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council ~ •
July 15, 1997
Page 38
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members these change orders have been forwarded to
the contractor for his approval and signature, we have not received them back yet. So I
will wait the receipt of those signed documents before I bring them to Mayor for
signature. The next item I have is to report some bid results for the Emergency
Generator procurement project and for the installation of the emergency generators. As
you can see by the memorandum that Brad Watson prepared we had 3 bidders for the
procurement portion. Cummings Intermountain incorporated at $67,528, EC Power
Systems at $69,703, Western States Equipment at $98,414.58. As you can see by the
memorandum we had some irregularities with all three bids. Cummings did not submit
a bid security. So that pretty much spells the status of that bid, it is non-responsible. EC
Power Systems they had an irregularity in the bid form it is requested that the contractor
list the bid amount and also write the bid amount out. What they did is they listed, there
were two generators and they wrote in the total of the two generators as their unit price
rather than the individual price. The total price that they showed was the total. Figures
was the individual generator price, what they wrote out was the total for the two
generators and it should have been written out as the individual Westem States
Equipment was not listed as an approved manufacturer in the bid documents,
apparently there were some telephone calls from Western States to Brad asking if not
being approved was an oversight or if there was a reason and Brad told him he did not
know that he should call Tim Burgess. Tim Burgess said that he spoke to somebody
from Westem States but that the question was never brought up to him. Brad had some
conversations with a gentleman by the name of Tim with Westem States confrming
after the bid opening. He was telling Brad that he didn't believe the other bidders
equipment could conform with the specifications. At this point the second low bidder EC
Power Systems submitted some product information along with their bid. We have not
reviewed that product information. The only thing that we can say at this point is that all
of these suppliers were to bid the equipment as specified. They submitted a bid and all
but one submitted a bid security. My own feeling is that the EC Power systems
irregularity is a minor ircegularity. I think the intent is pretty clear as to what they
intended to do by their bid.
Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we accept the bid on EC Power Systems in the
amount of $69,703 subject to City Engineer Smith confirming that their specifications for
their equipment can meet the bid specifications completely.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to accept EC Power
Supply bid of $69,703 subject to the conditions stated in the motion, any further
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 39
Smith: Thank you, assuming that we get a generator or two generator sets we did
receive one bid for the installation of the generators from Custom Electric in the amount
of $105,405.
Morrow. My question is what was that with respect to our engineer's estimate?
Smith: Well it seems like the total bid that we had last year or last time around was
$235,000 somewhere in that range. I don't have an answer for you on the engineer's
estimate Councilman Morrow, I don't know. The sum of the two bids that we have
received by purchasing the equipment separately from the contractor installation is
about $60,000 less than it was.
Morrow. I guess I am concerned about only having one bid but this is the second time
around and the free enterprise sector has had their shot at it so my motion would be
that we accept the bid from Custom Electric in the amount of $105,405 subject to City
Engineer Smith determining that all specifications have been met.
Rountree: Second:
Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to issue the project to
Custom Electric in the amount of $105,405 subject to the engineer's approval, any
further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: The next item has to do with the grease interceptor proposal. Waste Water
Superintendent John Shawcroft wrote up a little two page explanation of his proposal. It
concerns the restaurants that are operating within the City of Meridian at this time.
There is a list of 21 restaurants that are attached to this memorandum this letter that
John put together. As he states in the beginning of his letter when the City of Meridian
perhaps it wasn't in the beginning. When the City of Meridian reaches a population of
30,000 people then we go into a mandatory pre-treatment program. This fats, oils and
greases fog as he refers to it is a major concern in that without the interceptors at the
restaurants the City of Meridian is the gathering point at the waste water plan for all of
the oils, fats and greases. They ball up out there, they plug up things and it causes us a
great degree of d~culty. Not only at the plant but in the collection system of getting to
the plant. They settle out, they plug up the lines and this is his proposal to facilitate the
installation of interceptors, grease traps at the restaurants. As he puts it the grandfather
status of these restaurants is currently in jeopardy as recent EPA mandates have
excluded grandfather rights. So his proposal is with your approval to budget for and
offer to these establishments some monetary assistance for purchase and installation of
the needed interceptors. He is estimating that a maximum cost of $84,000 and that
would be a 50150 split with the establishments up to $4,000 per establishment. I think it
is an incentive to the owners of the business to install the interceptors and of course it is
an advantage to the City of Meridian to have the interceptors in place to capture the
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 40
grease at the point of the user rather than flushing it on down the line to where we have
to deal with it at the waste water plant or in the collection lines. I have seen this happen
one point in particular which was one house from where my son lived and it flooded a
basement and we paid a $4000 dollar bill for clean up and it was grease coming out of a
residential line. We are not sure how that happened to get there, we have known of
instances where trucks have dumped grease into manholes to get rid of it and this might
be a case we don't know for sure. But anyway
Morrow. I think what we would like to have happen here is for you guys to study the
concept in the proposal. It is a bit of a new concept, proposal. John and Celeste have
kind of worked really hard over the last 30 days to prepare this for us and make it as
private sector sensitive as ~ossible. I guess what we would like is your guidance at our
budget hearing on the 29" as to whether you agree with the concept or format or
whatever and we will press ahead if you do. If you don't give us some other
suggestions fair enough.
Tolsma: Is any of these businesses here been contacted about this?
Smith: Well I think that in their initial contact through the pre-treatment program all of the
businesses have been contacted about this specific proposal I don't know for sure Ron.
Tolsma: They know something is coming down the line though possibly?
Smith: I am pretty sure that they have in their conversation John or Celeste have had
with each one of the businesses has been part of that conversations. In some of the
restaurants and John gave me an example of Hany's over here. It started out as a cold
sandwich deal and it gravitated to deep French fried everything except beer.
Tolsma: You have a lot of businesses in Meridian that started out that way, it is just
(inaudible)
Smith: It is an endeavor on their part to be more, to offer wider variety of foods. So we
will probably have, we will have a budget item line item for that work as part of the
proposal. Both John and Celeste feel very strongly about it that we need to go back and
(inaudible) help ourselves out. If I could impose I have three little quick ones that I
would just like to get an opinion on. The Cherry Lane fence LID is still hovering in the
wings, it is hovering. At this point I think I am going to request some City Attorney
advice. As I understand it the project is encroaching into the easement that exists for
the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District or the, I think it is the Safford Lateral. There is
also a ditch in there that is owned by the Settlers Irrigation District. Specifically Nampa
Meridian is Gaiming 40 foot of easement there. This fence is encroaching approximately
10 feet into that easement. It is my understanding that in order for this fence to be
located outside of where it is right now we need to have or there needs to be a license
agreement and signed by someone for that encroachment. At this point the big question
mark is someone. It is not a City project so I don't think it is appropriate the City of
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 41
Meridian signs off on this license agreement. A homeowners association does not exist
and there was not a majority of the property owners adjacent to Cherry Lane that signed
onto this project. So, if each individual property was to have to sign this document that
probably wouldn't happen. I talked to Verlon Saunders who was the President of the
Homeowners Association when it did exist. He said he finally gave up because people
the last count he had 3 people had paid their $25 annual dues out of the hundred or so
lots that exist out there. It was a voluntary organization at that time, it is not mandatory.
So that is a problem number one. Number 2 the LID ordinance was written specifically
stating that the fence was to be constructed with a no. 2 no hole dog eared cedar board.
The property owners have come back now and have requested that an alternative be
allowed and that be vinyl fence. There is a question here that they have enough money
in the LID budget to build a cedar fence. Based on the estimates that Brad did they
don't' have enough for a cedar fence. Based on some preliminary numbers that he got
they would just barely have enough to build a vinyl fence. Since it was specifically
outlined in the LID ordinance that it was to be cedar can they change to vinyl.
Tolsma: He is saying that vinyl is less than what cedar is?
Smith: That is the initial quotation that Brad received.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) 30°~ higher than what cedar was.
Morrow. It could be the gradation Ron because if the spec is No. 2 or better and no hole
that is a (inaudible) as opposed to.
Tolsma: We priced the vinyl and cedar both (inaudible)
Morrow. I am saying that particular spec it wuld have twmped up the cost of the cedar
over and above what you normally see for cedar, 1 don't honestly know.
Cowie: Counselor, do you have any advise on how to change the LID?
Fitzgerald: Well if it is pursuant to ordinance the only way to do it is to amend the
ordinance.
Smith: So it would require a variance to the ordinance then or an amendment through
the public hearing process.
Fitzgerald: Correct, an amendment to the ordinance.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Fitzgerald: No that would just be the City Council.
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 42
Morrow. Why don't we subcontract the responsibility of this project to the residents that
might work within the City or serve within an elective office of the City that happen to
reside within the subdivision.
Rountree: Been there, done it and it doesn't work.
Morrow. Why would Mr. B, Mr. T and Mr. M have the agony of this project when Mr. R
and Mr. C can handle it.
Come: I am not so sure that we can.
Fitzgerald: May I have a question with regard to the first question with regard to the
license agreement. Is the property in which the fence would be encroaching on the
Nampa Meridian is that part of anybody's lot?
Smith: Yes, it is part of each one of the lots. This is just an easement across the lot and
this portion of the lot has not been used since the plat was recorded in 1979 and the lots
were built upon.
Fitzgerald: So there are a series of lots.
Smith: Yes, there are 26 lots 1 believe involved in this project.
Fitzgerald: And all of them would require or encroach for the construction of this fence.
Rountree: I would think vre need something from the group that came together to get
the LID which was the 26 homeowners to come and say a couple things. One we want
to change the fence design and two we want to increase the amount of the LID to do
what we want to do. I have heard them say we want to put a mount in there and they
want to change the landscaping to come kind of an artificial ground mulch rock type of
thing. If that is the case then the whole LID needs to be modified which could very well
increase the cost we were guessing somewhere around $70,000 or $80,000 as
opposed to the $49,000 or $45,000 that it started out as. So I would think that if they
want to change their concept, we did the LID at their request they ought to come
forward and say we would like you to amend the ordinance to reflect our desires.
Tolsma: Wasn't that Don Howell that put most of that together out there?
Rountree: Yes
Smith: I will contact him in the morning and let him know that he needs to get his forces
together and present a proposal to .you then to. The more I have been around this
project the more concerns that I have had especially with the vinyl fence proposal that
Cherry Lane Road is kind of an entrance into our City from the west. We have got an
existing cedar fence and landscaped area on the south side of Cherry Lane for quite a
Meridian City Council ~ •
July 15, 1997
Page 43
ways there, '/ mile anyway from Parkside Creek. Across the street then we would have
30 some foot width of 2 inch river rock and white vinyl fence. I was a little concerned
about how this combination would appear.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Smith: I will contact Mr. Howell and have him get together with his homeowners and see
how they want to proceed.
Fitzgerald: With regard to signing on the license, if you can talk all those lot owners into
signing that would be my preliminary response. I would like to take a look at that.
Smith: The next item is Tully Park, I should have final plans in the office by Friday, July
18. We will be able to assuming everything is okay with the plans and Brad and I will
look at them immediately. We will kick them out the following week for bid. One
question has come forward from one of the residents along the south boundary of the
park that called and wanted a gate put in the fence that would allow them access into
the park. There are 17 single family homes there, one of which has 300 rabbits. The
question that I had and was asked that Brad asked was do we allow a gate an access
gate from each lot into the Park. My gut reaction was no, the more I looked at the plan
the better I felt about that. We are planning a 6 foot chain link fence along that
boundary. We are planning a row of evergreens along that fence. There is a gravel
roadway along that fence that provides access for the police department to patrol. It is
also very close to our maintenance sheds and restrooms. I just, it just didn't appear to
me to be a real positive thing to do other than it let each resident have quick access to
the park. But by travelling down Chateau either east of west the center most lost has
about 850 feet to get to the park entrance on either side. I would appreciate any input
that you would have concerning this request. If we are going to do it for one we are
going to have to do it for all 17 lots.
Tolsma: They had the same request out there for Fuller Park when the first started
building lots in Parkside Creek. At that time Walt Casey come out there and said they
weren't going to allow that because it become a personal dog run for every homeowner
that was out there. He says if they want to go to the park they can take the same
access that everybody else has. It is not a private park it is a public park and public
access if what they have to (inaudible). That is how he was justifying the thing. Where it
becomes a private park basically if you have your own access gate out the back door to
the thing then he says the dogs have a tendency to go out into the next yard out and
then they come back into the back yard after (inaudible).
Morrow. I think the answer to the question Gary from my standpoint is that with our
experience in Fuller Park is that if you own the fence from a legal standpoint you can
deny access. If they own the fence you cannot deny access. So the issue is and I am
opposed to individual access at any of those points. If we are going to be successful
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 44
with that we need to be the ones installing the fence on our property because it is then
our fence and they can't legally (Inaudible).
Rountree: I will give you my view Gary, if we are going to fence it fence it, if we are
going to have an opening in every residence let's not even both with the expense of the
fence and gates.
Smith: Thank you, the last item I have is, excuse me second to the last item. Jim Keller
called me today concerning Troutner Business Park, Keller is the engineer on the
subdivision, that is the one on the south side of Franklin, just east of Franklin Square
Subdivision. He has plans to relocate his office from Boise to Meridian and build in that
subdivision. He has run into a problem with timing, he has to be out of his present
location by December of this year. So he is in a crunch to get something started out
here. He has asked for a building permit to be issued ahead or the plat recording. I
asked him about the USDA building and he said that building project has gone away. It
is not going to happen there was some kind of a problem. He told me what he thought it
was but it didn't make much sense to me. Anyway, they are, they have plans approved,
they have preconstruction meeting has been held for sewer and water and they are
going to start sewer tomorrow start digging sewer tomorrow morning. So they are
moving ahead with the on site improvements. He has talked to the owner, the owner is
willing to give him permission to receive or apply for and receive their one time building
permit on that parcel of ground. I talked to Shari about it and she suggested that I come
and visit with you and see if you had any problems with them proceeding. I think we did
something similar for the Ashford Greens folks so they could get their parade home,
approve that building permit before the plat was recorded.
Rountree: What is the schedule on the recording of the final plat?
Smith: I don't know, I don't know how far along they are. I haven't seen the plat in my
office yet, it hasn't come through, the mylars. I don't know what the schedule is.
Morrow: It seems to me the resolution is fairly simple. Just have the developer send us
a letter that USDA is not going to use their one time permit that we approved and insert
the Keller project in its place and let's be on down the road.
Rountree: I agree
Smith: Do you want him to make plans for an alternative as far as Sewer and water just
in case, I can't imagine that it is not going to happen but we did that for USDA. They
had a septic tank system designed and they had a separate water line run from Franklin
Road all the way in just to stay ahead of the street improvements. Now I can talk to Jim
about that if you want me to, just to get his feeling on where he is going to be in life and
where the improvements are going to be. But they should go pretty fast now that they
have started. I will do that. Thank you, as I mentioned earlier when Packard
Subdivision was before you I have a Packard Subdivision lift station maintenance
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 45
agreement here tonight. This maintenance agreement is practically a duplicate of what
was approved by City Attorney Crookston for the Whitestone subdivision all I did was to
take the Whitestone agreement and substitute the Packard Subdivision name in all
place.
Morrow. Let me ask you this from a practical standpoint is that agreement we have with
Whitestone working very well?
Smith: Well, from a practical standpoint I haven't got it back yet.
Morrow So from a practical standpoint we don't know.
Smith: I think it was okay with Mr. Van Hees with the exception of the monthly cost. He
wanted to scale that back to where it was less amount per month up to a certain point of
occupancy of the subdivision. I talked to John Shawcroft about that and what we had
scheduled was 2 visits per day to the lift station and I think with the number of homes
that we have in the subdivision starting out one visit is plenty. So we are going to cut
that fee back until the subdivision reaches a certain occupancy rating. And we will do
the same for Packard. It does require Mayor's and City Clerk's signature and all I can
tell you is I am sorry you don't have it. It was kind of a last minute deal when Ted
Sigmont came in late today with his revised plans from Tealey and asked about it. He
has to have this agreement before he can take his plans to DEQ for an extension of that
sewer line into Packard no. 2.
Morrow Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the lift station agreement as
proposed by City Engineer Smith, authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest,
verification by City Attorney Crookston that the agreement is in order.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded the lift station agreement, any further discussion?
All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I have three items one of which is on the agenda. You
have in your packet some photo copies of this landscape plan for Oak Harbor. Jeff
Foster from Awes Hutchinson is here to answer any question you may have. There are
74 trees shown on this plan. 1 think it is a pretty good compromise, there are a lot of one
kind of species which sometimes concerns me but I think in this case it is going to
provide a good wind break and noise break eventually when they get bigger, they will be
6 to 7 feet at planting. He has junipers along Locust Grove and then the new Locust
Meridian City Council ~ •
July 15, 1997
Page 46
Grove would be used as a drainage swell and they would have a lawn along that
section. Any questions?
Rountree: Is it satisfactory with the site now in terms of scale. Our question was they
had the whole parcel landscaped and now we are just talking about the portion that is to
be developed.
Stiles: Yes, this is just the part they are developing. The second item is Seventh
Adventist landscaping at the comer of Linder and Cherry or Ten Mile and Cherry Lane.
They have had a temporary occupancy now for approximately 10 months. We have had
a letter of credit for that time, they have had some problems apparentl~r getting their well
on line. That now has happened, their letter of credit expired July 15 but we did get a
fax from the bank yesterday extending that for an additional year. Dean had sent them a
letter informing them that if work did not start by I believe it was the 10~n that the City
would pull the letter of credit and do the work themselves. I received a phone call today
from Peter Covino of Oasis Landscaping, apparently he has been given the bid for the
job. He informed me that work would begin this Friday and be completed by next Friday.
We have had some complaints from people in the neighborhood about why they got
away with this for so long. I don't know the best way to deal with this, I guess it would
be nice if the building inspector would actually pull their certificate of occupancy if they
don't complete their work in a timely manner. I certainly don't want to be in the business
of hiring landscapers to go in and do work for someone particularly if they may have low
balled their estimate and then v~re stuck with putting a lien on the property or some
other property. What would Council like us to do?
Morrow: I guess from my perspective once v~ accepted the bond or the letter of credit,
basically the only option that we have is to see the landscaping is done. I think that we
ought to in fact give them a date certain by which they have to complete the
landscaping or in fact we call the letter of credit and press forvvard with what was the
original program. 1 think that you have to stay in that same mode because that is where
you started out.
Corrie: Did they not give us a date certain?
Stiles: Well they got an occupancy I believe it was either 30 or 60 day temporary. They
are still temporary, I don't know if you
Morrow. Mr. Covino is giving you a date of next Friday?
Stiles: Next Friday is when he indicated he would be complete.
Morrow. The 25tn~
Tolsma: Did he put a number with that because next Friday could go on forever.
Meridian City Council
July 15, 1997
Page 47
Stiles: I have had that problem with the same property I was told continually that the big
bus that was parked out there was going to be moved next Friday, next Friday until I
went out basically and gave them an ultimatum that we were going to have it tolled if its
wasn't moved.
Morrow. How about we do it this way, how about that the landscaping at the Seventh
Day Adventist Church on the comer of the NE comer of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane has
until Friday, August 1~ to complete their landscaping or their letter of credit will be called
and the City will complete the landscaping.
Rountree: Is that a motion?
Morrow. Yes
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that they have until
August 1 ~` to finish their landscaping or the bond will be pulled, any further discussion?
All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Stiles: There is no problem with putting a lien on church property is there?
Fitzgerald: There isn't a problem once you get a judgement, as an example if there was
an overage in terms of cost for the landscaping then the City would have to sue the
church recover a judgement. That judgement would then be recorded and create a lien
against the property.
Rountree: I guess the resolve to that is to make sure the letter of credit is sufficient to
handle what we expect in the way of landscaping.
Stiles: We do have them provide those based on quotes that they have received. They
have enhanced the landscape plan from what they originally provided. You may be
getting calls Mayor and Charlie as far as someone in your subdivision that lives off (End
of Tape) You hopefully have in your packets a letter from Dean Ehlert, a memo about
weeds. He is requesting authorization to go ahead and order the work to be done and
to bill them and if the bill is not paid to put a lien on those properties.
Morrow. So moved
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded the request of the Code Enforcement officer, any
further discussion, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 48
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Cowie: So those five properties (inaudible)
Stiles: I believe Will has a list of some people contractors he has used in the past. We
have not been enforcing that ordinance as far as completing the work ourselves. We
would like to get somebody retained to when the time is up it is up and go ahead and
take care of the weed problem.
Rountree: Make sure they mow not disc.
Stiles: Mowed?
(Inaudible)
Stiles: Thank you
Corrie: Counselor, anything?
Fitzgerald: Other than the question of the fire fighters issue to bring that up.
Corrie: The fire fighters (Inaudible) Fire Fighters Union 2311 invoke bargaining
agreement pursuant to Code 44-1806 that the union is designated a fact finder by the
name of Jim Hill, .1069 Abbott Street, Olympia, Washington. It is according to the
statutory requirements they have, we also have to appoint a person as a fact finder. 1
would suggest that the Council would go ahead and contact a Mr. Tom Hazard who is a
representative of a lot of corporations on unions that have done this type of fact finding
procedure. He is a professional, this Jim Hill from Olympia, Washington is also a
professional and I think we should have nothing less a cost based upon this, if they go
into fact finding which looks like they time they get together to do this that we will be
through with negotiations by July 31~ anyway. But I did find that should it not go, should
it go over the July 31~ that we should be in a position to have somebody that is a
professional on our fact finding side as well. It will go into, if it does go that forward then
they would have to pick a third person agreeable between the two fact finders and then
they would go into negotiations with the unions and our negotiators.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the employment of Mr. Tom Hazard
to serve as our fact finder representative for the City of Meridian with negotiations with
local 2311.
Tolsma: Second
Cowie: Motion made and seconded that we approve Tom Hazard to be our
representative, all those in favor?
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 49
Fitzgerald: Can I make a comment here in terms of your motion? Pursuant to the
statute it says that the person selected shall not be an employee of the City it is just
someone that is selected. The cost of the fact finding commission is shared equally the
expenses are. So in terms of your motion you were talking about employing Mr. Hazard.
I think properly it should be select.
Tolsma: Withdraw the second
Morrow. Withdraw the motion and rephrase the motion to read that I would move that
we select Mr. Tom Hazard to represent the City as our arbitrator with the negotiations
with Union #2311.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seeded, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Anything else? Mr. Mon'ow?
Morrow. Only two issues, the first issue is to remind everybody to be prepared on the
22"d for the strategic planning meeting. The only topics at our discussion will the be the
traffic commission, the commissioner ordinance, building P & Z ordinance, ethics
ordinance, irrigation ordinance and also Lila Hill has some issues concerning a Meridian
City Day at the fair. She has asked for about 15 minutes and that is appropriate
because she needs some guidance as to what we as a Council want to pursue. The
next issue came up last night in the ACHD task force meeting. Apparently as you know
we have been struggling with Eagle Road for 7 or 8 years trying to get that road
approved. Apparently someone with the City of Boise through APA has raised an issue
about wanting to put sidewalks and curb and gutter on the portion of the road that is
adjacent or within the City limits of Boise. It is my understanding based on the
presentation last night that could conceivably delay the project one year. I stated that
our position was that we would adamantly oppose any delay in that project and that we
had been struggling for several years to get that project. I also indicated that from our
standpoint Eagle Road could be 7 lanes which would constitute tearing out of curb,
gutter and sidewalk at some point in the near future. That we were also talking about on
grade intersections so it didn't make good sense and that within the City of Meridian
most of our Eagle Road frontage was buffered by this juncture commercial industrial or
some sort of office development and we didn't have direct residential access to Eagle
Road and that Boise City ought to be as sharp in the planning and zoning as we were.
That was the snide remark. So at any rate what I did say was that I would bring the
issue to Council for direction in case my direction was incorrect. So what is your
pleasure there?
Tolsma: I think you stated it eloquently.
Meridian City Council ~ •
July 15, 1997
Page 50
Morrow. Part of it was that APA should mind their own business.
Stiles: I just had a question about, apparently Ada County Highway District has turned
over sidewalks to the City of Boise. They now have responsibility for them I believe they
have ownership of them. So why did not Boise City require when their developments
come in for them to put a sidewalk in if that is what they wanted to happen?
Morrow: Shari that point has not been discussed and I am not familiar with that concept.
The issue as it was presented to us last night is that there were essentially three
options. One option was that developers could continue to put in sidewalk and curb and
gutter and that it would be a requirement. The second option was that not to do anything
in the short term because it was designed by ITD to be a country section, rural section
major arterial. The third option was that they be put in some time in the future. There
was no discussion with respect to Boise City having jurisdictions or ownership of
sidewalks and curb and gutter last night.
Stiles: That is just something that Karen Gallagher had indicated to me. She said they
didn't make some comments in Meridian now such as having some kind of a license
agreement when people go out on the sidewalk and have outdoor seating like they had
required of Harry's those kinds of things when they encroach into the right of way. She
said Boise City has simply taken over all the sidewalks and they have no jurisdiction
over their sidewalks now. I just thought
Morrow. Does Boise City take ownership of the sidewalks?
Stiles: I believe so.
Morrow. I got my sense of direction, I guess the point is I will reconfirm with ACHD that
we don't wish to change our position that we want the road built. I guess I would ask Mr.
Bentley and Mr. Cowie to make sure that APA is aware we don't want any delays in
Eagle Road and push forward from there. That is my two items.
Cowie: Is that agreeable because there will be a meeting pretty shortly and that is pretty
much what I thought too but if that is the Council's wishes then vre will certainly pass it
on to them.
Morrow. And to bring (inaudible) we have support from the entire committee with the
exception of well to and including Boise City's representatives so we had (inaudible)
Cowie: Did you get Eagle and all of them?
Morrow: Unanimous vote in terms of the Citizens Advisory Committee not to delay the
road any further.
Meridian City Council
July 15, 1997
Page 51
Corrie: Okay, Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: The only comment I have is for Gary, it is good that we proceed post haste
with Tully Park, bid and construction.
Tolsma: The only thing I have is the negotiations for proceeding with the fire department
we held up a little delay on the negotiations on the wage contract. But I think everything
else is basically handled (inaudible) struggle with.
Corrie: That is the big one that is the 31 ~ one.
Rountree: I had one other thing to point out, you all had in your box a run down from the
Mayor's advisory council on community rec. and parks on their status with that
community survey. They are looking at doing something in a sewer and water mailer
sometime at the end of this month or the first part of August is that right Keith.
Corrie: Talking to Tammy Keith I think it would probably be September before they get it
with the way your scheduling it going to go. It would be a lot easier for the City.
Morrow. I guess what I would like to do is I like to read the proposal since it came and I
haven't seen it yet tonight and see what direction it is. If we are going to do a survey,
we have done one not scientific survey and it is time for a scientific survey if that is what
this is supposed to (inaudible).
Rountree: They will be coming to the City Council with a recommendation once they put
together the questionnaire.
Corrie: Do you want a time slot for the meeting in August?
(Inaudible)
Corrie: So we need to put you on August 5"'.
(Inaudible)
Corrie: Did you ever get a chance to see Richard McGuire or talk to him do you want
me to follow up on it?
Rountree: At this point other than asking are you available it is kind of hard to tell him
what vre have got which is why I have kind of held off.
Corrie: Let me see if I can run a little interference for you and get you some information.
Gary and I, I have a couple of things here. On the former library, I discussed this with
Walt a little bit about possibly getting a bid to buy that building. There is a possibility
there could be asbestos, could be in the ceiling. I had Gary check on some people that
Meridian City Council ~ •
July 15, 1997
Page 52
does that type of vuork and before we do anything with that 1 would recommend that we
find out if there is asbestos in that ceiling. They have a project that they will do it, who is
this Gary?
Smith: It is a company called. TeraCon Consultants, I think they are estimating $400 for
the service.
Cowie: $400 to determine if there is asbestos in that if there is it is a pretty hefty
expense to take that out. I guess my question is to the Council do wa want to pursue
the possibility of buying that building and if you do you want to do an asbestos check?
Morrow. The thing is we can save our $400 bucks by making a bid on the building
contingent upon it being asbestos free and put the burden on them. They have to know
no matter who they are going to sell it to whether it has asbestos or not unless it is a
buy beware purchase and then you run that risk.
Corrie: That was their original deal but if we put a bid on it we can put that as the bid. If
that be the case then we can discuss that at the meeting on the 29t", you wouldn't want
to hold that meeting on the 30~h~
Morrow. Instead of a Tuesday?
Cowie: Does anybody have a problem with Wednesday (inaudible)
Morrow. (Inaudible) what about you Will, Gary are our guys on board for that?
Cowie: (Inaudible) that is all I have.
Smith: Mr. Mayor, I have been asked several times by several people about our vision
insurance and what the status of that is. I understood the last meeting you had some
information you were going to pass out.
Corrie: I think I passed some of that out to the Council. Hopefully the 30"' we can
discuss that a little bit and I will have some more on the disability insurance as well.
Then we can incorporate that if they want into the 1996-1997 or 1997-98 budget and I
will give them all the information on that.
Smith: Are we going to be able to make a switch before the new fiscal year, because
the questions that I am getting from people are people that are needing to make
changes in their eye glass wear. They don't know what to do. At this point it was my
understanding that we were just going to be able to switch straight across the accident
insurance for the vision insurance and it wasn't really going to cost us anything
additional.
Meridian City Council • •
July 15, 1997
Page 53
Corrie: The only thing, I have a problem here is that with the Union negotiations it could
behoove us to wait until the 1~ of October based on disability insurance that could come
along to the whole city as well. t can't really get involved with it at this point in a public
hearing of what the union negotiations is. The ones I have talked if they can hold it to
the 1 of October they are probably better because we won't get it until the 1~ of
October anyway until they make the change over. Beside that the Council has not had a
chance to look at that yet.
Morrow. Gary, let me answer the question from my perspective in this manner. Given
the change that is going on or potential change going on, nothing now is going to be
done until we know what all the facts are. There could be depending on the outcome of
this substantial change in many things.
Smith: You mean the union issue?
Morrow. The union issue is certainly right out there in the front. So the reality is that
wherever that thing ends up might impact benefit packages period. So I don't think it
would be prudent of us to be moving anything around until we know what it is we are
dealing with. Some folk aren't sensitive to the fact that we have a fixed income. So we
need to know where it is, from my perspective I need to know where we are at and
where we are going before (inaudible)
Smith: I will just report back to them that we won't look for any change until the earliest
would be October 1~ then.
Corrie: Entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and second we adjourn at 11:05 P. M., all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:05 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
Meridian City Council •
July 15, 1997
Page 54
ATTEST:
G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
',~f .c~Q
0 ERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
,~~
SEAL
~ ~
,o--/y~7~y~,~ • pry',
COMMUNITY YOUTH CONNECTI~[NC.
1997-1998 PROJECT PROPOSAL
The Community Youth Connection (CYC) was born out of Boise Mayor Brent Coles' 1994 Task Force on Youth. The
Conununity Youth Connection is a partnership of youth and adults committed to making our community youth friendly by: Creating
opportunities to voice youth opinions & influence change; building bridges to youth services & resources: and promoting recognition
of youth achievements & contributions. Youth do not see themselves as a value to the community as shown in information from the
President's Summit and in the Task Force Report.
Funds are needed to enhance the Yellow Bike Project, a collaborative of CYC's, the Idaho Youth Ranch and the
community; to produce, distribute and marketing more youth resource information card; and the promoting of recognition of youth
achievements and contributions through the Youth Hall of Fame at the Celebrate Youth Felt "where creativity ~ community
cornea;" and to enhance the voice of youth to influence desperately needed changes, through the "Express." The Boise City Council
provided initial funding for the Community youth Connectlon to incorporate and hire one full time program director. The
Community Youth Connection has a 16 member Board of Directors including 7 youth members, ages 15 to 17 from azea high
schools. Also represented is the Ada County Juvenile Court Service, parents, businesses, and service providers such as Boise City
Parks & Recreation Youth Empowerment Supports.
The Community Youth Connection was developed as a result of the 1994 Mayor's Task Force on Youth, and from that
cooperative effort we have always had the support of service providers and organizations for youth in Ada County, including
Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resource Network (RADAR), parent & youth Against Dmg Abuse (PAYADA), and the
YMCA. The program is budgeted at $50,000 fora 12-month period. Of [his total, $3,000 is requested from Meridian City Council;
Boise City Council currently provides $13,000; with $5,000 from Ada County Commission, $6,000 from US West Communications.
and a $5,000 from Idaho Community Foundation special awazd, with the remainder being raised through special events, grants, and
private donations.
Our Youth Advisory Boazd vvas established in January 1995. After consideration, the Boazd of Directors selected interested
youth inviting them to serve on the Board of Directors and the Youth Advisory Board. The youth invited to serve are from the target
population. Teen Councils have been established with youth throughout Ada County, providing a means by which youth can have a
get involved in youth issues and become a valuable part of the community Since January 1995, the Youth Advisory Board and Teen
Councils have already influenced changes in our cemmunity, such as getting the curfew laws in every city in Ada County to be
uniform, and working to find a compromise between skateboarders and the Downtown Business Association. On May 10th five
months of collaborative work of CYC and 14 other agencies successfully culminated in the recognition of youth achievements and
contributions with a Celebrate Youth Fest and the Youth Hall of Fame. Now we are working on another collaborative project with
the Idaho Youth Ranch with the "Yellow Bikes."
In two yeazs time the Youth Advisory Hoard and Teen Councils have established the clearinghouse resource information
with the resource card (see attached). In fact, St. Anthony Detention Center has requested the Youth Resource Card to distribute in
their release packets. Many other communities throughout Idaho aze wanting information on CYC and how it can be duplicated in
their counties. The fulfillment of this request by Meridian City Council will allow CYC to continue it's mission for years to come.
The Youth Advisory Board will help produce surveys and will conduct Teen Council focus groups on the accessing of the
clearinghouse resource information and the effectiveness of the information cazd, Youth Hall of Fame at the Celebrate Youth Fest.
We anticipate in the first 12 months of the resource clearinghouse being on line having 75% of CYC youth accessing the
information at least once a month, 100 web-site visits per month and 80% of youth participating in CYC Teen Councils staying out
of the juvenile justice system.
There are four azeas in which future funding support is being developed:
1. From the other city councils of Ada County, presently involved groups, businesses and agencies
2. From local grants and federal prevention funds.
3. Through cooperative relationships with other local agencies.
4. Special even[ fund raisers.
ti~S:.ie..t::`. Vrt ~.i
J U L 1 5 1~;7
IMMUNITY YOUTH CONNECTION. [NC.~
PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET
.Jetted Expenses
PROGRAMS: $25,000.00
RESOURCE CARDS: $ 4,000.00
PUBLIC RELATIONS: $ 2,500.00
ADMINISTRATION: $11,000.00
FUND RAISING: $ 2,000.00
POSTAGE: $ 1,000,00
OFFICE SUPPLIES: $ 500.00
PRINTING: $ 1,400.00
INSURANCE: $ 1,500.00
PHONE: $ 600.00
Fiscal Yeaz
October I. 1997 through September 30, 1998
Income Anticipated Projected Revenues
$14,000.00 *(Boise City Council) FUND RAISER: $ 8.000.00
(special events in 1997)
$ 500.00 (mailer)
GRANTS: $13.000.00
$ 8.000.00 (Title V grant'
DONATIONS: $ 1,000.00
$ 7.000.00 (Ada County/other cities) (corp., ind., etc.)
$22,000.00
$ 500.00 (Interest earned)
$30,000.00
YOUTH/STAFF
DEVELOP & TRAVEL: $ 2,500.00
OFFICE SPACE & EQUIPMENT ** (in-kind)
$52,000.00
Special Funded Projects:
Celebrate Youth Fes[: $ 8,000.00
Youth Hall of Fame: $ 6,000.00
$66,000.00
*Grant from Boise City Council for salaries, payable to CYC in 4 equal installments
** OFFICE SPACE 8r EQUIPMENT
In-kind Donations: Office space, desk, chair, & phone, use of Copier & Fax Machines -Boise City Pazks & Recreation
approximately 57,500 per year
2 Computers -MICRON approximately 55,500
***Personneh One paid staff person: Chazlotte Combe, Program Coordinator
.Annual salary: 531,680.00
****Contract Staff: Jayne Sorrels, Project Director
Up to 10 hours per week; not to exceed 57,800 ~ `. , ~ i. -
i- w~+.a a,-s -+..-.
JUL 1 ~ ',`
,VY~6 ~r J'~\ n
.. iG ~-.._....-. ... ..n _. .
C~
J
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
L C'INr~FGt,C ~~- ~~/S~y~
Ct~ru~ a ~~ 9 -.Q . S
_~
_ ~_, __ -~
t0: Gary
CC: File
from: Braa watson, E.I.T. /~~+!(/
re: Emergency Generator Procurement Bids & WWTP Elect. Mod. & Well No. 14 Gen.
Installation
d8t@: July 11, 1497
Bids were opened today for the Emergency Generator Procurement project. Three bids were
received and are as follows:
Cummins Intermountain, Inc. $67,528.00
EC Power Systems $69,703.00
Western States Equipment Co. $98,414.58
There are "irregularities" with all three bids.
Cummins Intermountain. Inc. They submitted no bid security and no fiuther discussion of the
problems with their bid is necessary.
EC Power S srp ems. See attached photocopy of their bid form. The written unit prices do not
match the figures. Refer to first paragraph of bid form: "In cases where the unit price written
words does not match the numerical unit price, the unit price written words will be considered
correct over the numerical unit price." They also have aletter/quote sheet in which their price
"does not include tax" and delivery is "8 to 10 weeks after date of submittal approval." The
terms of the bid are 60 days and the actual bid does not contain any of these provisions so I
would say these conditions are irrelevant.
from the desk of...
Western States Equipment Companx. Caterpillar was not listed as
an approved manufacturer in the bid documents. A procedure for Brad Watson, E.I.T.
submitting alternate equipment was explicitly outlined in the bid Asst. City Engineer
documents and no such submittal was made to me or Civil Survey. City of Meridian
A person from Western States called me earlier in the week to ask if 33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Caterpillar not being an approved manufacturer was an oversight or
(208) 887-2211
c:~bw~sl4~gs711.mem.doc.dot Fax: (208) 887-1297
if there was a reason. I told him I did not know and that he should call Tim Burgess. Tim said
he spoke with somebody from Western States but that this question was never brought up to
him. Furthermore, Tim (last name?) of Western States called me after the bid opening and said
that he does not believe the other bidders equipment will conform with the specifications and
went on to detail why. I told him I did not know what he was talking about and advised him
that if he had any objections to the bids to write a setter addressed to me and I would pass it on
to Civil Survey and you.
Even if the two low bids are deemed non-responsive and the third is not, the price they are
proposing is quite high.
The bid from Custom Electric for the WWTP Electrical Modifications and Well No. 14
Generator Installation is A-OK and award can be recommended (contingent upon the fund
availability issue).
c:\Uw\s 14~s711. mem.doc.dot
c
a~
E
m
U
O
a`
O ~
~_-
~_
m ~.l
>` V e
C ~ s
m~~
O1~ i
m ~ c
Ems-
W r: ~
C r- C
~ jC
U_
~ _ d
~ ~ ?
oaci.
~0°•5
Uc+iL
f7
Z
w
waW
0007
0
amw
Y
3
(~d
J
0 OI
I`
Q'
iP
C
.0
°t
_ ~•
U
7
D
s '~
o
l/1
7 N ..
i
otl
i v ~°
d
[O m
~ c 0
o
U m
a U
a w
~
~ o
a` ~
~ W a
cn ° ~
nc - Q ~
m a` v`°'i ~cn - ~ Q
C
O
.~
<0
.-.
C
O
N
N
C
m
C
N
C1
E
W
r
O
Z
h
c
(_op
U
w
0
~p
fJ =
U ~•
m U
wm
rn
~~
r
C ~
~~
oa
~o•
o.
U i'M
CJ
Z
Hz
waZ
0009
amw
0
L
`° J
~-
0 f
V ~
11 ,,''
W
Q
n
l > ~1
~
~
~
a~
~
N ~
•~
o
m N t0
m
~ c 0
o
U ~ v m
>'
~ _
'~ c j U
a
o ~
m
~ w
p
.~ n w ~ a F
a~i ~ p °tf J
Q
N
m n
` > E
° ~ I
- O
OQ
a nu
. w f
N
C
~
Z
U
w
f,.
OFFICIALS
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Ciry Clerk
JANICE L. LASS, Ciry Treasurer
GARY D. SMITH, P.E., Ciry Engineer
BRUCE D. SMART, Water Works Supt.
JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt.
DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parks Supt.
SHARI L. STILES, P & Z Adminlstratar
PATTY A. WOLFKIEL, DMV Supervisor
KENNETH W. eOWERS, Flre Chiet
W.L. "BILL" GORDON, Police Chlet
WAVNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney
July 11, 1997
• o N I M MB R
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALO R. TOLSMA
CITY OF MERIDIAN BEN7LEYEE
C GLENN R
.
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 P x ~ OMMI ION
(208) 888.4433 • FAX (208) 887.4813 JIM JOHNSON, Chairman
Public Works/Building Department (208) 887-2211 KEITH BORUP
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443 JIM SHEARER
GREG OSLUND
ROBERT D. CORRIE MALCOLM MACCOV
Mayor
Honorable Mayor Robert D. Come
Meridian City Council
RE: Grease Interceptors for Grand-Fathered Restaurants
Gentlemen,
The Wastewater Department is in the process of implementing Meridian's Pretreatment
PraJram. This is a new program for Meridian and most people are unfamiliar with it's intent. A
Pretreatment Program places the responsibility and cost of pollution prevention on the shoulders
of persons and businesses generating the pollution and away from the shoulders of the general
public. The Environmental Protection Agency mandates such programs for cities larger than
30,000 persons. When Meridian's population reaches this magic number, our program will not
only become mandatory but will also be reviewed and hopefully approved by EPA.
A large part of any program is the control of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) because they are the
major cause of sewer plugging and infrastructure damage. Sources for FOG are restaurants,
food services, automotive shops, machine shops and the like. Soon, all these establishments
may be required to have a grease interceptor. The Wastewater Department no longer allows
inside grease traps to be installed because they require daily Leaning, which doesn't get done,
are usually of insufficient size to be effective, and they are difficult or impossible to inspect.
We now require all new restaurants and food services to have interceptors. This is because of
our experiences with a few restaurants which were allowed to open without an interceptor. At
opening they generated no greases. Then, after opening, the businesses changed their practices
and began generating FOG. Since no interceptor existed to protect the city's infrastructure and
the owners refused to install one, the cost of removing and treating the greases has fallen to the
City. In such instances, fl is almost impossible to force the installation of an interceptor. That is
why ALL new restaurants and machine shops are being required to have an interceptor prior to
opening on any permanent basis. However, there are still twenty-one restaurants and a small
number of machine shops presently operating without grease interceptors. A list of the 21
restaurants is attached.
The installation of grease interceptors for these establishments would be around $2,400 for the
purchase and installation plus an equal amount for the modification of the internal plumbing to
support the installation. The total cost to the business owner could approach $8,000. These
owners will be understandably upset if they are forced to install, by EPA mandate, grease
interceptors at this late date. Their grand-father status is currently in jeopardy as recent EPA
mandates have excluded grand-father rights. We therefore propose, with the council's approval,
to budget for and offer to these establishments some monetary assistance for the purchase and
installation of the needed imerceptors.
We propose to offer a 50% split up to $4,000 for the purchase 8 installation of an interceptor and
the required piping modifications necessary to support such installation. This would make the
process more palatable to the owners, would protect the city's infrastructure, and remove the
current problem of excessive FOG entering the sewer system and treatment plant. Maximum
cost to the City would be $84,000. The other options are living with the problem until EPA forces
a move and continue to pay for the removal and treatment of FOG in the mean time or require
the owners to solve their own problem at their own expense. Although $84,000 is a substantial
sum, k would go far in eliminating a chronic problem as smoothly as possible.
Thank you for considering this proposal.
Sincerely,
iy~'^lru.iLld/1/
~ John T. Shawcroft /
Wastewater Supt.
Restaurants With No Grease/Sedimentation Interceptors
127 Club 127 Idaho St. 345-2171 Don C.
Alberto Gordo's 106 E. Williams 887-6449 Bill
Blimpie Subs & Salads 521 SE 1~ St. 887-1234 Shelley
Brewed Awakenings 90 E. Fairview 888-6575 Lara
Chicago Connection 1629 E. 1~ St. 323-1231 William
Cottage Expressions 1031 E. 1'~ St. 888-6829 Tami
Corona Village 39 E. Fairview 888-1595 Cheryl
Domino's Pizza 1701 W. Cherry Ln. 887-6400 Jim
EI ZOCaIo 729 E. 1~ St. 377-2387 Rhonda
Express Cafe 400 E. Fairview 888-3745 Ken
Fiesta Guadalajara 704 E. Fairview 884-0161 Anador
Harry's Bar & Grill 704 E. 1" St. 888-9868 Steve
Hungry Onion 334 E. 1a St. 888-0051 Sandy
Just Desserts 126 E. Idaho 888-9542 Debra
Kowloon Restaurant 72 E. Fairview 888-6262 Diana
Maverik Country Store 1605 W. Cherry Ln. 888-9804 Duane
Meridian Bowling Lanes 324 S. Meridian St. 344-2673 E.D.
Roundtable Pizza 120 E. Fairview Ave. 345-2171 Gary
Sunrise Caf6 805 E. 1 °' St. 888-4517 Robert
The Den 1615 E. 1°~ St. 888-1502 Sohail
Vina Restaurant 1534 E. 1" St. 888-1378 Huong
c:wy oorwmeMswrdrea~meMVtestawamsUteatwrents wnn Nu orease.doc
1'IHY-Gti-y i 1 HU U'7 : 13 Fa r•1
~ •
®AB C
~wr~itwtion a
' Septlc 8erviGe~ Ino.
Porte W~ KbsG•OOm®~ r%p4a Pwtlping
P,q, Box 3B4 • Mertidien. ID B3fi80
Hoiae McNtllan Nampa
362-9628 9B8-QgSO 4B7-0D69
~-~ T N~ G~~k~
F . k7 1
~~~av+~i~ t-vt ~rea~ac° ~fAP -~a~r.~'z- tv~5-~Q~~a-4~U-~.
f ,^ -~r~..~~ G rG~~.C d r
Q()D OJa(~Wl '~~"t r
Q,X lav~a-~
Y<~~~~
IAs r.GPlcc.e~ Q~ Ct~t ~I~tS iv~orr
ra 'L r•r~~a ~
3 3,7c~o
eXCavc~k.¢.d A,,•et ~,~• 5•'kallecS• ,
~(` R.R.r,~;-t~s , Loaf t~U..s ~~%
t;~
SEFORS TH8 I~RIDIAN CIT! COURCIL
LARRY A. ARD RAY K. HAIiSEH
APPLICATIOIi FOR ARRES ATIOR AHD zO1fIHO
SOUTH OF PI118 STREE T AND ifBST OF 8T8 STREET
A1.SRIDIAH, IDAHO
FIRDIRCiB OF FACT AHD COHCLUSIOHS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearings
on April 1, April 15, May 6, May 20, June 3, June 17, July 1, 1997,
at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, Larry A. Hansen,
appearing in person, the City Council of the City of Meridian
having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDIR(3S OF FACT
1. The notice of public hearing on the application for
annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks
prior to said public hearing scheduled for April 1, 1997, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the April 1, 1997, hearing
and at some of the subsequent hearings; that the public was given
full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that
copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and
television stations.
2. The property included in the application for annexation
and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. The property is
approximately one acre in size.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1.
HANSEN
3. The Applicants are the owners of record of the property.
4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT,
Rural Transitional. Pursuant to the application, the northern one-
quarter acre of the property is used ae the residence of the
Applicants, and the southern three-quarters acre of the property is
vacant pasture land. The Applicants' initially requested the
property be zoned to (R-15), Medium High Density Residential
District, however during the process the Applicants saw the light
and reason for having the property zoned R-8, Medium Density
Residential District. The Applicants have requested the annexation
and this zoning, and the application is not at the request of the
City of Meridian.
5. Pursuant to the application, the northern one-quarter
acre of the property shall continue to be used as the residence of
the Applicants. The southern three-quarters acre of the property
shall be developed for multi-family dwellings such as duplexes and
four-plexea.
6. The property is located off of Pine Street and west of
8th Street, and is in close proximity to existing homes and
residential areas. The Applicants submitted their Application at
the same time as Lorin Saunders did for his property and the two
Applications have proceed along the same course of hearings and
events, basically at the Applicants request.
7. The Ada County Highway District has or may submit
comments, and such comments are hereby incorporated herein as if
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 2.
HANSEN
set forth in full or shall be incorporated herein as if set forth
in full when submitted.
8. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and
Shnri Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, submitted comments
which comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Their comments included the following.
a. The Applicants need to provide a legal description
of the progerty prepared and stamped by an Idaho
Registered Land Surveyor per City Resolution 158;
b. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing
the property to be included in this project shall be
tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M. Plana will need to
be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage
district, or lateral users association, with written
confirmation of said approvnl submitted to the Public
Works Department;
c. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
within this project will have to be removed from their
domestic service per City Ordinance 5-7-517. Wells may
be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation;
d. Water service to this development is contingent upon
positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's
computer model;
e. The treatment capacity of the Meridian Wastewater
Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated. Approval
of this application needs to be contingent upon the
City's ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage
generated by this proposed development. Sanitary sewer
to this site will not be a simple task. Existing sewer
mains in Pine Street are shallow and may not be able to
provide service to the site. 8xtensions through Idaho
Street, in coordination with the Lorin Saunders
development [to the east of the property], could be a
viable alternative. Water could be provided via existing
mains in Pine Street. The Applicants will be responsible
to construct the sewer and water mains to and through nny
proposed development. The designer of any future
development is to coordinate main sizing and routing with
the Meridian Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are
to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3.
AANSEN
west sides of roadway centerlines. Water linen shall be
located on the north and east sides of roadway
centerlines;
f. This request for annexation and zoning of R-15 would
appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses,
provided buffering of adjacent single-family homes is
included in development plans. Several single-family
homes have been split off along Pine Street, and this
property has no frontage. The Applicants do, however,
own a separate 40 feet wide parcel of land fronting on
Pine Street to allow aeces• to the parcel. It would be
desirable for a planned development to incorporate this
access. Idaho Avenue will need to be extended to the
western-most property boundary in accordance with Ada
County Highway District standards, with five feet. wide
sidewalks on both aides. The Applicants are to provide
50 feet radius paved temporary turnarounds at any
proposed stub streets;
q. All developments within the R-15 zone must have
direct access to a transportation arterial or collector,
abut or have direct access to a park or open apace
corridor, and be connected to the Municipal water and
sewer systems of the City of Meridinn. The Applicants
have submitted no information to substantiate conformance
with these requirements;
h. In the R-15 zone, minimum lot size is 2,400 square
feet per dwelling unit. Any duplex unite would be
required to have a two-car garage for each unit. Single-
family detached housing would require a minimum size of
1,301 square feet. Duplex unite would require a minimum
of 800 square feet per unit, exclusive of a garage;
i. A development agreement/detailed conditions of
approval are required as a condition of annexation.
Because of the numerous issues involved, and as no uses
or site plan are shown for the property, annexation
should not be considered without the requirement that all
uses, regardless of whether permitted in the R-15 zone,
are to be developed under the conditional use permit
process. The Applicants should coordinate plans with
Lorin Saunders, a contiguous property owner, for a
planned unit development; and
j. Further conditions will be examined when the
application(s) for conditional use permit/plat are
submitted. If planned correctly, this property could be
an excellent in-fill development project. No splitting
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4.
HANSEN
C`
•
of parcels will be permitted without going through the
platting and recording process.
9. The Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Police
Department, and Nampa 8 Meridian Irrigation District submitted
comments which respective comments are incorporated herein ae if
set forth in full.
10. Central District Health Department submitted comments
which comments nre incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Its comments included that after written approval from appropriate
entities are submitted, it can approve this proposal for central
sewage and central water; that plane for central sewage and central
water must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of
Health & Welfare, Division of Hnvironmental Quality; that street
runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem; that it
recommends the first one half inch of storm water be pretreated
through a grassy awale prior to discharge to the subsurface to
prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality; that the
engineers and architects involved with the design of this project
should obtain current beet management practices for storm water
disposal and design a storm water management system that prevents
groundwater and surface water degradation.
11. Larry Hansen, one of the Applicants, testified at the
Planning and Zoning hearing substantially as follows. The property
borders property owned by Lorin Saunders. If this application is
approved, it is the Applicants' intention to work with Mr. Saunders
to develop the property through the construction of duplexes, and,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5.
HANSBN
with the Applicants' understanding of Mr. Saunders' intentions,
extend Idaho Street westward. The extension of Idaho Street would
intersect and peas through the property. Sewer and water services
would be brought to the property through Idaho Street. He has
received and read the comments submitted on this application.
Mr. Hansen testified at the last City Council hearing that he
agrees with the things that Mr. Saunders stated at his hearing
before. the City Council, which was just prior to his hearing.
Therefore, it is found that the Hansens agreed with the same exact
things that Mr. Saunders agreed to and his Findings of Fact are
hereby incorporated herein ae if set forth in full
12. In reaponee to questions of Commissioner Borup, Mr.
Hansen further testified. With reference to access to the property
from Pine Street, he has not discussed with the Ada County Highway
District such issue. However, he does not believe access from Pine
Street is feasible because the access would coma within 10 feet of
the front door of hie residence. If the access was brought through
on the 40 feet section, which the Applicants own and which is their
driveway, such access would conflict with the use of their house.
He does not have any intention of accessing the property from Pine
Street. He recognizes that such access would be desirable, but he
does not know whether it would be feasible.
13. In reaponee to questions of Commissioner MacCoy, Mr.
Hansen testified that he has received, read and has no problems
with the comments on this application. With regard to the
comments, there exist matters, which without the cooperation of Mr.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6.
HANSBN
Saunders, would be very difficult to meet. The hope is that the
Applicants and Mr. Saunders can make the development of their
respective properties a joint effort and jointly meet the comments
and requirements imposed. With regard to the proposed development
of the property with the construction of multi-family dwellings, in
the area there are multiple four plexes. The proposed development
of the property would be compatible with the development of Mr.
Saunders' property.
14. Vern Alleman testified substantially as follows in
opposition to the application. His concerne pertain to an increase
in the crime rate and other impacts which occur in a high density
(R-15) development of property. He hae spoken with several of his
neighbors and not one of them are in favor of the R-15 zoning of
the property. In view of his concerne and Mr. Saunders' intentions
with regard to the development of his property, the zoning of the
property should be limited to R-8.
15. There were no other comments by the public regarding this
Application at the Planning and Zoning hearing and the Applicants,
nor the public, submitted specific testimony at the City Council
hearings.
16. The property requested to be annexed is presently
included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area (u.S.P.A.)
as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact.
17. The property can presently be physically serviced with
City water if the Applicants construct and install the necessary
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7.
HANSBN
equipment and facilities; however, the property cannot be easily
serviced by City sewer. The existing sewer in Pine Street may be
too shallow to provide service to the property. The extension of
the sewer in coordination with the development of Lorin Saunders'
property, located to the west of the property, could be a viable
option to provide City sewer to the property. The Applicants would
have to construct and install the necessary equipment and
facilities for the extension of the City eewer to the property.
18. The property is in an area designat3d on the Generalized
Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as existing urban.
in the Comprehensive Plan property inside the Urban Service
Plnnning Area may be developed at greater densities than one
dwelling unit per acre.
19. The R-15, Rural Low Density Residential District is
described in the Zoning and Development Ordinance, 11-2-408 8 5. as
follows:
IR-15) Medium Hiah Density Residential District: The
purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the
establishment of medium-high density single-family
attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not
exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling unite per acre. All such
districts must have direct access to r, transportation
arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a
park or open apace corridor, and be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of
Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district
will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family
dwellings, town houses, apartment buildings and
condominiums.
The R-8, Medium Density Residential District is described in the
Zoning and Development Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 4. as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8.
HANSEN
-~. raou,.u,n uenaizv xealQent~A~ Diatrin4; The purpose of the
(R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and
two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8)
dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas
where such development has or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed
to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family
dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land
use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian is required.
20. The following pertinent statement is made in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan under LAND USE, "2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES 2.1U
Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-
family, multi-family, town houses, duplexes, apartments,
condominiums etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a
range of affordable housing opportunities." COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN at page 23.
21. Section 11-9-605 M of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance provides in part:
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of
natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying
adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or
laterals touch either or both sides of the area being
subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or
other covering equivalent in ability to detour access to
said ditch, lnteral or canal.
22. Proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act
and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9.
HANSEN
including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300
feet of the external boundaries of the property.
2. The City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant
to Idaho Code Section 50-222 and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The .exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Idaho Code Section 50-222,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it may take judicial notice.
4. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing
requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
5. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council may
take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of
the actual conditions existing within the City of Meridian and the
state of Idaho.
6. The land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to
the present city limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. The annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicants, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. As the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative
function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10.
AANSSN
annexation of land. See Burt va. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P2d. 1075 (1983).
9. The development of annexed land must meet and comply with
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
10. The use and the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Zoning and Development Ordinance
of the City of Meridian; It shall additionally be subject to, and
controlled, by the Conclusions of Law for the Saunders rezone
Application and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full; therefore the Applicant is required to construct town houses,
and not duplexes on the property; and that a density of R-8 would
compliment the area; it is further concluded, as a condition of the
grant of the annexation, the development of this property shall be
restricted to a minimum of townhouse dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight dwelling units per acre.
It is further concluded that, as a condition of the grant of
annexation, the Applicant must meet and comply with the comments,
recommendations and requirements of Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to
the City Engineer, which comments, recommendations and requirements
included, those set forth in the Conclusions of Law set forth in
the Saunders Conclusions of Lnw, which are incorporated herein as
if set forth in full, which include much of the following, but if
there is conflict with the Conclusions of Law set forth in the
Saunders Conclusions of Law, the Saunders Conclusions shall
control.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11.
EiANSSN
11. The City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on
January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning and Development
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan.
Thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning and Development Ordinance may not address provisions
for the use. It is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions
of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not
otherwise contained in the current Zoning and Subdivision and
Development Ordinances.
12. Although, pursuant to the application, the Applicants
intend to develop a portion of the property with townhouse
dwellings, the Applicants have not presented any specific plane
concerning their intention for the development of the property.
The property could be annexed and zoned (R-8) Medium Density
Residential District, but once the property was zoned (R-8) Medium
Density Residential District, the Applicants must place townhouse
dwellings, with two car garages, that comply with that R-8 zone and
only done under the conditional use process for a planned unit
development under the conditional use process.
13. Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning And Development
Ordinance provides in part as follows:
If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office
of the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the
property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the
parcel.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 12.
HANSBN
It is concluded, however, that it is more appropriate for a
development agreement to be entered into when plans for development
of the property are determined and confirmed, and, therefore, as a
condition of annexation a development agreement must be entered
into prior to development of the property or issuance of final plat
approval.
14. It is further concluded that upon annexation, ae
conditions of annexation, the Applicants shall be required to enter
into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L, and that
the development agreement shall address, among other things, the
following:
a. Inclusion into the development the requirements of
11-9-605;
b. Paymettt by the Applicants, or if required, any
successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors
or personal repreaentativea, of any impact,
development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City;
c. Addressing the property access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land uses and traffic
study;
d. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the City;
e. Appropriate berming and landscaping;
f. Submission and approval of any required plate;
g. Submission and npproval of individual building,
drainage, lighting, parking, and other development
plane of the property;
h. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements
with the surrounding residential development and
other development;
i. Addressing the comments of the Planning & Zoning
Administrator;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 13.
HANSSN
j. The sewer and water requirements;
k. Traffic plans and access into and out of any
development; and
1. Any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing.
15. It is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property ie in the best interests of the City of Meridian, and it
is concluded that the annexation shall be conditioned on meeting
the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and if they are not met the land may be de-annexed.
16. The Council takes judicial notice of the following. When
the Council approved and adopted the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and made its recommendations on Lorin Saunders'
application for the rezone of the property, it concluded, as a
condition of the grant of the zoning amendment, that the
development of that property shall be restricted to a minimum of
town houses at a density not exceeding eight dwelling units per
acre. As the property is similarly situated to the property of Mr.
Saunders, the Commission concludes that the imposition of the same
condition as imposed with regnrd to Mr. Saunders' property is
appropriate based upon conditions existing in the area of the
property and within the City of Meridian. It is, therefore,
concluded, that, upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the
development of the property shall be restricted to a minimum of
two-family town houses at a density not exceeding eight dwelling
unite per acre.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 14.
AANSBN
17. The requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada
County Highway District, Meridian Planning and Zoning
Administrator, Central District Health Department, the Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District and other governmental agencies shall
be met and addressed in a development agreement.
18. All ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a
condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
19. Pressurized irrigation shall be installed and
constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to
de-annexation.
20. The Applicants shall be required to connect the property
to City water and sewer, extend the water and sewer lines to serve
the property, and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve
the property, all of which shall be at the Applicants', or their
successor's, or successors' cost and expense. Said water and sewer
requirements shall be performed immediately.
21. The development of the property shall be subject to and
controlled by the Zoning and Development Ordinance and the
development agreement, and it shall only be developed under the
conditional use process.
22. These conditions shall run with the land and bind the
Applicants and their successors in interest, assigns, heirs,
executors or personal representatives.
23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of the property as (R-8) Medium Density
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15.
HANSEN
r1
u
Residential District would be in the beat interest of the City of
Meridian.
24. If these conditions of approval are not met, the property
shall not be annexed or if already annexed, it shall be de-annexed.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AliD CONCLUSIONS OF LAN
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN BENTLEY
ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED~~~~/'
VOTSD
VOTED
VOTED~~
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 16.
NANSEN
DECISIOlf
The Meridian City Council hereby decides that the property set
forth in the application shall be annexed and zoned as R-8 under
the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law, including that the Applicants or their successors in
interest, assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives
enter into a development agreement, that the property only be
developed as a planned unit development under the conditional use
process and that, upon annexation, as conditions of the annexation,
the development of the property shall be restricted to a minimum of
two-family townhouse dwellings at a density not to exceed eight
dwelling unite per acre. If the Applicants are not agreeable with
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and are not agreeable
with entering into a development agreement, the property should not
be annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 17.
HANSEN
C:
BEFORB THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
LORIH C. $AUNDERS
RHZOHE OF 9.42 ACRE$ FROM R-4 TO R-15
SOUTH OF PINE AHD DEBT OF TH8 i1S$T EIiD OF BROADi1AY
MERIDIAIf. IDAHO
FIHDIHOS OF FACT ARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Tha above entitled matter having come on for public hearings
on April 1, April 15, May 6, May 20, June 3, June 17, July 1, 1997,
at the hour of 7.:00 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, Lorin Saunders,
appearing in person, the City Council of the City of Meridian
having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FIHDIliOB OF FACT
1. A notice of a public hearing on the Rezone Application
was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public
hearing scheduled on February 11, 1997, the first publication of
which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter
was duly considered at the February 11, 1997, hearing; that the
public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit
evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. The property contains approximately 9.42 acres and is
located within the City of Meridian. The property is described in
FINAINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
the application which description is incorporated herein. The
Applicant ie the owner of the property.
3. The property is presently zoned (R-4) Low Density
Residential District, the Applicant initially requested a rezone to
(R-15), but finally agreed that R-8 Medium Density Residential
District was more appropriate.
4. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant requests the
re-zoning for the purpose of and the use of the construction of
duplexes but later changed to requesting development of townhouses.
5. The property ie in close proximity to existing homes and
residential areas.
6. The Applicant testified and explained either during the
Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council hearings
substantially as follows. He has owned the property for 25 years.
He has tried on two different occasions to interest builders in
developing the property under the R-4 zoning; however, the houses
are too big for the apartment area. He feels the way the property
can be developed is to zone it R-15, which is the purpose of the
application. He understands the conditional use system the City
uses as a condition of approval of these types of applications.
All that he desires is to have the zoning changed so he can secure
financing necessary to complete the project. He has tried to
maintain the property during the years he has owned it; however,
the property as an open field is turning into an invitation to put
junk on it. He would like to develop the property. When he
initially discussed with Ada County Highway District the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2.
LORIN C. SAUNDBRS - RBZONB
development of the property, he believed it originally indicated
that Broadway Street would have to be extended through the
property. Since that initial discussion with the Ada County
Aighway District, it has indicated that it prefers that Broadway
Street not be extended through the property because of the speed of
vehicles on long straight streets. Consequently, through the
development of the property, the streets could turn east on 8th
Street, then traverse the edge of the property on an extension
street, and then extend Idaho Street down into the property. Ae
has spoken with the owner of adjacent property, and he would design
the development of the property so the adjacent property could use
the access and would not be landlocked. The street would continue
through the adjacent property owner's property, somehow. As a
result, the drainage which rune through the property would not be
covered up. He could reduce the banks along the drainage and make
it a very nice park area. So, when one came down to the end of
Broadway there would be a nice green area which he thinks would be
very complimentary to the City. He is excited to develop the
property, and he is seeking the change in zoning so he can develop
it. After the zoning of the property is changed, it will not be
long before plans are presented. to the City.
7. In response to questions of Commissioner Borup, the
Applicant testified substantially as follows. With regard to the
application, he believes the R-15 zoning calls for duplex types of
structures. The zoning requested permits the construction of
duplexes which are approximately 800 square feet with double car
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 3.
LORIN C. SAUNDARS - R$ZONA
garages. He is not proposing the construction of structures
greater than duplexes; that is all in which he is interested. The
reason he pursued the R-15 zoning is that the City's staff
recommended it. He is not interested in a real high density. He
just wnnts to develop the property. There is a drainage ditch
through the property, around which there can be a very nice park
area developed. The area would look very clean when one went to
the end of Broadwny. He believes it would be a nice little
subdivision or little development there.
8. In response to further questions of Commissioner Borup,
the Applicant testified substantially ae follows. Along the
railroad tracks, one has to be 200 feet from the railroad tracks to
install a fence and landscape the area. The property lines would
be 200 feet from the railroad tracks, which he believes is the
requirement. Hie thinking ie that if there were fence restrictions
along the drain ditch to the back of the houses, the look of the
park area would be enhanced. Additionally, there is not enough
room at the end of the property to construct anything but a park
area. He thinks a park area would be something the people around
the area of the property would appreciate. At the time he pursues
the final planning on the platting and development of the property,
the neighbors would have input into it, and he would attempt to
develop something compatible to their liking. He is interested in
being good neighbors. He has owned the property for a long time
and lived in Meridian for 35 years. He would like to sea the
development be something of which he is proud. He does not have
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4.
LORIN C. SAUNDSRS - REZONE
anyone to develop it presently. It has been indicated to him that
the zoning needs to be changed before any money is invested to
initinte the development of the property.
9. There was comment and discussion between Chairman Johnson
and the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, concerning
her comments dated February 10, 1997, particularly, item number 8
of those comments. Ma. Stiles stated that those comments were
taken directly from the description of the R-15 zone, and she has
received no plan from which she is able to determine whether the
requirements can be met.
10. The Applicant testified further substantially ae follows.
He has seen the comments from the Planning and Zoning
Administrator, Shari Stiles, dated February 10, 1997. He has
spoken with the City Engineer on several occasions concerning sewer
and water service to the property. A topography survey of the
property has been completed to determine whether the property is
high enough to connect into the sewer and it is. The City Engineer
has indicated to him that there probably will not be a problem
connecting to the sewer. The water service is on the property; it
just needs to be connected. The curbs are installed. He has to
install the sidewalk on the West 8th Street. This would clean up
the property; it is an eye sore for which he apologizes. He ie now
in a position to do something with the property. The project would
be very complimentary to the City's plans.
11. Melinda Belt testified concerning the application
substantially as follows. She is the President of the Broadway
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
Estates Condominium Homeowners' Association (Association) and
representing the association. There are 12 condominium units. She
understands that the condominiums were built by Lorin Saunders in
approximately 1977. The members of the Association do have
concerns with the development of the property. They do not know if
the intent of the development of the property is some sort of low
income housing development or all rentals. They are already
surrounded on the back aide by apartments. Aa homeowners they have
been trying real hard to clean up the neighborhood. They have
painted their buildings this year. They have done a lot of work
with the trees and the landscaping. Some of her concerns stem from
incidental connections with the property. She has called the City
on numerous occasions about the property; the four feet high weeds
on the property. She began calling in May of 1995. She thought
she was resolving the problem, but the problem was not resolved.
She called about the weeds because, not only are they a fire
hazard, the property was filled with thistles which would blow into
their lawn. They had to keep eprayinq their lawn and incurring the
cost for the spray. Finally, the weeds were cut down, she believes
in September or October of 1996. It took her over a year and half
to receive a response. She does not believe the Applicant
attempted to maintain the property. The quality of the building in
which she lives hea a lot to be desired. They are all concerned
about the intent with the property, because they realize they are
in a low income area and their property really is not valuable.
They do not want to see the value of their property decrease rather
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
than increase. She has questions about the park area around the
drainage ditch and its safety. There will be a lot of children in
the sort of development proposed by the Applicant; there are
already a lot of children. Alao, she questions whether it will be
well maintained or whether it will be allowed to turn into weeds.
She also questions the R-15 zoning versus the R-8 zoning if the
Applicant only desires duplexes. Although she dose not know mush
about zoning, she opines that, if one were going to do more of a
single family subdivision, it is unnecessary to zone the property
for a high density housing. The Association wanted to be
represented and wanted to express to the City that they are
concerned about the development of the property. They would prefer
a development which improves the area rather than creates a
detriment and increases the traffic and low income housing.
12. In response to a question of Chairman Johnson, Ms. Belt
testified substantially as follows. The members of the Association
would prefer the development of the property as more owner
occupied. There will be some rentals; however, if the intention is
to create rental properties, they think there will be a big
difference in the maintenance of the property.
13. In response to questions of Commissioner Borup, Ma. Belt
testified substantially as follows. The members of the Association
are not opposed to the development of the property. They do not
want, as the rumors have been for the lnat couple of years, "low
income housing" and rentals. Based upon the requested zoning, this
type of development is what has been indicated to them. Single
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 7.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
family housing would be fine; they do not want to be surrounded by
rentals. They are homeowners. Whereas, the residents behind them
are apartment renters, low income, welfare mothers, and on special
insurance which is different from them. She does not think the
concept of duplexes, a maximum of two per building, would be a
problem. She agrees that duplexes would be a nice transition
between the apartments if they were not sold in mass and rented
out. Their mnin concern is the property turning into a low income
rental community.
11. Dana Simmons testified concerning the application
eubatantielly as follows. She lived in low income housing for 3
1/2 years. She went through a divorce. Her former husband is
$17,000.00 behind in child support. A year and half ago she
purchased the town home in which she lives. She takes pride in
ownership. Consequently, she has seen both aides. Her strongest
concern is the R-15 zoning that provides an option to develop a
very high density apartment complex which she finds questionable.
She understands people wanting to leave their options open.
However, the R-15 zoning indicates to her the Applicant might be
leaning towards high density development which is more financially
lucrative. Another concern is that she has an 11 year old
daughter. She purposely purchased in the location where she and
her daughter live so her daughter could walk to elementary, middle
and high school. She does not think that a high density complex in
this area is good considering the school over crowding problem.
She likes the idea of additional condominiums or duplexes with the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
emphasis being on owner occupied. It is her concern that the only
way in and out of the area is Broadway and Idaho. There are a lot
of young children in the area. Without other access, a serious
problem could arise in the area. She thinks one thing which has
saved the area in which she lives, given the Broadway Manor
Apartments behind where she lives, is the lack of access; there is
not the traffic through the area. An increase in traffic will
create serious traffic problems.
12. Commissioner Borup commented that the application is for
a rezone of the property without specific detail on the
development. An R-15 zoning classification may allow the
construction of apartments, but only through the conditional permit
process. As a result the Applicant would have to go through the
public hearing process for the conditional use permit. Whereas, an
R-15 zoning classification would permit, without a conditional use
permit, the construction of duplexes on the property. Accordingly,
to construct duplexes on the property, the Applicant would not have
to go through the public hearing process for a conditional use
permit.
13. Vern Alleman testified concerning the application
substantially as follows. He bases his testimony on the premise
that R-4 zoning is four units per acre and the assumption that R-15
is 15 units per acre. He opposes the application to change the
zoning from R-4 to R-15. He is concerned about the crime rate in
an R-15 type of development. Areas in Boise which have such type
of developments have the highest crime rate. His point is that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
crime rate is much higher in such types of developments compared to
other areas with equal population. He has followed this increase
in the crime rate for a long time. Some time ago, City officials
told him that policing an R-15 type of development uses about one-
half of the police resources. An R-15 type of development
decreases the value of surrounding property, such as where he owns
property. He feels the zoning of the property should remain R-4.
If the property dose not remain R-4, the zoning of the property
with regard to density, should be no higher than R-8. This is hie
biggest concern.
14. Chairman Johnson commented on the Applicant's
presentation that the R-4 zoning has not worked economically. The
property's environment does not lend very well to R-4 zoning which
permits only 4 unite per acre and sizable houses. The Applicant is
applying for a change in the zoning which the City's staff has
apparently encouraged him to do. The zoning does not dictate the
type of development of the property; it dictates the permitted
uses. The property and development must still go through the other
processes.
15. In response to a question of Mr. Alleman, Chairman
Johnson stated that although zoned R-15 the development of the
property for higher density structures is still subject to the
conditional use permit process.
16. In response to Mr. Alleman's comment that he spoke with
a neighbor who would not object to R-8 zoning but objects to R-15,
Chairman Johnson commented that R-8 may work. The density ratings
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLIISIONS OF LAW - Page 10.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
are the maximum densities. Most R-4 developments are lees than
density permitted by R-4; something like 2.89 to 3.1 per acre.
17. Mr. Alleman further commented and testified that he is
concerned about the concentration in a small area, the type of
people that live in that area, and the crime rate which results
from higher density populations. In addition, the decrease in the
valuation for surrounding properties.
18. In response to a question of Commissioner Borup, Mr.
Alleman stated that he owns the property located at 842 Weat Pine.
His property is not bare ground adjoining the property.
19. Larry Hansen testified concerning the application
substantially as follows. He supports the application. Ha has
owned the property adjacent to the property for approximately one
year and lived on his property for approximately two months. When
he purchased the adjacent property, he hoped that the property
could be put to better use. The property has existed as a desert
and fire hazard. When he moved to Zdaho approximately 17 years
ago, he lived in an area composed entirely of duplexes. These
duplexes were occupied by professionals who had recently moved to
Idaho. These occupants lived in the duplexes from six months to
two years, until they accumulated sufficient funds to purchase
permanent housing. He believes the economy, if the area is strong,
and Meridian has the ability to attract people who want high
quality living arrangements on a rental basis. The proposed
development of the property is the type of use which he would like
to see for his adjacent property.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 11.
LORIN C. SAUNDBRS - R$ZONB
J
r~
L
20. Mr. Saunders further testified substantially as follows.
He apologizes to the people for the weeds on the property; however,
he tried to take care of the weeds about once a year. Each time he
goes to the property there is garbage scattered on the property
which hinders the ability to maintain the property. There is also
grass and lawn droppings from properties across from the property.
He believes that the development of the property ie the best for
everyone. He is conscious of the value of the surrounding
properties. He did not construct the condominium units. The
condominium units were originally constructed as four-plexes and
duplexes. Ae did have something to do with turning them into
condominiums, because he wanted to sell them as owner occupied.
These owners have done a nice job of maintaining the condominiums,
and he does not want to detract from them. He does not mind being
restricted to duplexes in the zoning. Duplexes are the highest
density for which he cares; he does not believe a higher density
would compliment the area. These duplexes must have a double car
garage pursuant to the zoning, so they will be nice units. They
will not be low income housing. The development of the property
would be a compliment to the condominiums across from the property.
With regard to the drainage ditch and park area, originally he
considered obtaining permission to cover and the the drainage
ditch. He is not opposed to doing that right now; however, he
knows the City desires a green area, and by reducing the height of
the banks along the ditch, this area could be made into a very nice
and safe type of park area. He is not opposed to tiling the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 12.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONB
drainage ditch if it is in the best interest of the neighbors.
With regard to the roads, eventually the roads will go to the
property. Ada County Highway District requires him to run the
roads, both Idaho Street and Broadway, to the property line.
Broadway does not have to extend through the property, but may go
around it. Probably, there will be other access to the property;
he assumes from Pine Street. There will be other accesses to the
property. He reemphasizes that he has tried on two different
occasions to construct single family housing on the property;
however, one cannot build and sell 1,400 square feet houses in the
urea. Two builders he worked with could not make such type of
development economically feasible. After speaking with City staff,
he believes the best use is the construction of duplexes, which is
the highest density he desires. He is not concerned with the
restriction to duplexes because he is not interested in decreasing
the value of surrounding properties and he wants to compliment the
surrounding properties.
21. In response to a question of Commissioner Borup, Mr.
Saunders testified that he would not be opposed tc an R-8 zoning
which would allow the construction of minimum 800 square feet
duplexes. Mr. Saunders commented further that his request for R-15
ie based upon City staff's recommendations. He is not opposed to
the R-8 zoning. An R-8 zoning is fine with him if such zoning
makes the neighbors surrounding the property more comfortable with
the project, or restricting the size of the buildings on thin
application is also fine with him.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 13.
LORIN C. SAVNDERS - REZONE
22. Scott Stanfield testified before the City Council, on
July 1, 1997, that there initial Application was to rezone the
property from R-4 to R-15 for duplexee, but now the Applicant has
no problem with R-8 zoning and would like to construct townhouses
with two car garages for each unit; he also stated thnt they would
need a conditional use to be able to have lees frontage than is
required by ordinance.
Lorin Saunders then testified before the Council that there
would be 5.5 unite per acre; thnt he will do R-8 zoning and would
do whatever the City desires, but he wants townhouses; he said that
the neighbors like what he intends to do.
23. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Hngineer,
submitted comments which comments are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full. Hia comments included that the legal description
submitted with the application for rezone appears to meet all the
criteria required by Meridian City Resolution #158, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission; that sanitary sewer service for this parcel
could be from extensions of the existing sanitary sewer trunk main
located between W. 7th Street and W. 8th Street; that the depth of
this existing main, approximately 7.5 feet deep, may limit the
serviceability of this parcel to this main; that the treatment
cnpacity of the Meridian Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently
being evaluated; that approval of this application needs to be
contingent upon the City's ability to accept the additional
sanitary sewage generated by any proposed development; that water
service for this development shall be from an existing main located
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 14.
LORIN C. SAUNDHRS - RHZONH
in w. 8th Street; and that water service to this development is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the
City's computer model.
24. Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator,
submitted comments which comments are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full. Her comments included, but are not limited to, the
following. The request for zoning of R-15 would appear to be
compatible with the surrounding uses. Several single-family homes
have been split off from Pine Street, and the proposed rezone
property is now landlocked. Both Idaho Street and Broadway Street
dead-end into the property. Broadway Avenue basically dead-ends
into Nine Mile Creek. These roads will need to be extended to and
through the property in accordance with Ada County Highway District
standards, with five feet wide sidewalks on both sides. Fire
access and hydrant locations must be provided in accordance with
the Uniform Fire Code and Meridian Fire Department policies. The
Applicant is to provide curbing and underground sprinkler system
for all landscaped areas. Nine Mile Creek is designated as a bike
path in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Plans of the Applicant
will need to be reviewed and approved by the City, Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, and possibly the Bureau of Reclamation.
Permanent six feet high perimeter fencing moat be provided prior to
obtaining building permits, except where such requirement may be
specifically waived in writing by the City. All paving, striping
and aignage of parking lots is to be in accordance with Meridian
City Ordinance and the Americana With Disabilities Act. Lighting
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 15.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
shall not illuminate adjacent residential properties or cause
glare, as determined by the City of Meridian. The Applicant
proposes a rezone of the property to R-15. All developments within
the R-15 zone must have direct access to a transportation arterial
or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space
corridor, and be connected to the Municipal water and sewer systems
of the City of Meridian. No information has been submitted to
substantiate conformance with these requirements. In the R-15
zone, minimum lot size is 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit. Any
duplex unite would be required to have two-car garages. Single-
family detached housing would require a minimum house of 1,301
square feet in size. Duplex units would require a minimum of 800
square feet par unit, exclusive of the garage. A minimum of a 20
feet planting strip will be required along the railroad corridor,
outside of the existing right-of-way and beyond the fence to be
installed. A development agreement/detailed conditions of approval
are required as a condition of rezoning. Because of the numerous
issues involved, and as no uses or site plan are shown for the
property, rezoning of the property should not be considered without
the requirement that all uses, regardless of whether or not
permitted in the R-15 zone, are to be developed under the
conditional use permit process. Perhaps rezoning should not be
considered until a plan is presented for review and approval. She
would feel more comfortable if the plan were being approved
concurrently with any rezoning. Further conditions will be
examined when the application for conditional use permit is
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 16.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
i
submitted. If planned correctly, the property could be an
excellent in-fill development project.
At the City Council hearing Misa. Stiles stated that the
proposed project does not meet the R-8 requirements because the
lots era too small; to be able to have townhouses a conditional use
permit is required; she needs building elevations; she does not
think that single family dwellings would work; she want to know
what the plane; that under a planned unit development there can be
less frontage and other requirements can not be required. she
stated that she believes that a planned unit development would be
a better way to do the development.
Gary Smith, the city Engineer, commented about the sewer and
his comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
25. The Meridian Police Department submitted comments on the
subject application, which comments are hereby incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
26. The Meridian Fire Department submitted comments on the
subject application, which comments are hereby incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
27. The Nampa ~ Meridian Irrigation District submitted
comments on the subject application, which comments are hereby
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
28. The Central District Health Department submitted comments
on the subject application, which comments are hereby incorporated
herein as if set forth in full. Its comments included that after
written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, it can
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 17.
LORIN C. SAUNDSRS - REZONE
approve the proposal for central sewage and central water; that the
plans for central sewage and central water must be submitted to and
approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of
Environmental Quality; that street runoff is not to create a
mosquito breeding problem; that it recommends the first one half
inch of atormwater be pretreated through a grassy Swale prior to
discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and
surface water quality; that the engineers and architects involved
with the design of this project should obtain current best
management practices for stormwater disposal and design a
atormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface
water degradation.
29. The Ada County Highway District submitted comments, which
comments are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Its comments included, but are not limited to, the following. The
Applicant construct a 4 feet wide concrete sidewalk on 8th Street
abutting the site (Meridian requires 5 feet sidewalks). The
Applicant construct a 4 feet wide concrete sidewalk on Broadway
Avenue abutting the existing curb on the site's frontage (Meridian
requires 5 feet sidewalks); The Applicant continue the roadway grid
system through the site by extending Idaho Avenue and Broadway
Avenue from the site's east boundary to the site's west boundary.
Additional north-south roads may be constructed as needed. The
streets shall be constructed as 37 feet street sections with curb,
gutter and five feet wide sidewalks within the 50 feet right-of-
way. In accordance with District policy, stub streets to the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18.
LORIN C. SAUNDHRS - REZONH
undeveloped parcels abutting the site may be required upon review
of a future application for this site.
30. There were no other comments by the public regarding this
application.
OF LAN
1. All the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act
and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met,
including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300
feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property.
2. The City has the authority to take judicial notice of its
own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of
actual conditions existing within the City and the State.
3. This Application for a zoning amendment has been judged
upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-416 of the
Zoning And Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon
the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the
record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial
notice.
4. Section 11-2-416 A. states in part as follows:
when the public necessity, convenience, general welfare
or zoning and development practice require, the Council
may amend, supplement, change, or repeal the
regulations, restrictions, and boundaries or
classifications of property as well as the regulations
and provisions of this Ordinance.
5. Section 11-2-416 R, of the Zoning And Development
Ordinance of the City of Meridian, sets forth standards under which
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN - Page 19.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
the City shall review applications for zoning amendments.. Upon a
review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented,
conditions of the area and the statement and agreement by Lorin
Saunders that he would do the R-8 development rather than the R-15
development, it is specifically concluded as follows:
(a) The (R-8) Medium Density Residential District zoning
would be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan;
(b) The property, if designed and used as allowed in the (R-
8) Medium Density Residential District, would be
developed in a fashion allowed under the proposed new
zoning;
(c) The property, if designed and used as allowed in the (R-
8) Medium Density Residential District, would be designed
and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding
area, which is developed in the fashion of the (R-8)
Medium Density Residential District;
(d) The (R-8) Medium Density Residential District use would
not be hazardous to the existing or future uses of the
surrounding neighborhood;
(e) A (R-8) Medium Density Residential District development
would not create excessive additional requirements at
public coat for public facilities and services, and would
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community;
(f) The property, if designed and used as allowed in the (R-
8) Medium Density Residential District, would not involve
uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or
conditions of operation which would be detrimental to any
person, property or the general welfare of the area;
(g) The property, if designed and used as allowed in the (R-
8) Medium Density Residential District, could be designed
and constructed to provide vehicular approaches to the
property which would be designed to decrease interference
with traffic on surrounding public streets;
(h) A rezone would not result in the destruction, loss or
damage of any natural or scenic feature of major
importance; and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 20.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - R8ZON8
(i) The proposed zoning amendment, as amended at the City
Council meeting, is in the best interest of City of
Meridian.
6. The City of Meridian has authority to place conditions
upon the grant of a zoning amendment.
7. The Applicant has not presented any specific plans
concerning hie intention for the development of the property. It
is, therefore, concluded that as a condition of the grant of the
zoning amendment that any use or development of the property shall
only be allowed under the conditional use process, which the
Applicant would have to apply for to place a planned unit
development on the property.
8. It is further concluded that as a condition of the grant
of the zoning amendment, the Applicant shall be required to enter
into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L, and that
the development agreement shall address, among other things, the
following:
a. Inclusion into the development the requizements of 11-9-
605;
b. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any successors
in interest, assigns, heirs, executors or personal
representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer
fee, adopted by the City;
c. Addressing the property access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land uses and traffic study;
d. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the City;
e. Appropriate berming and landscaping;
f. Submission and approval of any required plats;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 21.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
g. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage,
lighting, parking, and other development plane of the
property;
h. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the surrounding residential development and other
development;
i. Addressing the comments of the Planning ~ Zoning
Administrator;
j. The sewer and water requirements;
k. Traffic plane and access into and out of any development;
and
1. Any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing.
9. Aa the Applicant testified substantially as follows: that
he desires to construct townhouses, and not duplexes on the
property; and that he does not believe a higher density would
compliment the area; it is further concluded, as a condition of the
grant of the zoning amendment, that the development of this
property shall be restricted to a minimum of townhouse dwellings at
a density not exceeding eight dwelling units per acre.
10. It is further concluded that, as a condition of the grant
of the zoning amendment, the Applicant must meet and comply with
the comments, recommendations and requirements of Bruce Freckleton,
Assistant to the City Engineer, which comments, recommendations and
requirements included, but are not limited to, the following:
(aj The approval of this application for zoning amendment
shall be contingent upon the City's ability to accept the
additional sanitary sewage generated by any proposed
development;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Paqe 22.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
(b) The water service for any development of this property
shall be from an existing main located in W. 8th Street;
and
(c) Water service to any development of this property is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic
analysis by the City's computer model.
11. It is further concluded that, as a condition of the grant
of the zoning amendment, the Applicant must meat and comply with
the comments, recommendations and requirements of Shari Stiles,
Planning and Zoning Administrator, which comments, recommendations
and requirements included, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) As part of any development of the property on Idaho
Street and Broadway Street shall be extended to and
through the property in accordance with Ada County
Highway District standards, with five feet wide sidewalks
on both sides;
(b) Fire access and hydrant locations shall be provided in
accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and Meridian Fire
Department policies as part of any development of the
property;
(c) As part of any development of the property, the Applicant
shall provide curbing and underground sprinkler system
for all landscaped areas;
(d) As Nine Mile Creek ie designated as a bike path in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, plane pertaining to Nine
Mile Creek shall be reviewed and approved by the City,
Nampa 5 Meridian irrigation District, and, if necessary,
the Bureau of Reclamation;
(e) The Applicant shall install a permanent six foot high
perimeter fencing prior to obtaining building permits,
except where this requirement is specifically waived in
writing by the City;
(f) As part of any development of the property, all paving,
striping and eignage of parking lots is to be in
accordance with Meridian City Ordinance and the Americans
With Disabilities Act;
(g) As port of any development of the property, lighting
shall be designed so as not to illuminate adjacent
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 23.
LORIN C. SAUNDBRS - REZONS
• •
residential properties or cause glare, as determined by
the City of Meridian;
(h) As part of any development of the property, the Applicant
shall submit to the City of Meridian information to
substantiate that the property shall have direct access
to a transportation arterial or collector, shall abut or
have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and
shall be connected to the Municipal water and sewer
systems of the City of Meridian.
(i) As part of any development of the property, the minimum
lot size shall be 4,250 square feet per dwelling unit;
the townhouses have two-car garages; any single-family
detached housing shall be a minimum of 1,301 square feet
in size; townhouses should not be smaller that the size
set for a duplex, which is a minimum of 800 square feet
in size per unit, exclusive of the garage, which shall be
a two car garages;
(j) As part of any development of the property, a minimum of
a 20 feet planting strip shall be required along the
railroad corridor, outside of the existing right-of-way
and beyond the fence to be installed; and
(k) Further conditions shall be examined and considered, and
may be placed upon any application for a conditional use
permit for the use or development of the property.
11. It is further concluded that, as a condition of the grant
of the zoning amendment, the Applicant must meet and comply with
the comments, recommendations and requirements of the Meridian
Police Department, the Meridian Fire Department and the Nampa 6
Meridian Irrigation District.
12. It is further concluded that, ae a condition of the grant
of the zoning amendment, the Applicant must meet and comply with
the comments, recommendations and requirements of the Ada County
Highway District, which comments, recommendations and requirements
included, but are not limited to, the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 24.
LORIN C. SAVNDBRS - REZONB
(a) As part of any development of the property, the Applicant
shall construct a minimum 5 feet wide concrete sidewalk
on 6th Street abutting the site;
(b) As part of any development of the property, the Applicant
shall construct a minimum 5 feet wide concrete sidewalk
on Broadway Avenue abutting the existing curb on the
site's frontage;
(c) As part of any development of the property, the Applicant
shall continue the roadway grid system through the site
by extending Idaho Avenue and Broadway Avenue from the
property's east boundary to the site's west boundary.
Additional north-south roads may be constructed as
needed;
(d) The streets shall be constructed as 37 feet street
sections with curb, gutter and five feet wide sidewalks
within the 50 feet right-of-way; and
(e) Stub streets to undeveloped parcels abutting the site may
be required upon review of any future applications for
the property.
13. It is further concluded that, as a condition of the grant
of the zoning amendment, the Applicant must meet and comply with
the comments, recommendations and requirements of Central District
Health Department, which comments, recommendations and requirements
included, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) As part of any development of the property, plans for
central sewage and central water shall be submitted to
and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality;
(b) Street runoff shall not create a mosquito breeding
problem;
(c) As part of any development and use of the property, the
first one half inch of sto~-mwater shall be pretreated
through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the
subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface
water quality; and
(d) As part of any development of the property, the engineers
and architects involved with the design of this project
shall obtain current best management practices for
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 25.
LORIN C. SAUND$RS - REZONE
stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management
system that prevents groundwater and surface water
degradation.
14. It is concluded that the above-conditions are reasonable
conditions of the grant of the zoning amendment.
APPROVAL OF FIRDIlf08 OF FACT AND
OF LAif
The Meridian City Council of the City of Meridian hereby
adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
ROLL CALL
MORROW
BENTLEY
COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED_1~
VOTED
VOTED G~
VOTED U
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 26.
LORIN C. SAUNDERS - REZONE
DSCISIOIi AND RBCOIQQSItDATION
The City Council hereby recommends that the property set forth
in the application be approved by the City Council for the zoning
amendment requested under the conditions set forth in these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the
Applicant or its successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors
or personal representatives enter into a development agreement, and
that the property only be developed as a planned unit development
under the conditional use process; that if the Applicant is not
agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and is
not agreeable with entering into a development agreement and
developing the property only as a planned unit development under
the conditional use permit process, the application for the zoning
amendment shall be denied.
1[OTION:
APPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 27.
LORIN C. SAUNDSRS - RSZONH
i
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 15. 1997
The special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Council
President Walt Morrow at 7:00 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Tolsma, Walt Morrow, Charlie Rountree:
MEMBERS ABSENT: Glenn Bentley:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Chief
Gordon, Charlotte Combe:
Morrow. The purpose of the meeting is to hear an update on Youth Connections by
Charlotte Combe.
Combe: First off I wanted to thank Mayor Corrie for letting us come and give you our
spiel. Community Youth Connection has been in Ada County for three years in
October. Each year we come to City Councils and talk to them about what we have
done and accomplished in the community with the youth. This year has been a really
terrific year for us. We did a celebrate youth festival on May 10 and with that a youth
hall of fame which Don will talk to you about. Within the youth hall of fame we presented
seven Meridian youth out of 34 inaugurated them into the youth hall of fame. These are
ordinary kids that have done some extraordinary things. In fact the youngest youth that
was entered or inducted into the youth hall of fame was a Meridian youth his name is
Sean Castlebury and he is a fine young man and is 8 years old. So we were really
impressed. Mayor Corrie wasn't available to be at the inducting ceremony at the
celebrate youth hall of fame. We did have for the youth hall of fame of celebrate youth
festival but we did have Mayor Coles and Mayor Ellis and Mayor Bower from Eagle. But
what we wanted to do was let you know all of the really terrific things Community Youth
Connections is doing and how it is impacting Ada County and even now .going beyond
Ada County into the other parts of the State. Today I spoke with Madison County out of
Rexburg or Rexburg is part of Madison County and they are very interested in the things
that Community Youth Connections is doing here in Ada County and would like to
emulate us in their community. Another town in Montana and the whole county has
3,000 population, one Sheriff guy for the whole county and they are interested in what
Community Youth Connections is doing and how we are taking kids that are not high
achievers and not athletic kids and not the troubled kids. But just the kids that are
hanging out and finding things for them to get involved in like celebrate youth festival
like the yellow bike project which will be launched in downtown Boise on July 28th. One
of the things that we talked to Council about last year was to fund helping get the
resource card and the resource directory for Ada County youth on the internet and that.
Don does all of our interest website you will have to check out our site. Juvenile Court
Justice Commission funded the resource directory cards last year and what it has on it
is our website with information on youth services, information and activities with our
mission statement. And on the back it has a hotline for Hays Shelter home as well as
suicide, runaway, drug abuse, pregnancy counseling and the care line. This has
Meridian City Council • •
Special Meeting
July 15, 1997
Page 2
become a very great tool all Ada County youth that in the Juvenile Court services get
these, a lot of the counselors within the school system have them to get to kids. And
over in St. Anthony's detention center these cards are in every discharge packet that go
out. So all the kids that are discharged from St. Anthony's have our resource. All of the
programs or activities that Ada County has are listed on our website and also we can do
hard copy for them. So those are just a couple of things that we have accomplished this
year which are pretty amazing. We are only three years old, not even three years old.
With the celebrate youth festival and the yellow bike project those are projects that are
collaborative with other agencies. Like yellow bike is with Idaho Youth Ranch and the
Community of pretty much downtown Boise people and the bike shops that are
interested in getting that project going. The Celebrate Youth Festival was fourteen
agencies, Meridian School District, Boise School District, Kuna School District, and then
Big Brothers and Big Sisters, the Y, several of the State agencies such as Central
District Health were very active in making that all come together and happen and within
that the youth hall of fame. The youth hall of fame, Don I told you will talk about. So
with that I would just like to pass out some information to you. I have our annual report
and just a little proposal. We are seeking funding if at all possible, 1 know it is not a
question of if Meridian City Council can ever find funding for CYC it is just a matter of
when and we understand that. There is also a proposed annual budget. We function on
a very small and tight budget, most recently we were given office space in Boise City
parks and rec. offices and with that vse went to the unions and asked the unions to do
some favors to get that office space done for the community center. A lot of kids from
Meridian and outlying areas go into Boise and go to the Fort Boise Community Center
and use that facility on an ongoing basis. So we work with those kids and those folks
and so they were kind enough to give us office space which saves us a lot of money
and overhead. So those are some of the things that we have accomplished in the last
little while. I really would like Don to speak about celebrate youth festival and the youth
hall of fame. I do have one piece of information on that that we put together for our
perspective sponsors. 1 will leave that with the Council.
Dawn: Good Evening, about a year ago I joined the Community Youth Connection,
flying blind it just came upon me in a meeting at school. I didn't expect to even get
involved to this magnitude at the time I started. Over the past year I have seen the
Community Youth Connection do a lot of great things. About the time I started they were
hatching the idea of the Celebrate Youth Festival. What they have done is slowly but
surely built this great event that we held in Boise's Julia Davis Park in May. It had food,
it had entertainment, it had a whole multitude of things for youth to do. We got, I would
say between 5,000 and 10,000 youth in the park down there celebrating their virtues
and the things that they have done positive for the community of Boise, Meridian, Kuna
and Eagle. The Community Youth Connection is not just Boise of course, it is Ada
County and even beyond. We have done our website is kind of a statewide thing. and
we have also done things with St. Anthony's with our resource cards. We try and make
sure that we affect as many lives of as many youths as we possibly can. CYC was one
of the agencies that was involved in the curtew, making all the curtews in Ada County
Meridian City Council • •
Special Meeting
July 15, 1997
Page 3
uniform last year. The community youth connection decided we would do a Greater
Boise Youth Hall of Fame is what we have called it. This is to honor youth in the
Treasure Valley who are doing extraordinary things. People who have done, maybe
they helped a neighbor or something small to anything large. The Youth Hall wasn't
intended to just recognize the best and the brightest we were there to recognize
anybody who had done something special and maybe probably didn't get recognized for
it. Because there are a lot of youth in the community who are doing amazing things but
nobody knows and that was one of our goals. So we did kind of a press push and
asked for nomination forms from the community and vue got a tan. We then honored
them in Julia Davis Park at part of our Celebrate Youth Festival and seven youth from
Meridian were included in this. We also had youth ranging in age from 8 to I believe 18.
This gave us an opportunity to really honor those youth that hadn't been honored before
and we really want to continue doing this projects the Greater Boise Youth Hall of Fame
and we would like to grow our yellow bike project.
Combe: Does the Council have any questions?
Corrie: Council, any questions?
Rountree: Do you have a sense of how many kids in Meridian participate in Meridian?
Combe: Well we impact about a little over indirectly a little over 5,000 youth in Ada
County. I would say that probably not quite a third to a half would be from the Meridian
School District and that would be through some of the publications that we do and that
sort of thing and the resource cards. Of the 150 that are active on our teen councils
which do the Celebrate Youth Festival and put together the different projects that we do
I would say probably about a %. of those of the 150 are from Meridian. One thing that is
really interesting is that the first youth that we had on our Board of Directors youth Vice
President heat of our Youth Advisory Board is a young man from Meridian High he was
15 years when he joined CYC became the Youth Vice President and served for two
years and just recently graduated and moved on. His name was Hans Frohriech, he
met with Mayor Corrie last year and he met with Mayor Kingsford when he was Mayor.
Talk about a great young man, what a fine young man. So we have quite a few of our
youth are from Meridian. As we grow and push for that the outlying areas I think that will
become more apparent.
Corrie: I want to apologize for being late, I got caught by a couple of Firemen that had a
couple of questions and I got away as quickly as I could. I want to thank you for being
here this evening and giving us the information on CYC. Thank you for your
presentation and we will get back to you on what we can do.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I move we adjourn the special meeting.
Rountree: Second
Meridian City Council • •
Special Meeting
July 15, 1997
Page 4
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that wee adjourn the special meeting, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
sou.
n~~~~~au i s n ua~`"~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUB MEETING SIGN-U~HEET R~~'~`V~1~
J U L 1 5 197
CITY ~}~ kl~~i~~i~
NAME PHnNE N MB R
CITY OF MERIDIA
PUB~C MEETING SIGN-U~IIEET
JUL 1 5 t~'~~
NAME PHn F N TMB R
• HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Ciry Clerk
JANICE L. SMITH, City 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 Supervisor
KENNETH W. BOWERS, Fire Chief
W.L. "BILL" CORDON, Police Chiet
WAVNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Atlomey
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
- Phone (208) 886-0433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
Public WorksBuilding Department (208) 887-2211
Motor Vehicle/Drivers License (208) 888-4443
ROBERT D. CORRIE
Mayor
Memorandum
To: City Council
MaYorCame
Shari Stiles
CC:
From: Dean Ehlert
Date: 07/15/97
Re: Properties with Weed Complaints
O rN I M MB R
WALT W. MORROW, President
RONALD R. TOLSMA
CHARLES M. ROUNTREE
GLENN R. BENTLEY
P & Z COMMISSION
JIM JOHNSON. Chairman
MALCOLM MACCOV
KEITH BORUP
RON MANNING
BYRON SMITH
1:~~~~~,rlr~
JUL 1 5 9~3~7
9iQ- 5''3D.aIav3'11~°ci
2017 E. Commercial St. Property Owner -Lee Centers. I telephoned Mr. Centers
on 6/12 asking his property be cut. I also faxed Mr. Centers a list of weed mowing
services that he requested. On 7/9, I sent Mr. Centers a notice requesting the weeds
be cut and the City's actions if the weeds were not cut within the required time. The
five days have past and I have received no information from Mr. Centers.
Property just north of Golf View at the end of InterlachenWay. Contacted Doug
Campbell with Steiner Development, Inc. on 6/20. On 6/17, I received a telephone
call from Bill Tealer. Mr. Tealer stated the weeds would be cut soon. On 6/26, I
contacted Mr. Tealer asking when the weeds would be cut. On 6/26, I received a
telephone call from Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell stated the weeds would be cut
soon. A notice was sent to Mr. Campbell requesting the weeds be cut and the City's
action if the weeds were not cut within the required time. The five days have past
and I have received no information from Mr. Campbell.
Sportsman Pointe phases 5,6, & 7. A letter requesting the weeds cut was sent on
6/27 to Gem Park II. On 7/9, a notice was sent requesting the weeds be cut and the
City's action if the weeds were not cut. I have received no information from Gem
Pazk II.
Property at the southeast corner of Linder Rd. and Franklin Rd. I sent a letter
to William & Jody Buckner requesting the weeds be cut. On 7/10, a notice was sent
~~
J
July 15, 1997
requesting the weeds be cut and the City's action if the weeds were not cut. I have
received no information from Mr. & Mrs. Buckner.
449 W. Claire. On 6/16, I left a telephone message for Chris Williams, lot owner,
to call me regazding the weeds. On 6/23, I sent a notice to Mr. Williams requesting
the weeds be removed and the City's action if the weeds were not removed. I have
received no information from Mr. Williams.
I am requesting City Council authorize the City to remove the weeds on the above-
mentioned properties as set forth in Ordinance 8-903 (I).