HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 07-19~
MERiD1AN CtTY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 5, 1994:
(APPROVED)
TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETlNG: FINCH CREEK FINAL PLAT:
TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 2, 1994)
2. TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 FINAL
PLAT: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
3. TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION
PRELtMINARY PLAT: (TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 2, 1994)
4. TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: EXECUTNE SESSION - FRANCIS WRIGHT
LAWSUIT:
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HANDY WARHOUSIPIG
VARIANCE REQUEST: (APPROVED)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MICHAEL AND SUE
CLQRKE VARlANCE REQUEST: (APPROVED DECISION)
7. ORDINANCE #657 - TURTLE CREEK AIdNEXATION: (APPROVED)
8. ORDINANCE #658 - G.L. VOIGT ANNEXATION/ SUNDANCE:(TABLED UNTIL
AUGUST 2, 1994)
9. ORDINANCE #~659 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/ L-O
ORDINANCE #660 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/ 1-L
ORDINANCE #661 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/ C-G
ORDiNANCE #662- ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/ C-G
(TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 2,1994)
10. AMENDED ORDINANCE #607 - MID-TOWN SQUARE: (TABLED UNTIL AUGUST
2, 1994)
11. RESO~UTtON #157 - SEWER lNSPECTION FEES: (APPROVED)
12. RESOLUTION #158 - SEPTIC TANK DUMPING FEES:
~ ~
13. GARY LEE - JUB ENGINEERS: EXTENSlON OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR PINE BLUFF PUD: (APPROVED FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION
OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE NO. 5 BY INTERWEST
DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: (PUBLtC HEARING
CONTiNUED UNTiL AUGUST 2, 1994)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FIRE LIGHT
ESTATES BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING:
(APPROVED)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TURTLE CREEK
SUBDIViSION BY STEELE AND SON AND JUB ENGINEERS:
(APPROVED)
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMtNARY PLAT FOR CANNA ULY
ESTATES BY FLOYD AND VICTORIA MADSEN: (APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS)
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PINE
MEADOWS: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND DECISIONj
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMlNARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES BY
SHEKINAH 1NDUSTRIES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FIPIDINGS
OF FACT AND C4NCLUSIOPIS OF LAW)
20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY BW INC. AND WAYNE
STOLFUS: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
WITH AMENDED 15' SETBACK AND SUBMtT LANDSCAPE DESIGN)
21. PUBLtC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2.:
(APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIOMS OF LI4W WtTH
AMENDED 1400 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM; CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AND ORDINANCE; TABLE PRELIMINARY PLQT UIdTIL
ORDINANCE IS PASSED)
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONtNG WITH A
PRELtMiNARY PLAT FOR FAWCETT'S MEADOWS NO. 2 BY
RONALD HENRY: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE; TABLE
PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL ORDINANCE IS PASSED)
~ ~
23. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNDANCE
SUBDIVISION BY G.L. VOIGT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING:
(APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS)
24. PUBLIC HEARfNG: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SUNDANCE SUBDNISION
BY G.L. VOIGT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
25. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR ASHFORD
GREENS SUBDNtS10N BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER AND HUBBLE
ENGINEERING: (PUBLIC HEARlNG CONTlNUED TO AUGUST 2, 1994)
26. PUBLlC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
NO. 3 BY STElNER CORPORATtON: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FlNDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSI4NS OF LAV1~
27. PROCLAMATION: YEAR OF THE FAMILY:
28. EXECUTIVE SESSION: BEST WESTERN CONCRETE POSSIBLE LITIGATION:
29. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. SHARI STILES, PLANNING DIRECTOR:
1. DAKOTA RIDGE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
(APPROVED CONDtT10NED UPON STAFF REVtEW)
• .
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 19 1994
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by City Council
President Ron Tolsma at 7:30 P.M.:
Members Present: Walt Morrow, Bob Cvrrie, Max Yerrington:
Others Present: Wi)1 Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, R.L. Miller, Mr. &
Mrs. McMillon, Mr. & Mrs. Ralee, Grey Oyama, Laraina Oyama, Jack Siem, Leonard Reed,
Linda Gurder, J. Hanson, Morgan and Marilyn Plant, Archie Roberson, Paul Geile, Frances
Margulieux, Alan and Carol Fox, Bob Neufeld, Wayne Forrey, Elwood Rennison, Gary
Burson, Tammy deWeerd, Diana Brunello, Vem Alleman, Dean Langley, Gene Smith, Jim
Davis, Jack Riddlemaser, Kim Trout, Gary Lee, Jan deWeerd, Lilian Tulley, F(oyd Madsen,
Linda Cope, Alan Capner, Brad Luna, Rebecca Cope, Mike Preston, James Witherall, Ann
Witherall, Dan Torfin, Dennis Baker, Mike Peterson, Wayne Stolfus, Jim Merkle, Ron
Henry, Craig Groves, Dean Langley, Steve Bradbury:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 5, 1994:
Tolsma: Any additions, corrections or deletions to that?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that they be approved.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes of July 5th meeting, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETIIVG: FlNCH CREEK FiNAL PLAT:
Tolsma: The applicant requested a table.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, before you vote I think there should be a date certain.
Morrow: August 2nd.
Tolsma: Its been moved by Walt second by Bab to table the Finch Creek final plat
application, all those in favor? Opposed?
•
Meridian City Councif
July 19, 1994
Page 2
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
•
ITEM #2: TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NQ. 3
FINAL PLAT:
Tolsma: Have you had a chance to check that over?
Corrie: Mr. Mayor, refresh my mind why was the applicant's request that we table this,
what was the reason again? Can anyone on Council enlighten me on why this was
tabled?
Morrow: I know it was simply tabled at the developer's request there was no expansion
on it.
Corrie: Is the developer here, maybe he can enlighten us.
(Inaudible)
Corrie: I guess my next question is has staff s questions been answered and we have a
lack of staff here, did they all fly away? Shari I had a question on the Crossroads
Subdivision was asked to be delayed for the applicants for staff questions, did that ever
get taken care of, are you aware of it?
Stiles: I wasn't aware of what had to be done on that I thought it was just at their request
last time.
Corrie: It was to meet staff questions, I understand did they meet with you and answer
your questions?
Stiles: I didn't have any on fihat, maybe Gary did.
Corrie: Gary, can you help us on this one Crossroads?
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, I did receive a revised legal description for the
boundary of the subdivision. I think I had a couple other comments.
Morrow: Did you questions have to do with the turnarounds on Congressional and
Eisenhower Drives and the lot area of Lot 23 and Block 8 is less than 8,000 square feet?
Smith: Right, as I understand it the Ada County Engineer is not allowing subdividers to
plat for a tumaround so they either have to make provisions on the subdivision plat or their
• ,
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 3
ownership of the adjacent land and make provisions there for the turnaround. But the
County Engineer is not allowing them to show a turn around easement at the end of a
dead end street outside of the subdivision boundary. I don't know the why's or wherefores
of that.
Morrow: And how does that apply to what we are dealing with here? Their tum arounds
for fhese 2 streets are outside of the subdivision, is that the issue?
Smith: I believe that on the plat that I haue reviewed there was nothing shown on the plat
that I reviewed concerning the turn around or how the turn around was going to be
accomp(ished.
Morrow: And so at this point we stilt have not resolved that issue.
Smith: I can't recall on the development plans how that is shown, I just don't know right
off hand. 7ypically what they are doing is they are showing it on the development plans
if they are the owner of the adjacent property.
Morrow: Now, you had 5 comments with respe~t to this. And number 1, the nurnber of lots
and street alignment comply with the appropriate part of the previously approved
preliminary plat. So, that is okay, the area of Lot 23 Block 8 is less than 8,000 square feet
has that been addressed?
Smith: I have not heard from them on that, but 1 am assuming that is pretty easily solved
problem.
Morrow: Label north-south tie distance as North Eagle Road, State Highway 55 that is
fairly simple. And then submit sheet number 2 for review, 2 bearings in the written legat
submitfed are slightly different than shown on the plat, has that been corrected?
Smith: Yes, they have submitted that sheet.
Morrow: So, the 2 outstanding issues are items 2 and 3, the tum arounds and the 8,000
square feet of Lot 23 Block 8, is that correct?
Smith: Right, and like I say, the turn arounds, if the property owner owns the adjacent
property where the tum arounds will be built what they have been doing is just building the
turn arounds on that praperty since they are the owners of it, they are building the tum
arounds on that property. The Gounty Engineer is not allowing them to show that
easement on the plat for reasons I don't know. If this was the end of the property that this
applicant owns then they wouid need to show a turn around within the boundary of their
~ •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 4
subdivision. But in this particular case it is my understanding that the applicant owns the
property around this boundary to the east. So, the turn around would be built, the
development ptans would not be approved without the turn arounds on it.
Morrow: Mr. President, perhaps the applicant's representative would have some input for
us with respect to those 2 issues.
Gene Smith: Capital Development does own the adjacent property and that is how the
turn arounds will be handled. As far as the lot size that particular lot it was just a matter
of revising a single lot line in order to obtain that 8,000 square feet.
Tolsma: Any other questions of the Council?
Yerrington: Mr. Mayor, I move far the approva( of Crossroads subdivision no. 3 for final
plat.
Morrow: Question, Mr. President would that motion include subject to staff conditions.
Yerrington: Certainly
Morrow: I would second the motion then.
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the Crossroads Subdivision No. 3
final plat subject to the Engineer's and staff recommendations, atl those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTtON CARRiED: All Yea
ITEM # 3: TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Tolsma: The applicant has requested that it be tabled also tonight until August 2nd.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Its been moved and seconded to table the Bedford Place Subdivision, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
•
Meridian City Counci!
July 19, 1994
Page 5
~
ITEM #4: TABLED AT JUl.Y 5, 9994 MEETING: EXECUTIVE SESSlON - FRANCIS
WRIGHT LAWSUIT:
Tolsma: We need a motion to go into Executive Session.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: !ts been moved by Walt, second by Max to go into Executive Session for pending
litigation against the City, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: A(I Yea
COUNCIL ADJOURNED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Tolsma: Let's call the meeting back to order.
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HANDY
WAREHOUSING VARIANCE REQUEST:
Toisma: You have these findings from the Attorney.
Morrow: Mr. President, I move we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as written.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law for Handy Warehousing variance request, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. President I woutd move we approve the decision.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to apprave the decisian, all those in favor?
Opposed?
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 6
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
~
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MICHAEL AND SUE
CLARKE VARIANCE REQUEST:
Corrie: Mr. President, i have question for Counselor, we were given some information
from a law office that was to you, does that change anything as far as you are concerned?
Crookston: Well that is something that was received after the public hearing was closed
and it is not submisible as evidence or as something you should consider.
Morrow: f~lr. President, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions
as written.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as written for Michael and Sue Clarke variance request, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Ye~, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. President, I move that we adopt the decision as written.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the decision as written, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #657 - TURTLE CREEK ANNEXATION:
Tolsma: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXlNG AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAl. PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF
THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 2, T.3N, R.1W, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like Ordinance #657
read in its entirety?
Corrie: Mr. President, I move that we adopt Ordinance #657 with the suspension of the
• ~
Meridian Gity Council
July 19, 1994
Page 7
rules.
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Bob, secortd by Walt to approve Ordinance #657 with suspension af
the rules, roll call vote.
R~LL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: ORDINANCE #658 - G.L. VOIGT ANNEXATION/SUNDANCE:
Tolsma: We have a request that the G.L.Voigt Annexation/Sundance be tabled.
Yerrington: I move that we table Ordinance #658 until August 2nd.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved by Max, second by Bob to table the G.L.Voigt Annexation
Ordinance until August 2nd, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTtON CARRIED: Ail Yea
ITEM #9: ORDINANCE #659 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/L-O; ORDINANCE #660 - ST.
LUKE'S ANNEXATION/I-L; ORDINANCE #661 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/C-G;
ORDINANCE #662 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/G-G:
Crookston: Since our City Engineer has not had the time because of busy schedule that
he has as does the City 1 think it would be appropriate to table these until he has had an
opportunity to review the legal descriptions.
Morrow: The legal descriptions have not been reviewed by the staff?
Crookston: Right
Morrow: That can be handled by the next meeting? Mr. President, I woutd move that
Ordinances #659, 660, 661, and 662 be tabled until our meeting of August 2nd.
Yerrington: Second
~~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 8
•
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table Ordinances #659, 660, 661, and 662 until
August 2nd, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRiED: All Yea
ITEM #10: AMENDED ORDlNANCE #607 - MID-TOWN SQUARE:
Tolsma: We have an error on the description of this Ordinance and it needs to be tabled
until the next City Council.
Yerrington: Mr. President, I move that we table #607 until next meeting August 2nd.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Bob to table Amended Ordinance #607 until the
August Znd meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTIQN CARRIED: Afl Yea
ITEM #11: RESQLUTION #157 - SEWER INSPECTION FEES AND SEPTIC TANK
DUMPING FEES:
Tolsma: A RESOLUTION QF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,
PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE SEWER INSPECTION FEES AND SEPTIC
TANK DUMPING FEES AS ADOPTED BY THE MERIDtAN BOARD OF SEWER
APPRAISERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. We need a motion to approve
fhat.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: We need an effective date.
Morrow: With today's date.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve Resolution #157 for the sewer
inspection fees and septic tank dumping fees effective today, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: AII Yea
~ •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 9
ITEM #13: GARY LEE - JUB ENGtNEERS: EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PINE BLUFF PUD:
Tolsma: Is Gary here?
Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Enginsers in Boise. This project called Pine Bluff
Apartments was a development that was proposed and approved by the City of Meridian
in the early part of 1991 for a piece of property on Pine Street to develop 120 units
apartment complex. The conditional use was granted for this particular project, it is
currently situated in a L-O zone. Which this particular use is an allowed use with a
conditional use. The sewer and water ptans were submitted and approved by both the
City Engineer and the State Health Department. Site pfans were completed and submitted
and approved. License agreements are in the works with Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the Nine Mile Drain which traverses the
property. Ada County Highway District had approved al! of the plans and got to a point
in development where it was being bid and ready to go to construction. The only short
come at that particular time was submitting for building and actual(y starting construction.
The project was put on hold by the owner who is still currently the same owner. At this
point in time they would like to proceed and start the construction of the apartment
complex. We have reviewed the conditional use process and the city ordinance with the
City Planner Shari Stiles. And in the specific section on conditional uses it doesn't speak
to any particular time element involved in commencing construction after the conditional
use is approved. There are sections of the subdivision ordinance that address time
elements for subdivision projects, final plats, preliminary plats and alike. We would like to
at this point I guess ask the Council's opinion and request their approval to proceed with
this apartment compiex under the current conditional use permit. Will, did you have a
chance to hand out those documents on the plan?
Berg: Yes
Lee: If you have any questions, I would be glad to entertain those at this point.
Tolsma: Is this the same complex that was proposed?
Lee: Same thing, same set of plans.
Tolsma: The storage facilities.
Lee: The storage facilitiss were part of a separate piece of property. That was under a
planned unit development that was put together by a different person, a different property
owner. This 7 1/2 acres where this Pine bluff sites stands afone is owned by a separate
•
Meridian C+ty Council
July 19, 1994
Page 10
•
entity and it was a separate application process. But it sits ne~ct door to it.
Yerrington: I have a question, how much of an extension of time are you asking for?
Lee: They are in the process right now of putting together the ptans to resubmit for
building permit. And the iast I heard they want to start construction this fall.
Corrie: Mr. President, Mr. Lee, I have 3 questions, 1 to Gary Smith and 2 to you. You say
nothing has changed it is still going to be 2 1/2 story complex, half a story being
underground. Open space, you are still requesting 120 units, separate pressurized
irrigation system and how about the well?
Lee: There witl be an irrigation well for pressurized irrigation.
Corrie: You are going to continue with the well site. I guess Gary, my question to you is
has anything changed as far as sewer and water, that has been 4 years ago we weren't
as ambitious as we are now with all the subdivisions.
Smith: I haven't looked at the plans again since they were approved at that time, 1 assume
in talking to Gary Lee that everything is the same as it was. We did have some minimum
grade on sewer there but that had to do with the depth of the sewer in Pine. !t was the
only way it eould be sewered.
Corrie: You seem sati~ed as far as water capability and sewer and all of that to be able
to facilitate that big of complex.
Smith: Well, we would want to make sure that we looked at that again based on the
number of units that we have here and water supply.
Corrie: I guess I have one other question to the Counselor, is there enough changes here
that this needs to go back to a public hearing.
Crookston: No
Lee: Can I make a comment about the water and sewer, Gary and ! worked on the sewer
and water easement at fhe time and that was about the last thing we got accomplished in
our interaction on the project. We did get the fast minute things changed and the sewer
and water easements were assigned by the owner. We have those in hand but they
haven't been recorded. So, I guess there is a chance there that we could look at #hose
one more time too if there is any need to change. We do want to oursetves rereview our
own set of plans and I believe Gary's staff wants to take another look at the water and
C ~I
Meridian City Gouncil
Juiy 19, 1994
Page 11
~
sewer as well. State Health Department wili require it be reviewed again, they do have
a one year requirement on construction. So we will go through at least those steps. In
addition there are probably some uniform building codes that will have to be looked at on
the structutes themselves.
Morrow: I have a question for Gary, if the project is built now then it does not have a
grandfather right in terms of water and sewer type of construction. It would be built to
today`s requirements, is that correct?
Smith: Right
Morrow: And Wayne where does the issue come from with time on conditional use
permits? Do we have anything that covers time?
Crookston: The Council has on various or,casions set limitations on how long a
conditional use wil( be ailowed. I don't see that it is in the findings, t don't agree with Gary
Lee that probably the subdivision and development ordinance does have time restrictions
for development. I am not sure that they apply to conditional use permit.
Morrow: The next question wouid be then is by virtue of the conditional use it does not
give it grandfather rights with respeet to building permits because they were never applied
for.
Crookston: That is correct.
Morrow: So they would be current codes both for the sewer and water and building permit
standpoint, Uniform building code standpoint.
Crookston: That is correct.
Morrow: And you are in agreement with those things?
Lee: Yes
Tolsma: I think we need a motion to approve or disapprove the extension.
Yerrington: t make the motion that we approve the extension for one year from this date.
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the e~ctension of the conditionai use
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 12
.
permit for one year from this date for Pine Bluff Date, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT AND
DAV(D COLLINS:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here? Well we have no representatives does anyone
wish to testify for Haven Cove No. 5? No testimony, I will close the public hearing.
Corrie: Mr. President, I move we table this until August 2 meeting, I have some questions
of the developer I need answered so I move that we table it.
Morrow: Question, the August 2nd meeting would not give the necessary notice for public
notification.
Crookston: The hearing is tonight we don't have to renotice it.
Yerrington: I'll second the motion.
Berg: Do we need some findings of fact?
Crookston: They have already been prepared.
Berg: Do we ~ need to approve them before we table it.
Tolsma: !s there a motion to withdraw.
Corrie: Motion withdrawn
Yerrington: Second withdrawn
Morrow: Mr. President, I would like the Counselor to walk me through what is going on
with respect to the pubfic hearing, the findir~gs of fact and the request for annexation and
zoning. I have several questions to ask the developer, they are not here to present the
issue so take me through the procedure here because I want to ask the question before
we do anything irreversible.
Crookston: Do you warrt the questions to be answered of record to be determinative of the
decision?
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 13
Morrow: Yes
Crookston: So you can use that as part of the decision?
•
Morrow: i think it applies because if the development makes some sort of presentation
that they are gaing to do something and we question that and it is not part of this particular
record here than it is not on the record at all.
Crookston: No
Morrow: And then we have no enforcement.
Crookston: Than you should continue the public hearing.
Morrow: I think that would be my preference.
Corrie: t have some questions on the findings of fact and conclusions of law that I think
need to be perhaps revisited. The motion we should make it to have a the public hearing
continued.
Morrow: And we can do that to August 2nd?
Crookston: Yea
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to continue the public hearing on August 2nd, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRiED: All Yea
ITEM #15: PUBLlC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FIRE LIGHT
ESTATES BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING:
Tolsma: Is there a representative?
Gene Smith, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Smith: Mr. President, members of the Council, a month ago we presented to you the
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 14
~
annexation and zoning for Fire Light Estates, it is a proposed subdivision located on the
west side of Ten Mile south of Ustick. We had previously as we went through the zoning
process P& Z recommended approval of the annexation and zoning, however, it tabled
this preliminary plat in order to address some of staff s comments. Therefore we got the
annexation and zoning out of sink with the Preliminary plat. That preliminary plat was
revised and resubmitted to staff in essentially the same configuration we eliminated 3 lots
1 believe, we added in a common landscape strip adjacent to Ten Mile Road and corrected
some of staff s concems regarding minimum frontage and lot sizes. I believe all of staffs
comments have been addressed at this point in time and request your consideration of
approval for this preliminary plat.
Tolsma: Any questions?
Corrie: Mr. President, I have a question in reference to #6 on Gary's memorandum. Gary,
that is sewer services, has that been cieared up since Englewood Creek that hasn't been
brought to us, they are going to have to go around a different sewer intercepting parallel?
Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Eng. Smith: Mlr. President, Councilman Corrie, the sewer access to this project will need
to come from Englewood Creek Estates as it is constructed. They would have access to
sewer because sewer interceptor exists along Nine Mile Drain on their side of the ditch.
So they would have access to the sewer should plans for Englewood Creek fatt through.
But as I understand it Englewood is proceeding. It is necessary for the applicant to know
that if the design their sewer and build their sewer to connect to Englewood then of course
that is what we will have to have.
Smith: We are aware of it.
Morrow: Mr. Smith, your answer is that you are aware of those things?
Smith: Yes we are.
Tolsma: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to testify on that? Seeing
none 1 will close the public hearing. Council members.
Morrow: Mr. President, I would move we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared for P& Z.
Corrie: Second
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 15
Crookston: There are no findings, this is just the plat.
u
Morrow: Even though that is part of our package we don't need to deal with them.
Crookston: Right
Morrow: I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Fire Light Estates.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the preliminary Plat for Fire Light
Estates, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TURTLE
CREEK SUBDIVISION BY STEELE AND SON AND JUB ENGINEERS:
Tolsma: Is there a representative?
Gary Lee, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: This preliminary plat application before you this evening is on the heals of agenda
item #7 above with the annexation ordinance adopted for that particular property known
as the Caim's property was annexed and zoned R-4 into the City. The preliminary plat on
the property will consist of about 237 single family residentiai lots. tt will be a 8,000
square foot minimum most of which will be larger, probably upwards of 10,000 square
feet. The project is located off of Linder Road north of Glennfield Manor and just east of
the Sunnybrook Farms and Fieldstone Meadows subdivisions. Currently there is an
appfication in the city for a project known as Tumble Creek to the north of us. So we will
be surrounded by residential developments. Access to the site will be provided off of
numerous points of connection, the main connection will be Linder Road. There will be
a collector street that wil! access all of the interior lots. tt will traverse in a westerly
dire~tion for about 2/3 the distance across the plat. It will also connect to existing streets
to the south Monaco and Cubic, it will connect to the proposed street to the north which
again is Monaco. And in addition there will be a 4th connection to the west boundary and
to the Sunnybrook Farms No. 5. Sewer and water services are available on Linder Road
and Monaco which witl be connected and extended throughout the project. there are a
number of irrigation ditches that traverse the property at this point which will be tiled in
accordance with City Ordinance. There wiil be a pressurized irrigation system installed
for this development probably operated and maintained by Nampa Meridian Irrigatian
~ .
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 16
Distriet. We will be working in conjunction with Settlers Irrigation District as well. Part of
this project is served by Settlers Irrigation District and part by Nampa Meridian. The
preliminary plat was approved by the Ada County Highway District on May 4th as
presented and revised by this (inaudible). Part of the reason this is behind in the schedule
is that the preiiminary plat was tabled and redesigned in accordance with some City staff.
We have addressed those comments and the plat in your packet is the latest revision. If
you have any questions I would be glad to answer them.
Tolsma: Any questions for Mr. Lee?
Morrow: I have a couple for Gary Smith.
Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Morrow: Gary my ques#ion is, in our packet your letter as of April 9th lists some 13 items.
On there item 3, a temporary turn around needs to be provided at the east end of West
Lonesome Dove Street, has that question been answered by Mr. Lee's resubmittat of the
plat?
Smith: Yes it has, it is required.
Morrow: And the lots needed to have 80 feet, that has been taken care on the frontage?
Smith: Yes
Morrow: They are aware of the fi((ing of the drain ditch crossing the project witl need to
be a engineer fill?
Smith: Yes
Morrow: And they supply us with documentation of those compaction tests is that correct?
Smith: Yes, correct.
Morrow: So that becomes part of our package? Have they satisfied all 13 of your
comments?
Smith: Yes, { understand that they wil{ be providing pressurized irrigation.
Morrow: I have no more questions of either Gary.
Tofsma: Gary, have you seen Shari Stiles's comments on tne pedestrian access?
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 17
Lee: Yes, we put those in.
Tolsma: That has all been handled? That is all I have. Anybody else from the pub{ic wish
to testify?
Diane Brunello, 2257 North Astaire, was sworn by the City Attorney.
(End of Tape)
Brunello: I don't enjoy being here but I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen to let you
know what I see happening. I am here because I feel the letter you received on March
24, 1994 from the Meridian School District stating that they cannot support growth in our
district which appties to this Turtle Creek Subdivision specifically, does not give you a real
picture of how fhe growth is affecting education in our area. I am not opposed to growth
but it must be managed. ! fee! the City has a responsibility to all of its citizens including
the children to work with other agencies such as the school district in order to maintain
quality schools. This subdivision of 237 homes will add 102 elementary students to our
already overerowded Linder Elementary school. In considering this subdivision t ask you
to remember that other 12 subdivisions already approved or close to completion of the
approval process. These 12 subdivisions are in the school boundaries for Linder
Elementary. They alone total 1200 new homes but it is estimated 600 new students.
These 12 subdivisions are located within blocks 2 and 3 on the map of Meridian. I have
a list of the subdivisions if you would like to hear them or see them, but that will just take
up time. Linder elementary was at ciosing of 4 994 at 134°~ of capacity. Expected
enrollment in fall will be 669 students that is 153% of capacity. There will be a minimum
of 4 new classrooms this year to accommodate these classes they will be putting the 5th
grade ciass on the stage in the gymnasium/cafeteria. While this class is being conducted
there are going to 620 other students filing by within 10 feet getting their lunches being
processed through the cafeteria, it is not a quiet time at the schools if any of you have ever
been there. When they are not having lunch conducted in the cafeteria the gymnasium
is used for its original purposes, it is a gym. There are PE classes, basketball, roller
hockey, it is extremely noisy. i have spoken with a student that was in a 4th grade class
on the gym a few years ago, lunch was not a real major problem for him but the PE classes
were extremely disnaptive and very hard to get an education and try to keep your mind on
the subject at hand. Music was held on the stage now they will relocate to what was the
resource room. This room is tao smafl to accommodate the needs of the music class,
pianos, risers, the recorders that the 4th and 5th grades get lessons on and the schooi
choir. The resource room has now been relocated because the music has taken it over,
it is now being shifted to a smalier location, but because of the increase of students at
Linder Elementary there will 2 people working out of a sma(ler office. There are currently
2 portable at Linder right now they are used by 1 full time class the other is used by offices
~ •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 18
and health classes rotated throughout the rest of the school. At a cost of $40,000 per
portable there are no plans to add any portables this year. This year in the portables there
wilt be a moming kindergarten class and 3 other full time classes, 2 classes per portable.
This puts the school in direct violation of requirements by the State Department of
Education for acreditdation. !t will be placed on an advised status list for 1 to 2 years, the
next step unless corrected is the warn status for 1 year. A State Advisory committee would
then look at it and decide whether to pull the acreditadation for the school. It is hard to
believe that the School District and the city would allow even the first step of this process
to take place. these portables have no washing facilities, no restrooms and inadequate
heating and cooling and ventilation system. Water will be available from an igloo
container. Art and science projects that require water we will now be asking our students
as we did 100 years ago to carry buckets back and forth from other facilities to get water
to the classroom. They are also preparing for yet another classroom, this is not a definite
at this point but it is anticipated. This one will be placed where the faculty now is, the
location of the new faculty room, if there is to be one has not yet been determined. They
have no idea where to put it, there is no room. Even if they are able to get the class space
for this year, they still must work with other areas of the school that are unable to grow,
the playground, the computer lab, the library, o~ce, cafeteria and gym, halls and parking.
I spoke with an administrator at the school today and he said it is going to be extremely
difficult to avoid not breaking fire codes. Having to process the kids through the
gymnasium they most likely at some point go over what is permitted in the fire code. The
school district flat out denies that wili ever happen, they are not at the school though. 1
have a tendency fo believe fhe administrator that is at the school that makes sure things
continue to run. The Comprehensive P(an calls for 690 permits in 4994 and 1995
according to the table 3 on page 9, yet as of now there are 1400 sites either started or
ready to go in our area alone. It will take the schools at least 4 years to pass a bond
issue, complete construction of a new school and get it up and working. That is if we are
able to pass a bond issue in the next two years. It is great what the city is doing right
working on getting school sites, that is extremely important, that has to be done now. But
we have to remember these are strictly sites, they are not functioning schools that will help
with the immediate crisis that this school is facing now and will in the next 3 to 4 years.
We have to look at 4 years before th~re is any let up for this school. The district can't
redraw the boundaries for Linder because all the schools around are experiencing the
same growth probtem. Chief Joseph was capped out, we can't count on any help from that
school. They have looked at year round, even going to year round with the current
enrollment for Fall of 1994 that wi(I put it back at just above 100% capacity. I ask you to
delay the approva( of this subdivision, not deny just detay it until this subdivision as well
as others in this area that come before you, until these concerns can be addressed and
a plan implemented as to how and where the additional school children will receive and
education that they deserve, thank you very much. Any questions?
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 19
Tolsma: Anybody else wish to testify?
~
Jan DeWeerd, 2090 West Chateau, was sworn by the City Attorney.
DeWeerd: I would like to thank you Councilmen for giving me the opportunity to place
some comments on this deveiopment. I would like to state clearly that I am proposed to
approving the development of this particu(ar area designated as Turtle Creek into a
subdivision. I have 2 good reasons they both have a common denominator which is
basically save our standard of living please. The first reason is probably addressed by the
previous speaker it is yet another subdivision. We acknowledge the rights of property
owners to do with their property what they do and we have an (inaudible) society. We
followed a trend over the last 5 years here in Meridian and the property rights have been
acknowledged (inaudible) but currently we definitely are getting deep into the rights of
citizens that currently live in the city boundary, rights to an adequate education, we have
in our local school in Linder Elementary that at one time provided adequate education.
Currently it is threatened of losing its crediadtion. Last year we had a disease outbreak
hepatitis B(inaudible) don't even have hand washing facilities. (Inaudible) Yet another
subdivision, that because it is so, it is planned somewhat awkward due to the fact that this
5 acre farm over there (inaudible) sitting in the corner of the subdivision and because of
that they had to play around with the streets to empty out the traffic (inaudible). Because
of this awkward planning at least (inaudible) of traffic will flow through again West
Chateau that is already receiving the development of the 1200 or so houses (inaudible).
!t is designed and structured as a residential street and not as a through type of highway.
If currently we can witness it several people are using it (inaudible) and basically any
addition of a subdivision is increasing the risk and threatening the tife of my children. And
unfortunately that is where it is at, again it is structured as a residential street. The
driveways are somewhat sloping and (inaudible) with their bicycles and once in awhile
they slip and fall into the street. (Inaudible) will increase that risk and one of these days
we will have a serious accident happening because of (Inaudible) that will flow out on
West Ghateau. The third point is basically yet another subdivision wilf affect the quality
of the services offered by the City. We have spent a lot of time putting in an irrigation
system after a year of dragging around hoses. And I was somewhat disappointed with its
performance and 1 started measuring the water pressure and several times during 2 parts
of the day, early morning around 5:00 and towards 8:30 or 9:00 pressure has been down
below 50psi. My system is assigned for 60psi which is something that the City told me is
(inaudible). So that is a classical example of declining quality af services. (tnaudible) The
second (inaudible) I see here a unique opportunity for the City of Meridian to actually
create open space for people (inaudible) they know that we are (inaudible). There will be
a small little city park being developed, I think it is the second park for Meridian. For a city
of (inaudible). That is great but if you work up that particular plan and iook up for the
subdivisions that are proposed this area could be uniquely attached to this small park and
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 20
•
really create facilities such as biking, (inaudible). Faci(ities that we still have to go to Boise
for. Meridian needs to get (inaudible) and try to (inaudible). There is a unique opportunity
to develop an area like that there. It can be attached to a small park (inaudibie) and on
low cost basis you can design open space that will be utilized by (inaudible). There is a
bike path already in the planning, a bike path that will lead into the smaller park coutd
easily lead into (inaudible). I encourage you to give this serious because of this unique
situation of this particular area. So, again (inaudible) standard of living. We are
threatened currently of losing it, kids are threatened in their potential future. We have
been to the Planning and Zoning Committee, we have been at the school board, we have
talked to the Highway Department and they alt kind of (inaudible) they are all bound to the
laws they have to work with and they (inaudible). I can really encourage you to actually
pick up the batl and score (inaudible) help the school board as much as you can.
(Inaudible) city services and try to get a(inaudible). This is my last resort (inaudible) but
) knaw we have elected you as our representatives to at lease keep the standard of living.
And that is what I am encouraging you know to keep that in consideration at least the
people in Meridian (inaudible). Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else from the public which to testify tonight?
Tammy DeWeerd, 2090 West Chateau, was sworn by the City Attorney.
DeWeerd: ! am addressing not only for myself since my other half has already addressed
you, I am also addressing you on behalf of the Glennfield Manor Homeowners Association.
And ! have prepared a stated so if there is some redundancy please forgive me. We are
here today assuming oUr responsibility as residents of Meridian in addressing the
development of Turtle Creek and how it impacts us as residents, but also how our
neighbors, our subdivision, our school system and our community. First I think it is
important to not just look at the development of Turtle Creek. Turtle Creek is just another
ripple on the water, but add all the other ripples the new and approved developments,
phases and subdivisions together and they potentially can cause a tidal wave a disaster
wouid happen in our area. In the Comprehensive Plan which I refer to because it reflects
values and cancerns of growth of the residents very well. It lists community values that
are of specific concern here. Managed growth to achieve high quality development,
enhanced quality of life, newr growth that frnances public service expansion, prevent school
overcrowding and so forth. it also states goals of open space to preserve and improve the
character and quality of the environment. To insure availability of recreational facilities to
all residents. To provide community services. We are going faster than anticipated even
in the updated plan. We have a plan that has goals and dreams but no city ordinances
with consequences to back it up. The cart is before the horse here, development needs
to stop so that the ordinances can be put in place so the quality of Iife can be assured to
its residents. You are the doctors of the City's future health, we have a plan assuring
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 21
•
certain vatues, what are you going to do with this? Where are the ordinances, the
enforcement? This development as well as the other are already in place are dramatically
effecting the schools overcrowding and our childrens quality of life and quality of
education. It will certainly affect our quality of life with the increased traffic flow coming
from the subdivision on Cubic and Monaco to West Chateau and also into our whole
subdivision. Speeding is already a problem due to the new Sunnybrook additions who
have only one exit to Cherry Lane and one exit to Linder through West Chateau. It is afso
a problem betore and after school and this will continue to impact West Chateau. It stated
in the Comprehensive Plan that we are supposed to decrease the traffic on these roads
leading to existing schools, all we see on West Chateau is an increase in traffic. As well
Sandalwood which also parallels West Chateau which will probably somewhat also have
some of the burden of this new subdivision. They have been zoned for 21 plus cars per
hour and they have been monitored at 200 plus cars per hour. So indeed traffic in our
subdivision is already a huge concem and a huge problem. This also impacts the services
that provide community services. It has already been discussed about parks, we have 2
parks in the City of Meridian right now that are supposed to service 20,000 residents and
that is Story Park and the park on 8th street. I do realize that the park is due to be started
there off of Linder, but we need to start making our community more of a community of
itself. I think that was sta#ed also in the Comprehensive Plan. We do not want to be a
bedroom community of Boise, but what do we have to offer the families and residents of
Meridian without parks and open space. Why are we not requiring it be a city ordinance
that these new subdivisions have to have parks in their own subdivisions. Why does it
now seem that they can donate 4 lots to have parks in their subdivisions. It also impacts
the water pressure, I think that has already been gone through, but certainly our
subdivision goes through its fluxuation of water pressure problems. Po~ice services are
also lacking, the Comprehensive Plan recommends 1.6 to 1.8 officers per 1,000 residents.
We currently have 19 officers that includes the Chisf, lieutenants, detectives, school
detention officers and patrol officers. Well, for 20,400 residents that is .95 officers per
1,000 residents. ! understand that 3 officers will be added but they hardly be enough to
support the expected residents that these new developments will be bringing in. What
growth finance services needed to sustain it and maintain and enhance the current
residents quality of life. Freeze growth, make city ordinances that have consequences for
enforcement then allow developrnent to have a level that wil! sustain itself. I do also have
one question for the developer, we live on West Chateau, the back of our property line will
border the new subdivision. We want to know where do you intend to place the fence line
along that irrigation ditch and how they intend to maintain the tiled ditches. And how the
irrigation district wil! access that to maintenance any plugs in the lines. We certainly are
looking at if they have an easement or a buffer area and we really want it known that we
do not intend them to access to maintenance that user lateral through our backyard.
Thank you.
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 22
Tolsma: Is there anyone else that wishes to offer testimony?
Lillian Tulley, 2045 North Nyborg, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tulley: I live in glenfield Manor subdivision which is south of the proposed Turt(e Creek.
I am on the Board of Directors for the Glennfield Manor Homeowners Association and I
speak for them tonighf. i represent the Glennfields Manor's Homeowners association
represents 269 homeowners in Glennfield Manor. Currently we are working on speed
calming bumps on Sandalwood which is one of 2 main arteries into Glennfield Manor,
Chateau is the other. We feel this probtem will occur also on Chateau if Turtle Creek is
approved because it will feed into Monaco and Cubic which leads to Chateau also. The
urgency of speed bumps for childrens safety is at our highest priority. As was previously
stated Ada County Highway District has come out and counted the cars on Sandalwood
at 200 per hour so we are in cue of speed bumps. Unfortunately project of this magnitude
take some time at the tune of a year or 2 to get in place with the homeowners probably
bearing the biggest share of the cost and that is what we are looking at now. There is a
possibility of Ada County helping us out but that is just a possibility we can't count on it.
So, the homeowners association wi!! be paying for these speed bumps which is quite
expensive, we are looking at just a small section between Linder and Monaco and on
Sandalwood. And the speeding continues beyond that but at this point that is all that was
tested for cars and that is probabty al~ we can afford at this point. If you approve Turtle
Creek we will be faced with the same dilemma on Chateau. Chateau is used by the buses
thafi go to Linder and we are vety concerned with this. We can hardly afford to do the
speed bumps that we are doing now and to have to face doing it again on Chateau and
it is the same 269 homeowners. We are asking for consideration in this, we would prefer
this Turtle Creek not be approved for the many other reasons including standard of living,
the schools and now this is one of our main concerns. We are a new homeowners
association and we are cleaning up messes that were left for us by developers. I am sure
Mr. Berg, we have been working with his office on the easement that was left weeds along
Linder. The developer left it, it is just an 8 foot strip of weeds that we have had to mow
and we had to de-trash and now we are trying a way to go in and put some rock and
barrier down there just to keep the weeds down for safety. We called Ada County
Highway it is not their problem to mow the weeds. So we are dea(ing with this that was
left by the developer. We are dealing with speed bumps on Sandatwood and now if you
approve Turtie Creek we are going to be dealing with speed bumps on Chateau and we
just have so many things in cue we are just asking you to consider this before you approve
this subdivision. Also today I spoke with Cheryl Belknap which is the Director of
Elementary Schools for the Meridian School District. I asked her about the condition of
Linder as is. Linder can handle 30 to 40 more children and it will be at its maximum
capacity. Even that is far from my ideal because that is using the stages and the portables
as was previously stated. We have 1200 lots in Linder`s school boundary already
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 99, 1994
Page 23
approved, I am sure there is going to be far more than 30 to 40 chiidren, where are these
kids going to go to school. There is no proposal at this point to cap Linder, as Cheryl said
totd me today unlike Chief Joseph there is no proposal to cap it. We heard rumors but that
isn't so. And I just asked the developer where are these kids going to go to school. So
please I came here, I am sorry I wasn't very prepared I was jotting notes as t was sitting
here listening and I just hope you will take into consideration the 269 homeowners in
G{ennfield Manor that are trying to deal with the speed calming and the other issues that
have been left for us to deal with. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify? Gary do you have anything else before I close fhis?
Lee: Well, 1 certainly appreciate all the people that came out to testify at this public
hearing, and we probably can cum up their comments and we have heard these before.
Hopefully we are working to develop a better community and that is growth. How do we
handle it and when do we handle it. Schools is a big issue, ! myself have 3 kids in
Meridian school district 2 that go to Linder. And I am concerned about it as well.
However, I am a member of the Building Contractor's Association, we are actively working
with State Legislature on transfer fees for schools, for impact fees. We constantly support
bond issues, 1 voted for 2 of them myself in the past 5 years as I have lived here in
Meridian. I certainly support year round schoolS and I wish Meridian would go to that type
of curriculum. Some of the points that were brought up about traffic, it is pretty interesting.
We hope that through the years we develop designs that are more efficient both in moving
traffic and people. One of the points that was that was brought up about Chateau Drive
is well taken 1 have been down that road many times, it is a residential street however it
is designated as a collector street. And unfortunately there are residential houses fronting
Chateau. Nowadays we try to design our collectors in such a way that those houses do
not front on Chateau. There are restrictions on access to Chateau they aren't allowed any
driveways. So, the plat is designed in such a way that the collector street coming in is just
fine, there are local streets coming off that collector that feed and go to the individual
homes. It is a safety design and hopefully it will enhance the traffic movement and make
it easier for people to commute from their homes down the collector and down the main
arterial which is Linder Road. There was a traffic study conducted for this deve(opment
as required by Ada County Highway district. And their policy state that these collectors
will be installed in addition to interconnecting neighborhood streets. Which include Cubic
and Monaco and Lonesome Dove to the west boundary line which we have
accommodated. Poor water pressure was brought up, as you well know there are
standard requirements of the State Health Department for water pressure and quality. And
we must meet those standards prior to any plats being approved, by the way the rninimum
is 35psi and 50 is pretty good water pressure, 20psi is the minimum for fire protection. A
comment about open space, we do have walkways and iandscaped areas along the main
coClector road to the fune of 250~ lineal feet as walkways, bikeways to move pedestrian
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 24
traffic from the development over towards Linder Road. The question about the
easements, there is an irrigation ditch, well there are a number of them, the main one is
Settiers canal and we will relocate that canal to a pipe and there will b~ an easement
granted to the Settlers Irrigation for access maintenance in operation of that ditch line.
The one about the weeds on Linder was pretty interesting to me, we do have plans for
improving Linder Road adjacent to the development and in addition along the out parcels
which are known as the Slagle and Cairr~s property. That will consist of a landscape strip
and a sidewalk for access for pedestrians. And by the way that landscaped berm as well
as the one in the development will be maintained by the homeowners association and
there wili be assessments made to keep that looking nice and watered and the weeds
taken care. If you have an questions i would be glad to entertain them.
Tolsma: Anybody else wish to testify.
DeWeerd: We went down to the City Planner's affice to find out what the builder intended
to do with the user lateral behind our house. There is no mention of it at all, I have
contacted the irrigation district, they said something needs to be done about and I need
to ask the developer and ! am sorry my question still hasn't been answered about that
lateral behind our house, I want to know what is going to be done with that. It is not
mentioned anywhere on the plats, thanks.
Lee: f guess i don't know where she tives to begin with. There is an irrigation lateral that
goes from about Monaco and traverses westerly. A small take out from Settlers, that ditch
will be piped as well. And it was shown on the engineering conceptuai plan tha# was
submitted with the preliminary plat. All the irrigation ditches that are liable wili be piped.
(Discussion inaudible)
l.ee: The fence line will be along the boundary that separates the 2 subdivisions, there
will be an easement for access and maintenance of the pipe lines by the user.
DeWeerd: So those residents (inaudible)
Lee: Well, I am not sure about that but there will be easements on the plat that will be part
of what they purchased.
Corrie: It won't be on your property it will be on the other side, your fence line is on the
Glennfield side, that property of tiling is on the north side of your property. So, they are
the ones that get torn up if it has to be done.
DeWeerd: I just wanted to make sure that there is an easement so that ditch is not, right
~
U
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 25
.
now it is currently one foot from the property line. ! want to know what kind of easement
are you going to move that ditch so that it is further in your subdivision or will there still be
potential that they will be digging up in my back yard to maintenance that tiled ditch once
you do tile it? Is that clear?
Lee: There wiN be an easement 10 feet wide along the south boundary of Turtle Creek
Subdivision for irrigation facilities. The pipe line will more than likely be situated
somewhere between 3 and 5 feet from the property line depending on final design on
Turtle Creek property.
Tolsma: You easement will go up to the back of their fence line.
Lee: Right, the easement line will be along the common boundary line and extend 10 feet
into the subdivision.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify? Seeing none I will close the public hearing.
Corrie: Mr. President, 1 would like to make a few comments here. We are learning too,
Council, about mistakes that have been made in subdivisions so consequently we are
making it mandatory all new subdivisions have mandatory homeowners associations. That
helps eliminate some of the probtems you are finding on Linder, we have about a 3 or 4
foot strip there that is (inaudible) so you have to have a homeowners society to put the
money onto that and pick it up. Atso, in Gienr~fieid Manor you have 269 residents that are
concemed about what is happening, multiply that by 1,000 times and that is what we are
up against. We are ttying to do what we can, we cannot, the NIMBY program but there
is a lot of Not In My Backyard syndrome going around developments in city's that are
growing as rapidly as Meridian consequently we have to do the best job that we can to see
that all of those t's are crossed and i's are dotted so that you don't have a lot of the
problems that you are bringing up here. We are trying to get the impact fees started,
hopefulty within about 60 days we will have that on line and these new subdivisions will
be paying some of their way for the police, fire and your parks. We would love to give you
whatever you are willing to pay for, we can give you a lot of park land but it costs a lot of
money. If you would want to put bonds, say we will put most thousands af dollars for parks
I would be most happy to do that. But that doesn't always seem to be the case sometimes.
Schoal sites, we are working wifh deve(opers, they are giving us school sites, we have 2
coming up tonight that are giving almost as much as 10 acres, they are actually going to
donate it to the schools. We are working as best we can and we are not sitting up here
trying to pass the buck or anything, we do listen to you. We cannot stop growth, we can
do the best we can to manage it and that is what we try to do here and sometimes it is
satisfactory, sometimes it is not. Developers don't cause the problem, peopie coming in
need a p(ace to live. You mentioned you needed time for the speed bumps, these 237 lots
• •
Meridian City Counci!
July 19, 1994
Page 26
will not suddenly mushroom fomorrow, it will take probably 3 to 4 years before that is even
completed. So you have time for that, speed bumps, they are nice but boy you get a fire
truck coming down the street and hitting one of those things you may not have a fire truck
very long, that is beside the point. But I do want to give you those points that you have
given to us that we are looking at them and we will do the best we can, but a lot of your
issues are with the school board and of course we can't do anything with that, it is an
entirely different entity. That is my soap box I am sorry.
Morrow: Mr. President, I think I want to address a little bit here with respect to growth and
the growth issues and maybe put it in a different light than most of us think. Most of us
think that it is real easy to blame the "foreigners" that are coming here from out of state.
But u~ing my own family as an example primarily which has been here forever so to speak.
After World War II most of the kids and service folk had to leave this area simply to make
a(iving. That phenomena continued on for a number of years in through the 60's when
I went to school. Most of my school mates had to ieave the area to make a living. What
has happened to us within the last 7 or 8 years for the first time in Southern Idaho we are
producing enough jobs that our children get to stay home. What I see as a home builder
in terms of the buyers or the predominant number of buyers for the homes that I work on
and that my contemporaries work on are buyers that are coming here because #hey are
coming badc home. They are our parents and grandparents in may cases those that are
in their mid-40's such as myself are schoolmates and kids that I grew up with in old south
Boise or went to school with at various schools here in the valley with. tf we are going to
solve the problem of growth we only have 4 solutions, we tell our parents and
grandparents that t~ey can't come home, we can teil our peers that were raised here that
they can't come back here, we can tell our children as they graduate from high school that
a certain number of them have to leave the area or we can try to accommodate growth as
best we can. it seems to me that the first 3 are not acceptable that as a City Council not
only in Meridian but all through Southem Idaho and some parts of Northern Idaho that we
have to struggle with those issues and we have to find a way to provide the services that
we can as best we can that are affordable so that we don't tax our senior citizens out of
their homes such as happens in some areas of California and other places. And yet that
we have the services that are at best serve us and meet our minimum needs where we can
meet those. (End of Tape) The job that we have here is to try to make sure that we get
a happy medium. In many cases over the last few months there have been severa!
changes with how we do business, there are going to be several more changes, aN of
those are coming about because of the phenomenaf growth. This Council and the past
Council got cause by surprise. It is interesting to note that part of my own market research
indicated that there was over 4,000 students that graduated from the tocal high schools
in Ada County this Spring. We don't build that many single family homes within the County
within a one period of time. So, I think that I understand the testimony, I agree with most
of the testimony, i think from my position it is a situation where we have to recognize what
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 27
•
the real problem is and go about solving the problem as best we can. Councilman Corrie
is correct with respect to the speed bumps. If this project goes forward it witl be 2 or 3
years before these residences come on line. Hopefully by that time there will be more
traffic planning that has been done and more roads that have been constructed to mitigate
some of these things that we have discussed this evening. The school system is a
different issue. Quite candidly on my short time on the City Council here I have never ever
seen a member here from the School District or the School Board attend any of the
meetings to have a cfue what is going on and the things that we are struggling with. I don't
know how we solve that problem we need to solve it somehow so it is cooperative effort.
But that is an area that we wiil be looking into also. So, I would ask, the point of the soap
box so to speak, is to look at the overall picture and somewhat personalize it also,
Because some of the things you are asking you wouldn'f ask your own reiatives or friends,
but yet you are asking that of your neighbors. That concludes my remarks.
Tolsma: Councilmen what is your decision?
Corrie: Mr. President, since I started this off I will be the one that is going to do it. I move
we approve the preliminary plat for Turtle Creek Subdivision.
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: tt has been moved and seconded to approve the preliminary plat of the Turtle
Creek Subdivision, a(( those in favor? Opposed?
MQTION CARRIED: All Yea
Yerrington: Mr. President, I move we have a five minute break.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved and seconded to take a five minute break.
(FIVE MINUTE BREAK)
To(sma: Let's call the meeting back to order.
ITEM #17: PUBLfC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CANNA LILY
ESTATES BY FLOYD AND VICTORfA MADSEN:
Tolsma: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the deveioper's
representative to speak first.
LJ
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 28
~
Floyd Madsen, 5005 Hillside Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Madsen: First of all that ! would like to say that I am a native Idahoan and I was one of
those that had to leave the state to seek decent employment when I was younger, so I
know where he is coming from. i think we forget where our livelihood is coming from and
I think in the Boise area it is coming from the growth. What we propose to do is an infill
ar~a, it is a 14 lot subdivision. It would come off of State street and go into Pine, the
frontage would be off of Pine Street which we have we propose to make a common area
with an island in the center and put some greeneries out there to make it decent looking
entry way. Most of the lots in the subdivision are I think there are 2 of them that are 9,OOQ
square feet the others are around 10,000 square feet so they are (inaudible). We propose
to build 1400 square foot minimum square foot houses. Irrigation presently crosses the
property, we propose to run that along the east side and north side boundaries as per
Meridian's irrigation requirement. We will put pressurized irrigation to all of the lots. That
is basica(ly what we propose, do you have any questions to ask?
Tolsma: Any questions of the Council?
Madsen: Thank you.
Morrow: I have questions for Gary and Shari.
Gary Smith, 33 East ldaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Morrow: Gary, you have on your letter as of May 6 you have 8 issues, have those issues
been dealt with?
Smith: Well, the subdivision has changed a little bit since that review was made, the
access has been revised to Pine Street rather than connecting back totally through the
adjacent subdivision.
Morrow: So, you access it from 2 places then?
Smith: Yes, ! think fihat was done primarily to satisfy the wishes of the adjacent property
owners as they testified at the previous hearings.
Morrow: So, item 4, a variance is no longer needed is fhat correct?
Smith: That is correct.
Morrow: Were all the rest of the issues covered and agreed to?
.
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 29
Smith: Yes
•
Morrow: How does this plat differ, are there any other substantial differences from the one
that you are working from there as opposed to what we have?
Smith: I think the one that you have is the one that I have, doesn't it show the street going
out to Pine, the big plat?
Morrow: Right, I have no other questions.
Tolsma: Do you have a question of Shari?
Morrow: Yes, just her comments that her comments have been addressed to her
satisfaction.
Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, I believe most of my comments have been addressed. Ada
County Highway District has indicated that if the Council makes it a condition of this plat
for that to go through they will allow that to go through to Pine Street. However, ! am still
concerned about 3 accesses directty onto Pine Street, 1 don't know what can be done or
if anything can be done. A private drive off of that street to access the other 2 lots it just
seems to be a really cumbersome layout there. That is basically my only concern right
now.
Morrow: You said there are 3 fots that go onto Pine Street?
Stiles: There will be the access onto Pine Street, and then the lot immediately to the west
will access Pine Street and then the next lot to the west will also access Pine S#reet.
Morrow: Lot 6 is an existing house, is that correct?
Stiles: Right
Morrow: So there will be a net of 2 accesses to Pine Street.
Stiles: Right, but those 2 lots will not be a part of the subdivision still, they will be
separated from the remainder of that subdivision.
Morrow: And ACHD's position was that they didn't want this subdivision to access onto
Pine Street, is that correct.
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 30
•
Stiles: They didn't want to, but if the Council makes it a condition they wiil go by whatever
the Council wants. They sent us a letter saying that the residents in Clarinda Fair want
that a through a way from Pine Street to Clarinda will probably have more of an effect than
it would have had it been just a cu(desac.
Morrow: It wili have more of an effect on the people in Clarinda Fair.
Stiles: That is what ACHD has stated.
Tolsma: Anymore questions for Shari? Anyone else from the public iike to offer
testimony?
Jolene Cavener, 1040 West State, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Cavener: Council, I live in the Clarinda Fair Subdivision which is adjacent to this proposed
subdivision and we tought long and hard to get the Pine Street access. ACHD said that
with the access being only off of State street it would add 150 trips a day down State
Street. We felt the best situation for the current homeowners woufd be to route them out
directiy onto Pine instead of running all of those cars through an existing Subdivision
where small children do play. We were really pleased to see that Planning and Zoning
agreed with our findings and that they did stipulate that Mr. Madsen could go ahead with
the development based on the fact that an access through Pine Street would be granted.
So we were pleased to see that and wou(d hate to see that changed this evening. I do
have a couple of other things I wanted to direct to Mr. Madsen, I have asked several times
for copies of his covenants and they have not been made available at this point. The copy
of the plat that you currently now show reflects that his minimum square footage is to be
1300 square feet, he has been asked 3 times to change that 1400 square feet. It reflects
that it still has not been done. f know that there are some minimum requirements in
Meridian for a 1400 square foot housing and I want to make sure that is addressed again
so that he knows that it has to be 1400 square feet. One other comment that was made
during the Planning and Zoning meetings by Mr. Forrey was that currently the City of
Meridian is at 85°/a of their sewer limits. Listening to the growth here tonight I don't know
are there pians to expand the sewer. I am kind of worried listening to alt of these
approvals and homes that we have going. We were at 85% in May, I don't know we are
at now. That is all I have.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify?
Linda Cope, (Inaudible), was sworn by the City Attorney.
Cope: I real(y don't have testimony so much as I have a question. I have a serious
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 31
u
question about whether the property line as the deveioper sees it is the same as I see it.
(Inaudible) and I would like to know if there is any provision that requires the developer
to prove to the (Inaudible). (Inaudible) have a fence line that is estabiished (Inaudible).
Grookston: If you feel as though there is a boundary line problem you need to talk to Mr.
Madsen or possibfy his Title Insurance Company to see where that is and if they are
recognizing the line and you probably ought to enter into a boundary line agreement if they
are not then you are going to have to pursue whatever remedies are available to you.
Cope: So, there is no kind of protection against somebody who is too poor to hire high
priced lawyers and sa foRh.
Crookston: I am afraid not. We are going to have to have some proof that he owns it or
else we can't plat it.
Cope: What about my contract of sale, can we compare the 2 when you do that kind of
thing?
Crookston: No necessarily.
Cope: Can you?
Crookston: If there is a discrepancy with your lega! description but just because your
fence is somewhere that isn't gving to control us.
Cope: Well, can the decision be made to postpone this, I have talked to lawyer who is
going to (inaudible} and I wouidn't want ta have them drive in one night and find out that
has been bulldozed before we find out it is even their property or not.
Crookston: That would be up to the Council.
Cope: I am officially asking them also. The irrigation ditch on our property which we use
was cut off by a development that went in the past year behind the house, nobody ever
asked if we were using it. Nobody talked to Nampa frrigation District, is there anything that
can be done after the fact to make them open that up so that now water.
Morrow: There is no water that you can get at all?
Cope: We can get water bu# it won't flow through the ditch because they cut it off and
filled in the ditch at the end of our property.
•
Meridian City Counci(
July 19, 1994
Page 32
Morrow: So the water doesn't come to your property?
•
Cope: The water comes to our property it can't leave the property. It is supposed
(inaudible).
Morrow: So, you have become the dead end of the ditch.
Cope: Yes, and according to Nampa Meridian they didn't talk to anybody about that.
Crookston: They don't
Cope: The developer doesn't talk to the irrigation company when they fill in their ditches.
Crookston: Depends on where they are at, whether they are going to turn off the water.
If they are downstream from the head gate they don't.
Cope: And the fact that the irrigation company says they should have.
Crookston: That is up to the water users association to determine that.
Cope: And who makes up the water users association?
Crookston: In your area t have no idea.
Cope: So, where do I go to find the answer to these questions?
Crookston: I think you should start with the Irrigation district and they may be able to help
you find out who, if there is one, a water users association.
Morrow: Generally water users associations are people that have use for that particular
ditch. You would be a member of that water users association. Somewhere along the line
the ditch rider turn the water in out of the lateral into the ditch that services your property.
The minute the water leaves tha# lateral, then it is up to the water users to contro( it take
care of it, set up the rotation schedules and so on and so forth. It doesn't sound to me like
you and your neighbors who utilize the ditch have a water users association.
Cope: My brother lives in the house t am buying it so I don't know too much about the
daily uses of the ditch. One other thing, I hear there is an acx~ess onto Pine, ! haven't seen
any maps or anything where is that?
(Discussion Inaudible)
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 33
Cope: That is all thank you.
Toisma: Is there anyone else that wishes to offer testimony?
•
Alan Cavner, 1048 West State, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Cavner: I would like to urge the City Council to pass this as amended. I think Mr. Madsen
has made some real concessions and I appreciate it. I think it is in Clarinda Fair's best
interest, Mr. Madsen's best interest and the citizens of Meridian best interest to pass it with
the access on Pine. I am not sure why the Highway District opposes it. I went to their
meeting and talked to them. I am not a traffic engineer but I am a citizen that drives and
lives in the neighborhood. I think it is for the best. One thing I would like to address if they
are on(y 60 days away from being able to collect impact fees it seems to me we would
want to wait 60 days to approve some of these subdivisions. As far as having to move
away to obtain decent employment I think that is unfortunate, but 1 think we need to
consider that if our kids are being educated on a stage or in a hallway in the lunchroom
if they don't have adequate education where are they going to go to get a job. I would like
to see them stay here too, I would like to see my kids stay here and I think it is my
responsibility to as much as possible to create an atmosphere and economy, jobs,
neighbofiood, govemment that will encourage them to. I think we can do that and f would
encourage you to act responsibly and make the correct decisions.
Morrow: If I can make a comment with respecf to the impact fees, the impact fees are
going to be assessed when they become a reality at the point of building permit. So that
any subdivision or any model or any project that is built no matter when the subdivision
was approved even if it was 10 or 15 years ago will pay an impact fee. What we have
determined in our committee under Councilman Corrie's chairmanship is that we will
collect those impact fees at building permit point so that everybody pays and not just
subdivisions that were approved after a certain given time.
Cavner: Good, so there will be some retroactive payments due then?
Morrow: No, for example if the ordinance went into effect tomorrow everybody that appiied
for a building permit to build any residence within the City of Meridian would pay an impact
fee irregardless of when their subdivision was approved.
Cavner: I see, so it would be on an as house residential basis.
Morrow: That is correct.
Tolsma: Anyone else?
• •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 34
Brad Luma, 1107 Leadville, Boise, was sworn by fhe City Attomey.
Luma: First of all, forgive me for bringing my little boy we are just recently moving into that
neighborhood in Clarinda Fair we just struck a deal there the other day. So we were kind
in on the tail end ot this thing, my wife is in another meeting in Boise on another deal and
she has the other child. We have 2 small children and the side of our house will be on that
west State Street. tf we had any idea this other development would have been going in
there with traffic we probably would not have bought that lot but we are already locked into
it so we are going to own it. So, I have a comment as far as putting access on that Pine
Street in my opinion is almost mandatory, to increase that traffic on State Street, our patio
is 10 feet from that street. The side of our house where the kids are going to have their
aocess is right on that State street side and if they are going to do something there maybe
you should let us put our fences a little taller on that State Street side. If ! am correct I
think it is a 3 foot maximum on State Street (inaudible). So, if we can get the fences up a
little bit if you are going to have more traffic going down State Street, I just wanted to
implore you to make sure that there is some kind of access onto Pine for that subdivision
or we are going to have a lot of traffic. That is a cute subdivision with some nice homes
in there and ! would also like Mr. Madsen to make sure he puts 1400 minimum square foot
homes in there and have some nice little features like our Clarinda Fair does with the
street lamps and mailboxes and so on and forth. I apologize for him being a little
disruptive.
TolSma: Anyone else wish to testify? Mr. Madsen?
Madsen: First of alf 1 want to apologize for the 1300 square foot on these prints, it was
Hubble Engineering fault they kept making the changes. They will be 1400 minimum
square foot, that is what the plan says. As far as this ditch on the west boundary I did hire
(inaudible) to go ouf there and survey the property line so I know where the boundaries
was on it. The ditch that they are referring to is actua(ty mine personally on my property.
All summer I have been out there and the last 4 months there has never been water in this
ditch, 1 think it was actually an established ditch that was there when it was a large farm.
Most of the ditch is on my property and it has been surveyed. So the boundaries have
been es#ablished. And we will maintain, I wil! be building all the homes myself. We will
have very strict covenants. I am a quality builder, I have been in the area for over 20
years, I do most of my home buiiding in Meridian and I do build quality homes. So, folks
don't have to worry about the homes not being up to standard, I am sure they will be of
equal or superior to what Clarinda Fair is.
Morrow: I have a question with respect to irrigation ditch, that irrigation ditch does service
Ms. Cope's property?
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 35
~
Madsen: That may be I don'# know. Most of the ditch is on my property though. If they,
I have never seen them use it, I asked the gentleman how he got it, he said he sticks a
pump in it once in awhile but I never, I have been out there all summer and f have never
seen anybody use the water or the ditch.
Morrow: I think the point that I am after is if the ditch, even though it is an end use ditch
now, which is fine, but if their water rights need to be maintained, if the ditch is on your
property then I would think it would be c:ontingent upon you to make sure that either a new
ditch at your expense is placed on he property or you make some provision to get her
irrigation water to property. Whether they use it or not wouldn't matter to us, the point is
you have made the provision to get them the water and in the amount that the ditch is
supposed to carry. t think we have been fairly consistent as a Council over the last 6
months in making sure that the irrigation rights pass through irrigation rights are
maintained and supported. So that those users can continue to use that irrigation water.
Madsen: I planned on maintaining their water rights. As far as bulldozing her fence and
flowers over, she has very beautiful flowers there they are hybrids I guess and I didn't
have any intentions of bulldozing them over. My intent was to get the property line as to
maintain that minimum 80 foot frontage for that !ot over there. I don't know thai we will
have to move the fence line.
Morrow: Is there a conflict between the fence line and the actual property line?
Madsen: The fence is actually 4 foot onto my property.
Morrow: By way of survey of Mr. Howard?
Madsen: By JJ Howard Engineering and their surveyor. And it is par~llel to the fence that
goes a(ong the east boundary of Clarinda Fair.
Morrow: Have you turned in the CC&R's to the Attorney to review?
Madsen: No, we are not sure where we are going with the thing. We will get some made
up.
Morrow: I have no further questions.
Tolsma: Any questions for Mr. Madsen?
Rebecca Cope, 1002 Pine, was sworn by the City Attorney.
~ ~
Meridian C+ty Council
July 19, 1994
Page 36
Cope: We haven't used the ditch back there so much this year because we have been
concemed, we don't know what our rights are. We have used the ditch bank for the last
11 years and when they developed in the back the cut up our water flowing through so we
have had to put a dam to keep the water in the ditch bank and we have had to use the
pump to keep the water going into the ditch bank but we haven't had the flow. We have
used the ditch bank to flood our front yard. He hasn't seen it because we didn't know what
our rights were with the ditch bank and we are just now proceeding to find out what our
rights are for the ditch bank.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this project?
Smith: On an average daily basis or an average monthly basis we are running about 78°~
of capacity on the treatment plant. We are finding that as more of the farm land is turned
into subdivisions our infiftration is decreasing in our sewer system. I think we have had
a lot of inflow from the irrigation of the farm land that we were nat able to catch up with.
Qne budgef item that we are putting in this year for the wastewater plant will be the
construction of a tertiary filter which will increase the capacity of the plant to 4 million
gallons right now it is at 2.82 mgd. We are scrambling with growth as al! the other
services in the City are but we are not putting our head in the sand. We have to provide
these services and it takes a while, it takes planning and it takes time to get the services
built both water and sewer.
Morrow: I think to answer your question with a little bit more with respect to the sewer
thing, what we have found is the City we have a tremendously large problem with ground
water here as you know is very shallow. It does infittrate in the City lines and it is taking
up quite a bit of our capacity in terms of the sewer ptant. We have chosen to attack that
from 2 standpoints one is that all subdivisions now are required to have pressurized
irrigation. That is an attempt to take the water right that we have from the surface water
and utilize that so we don't lose it at some point in the future. The other thing is an attempt
to make those irrigation things more efficient so that it helps to solve the groundwater
problem. The second part of the pressurized irrigation thing is that in many subdivisions
they will use shallow wells that will draw from that ground water aquifer and have the lawn
watering come from that. Two things will happen then one it helps solve the problem with
respect to the sewer operation and secondly it will lighten the load on our domestic line
so that we won't have a tremendous cost and problems trying to use good domestic water
for watering lawns. That is how we are attacking the problem.
Corrie: Mr. President, 1 might add too that one of the other things that you were talking
about the size of the homes, the 1400 square foot will be put on the plat.
Tolsma: ! will close the public hearing.
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 37
~
Corrie: I have one comment that when State Street goes clear to Linder and come around
that you don't have a lot of traffic coming from that high school down there to get to Pine.
That is the onfy thing that bothers me about opening ta Pine Street. I am afraid you are
going to see a lot more traffic than anticipate. I hope I am wrong, but it could be that you
are going to get a lot of cruising down Street.
Tolsma: What is your pleasure?
Corrie: Mr. President, do we need to add anything to the motion for preliminary plat
approval in reference to property line problems or anything like that?
Craokston: No
Corrie: Mr. President,
Crookston: He will have to submit the lega! description.
Corrie: Mr. President, ! move that we approve the preliminary plat for Canna Lily Estates
with the condition that Pine Street entrance will be part of the subdivision.
Morrow: Mr. President, I would ask that Councilman Corrie amend that motion to include
the 1400 square feet requirement on the plat and the addition of the CC&R's and the ditch
agreement to furnish water to the Cope place with his consent if he will amend the motion
I will second the motion.
Corrie: Yss I will.
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Bob Corrie, second by Walt to grant the request for preliminary plat for
Canna Lily Estates subject to water being made available to the Cope residents and
CC&R's be provided with a 1400 square foot minimum and a Pine Street access, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQEUST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR PINE
MEADOWS:
Tofsma: I will now open the public hearing, I will ask the representative for Pine Meadows
make his presentation.
a ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 38
John Wasden, 4844 Cresthaven Circle, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wasden: I am standing in for Ron Walsh who is out of town. We don't have a final
concept for the project yet, this 23 acres that we are requesting the annexation and zoning
on is part of a larger project that extends from the proposed extension of Pine Street down
to Fairview. We are working with the Meridian staff and we will meet all the reasonable
requirements and recommendations and we intend to sign a development agreement. We
are also committed to meet the Comprehensive Plan in that it calls for a park in that are
so we are committed to donate the acreage that amounts to meet that requirement. Thank
you.
Tolsma: Any questions?
Morrow: This is for R-8 zoning?
Wasden: R-15 I believe.
Corrie: Did Shari leave?
Yerrington: What is your width on the Fairview into this property?
Wasden: I don't know, I am not the agent that is Ron Walsh, Shari could probably answer
that question better than I.
Yerrington: Isn't there a home sitting on the back part of it.
Wasden: There are a couple of homes sitting on the property, the property is owned by
3 parties, the Lowes, the Wasdens and the Beards. And the Lowes home is sitting on the
property which we currently own and are renting out the Jensen home is sitting on the
property and we are renting that out until a development proceeds.
Corrie: There is no deed restriction on that property that you are aware of?
Wasden: !s a deed restriction like an easement?
Corrie: Somebody told me there was a deed restriction from way back that it had to be
strictly homes or residential area, do you know anything about that?
Wasden: I haven't heard that. On which property?
Corrie: I guess that whole section in there, I am not aware of what they were real(y talking
~ •
Meridian City Counci!
July 19, 1994
Page 39
about but I thought I would bring it to your attention in case.
Wasden: I will bring that up to Ron, should ask him to talk to the Title Company?
Corrie: I would think that would be a good idea, I don't know of going anywhere with it but
if it is it may restrict you in doing something.
(End of Tape)
Corrie: Did Shari is she here? ! had some questions on that Mixed PUD that she was
talking about. I have no further questions?
Tolsma: Ar~ybody else wish to offer testimony on the Pine Meadows? Seeing no one I will
close the public hearing. Council members what is your decision?
Morrow: Wefl, quite candidly it is a little tough to deal with the issues here because we
are a little vague in terms of, apparently according to a letter date dated April 28th there
is a request for a change to reflect a new zoning of these parcels to R-15.
Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Corrie: Shari, in your camments af Apri! Sth you mentioned the Mixed PUD zone has been
requested. You suggest that we take the public hearing and then table it pending adoption
of the new PUD as an addition to the zoning and development ordinance. Do you still
think that is apropos now with this one?
Stiles: Councilman Corrie I don't because he has changed his request to R-15.
Morrow: My question is R-15 compatible to the adjoining parcels, for example Danbury
Fair and those types of things where they have the R-8 aoning?
Stiles: It is difficult to tell until you actually see the development that is proposed. One
thing that would be required is the park and they have indicated that it would be in the
southwest comer of the property. And I think that would be a good buffer for the Danbury
Fair. I don't know what is going to be proposed as part of this development as far as units
whether it is multi-family or what. I think those can be addressed at that time. There
would need to be some buffering and landscaping and fencing provided as part of the
development agreement.
Morrow: Are you comfortable, obviously we have our most control at point of annexation.
Are you comfortable with this proposal as it is being presented in terms of R-15 that we
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 40
~
can protect the surrounding uses that already exist by way of the development agreement
and those kinds of things or do we need to put conditions on this annexation at this poin#
in time to ensure those things such as the park?
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, I do believe that the park should definitely be made a
condition of the annexation. !t is required in our ordinances that R-15 be adjacent to a
park. Being that the Treasure Valley Business Center is on the east and is an industrial
zone some consideration will have to be made for the residents in this new annexation and
that there be some buffering from that industrial use as welt as the lower density
residential to the west. But I believe that should be made a condition of the annexation.
There is nothing currently there to the west, but it is being proposed as residential I
believe.
Morrow: If I understand what you are saying is that we make the park a condition of the
annexation, then we determine the development of the park and what is acceptable to
respect to what is in the park or how the park is done as part of the agreement when the
preliminary plat would come through, is that what you are communicating?
Stiles: Well, the development agreement is actually a condition of the annexation itself,
since we don't have any plat it is hard to place an conditions specifically to the plat but
some of those conditions can be addressed in the development agreement.
Morrow: What 1 am concerned about here is that everybody has a different definition of
a park, I don't v~rant to see a park that (inaudible) and nothing but flat grass. And this is
obviously not what any of the 6 of us have in mind when we are talking about a park.
What I am asking for is your advice in terms of at the point of annexation which is tonight
can we make annexation contingent upon the park being involved. But you can structure
the development of the park through the preliminary plat and the development agreement.
We can get what we are after at that point is that correct?
Stiles: I am not sure, Counselor?
Crookston: The recommendation of the Ptanning & Zoning Commission was that no
annexation and zoning be passed until a development agreement including a commitment
for the use and development is entered into. So I think if you want to do that it is
appropriate to hold off on the actual annexation ordinance until you have the development
agreement which can include the park or should include the park.
Morrow: Run me through what happens, we do the annexation tonight but we don't pass
the ordinance until all of these things are in place, is that correct?
• •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 41
Crookston: You make a motion to approve of the annexation w(~en the devefopment
agreement is submitted and approved.
Corrie: Mr. President, I have a question of Wayne Forrey since he is here. Does the high
density fit in the Comprehensive Plan at that end of town or are we trying to keep it more
in the centrai area high density and as we move out lower density. I noticed you
mentioned in the letter here w-e anticipate being high density housing in this area but if we
get an R-15 that can be pretty high density. What are your comments on that?
Forrey: I beiieve the Comprehensive Plan for this are of the community was anficipated
mixed planned use development. And the Comprehensive Plan now adopted does
indicated it would include a variety of uses, medium density residential was one of the
uses specifically identified in the plan as a desirable land use as long as it was properly
planned and designed and coordinated with other uses in the area. There were no density
quidelines in the comprehensive plan what may be high density in Meridian may be low
density in another area or vice versa. Most cities would tend to view high density at about
the 20 units per acre and up density level. Generally between 8 to 15 to 20 units is
generaiiy considered medium density. I don't know if that helps.
Corrie: That is all I have.
Tolsma: All we need now is a motion. We have to approve the findings.
Morrow: Mr. President I would move that we would approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as written for the P& Z.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt second by Max to approve the findings of fact and cor~clusions
of law as prepared by the P& Z roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTI~N CARRIED: A!I Yea
Corrie: Mr. President, I move that we approve the decision and recommendation of the
findings of fact and conclusions.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve the decision, all those in favor'?
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 42
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Wasden: Just as a clarification on the park, we were contributing part of the park the other
part was to come from the neighboring developer is that your understanding. From
listening I got the feeling you though we were contributing the whole park.
Morrow: That is what I was searching for.
Wasden: Right and I never clarified that. As I understand it is a 5 acre park that the City
is looking for of which we have been asked for 2 acres. That is the commitment we made
of 2 acres and we weren't committed to develop that but to donate the property. We have
just been asked to donate the area not develop it.
Morrow: It would appear that is a grey area, probably in terms of us if I understand what
we have done with the findings of fact ar~d conclusions by approving them the
development agreement would be subject to negotiation befinreen our staff.
Wasden: I just want to get an understanding on the record.
ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES BY SHEKINAH
INDUSTRIES:
Tolsma: I will open the public hearing and ask the developer to step forward.
Mike Preston, 420 Bitterroot Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Preston: Mr. Chairman, in relation to our meeting with the Planning and Zoning
Commission essentially the ~ndings of fact and conclusions of law they recommended on
the annexation, rezone and preliminary plat that I have submitted on this project require
me to down zone the R-15 to R-8 and R-4 and change things about a bit, hold off the
annexation and then go through a new process. if 1 am willing to do that they woeald
approve a development of this site if I am not they recommend you deny this. ! would like
to, I was surprised to get this type of response was not discussed at the hearings it was
issued after the fact. It kind of took me back and surprised me for severa! reasons. The
property that I am proposing here, I think you have seen the development layout is located
at Franklin Road and Locust Grove. It is 40 acres with the exception of 4 residences that
take up about 6 or 7 acres out of that. It goes right up Franklin Road and Locust Grove
on the southwest corner of that intersection. I am proposing 131 units, single family
~ •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 43
residential units on this property and about a little over 3 acres of commercial at the
intersection. Now, the intersection, the prime reason I propose the Commercial zoning is
because that is going to be a major intersection fairly soon. Right now it carries a lot of
traffic but some time in the future Locust Grove goes over the freeway, possibly is
extended s#raight north, I get 2 stories on that whether it is going to be or not. I think it is
going to be, I think Meridian wants it to be. It is going to be a fairly major intersection so
commercial zoning would definitely be appropriate for that. Now, in essence the prime
reason for the request of down zoning is because there is a statement that I have not met
all the conditions required for an R-15 zone. And those conditions are that they either be
located on a public or have access to a public corridor to a public park. Now first of aIl this
is the second proposal that I have gone through. ! delayed myself several months to
reissue to provide everything I thought was necessary from a preliminary hearing on
another project that had more units, none public streets, non public water and sewer and
so forth. This subdivision plat is a standard subdivision plat meeting all conditions of the
City of Meridian including house size and the whole bit, it is on Ada County Streets, curb,
gutter, sidewalks the whole bit. Now, in relation to the R-15 zone, that theoretically allows
those ~tp to 15 units per acres. 7he density that I am proposing here is 4.39, I have a
development plan to go along with that zoning request that is asking for 4.39 units per acre
not 15 or $ or anything else. I need R-15 zone because I have some narrower lots. And
that is the prime reason and also for the square foot. An R-8 requires 6500, probably 60 -
70% of my lots are a!ittle smaller than the 6500 down to about 5800 - 5900. My minimum
width is about 52 or 53 feet and R-15 allows 50 whereas an R-8 is 65. So primarily
because of my lot sizes I needed an R-15 zone but I am not developing this property to an
R-15 zone density. I would be very happy in the development agreement to stipulate as
part of it that this plan be built to nothing more than 4.39 units per acre. Now, with that in
mind the condition that an R-15 needs to be on a park or have a public corridor to a park
I redesigned this on Franklin Road to give that screening easement between Franklin that
your comprehensive Plan requires and to me I believe that would be considered the
corridor to the existing park a half mile away. And it won't go anywhere now but as the
property befinreen here and the park develops than everybody else will have to do the
same thing ! did because of your plan. So I believe I provided that corridor and I will be
required to put in a sidewalk in that area at least in front of my property. So, number 1 I
do befieve thai I met the (inaudible) by providing that corridor to a park to have another city
park this close to the existing cit~r park wouldn't in my opinion for this small unit wouldn't
be a very good use of the land. The main point that I want to make is that even though I
am asking for an R-15 zone it is because of the lot widths not the density, I am not even
close to the density allowed for an R-15 zone. I would stipulate that I would not go over
4.39. Now, the question is can I develop this back up and resubmit on an R-4 type zone
which is what they are suggesting here because of the other 4 units that are on larger lots
in the area, my neighbors are very concerned. They have large lots, these are very small
lots in relation to theirs. t can certainly understand their concerns. The reason I proposed
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 44
•
what I did is these are definitely affordable housing units, they are not high end housing
units and the reason I did this was because it was a mixed PUD use on your
comprehensive Plan. Now, what is a mixed PUD use mean, I didn't know so I went and
talked to Mr. Forrey. The intent of the Mixed PUD use zone that are in various sections
of your city are put in there because currently there exists a conglomerate of uses that is
not all residential or industriaf or commercial or whatever. It combines several of them so
the mixed PUD use is intended to allow the developer to come in and with these varied
uses provide something that is compatible with as many as possible. It definitely alludes
in my opinion to a higher density. Now 4.39 is not a high density, 15 is higher definitely,
4.39 is not a high density. In relation to my neighbors here, we have 4 on the east side
right adjacent to me and 1 am trying to definitely work with their concerns and buffer
between they and I. But whether we go R-4 or R-8 once I do that buffer beyond that has
very little impact to them. These units, the 4 units right here and the units over in here
whether that is an R-4 zone or R-8 or R-15 in relation to these lot sizes is totally immaterial
to the impact on these units. We are trying to work a buffer here and I believe in relation
to the development agreement process (inaudible) work out with the city and with these
neighbors to put a buffer and a screen and fencing in here to reduce the impact of this on
these peopie. I have atways been agreeable to do that and we can definitely do it. But
to reduce the zoning which increases the lot size which increases the housing cost in an
area that is primarily industri~l it will not work in this area. We need to keep these
affordable housing units or it is not a feasib(e type of thing in this area of town. Now the
main concem was that R-15 this far from tov-m was too high a density, but in relation to the
faet that I am only doing it for lot standard sizes I am not using that density out here at all
and I am willing to limit myself in fihe development agreement to a lower density the one
that I propose on the plans 1 believe will handle that. Now, the 4 neighbors in the staff
report wrote a very long letter with many concerns. I am not going to go through that in
detail, but they had some very legitimate concerns if 1 were there. They are concemed
that I am going to take their irrigation water away, just for the record one more time. There
is a ditch that they take out of right along this property line between us. 1 will not in
anyway disturb that ditch because they use ciphon tubes out of it. I am not going to pipe
that, if I have to I will fence this side of it so however they have gotten their water in the
past there will be absolutely no change whatsoever. Now, they have indicated that t bui(t
units over the ditch so I am going to totally change their irrigation rights. Well, I may pipe
the ditch from here along this back line, I have to because of your ordinances but I will put
them on an easement so that they can be maintained. I will put in a pipe big enough so
it does not change in any way their irrigation rights. And then from this point to at least the
subdivisions I will p+pe it an redo it but it will still leave and they won't know any difference
up here where they are irrigating. So, I have to get it out from under the houses certainly
so I will do it in accordance with your irrigation requirements. I realize gentlemen that
Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended that we redo this but in reiation to your
comprehensive plan that I explored the intent of before 1 ever looked at this property I
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, ~ 994
Page 45
~J
believe I have totally met the intent of the Comprehensive Plan with this type of a layout.
We cannot put the same type of subdivision the R-4 in this type of an area. !t is has the
block factory just to the north of it, it has the commercial police training range right behind
it. And scattered residential here and there. No, the main difference befinreen the existing
users and todays use is that t have to provide sewer and water. And it is way off site so
it is going to cost a lot of money to get it here if we do this project. Once you do that than
you have to have a higher density than what was required when they first moved on many
years ago. I guess gentlemen, the P& Z is requested that I step back and resubmit and
I just want to say that I believe that I am fuiling meeting your ordinance in all respects. I
am not exceeding any density for this type of area for the intent of the comprehensive plan.
And I would strongly request that you approve it subject to the development agreement
working a suitable arrangement between the neighbors and i for the buffer and also
secondly if there is any problem with the commercial !et's just hold off on the commercial.
If you don't like the commercial that is fine, I was kind of told that I needed to put it there.
I testified all the way through that i have no intention myself of developing the commercial
therefore I requested a commercial zone that would require a conditional use permit on
anything that went in there which would require a public hearing once they knew what was
goi~g to be built. My layout shows something that at least at this time would be the best,
something that might go there. I was just guessing to give everybody and idea of what
might be an appropriate use. I am not saying that is what it is but whatever it will be will
have to come before this body and afl #he homeowners for that final approval. That is why
I requested that particular commercial zone. If you want to hold off on the commercial area
the 3.7 acres that is fine. We have lots of time but I would request annexation, R-15
rezone and preliminary plat approval subjeet to the conditions that I stated at this time.
Thank you.
Yerrington: I have a question, what is the width of your proposed streets?
Preston: 50 and 60 feet, giving the rights of way for the street.
Yerrington: Sidewalks?
Preston: Yes, 5 foot sidewalks to meet Meridian standards. The entryway will be a 60 foot
road which 41 foot of pavement, 5 foot sidewalks. RI! residential sidewalks the 50 foot
streets will be 36 foot back to back with the 5 foot sidewalks.
Yerrington: Are you proposing pressurized irrigation?
Preston: Yes sir
Yerrington: Those are all my questions.
~ •
Merid+an City Council
Jwfy 19, 1994
Page 46
Preston: I don't have any problems with any of the additions Mr. Smith imposed in relation
to the technical requirements of the city of Meridian.
Morrow: Question, you mentioned the certain size of the house, what is the minimum
square footage you are proposing?
Preston: !'ve got listed right on the plat and it meets your requirements, 50% of the houses
are 1300 square foot or greater and then those 50% are smaller down to 1100 square feet
1 believe. That I was told was the City's requirements.
Morrow: Do these all have 2 car garages?
Preston: Yes sir.
Corrie: Mr. President, I have a couple questions, excuse for thinking where ! am thinking
here. But I sat in on an earlier preliminary that you had at one time this was going to be
a mobile home park. Is this going to be a mobile home park?
Preston: That was not going to be a mobile home park either, this is absolutely not going
to be. Mobile home park is one that you can put the manufactured housing or mobile
homes on blocks, these homes will all be on footings, some might stick built on site and
some might be manufactured housing. They will all have foundations, they wi(I all have
the same size requirements as any other home in Meridian and none of them will have,
they will have all the asphalt type roofs and siding just like any stick built home. They are
not going to have any of the tin or anything like the image we have of a mobile home.
They are manufactured housing which has siding requirements and so forth. I have some
really nice views along one ridge, I've got an existing home that I had to buy for $150,000
and I will put stick built homes in that area along there or maybe the 3 unit manufactured
houses which without foundation lot, garages or anything in the $70,000 to $90,000 range
just for the unit itself. They are very beautiful homes. One other point before I leave is
that I jusfi want to state that the property owners that I am buying this property from did not
testify against the Comprehensive Plan that was recently passed because they were in
total agreement with the mixed PUD concept which allows exactly what we all thoughf that
allows this type of a project just as I have laid it out. That is why Mr. McClure came in
talked to Mr. Forrey before the public hearings totally agreed with what use was being
proposed on this property because we have always thought that type of an affordable
home project shoutd be here. There is the freeway, commercial behind it, the training
range and the brick factory in front of it and minimal residential homes of values that are
very comparable to the new home values that I am going to put here. So, it is a pertect
place for affordable housing for the community. And believe me gentlemen there is a need
tha# is phenomenal. These kids that are graduating can't afford a$130,000 home and
• •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 47
unfortunately I would like to be able to provide something less than $80,000 but t don't
know how to do ather than a mobile home park and that is not what this is.
Tolsma: Is there anyone else that wants to testify at this public hearing?
Reece McMillan. 870 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
McMillan: We went through this before with Planning and Zoning. I haven't heard
anything addressed on the Highway District approval or disapproval of road accesses,
there is supposedly one coming out on Locust Grove Road. Qne coming out on Franklin
Road, t haven't heard anything discussed about that. He is talking about his buffer zone
to the City park of Meridian, I doubt the dead folks in the cemetery will approve of that.
There is no commerciai on the south side of Franklin Road in that area at a!!. I own the
land (inaudible) there is is gas line right on down the middle of #he property to the existing
house 1 don't know what they are going to do about that. (Inaudible) commercial area
there I think is considered wetland property, so these are just some of the things that
worried me on this. Excessive traffic build up on locust Grove which is bad now so you
know these are just some of the things I want clarified and see what is going on. Thank
you.
James Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Withererll: I am one of the 4 affected parties which are immediately adjoining the
submission the one which Mr. Preston he is attempting to work, let me point out Mr.
Preston has not in any way, shape or form contacted us. He has given us the wrong
legals description, he has given us different plats to work with. Mr. Preston I don't believe
a thing you tell us. We would like to say, those 4 affected parties, that we concur with the
findings of fact of the Planning & Zoning Commission. We have all worked very hard trying
to straighten out what we are starting to refer to as the (inaudible). Gentlemen, this is an
enclave, it is light industrial here, this is a cemetery here, (inaudible) this is foreign, he
keeps talking about being adjoined to the police academy, it is another half a mile up the
road. If this is not an enclave than this is an enc(ave and that is us and you are creating
one. We have submitted our testimony to Council as concurring with Planning & Zoning
and setting up the conditions which we would like to see imposed if this annexation goes
ahead, but we sure would like to see it killed. We are not opposed to development, we
are asking for reasonable development. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify?
Elwood Rennison, 990 Mustang Street, was sworn by the City Attomey,
\ ~
•
Meridian City Councii
July 19, 1994
Page 48
•
Rennison: I would like to commend the Planning Commission or the City Council here for
their patience with everything you have done here tonight and you stiil continue to do a
real good job. I would like to say Mr. President and Councilmen that I have been a Civil
Engineer for a little over 30 years, I have lived around the country quite a bit. I have lived
in Canada, I have lived on the east coast and the west coast and Wyoming and I have
seen a town go from 45 people to 5,000 people in Julette Wyoming to 8,6000 to 22,000
people. And I have seen the growth problems that have occurred and they are much
similar to what we have here. I think that you are doing a pretty good job and I really
appreciated the explanation tonight beeause that really enlightened me on the community
problems I am concerned about. I am really opposed to the subdivision that is being
proposed here tonight and I am opposed because I am really disappointed in the way the
developer has approached the entire presentation. I have gone to both of the sessions
where he has presented his subdivision layout and he did start out with a mobile, pre-
manufactured type home I believe and then it became sort of a manufactured home and
every time that the planning commission requested that he provide some type of picture
of what is was all about that information was not available. I felt he was very unpr~pared
to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission at that time and present an
application for annexation and rezoning. I stitl have never seen or heard anything, it may
have been presented elsewhere but I have never seen anything regarding the stick built
or manufactured homes. 1 have sat here tonight and I have listed to his discussion and
presentation and I have listened to him switch back and forth well I am going to put stick
built homes along the ridge but maybe I will put pre-manufactured homes along there. I
know ifi costs a lot of money to sit down and plan for development, but if a person is going
to do a development they need to sit down and spend the money that is part of the risk of
the whole thing. If it doesn't go through then you go onto another and hope you make up
there. But I haven't seen that input put into this particular request. I have other concerns,
the commercial property that is proposed to be developed later on as he is saying tonight
which is at the intersection of Franklin and South Locust Grove is to be zoned commercial
by your map. The problem I have is he talked about putting a store, a car wash, possibly
a service station and pump there to service that area because nothing is there. However
when then question came up about what are you going to do about all the run off water
from the subdivision from the commercial properties, how are you going to keep that from
contaminating the stream which is Five Mile Creek which is only one of 3 or 4 active
streams in the Treasure Valley. The rest of them dry up during the winter because they
are created by the irrigation process we have in our valley here. He said that Me could
take care of that but I really don't believe if you have a car wash or commerciaf facility
there that you are going to just hose it off and have the stream right next to it. ! know it
would require a designer to design a culvert or a system to transfer the water past the
property, that is a requirement of the County or the City here. I haven't seen anything that
really has addressed that problem and to me that is a problem. I moved here with my
family and gave up a lot of things in my career so that we could have a nice place to live
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 49
•
and a nice community. The community is made up of the people, every place we have
lived, if you back after the people leave it is not the same. The people realfy make the
community and create the harmony and everything. I befieve, I am not against the
subdivision going in at the location if they are the proper types of homes that upgrade the
area, the people take pride and ownership. They don't have pride and ownership if they
are crammed together, and they don't have lawns that they are responsible to take care
of and things like that then you get into a kind of run down situation. I would hate to see
that happen in the area here. What I have done is written a letter to the Corps of
Engineers and I will give you a copy of that when I am done. In that letter I have asked
them to ask for an environmental impact statement for the Five Mile Creek area. That
does cost a(ittle bit of money, if the developer is sincere in deveioping the property than
he is wiling to spend the money to do that. I have asked them to make public record what
their findings are. I have also prepared a letter to the Planning Commission, I didn't realize
this was a Council meeting tonight, the letter was addressed to the Planning Commission.
i typed it p last night and I would like to read that if I may. At the present time a deveioper
is planning on put#ing a housing development and commercial property development on
the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and South Locust Grove. This
intersection happens to be located where the Five Mile Creek crosses under Franklin
Road. As you may or may not be aware this Creek or stream flows year round and
supports wildlife and their habitats. The wildlife consists of ducks, blue heron, geese, trout
and other types of wildlife. The stream is one of 3 or 4 that runs year round in the treasure
valley. The developer is planning on constructing a car wash, quick stop store and
possibly gas pumps at this location. The housing subdivision would consist of 6 houses
per acres, this was the last time I had heard, over a approximately 40 plus or minus acres.
The storm water run off from this subdivision would discharge into Five Mile Creek along
with the trash, debris and water from the commercial property. This run off can potentially
contaminate Five Mile Creek and harm the wetlands and witdlife that it supports as well
as the surrounding environment. The sewer discharge syst~rn from this development
would have to cross Five Mile Creek per the developers plans. I am asking that your
Commission review this area to see if it is recognized as falling under the Federal
Wetlands Act. tt is also requested that any deve(opment in this area be required to
prepare an environmental impact statement for your review and public comment. The area
of Five Mile Creek is currently zoned as commercial development. It may be necessary
for the City of Meridian to consider and change their zoning based on your review and
findings. A report of these findings should be made available to the public for their
comment. In addition to the above this proposed development with its high density would
create serious problems for the area to located within. The Meridian schools cannot
handle the addition of all the children with families that would be imposed upon it. The
increased automobile traffic flow this would create on Franklin (End of Tape) Road along
with increased pedestrian traffic and no sidewalks could create a bad situation. This kind
of high density would only benefit the develop~r and not the community. The City of
•
Meridian City Councii
July 19, 1994
Page 50
~
Meridian has become known as being the fastest growing town in the State of Idaho. Let's
forget about the quantity and set our goals on quality. We need to improve the quality of
our community, our schools, our people and our lives. It is time that the developers began
conforming to the needs of the people and the community of the City of Meridian and not
their persona! gain and greed. You must not forget that you and only you are responsible
for the final decision and it need5 to reflect that of the people of Meridian. i was reaily
pleased with the comments that I heard tonight and that really reflecks. That is pretty much
all I have to say. Are there any questions.
Tolsma: Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to offer testimony?
Morgan Plant, 300 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Plant: I seriously request that the Council deny this application. It will very seriously
damage the property values of the surrounding areas. We live across the road from this
proposed development and we are sandwiched in between on 3 sides by open land
currently. If this development is allowed to go through there is no reason you can deny
the other 3 properties of approximately 130 acr-es to be denied. And Meridian certainly
does not need that. We have heard a lot of words from Mr. Preston but we have not seen
anything in print on all of these wonderful things he is going to propose. It really has not
developed and the worst is he is not protecting, he is not considering, he is not working
with his neighbors to see what impact his development is having here. Again I seriously
hope you deny this application. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this project?
Ann Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Witherell; I have had to put up with a lot of the leg work we have had to do to try to figure
out exactly what Mr. Preston is doing. There is a lot of stuff on here that has changed, one
of the things he likes to do is make it look like he is doing something absolutely wonderful
when in fact he is not. I need to borrow your plat sir, one of the changes between his first
plat, which was submitted at the March meeting. He spent 2 whole months reworking it
and submitted it as soon as he could for the May meeting was a nice 35 foot little
easement channeling all the children down past the houses to the cemetery as a buffer
because it is on the entryway to Meridian as a gateway. He is basing that I believe on a
tow lane Franklin Road well it is going to go to 4 eventually. That is going to get eaten up
there will be no buffer and it will take out a good portion of those units. On the issue of
how close this is to the park, Mr. President there I won't allow my kids to walk down
Franklin Road, you must not think much of the kids in your subdivision if you want them
to go down Franklin Road. 1 did a little test on the odometer on my car, from the biggest
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 51
•
attraction in Storey Park for the children is the swimming pool Mr. Preston can't match that
with anything he would develop as a playground area in any subdivision, from the door of
#he swimming pool to about mid point in his subdivision is between 6 and 7 tenths of a mile
not exactly adjoining. There is an open area with lots of places for kids to play it is called
the cemetery. The edge of the cemetery is 1 tenth of a mile from his subdivision, I don't
think he mentioned fhat. There is a lot he hasn't mentioned. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony?
Alan Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fox: Counci)men, I appreciate your time. My concerns are just south of this property that
he proposes to develop within the last 2 weeks has gone up for sale, there are 20 acres
there. And if you approve this subdivision tonight you are putting approximateiy another
86.6 houses per acre, I am figuring those 4.39 houses per acre. On the east side of
Locust Grove and just south of his subdivision there is approximately 80 acres in there.
If this goes to this type of housing, I am sure that is in the near future to be sold, it has
been surveyed so it couid be subdivided. There were approximately 80 acres and that
would give us 347.2 houses in the area. At this time down through, let's just take it from
Eagle this way to Locust Grove, the houses sit on basically a one acre lot al~ of them
through there. There are some that are on as much as 5. I propose that if you accept
anything he has nothing less than or more than 2 houses per acres. That would keep in
site with the area we have there, that would keep the property values up. He is proposing
$80,000 to $90,000, I can tell you my tax bill came with 1 acre house I've a 1452 square
foot house with a full basement, my tax bill is $97,000 is a!I ! can for mine roughly, that is
what they sold for in the subdivision where I am. He is not going to get $80,000 for a lot
with a pre fab home on it, I can bet you. They are going to be awful small if he does.
Thank you for your time.
Gary Oyama, 2038 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Oyama: My concern on this in listening to the developer is he is trying to get an R-15
rating on the land there and yet proposed to build to an R-4 rating and like the gentleman
Mr. Fox indicated that all of the property in that area do have a targe frontage on their
property. I really feel that this will deteriorate from the other properties in the area. !f he
is only going to allow I forget what he said, 60 feet frontage some of them only 40 feet it
seems like a little bit of frontage for an area that has well over 80 feet on their frontage
property. I live on an acre land myself in that area and I would like to see it all stay in that
vicinity. The other thing ! reaNy have a concem with if you do go with an R-15 rating is that
the park that is close as the lady stated, the cemetery is right there in between them
Meridian Park and this proposed subdivision. And I am with here that I don't want my kids
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 52
•
waiking through the cemetery and I am sure some of the people that are buried there don't
want people walking through there either. I am atso concerned with the Five Mile Creek,
it is right in this subdivision, that is the creek that runs year round and 1 think it is going to
have a big impact on the creek. So, I am begging you to deny this proposal and I thank
you for your time.
Tolsma: Anyone else from the public wish to offer testimony on this project?
Richard Lee, 820 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: I would just iike to re-emphasize that I just bought over in this neighborhood 2 years
ago and I left from over on North Locust Grove because of the influx of the building. They
just more or less run us out of the area. I moved to that area because of the openness the
homes on 1 acre lots, the quality of life in that area and i feel like this so called subdivision
that this gentleman has put before the Council would take away from the quality of life in
that area. And I would ask the Council to deny this, thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this project?
Preston: I particularly wanted to respond Mr. Chairman to the gentleman tha# was talking
about the run off into Five Mile Creek, he brought up some very good points. He is correct
you don't just arbitrarily discharge subdivision drainage arbitrarily into a creek like that
without taking into account the damage you could do to the creek. We I show on the plans
and in the package, evidently the people that come in don't see the entire package that we
have to submit for a preliminary plat so I understand they have a lack of information. But
on the plan here we do show that we are providing very large underground chambers to
detain the water and clean it up before it is discharged into Five Mile Creek. This land has
always drained into Five Mile Creek, we will continue to do so like all other subdivisions
in the valley do, if they drain into a drainage area they can continue to do so. However
you have to contain the water to pre-development discharge rates and clean it up because
of the street run off and so forth. We have to go through that process and probably the
thing that a lot of the folks don't understand is that there are numerous agencies that we
have to get our plans approved through before we build these projects. Now at the
preliminary plat stage I haven't done all that design, you get the preliminary work done if
that is approved you go on and spend those larger dollars. In relation to there is very
much confusion on my corridor to the existing park, that is not something that I particularly
wanted it is your plan requires that Franklin Road is a corridor to Meridian and we have
to provide this corridor. That is why I changed it to that . And I don't think that the people
that are walking along Franklin are then going to get into the Cemetery, I assume someday
there will be the sidewalk continued on by the cemetery and there will be a fence befinreen
the roadway and the cemetery because that is not certainly a place for the kids to play.
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 53
•
I absofutely don't anticipate that people will be walking or that very many people will be
walking from this subdivision to the park, probably a few will bike and as the people all
over Meridian do now they will probably get in cars and drive to the exiting park. Because
there are a lot of homes that go there from a!ot further away than this development. I am
just going to reiterate one more time that the Comprehensive Plan that is approved right
now for this area allows Mr. McClure to do what I have proposed on this property. It will
not reduce the value of the neighbors property actually it wil{ enhance it greatly. You don't
decrease value of adjoining values by having a high density you increase it. They may not
want to sell their property now, and that is totally right, but if they ever dv at least the 4
neighbors adjacent to me they can sell it for the price that will allow 4 or 5 units per acre
and that is a lot more than one unit per 2 or 3 acres. So it will increase their property
values significantly and one other comment on the type of housing I haven't, t could have
brought in all types of renderings of the types of houses I propose. Quite frankly I don't
know that is not a requirement of the City of Meridian to at this stage show the exact type
of housing and i am not the builder so i really don't know, I can't guarantee anybody that
it is going to be this and show examples. There are subdivisions in town that the P& Z
quoted that are very nice homes and the people said you can't tell the difference between
these and the stick built homes. Just the fact that they are built in a factory does not mean
that they are mobile homes at all. They are higher standards many times than stick built.,
they have thicker walls, and all kinds of things. They are doing them now to where the
exterior appearances are really nice, the street appeal finally is really starting to take effect
in the industry. It has been pretty poor in the past it really has but that is not, I am going
to have very stri~t standards, until I get rid of the last lot I have to be very careful what I
do. So, I am going to require everyone of the buyers to maintain reai street appeal. And
they can't put in used homes, they can't put in old homes they are going to put in the
homes that are total standards of what you would do if you stick built it. Sheet rock
completely on the inside, the whole bit. They are very high quality homes and I wish I
could provide them for less than $80,000 but I can assure you I cannot. Everybody wants
them to be $200,000 but I am, one gentleman stated appropriately that the develop should
respond to the needs of the people. Gentlemen, your ordinance states that you encourage
affordable housing, there are hundreds of people need it that can't find it. This is a
development that provides it. Thank you.
Morrow: One lady raised the point with respect to the buffer zone, does your buffer zone
make provision for the fact that Franklin Road in the very near future will be a 5 lane road?
Preston: Yes sir, the 35 foot is outside of the 90 foot that they need for that.
Morrow: The same thing is true along Locust Grove because quite candidiy that is going
to be a 5 lane road in the future also.
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 54
~
Preston: We have taken that all into account. We have to, I did a traffic and development
study, I had an engineer prepare it, we met all of Ada County requirements. We did a
complete study of the traffic, submitted that to them, they issued a very lengthy report and
I agreed to all of their conditions and that is part of the package. They have agreed to the
access that we have on Franklin Road and also on Locust Grove. We have to put up I
think it is a tenth of the money needed to build a future traffic light at Franklin and Locust
Grove. 1 have to as a part of this development put that money out as my share.
Corrie: Have you checked to see if Five Mile Creek could be classified as a Federal
Wetlands area?
Preston: I am sure that it probably is, 1 am sure that the sewer there that they are
extending right now to St. Luke's is already come to that conclusion. That is why I have
no intent of doing anything like that to Five Mile. I am leaving Five Mile Creek alone.
Tolsma: Anyone else?
Rennison: One question that hasn't come up tonight it has come up in previous
discussion are the covenants that would apply to this particular subdivision. I would like
to get a clarification on just what the covenants would consist of if I may. Thank you.
Crookston: That would come from the developer.
Preston: Mr. President, the covenants as I understand it need to be submitted prior to the
final plat. They take into account things like you can't leave cars in your driveways, you
can't fix them, fence requirements which I believe the City of Meridian already has,
nuisances, all of those types of things. Some covenants in high end subdivisions say you
can't leave your garage doors open for more than 15 minutes. I don't have the CC&R's,
however, they will be probably equivalent to the majority of the subdivisions. They will not
require garage doors be closed at all times, you have as far as I am concerned you have
to weigh what you say there with the peoples rights and provide a good balance one that
will create a good neighborhood but not over regulate. I think the subdivisions throughout
Meridian CC&R's will be very compatible. I am going to get what has already been done
and go from there, but there will be those types of things that will require people to keep
up their sites very adequateiy. There was one indication that we wouldn't have yards and
so forth, not only are we going to have yards, but every yard has go to be installed before
the home can be sold and that will be part of the CC&R's.
Tolsma: Any other questions? Anyone else?
Patricia Rennison, 990 Mustang Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
C~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 55
•
Rennison: I was really pleased to see the progress that your laws and rules and ail the
work you have done has made in this subdivision however, I think that we are still getting
the cart before the horse. At this point that Locust Grove and Franklin have not been
expanded to carry the extra traffic. Our school is Chief Joseph school and it is at maximum
capacity now. And if it is young families subdivision it is going to encourage a lot young
people with children to move into that area. Until we can provide schools or at (east see
some way of providing schools I think our cart is before our horse. Eventually that will all
be subdivided, that is true this is progress. However I think we need to provide for it before
we okay at this point. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify?
Oyama: I guess what I really like the Council to do before they approve this situation here
that that subdivision here that he is trying to put in here is to actually go onto South Locust
Grove and get onto Franklin Road there. That South Locust Grove enters at the bottom
of the hill, Franklin Road actuaHy dips when it goes onto that South Locust Grove there.
And if you are going to put a stop light there or it is proposed that he puts in a stop light
you need to look at that situation there and really address it fhat as the cars that come over
the hill see this stop light and will be stopping that the bottom of the hill actually instead
in clear view of a stop light there. You ought to go look at that situation there.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify?
Fox: While they are talking tr~c, one thing that I didn't bring up is we have approximately
one accident a year at Locust Grove and Franklin. The trafFic speed is 35 up to Locust
Grove and then it hits 50 as we pass. People come out trying to tum and the traffic is
heavy. At about 6:30 in the morning, I was leaving about 6:40 I moved back to 6:30
because the traffic is so heavy you can't get out. You have to wait for it at times.
Sometimes we have 2 or 3 right there are there are some bad ones when they get hit.
Tolsma: Anyone else? No other testimony I will close the public hearing.
Corris: Mr. President, Counselor is there testimony that we need to evaluate?
Crookston: There have been several people that have not testified and some af the
testimony is a little different, I think we need to have new findings, some new issues have
some up.
Morrow: I think that for the record can we have Gary and Shari make a run briefly through
their comments with respect to this.
~ .
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 56
Crookston: I think it would be appropriate to re-open the hearing to have their testimony
on the record.
Corrie: So moved
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved and seconded to re-open the hearing to hear the comments of the staff,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Smith: Can l answer any questions that the Council may have?
Morrow: My questions are, I guess I am having a little trouble with this project from the
standpoint that it seems to be all over the board whether it is R-8 or R-4 or R-15 or
whatever the case might be and that I think your comments here as I have read them are
more than specific types of comments. Do the multiple different types of proposed uses
here affect the technical things that you are addressing with respect to the sewer sizes,
the water sizes and so on and so forth. I think we are beginning to get to the facts where
they lay but I am not totally sure here.
Smith: Well, Councilman Morrow my review was based on a R-15 zoning the preliminary
plated is presented for an R-15 zoning and what the ordinance requirements are for the
R-15 zone designation. In terms af the lot dimensions, obviously the public streets the right
of way widths, lot frontages, lot areas and to go along with that would be the minimum size
of sewer which serve the proje~t, 8 inch diameter sewer line, the water line would need
to be extended on Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road as our poticy dictates as a 12
inch line and then I think an 8 inch line was shown looping through the subdivision. I did
have some concerns about the sewering the southeast corner of the project because of
the elevation of the ground and the direction in which the sewer was proposed to flow.
Morrow: As I understand it based on your May 6th letter, the sewer service here is
contingent upon the St. Luke's trunk line being installed.
Smith: If that line isn't installed by the St. Luke's hospital people than this applicant woutd
have to install that line in order to provide sanitary sewer service along Five Mile Creek.
Morrow: And for all practical purposes does that mean that the project is not feasible
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 57
because that is a major line is it not?
~
Smith: Yes that is an 18 inch diameter line and I don't know in terms of feasibility, where
this project would lay. I know it has a considerable amount of 12 inch water line to extend
on Franklin and Locust Grove Road. And I don't know how much off site sewer line
e~ension this project could support.
Morrow: I have no more questions for Gary.
Tolsma: You had questions for Shari also?
Morrow: Yes, I would like to have comment on her letter as of May 9.
Shari Stilss, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Morrow: I have questions with respect to item #4, says uses permitted in the flood plain
district are generally associated with open space and agricultural land uses and shall not
hinder the movement of flood waters. tt would appear that construction is prohibited in the
area shown for commercial use. Na set of plans for the proposed CN zoning have been
presented. Apparently as we are hearing tonight those are not going to be presented, so
this comment no longer applies to the subdivision or does it apply from the standpoint that
if it is zoned and annexed that there need to be specific details addressed for that
commercial zoning.
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, I just believe that it is not appropriate to annex or zone that
until something has been presented and that those wetland problems have answered or
cleared up.
Morrow: You comments at the end of the letter, in light of the unavailability of public
services, the lack of detail presented and the probiems with the flood p(ain floodway
development I recommend that this preliminary plat be tabled or denied until these items
are sa#isfactorily addressed. Although keeping with the goals of affordable housing this
proposa! would not be in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive to maintain and
enhance quality of life for all residents, have new growth finance public services through
expansion or prevent schoot overcrowding. Based on the testimony tonight and the
change in the proposal do you still feel that is appropriate?
Stiles: Yes I do.
Morrow: Do you feel that there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan that we are
dealing with here in terms of promoting the affordable housing, but yet according to the
• •
Meridian City Counci!
July 15, 1994
Page 58
map it is a mixed use area?
Stiles: I think the affordable housing needs to be presented as. I think the affordable
housing and the mixed planned unit development areas should be integrated into one real
plan. I don't really like all these subdivisions that are coming in and saying this is an
affordable housing development, this is an exclusive development that must have 1800
square foot houses. I think there needs to be some neighborhoods that need to integrate
some higher end, some lower end, a diversity of units within a development instead of
saying this development is luxury homes and we don't want anything but luxury homes in
this area. And this is the lower scale homes that we want concentrated in one area, 1 don't
think that is good planning, I don't think you are going to have neighborhoods that are
easily integrated with each other. There needs to be a diversity in these neighborhoods,
one thing that I would have liked to see in this is to maybe have some higher end homes
adjacent to the acreages, larger lots, that is what 1 was speaking of before when 1 was
speaking of the transition and the buffering.
Tolsma: Of all the form letter we have received from the Joint School District this is the
first letter that stated that they do not recommend approval of the subdivision.
Stiles: That is right, ! think they did have that paragraph in one other development.
Tolsma: I noticed it on your comment sheet (inaudible).
Morrow: Mr. President, I think the motion is in order for preparation of findings of fact.
Tolsma: I will close the public hearing.
Morrow: I would move to instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and
conclusions of law concerning Preston's Aspen Grove Estates.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the Attomey prepare new findings of fact
on Preston's Aspen Grove Estates, all those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: I will call a five minute break at this time.
FIVE MINUTE BREAK
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 59
Tolsma: Let's call the meeting back to order please.
~
ITEM #20: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY BW INC. AND WAYNE
STOLFUS:
Toisma: Is there a representative here.
Dan Torfin, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was swom by the City Attorney.
Torfin: The application before you contains a request to rezone approximateiy 7 tenths
of an acre from L-O to C-G commercial and R-8 residential. The request is based on the
need to facilitate the development of a veterinarian clinic on the Fairview frontage parcet.
Which is approximately a 1/3 of an acre. I would like to clarify something in the staff report
regarding 2 items, one is the Jackson Drain which is stated in the stai~ report that it is open
and must be maintained as an open ditch. It actually is piped through the side and piped
all the way across Fairview Avenue. The other item is the 35 foot landscape setback
which is in the staff report and was also passed through as a recommendation by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Due to the irregularity of this site and the small area of
the site we have met with staff and we initially talked about a 20 foot setback however we
have learned we need to give up an additional 7 feet of right of way for future roadway
improvements. And so we would like to request some relief from the 35 foot landscape
setback from the right of way. And request that 15 feet be acceptable. I have looked
though the Meridian area and maybe the biggest setback was 20 feet, but probably it goes
that there is nothing to 10 to 15 feet. When Fairview is fully developed there will be an
additional 21/2 feet on the sidewalks so our 15 would become 171/2 feet. Other than that
we have no other exceptions to what has been passed on as a recommendation. I would
be glad to answer any questions.
Tolsma: Any questions? Anyone else from the public wish to offer testimony on the
rezone application by BW Inc. Seeing none I will close the public hearing.
Morrow: I have a question I guess for the Counselor with respect to the 35 foot setback,
it is 'rn the decision and recommendation of P& Z is that something a variance needs to
be requested here, or are we dealing with 2 different issues here?
Crookston: No, not a variance, it is not required by your ordinance it is part of the new
comprehensive plan, it is stated to be a condition for the rezone. It is totally up to what you
want to do, it is not required by ordinance. The goal is to make Fairview meet that goal,
it is being requested at the new West One facility that they are doing their rezone on, it
has been asked for in several places along Cherry Lane. It is not just with this request.
C~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 60
•
Torfin: Mr. President, can I make a clarification, on what this would actually do to us, I
have a site plan. Right now we would end up losing 5 parking spaces if we had to shift
everything down into there. This doesn't reflect the 7 feet that ACHD is requiring. It really
causes us some problems in planning the site, it is kind of an irregular shaped parcel.
Also in the findings, not in the recommendation but in the findings, there was the language
that if a 35 foot landscape setback could be provided then we should do so, there was the
provision of if.
Morrow: Are you suggesting that, 1 believe that would be the State Highway Department
or ACHD that is requesting additional of 7 feet to the 35 feet so in reality it is 42 feet.
Torfin: Yes if we had to do a 35 feet and it is Ada County Highway District, it is a State
Highway but I believe they have jurisdiction in this area. One discussion that we had with
staff was that the landscape requirements based on this small development that we would
only be required to put a couple trees in. We are planning on doing extensive
landscaping, our site is setback such that we will have landscaping around the whole
building and it will be landscaped quite nicely.
Morrow: A question to the square footage mandates how many parking spaces?
TorFin: Ten
Morrow: And how many parking spaces if you do the 42 fee# can you put on that site?
To~n: We can only really come up with 6 and it is not enough for the use, we need that
many. We have a handicapped space that we have to provide and the ADA requirements
have changed from 12 feet to 16 feet. There are some constraints that keep pushing us
back. I did talk with your planning staff and maybe she can address the issue.
(End of Tape)
Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Stiles: My question Shari is with respect to the 35 foot setback with the 7 feet for a total
of 42 feet and the conflict that it creates with respect to the size of the building would
indicate that there needs to be 10 parking spaces. By doing the 35 and 7 in Mr. To~n's
testimony would indicate that they can only get to 10 parking spaces, is there some
common ground that ailows obviously if the building square footage sets a standard of 10
parking spaces then how do we reconcile the desire for the setback easement with the
requirements of the number of parking spaces?
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 61
•
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, I believe that would be your decision if you were willing to
forgo some of the parking space for the landscape. I don't like to fact of giving up some
of the 35 feet because we are just bairly starting to ask for it and already somebody is
asking to not comply with that. In this case they are providing quite a bit of landscaping
perimeter landscaping to buffer the residential and also they are going to have the
perimeter fencing. I don't know if there is something they can do to provide parking on the
easterly side that they are not showing on their plan as being used right now. It is a hard
thing to answer as far as are we willing to say okay that is okay and then the next person
comes along and says well he only had to do 15 feet, I only want to do 10. I worry about
it setting a precedent.
Morrow: I think the other issue there is that particularly with the parcels that are close in
town that for all practical purposes are very small, if we are going to develop that out it
seems to me like there has got to be some compromise with that standard because the
other side of that coin is that what good is the 35 feet if we put together a building there
that is constantly empty because you can't service the building in terms of parking spaces
for clients coming in and out and consequently they don't come in and out and we end up
with a vacant building. How do we reconcile for example the ones further into town like
Ponderos~ Paint and those buildings obviously would be hard pressed to have 7 feet of
a landscape bufFer. So, my question is give us some help here as to how we reconcile the
2 issues.
Stiles: The site is very narrow where is fronts Fairview, I believe that other landscaping
they are proposing is more than a lot are willing to do, some aren't even willing to provide
the one tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt that the ordinance requires. The
Comprehensive Plan just does say that it encourages a 35 foot landscape setback. And
I haven't heard other comments that valuable commercial property is being eaten up with
this 35 foot setback. I guess what I would say to you is that became of what has been told
to me about their landscaping plans and that is will be a quality plan and not the bear
minimum I think it would be okay to reduce that to the 20 or 15 if that is what you decide
to do.
Crookston: The question I have, I don't have it totally depicted in my mind is there a
portion that we are rezoning to R-8 just farther south from the veterinarian part?
Stiles: Yes
Crookston: You could get the 35 feet i# went even farther south for the veterinarian and
then the remainder could be R-8.
Stiles: t believe there was a larger area that was zoned limited office that was zoned prior
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 62
•
to this rezone. So, basically they have asked for a smaller area to be rezoned C-G that
was av~ilable before his L-O.
Crookston: Right, so they could do the 35 feet if they reorganize what they are asking for,
is that right?
Stiles: It would appear so yes.
Torfin: Because of the site and configuration right now we are shoving this building, this
is a commercial building and it is going to be a veterinarian use. We are continually
pushing it back with all of these setbacks and we are going to get back so far that it is
going to be tough to really market the building in the future by getting it back so far. That
is another consideration. I guess other areas that have landscape setbacks they are
primarily 15 and 20 feet and look nice and coming off of the freeway you have 10 to 15 feet
of landscape and I think it achieves what you are trying to do with the 35 at least in this
case. And maybe others that I am not aware of seems like it is a burden that we would like
to have some relief.
Morrow: How much, to take up on this other issue that has been raised, how much
footage across the back is being made into R-8?
Torfin: Square footage?
Morrow: No, in terms of lineal footage in terms of depth?
Torfin: It is 80 feet
Morrow: It can't be 80 feet deep Dan.
Torfin: Let me show you
(Discussion Inaudible)
Torfin: Our concerns are pushing the building back so far that no one knows that it is
there and also chewing up that buffer area.
Morrow: Another question, the property that is immediately to the east of that, the large
portion that used to be the driveway, those people would be subject to the same 35 foot
setback would they not in terms of developing that parcel of property?
Torfin: i believe that they are seeking some relief from that as well, their parking plan
• •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 63
would be compromised where they would lose a whole bank of parking. And I have talked
to them and they are planning a landscape strip. The 35 foot setback would take out a big
chunk and I believe they are also subject to some additional right of way dedication.
Councilman Morrow, there is another parcel in between us and them. As Shari stated we
are planning on doing a really nice landscaping plan and I think the City of Meridian would
be proud of it and would not see it as something less than what you want along one of
your main entrances to the city.
Corrie: You feel that 20 foot difference is going to make a difference as fac as peop4e
seeing it from Fairview?
Torfin: The building is back far enough now that another 20 feet just exacerbates the
condition.
Corrie: This is a terrible time of night to try and make a decision like that. We are trying
to do something all the way down the road and then we get variances to do it now or don't
do it now, I don't know.
Dennis Baker, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Baker: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Council, I think the real concern I
have is pushing this potential piece back into the residential. If we don't have that berm
of the south end of the veterinarian clinic we are, in other words if we are forced to go back
an additional 20 feet from what we are suggesting we are pushing back into the
residential that is already been preliminary plat residential that has already been
preliminary plat approved and is yet to be constructed. And so we push it back in there we
can't put that berm to protect those people who would be in that culdesac back there
approximately 10 lots in that cufdesac. That is my main concern, the fact that we are back
off of the road an Fairview this far is a concem but my main concem is going back into the
residential without adequate buffer of the berm and some fencing and some landscaping
in there to protect those people that would be in there. That is all I really wanted to say
on that.
Yerrington: The only trouble with this, if we attow him to change the setback,
Intermountain Arms is going to want the same thing, West One is going to want the same
thing. That is all I have to say.
Tolsma: What you are talking about is establishing a precedent.
Yerrington: Yes, we might as well change our rules to 15 feet or eliminate them.
• ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 64
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this?
Mike Peterson, 9125 McMillan, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Peterson: I would ask for your consideration of indeed there is a big difference befinreen
West One Bank and Intermountain Arms as far as the size of the property and the type of
business which they are pursuing. As it was mentioned a couple of these small pieces of
property on Fairview that eventually do need to be developed and I think it would be quite
a hindrance if the 35 foot limit was placed on the right of way there. I would just there
again I can certainly see the need to, I think there is always a need to be flexible and I
would ask that you consider the spirit of what you are trying to do in the Comprehensive
Plan and not be too strict on some of these dem~nds. I will be the veterinarian there so
I want to make that point, 1 would like to be there.
Wayne Stolfus, 250 Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Stolfus: 1 don't want to belinger the point most of the comments have already been made
on this setback. I understand your concern about implementing a policy and trying to be
uniform, but realistically you will never have uniformity on a street like Fairview, you have
some recently constructed businesses there now that this requirement was not even a
matter of discussion. You also have some additional undeveloped properties that you
have no controt of until they develop. And whether or not this 80 feet of frontage or
whatever it is has 35 feet or 10 feet really isn't' going to make or break your entrance to
the City there. I think it is more important on how it is done. You don't need 35 feet of
grass to have an attractive entrance. If it is visibfe the elevation on a berm so that it is
visible from a car seat has a lot more to do with the visual impact. So, I think you can
achieve your entrance to the City and it can be an attra~tive entrance without having 35
feet of grass that somebody has to water and maintain, I don't think that is the key to your
attractive entrance. If you do have the requirement if you are going to have a property on
either side of it that doesn't have the requirement, you are going to have a new building
built across the street that doesn't have the requirement and so 1 have trouble jusfifying
the argument that you have to be uniform across the board. Because even if you do that
for the next 20 years your entrance and landscaping is not going to be uniform.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none 1 will close the
public hearing.
Morrow: l have a question, since I wasn't privied to the Comprehensive Plan
implementation can you basically brief ine as to the idea behind the 35 feet in terms of how
many streets does that apply to, does it apply to Fairvievrr and what other streets does it
apply to and the purpose of 35 feet does seem like an awful lot of landscape and
i
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 65
C~
landscape area. As we have listened to the testimony this evening what was the line o#
thinking behind creating 35 feet.
Crookston: The line of thinking to my understanding was to be along the entryway
corridors includes Fairview, Cherry Lane, Meridian Road, Franklin Road and East 1 st.
Morrow: Where would we obtain any of that on any of those streets?
Corrie: We are doing that now on East 1 st with McDonalds and all of that in there aren't
we.
Tolsma: t don't think there is 35 feet on McDonalds or any of those that is just a berm out
there.
Crookston: We are doing it with Avest which is basically across the road from this
development as Locust Grove and Fairview. We are asking it of West One which is on
their new branch which is west of Meridian Road, the thinking there was there is going
to be a substantial development at Meridian Road and Cherry Lane that the City wanted
it there. We have asked for it in rezones north of the Maverick at Linder and Cherry Lane.
All I can tell you is where it has been asked for and the thinking behind it was for entry way
corridors.
Morrow: Well, quite candidly some of those properties along Cherry Lane between the
West One and Maverick the lots of record wouldn't have enough depth if you had a 35 foot
frantage enough depth to even do anything with them.
Crookston: That is true
Morrow: Isn't that self defeating?
Crookston: It certainly is to a certain extent but the goal is to get to it whether you go step
by step or whether you have an opportunity to go onslaught. It was just move because
that was the proposal in the Comprehensive P1an.
Morrow: It doesn't seem reaf practical, it does on the Avest properties and those
properties that are east of Locust Grove and it doesn't apply West of Linder because
everything is residential. East 1 st, a1i the stuff between East 1 st and the freeway was
done before under the old Comprehensive Plan so it doesn't apply to any of that. When
you are dealing with large parcels of property like the Avest thing is 40 acres of land, 35
feet is.
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 66
Tolsma: Well they have a 1/4 mile frontage out there too.
s
Morrow: Different situation, how do you handle the deal where Intermountain Farmer is
with respect to that subdivision. You don't get 35 feet there because it is already
developed and zoned and already landscaped.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Corrie: Well, it looks like to me Mr. President we need to do it on a case by case basis
where it fits and if it doesn't fit than we will have to adjust accordingly. If we want to
change that we need to have new findings of fact is that correct or amend it. And you were
asking for 15 foot? What is your pleasure Walt?
Morrow: Well, I think there has to be submittal ground here, if we are going to do it on a
site to site basis than I think we need to see development plans that specificatly spell out
what the rest of the landscaping is if we are going to do a 15 foot setback that is a
landscaped are that looks like landscaping for the rest of the lot so we are assured we are
getting what it is that we want. Although with this particular development you may have a
history of doing exactly what it is they say they are going to do we are dealing with a new
area here. lf it is 15 feet or 20 feet or whatever let's see what the compensation is on the
other side with respect to the other landscaping.
Tolsma: What you might do also is see what Intermountain Farmers has out there for their
landscape project or McDonalds or Chevron's landscaping and see out is compares on
footages.
Morrow: Well, that is true, all they have is a grass berm.
Tofsma: WeN, there are trees and shrubs and fiowers and everything else out there. If
they are at 20 feet or 25 feet well maybe that is something to look at there. (Inaudible).
Morrow: Well, if that is what you are after than in order to do that you would need to table
this tonight is that correct.
Crookston: Correct
Morrow: You wouldn't have that number to compare it to.
Tolsma: 1Vo, you wouldn't have that number (inaudible).
Corrie: Let's get it off the table here, I move that we accept the findings of fact and
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 67
conclusions of law with the replacement of a 15 foot landscape setback required under the
Comprehensive Plan.
Morrow: Did you wish to include in your motion that the applicant submit a landscape plan
for this site?
Corrie: Yes
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of !aw with a 15 foot setback instead of a 35 foot setback and that the developer provide
a landscape site plan for the project, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRtED: AI{ Yea
To~n: Can I ask for one clarification and it will be brief when we submit the building plans
the site plans and the landscape plan will be submitted for review is that a staff level
review?
Morrow: The landscape review plan based on the motion would be done at the staff level
because the public hearing was not continued to the next meeting for that presentation.
So it wauld be up to our #1 gal to take care of that.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Crookston: I think you need to table the ordinance because you are stili waiting for the
landscape plan.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Totsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the rezone ordinance until we have a
landscape plan, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATIDN AND ZONING WITH A
• •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 68
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2:
Tolsma: ~s there a representative here?
Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Merkle: Mr. President, members of the Council, 1 am here fhis evening on behalf of Kevin
Howell the applicant. This proposal is located about 1000 feet south of Ustick Road on
the east side of Locust Grove Road, just north of Chamberlain Estates Subdivision which
is an approved subdivision by the same applicant just to the south. This is the northerly
piece of that already approved subdivision. This application is for annexation and R-8
zoning on 9.7 acres with a 28 lot preliminary plat. This provides us a density of 2.91ots
per acre. We are proposing home sizes with a minimum of 1350 square feet which is
typical for the surrounding R-8 zoning to the west side of Locust Grove and what Kevin
had approved on the Chamberlain plat just to the south of us. Access to the subdivision,
right now we don't have any and it will be a condition of the city and the Highway District
that we can't have access to the subdivision until this phase of Chamberlain does get
constructed. Obviously our one access right now is here, we are providing stub streets
to the east, to the north in this location and also some adjacent right of way at this location
to punch up into this property when it develops. Pheasant Pointe access is right there.
In talking with the Highway District we did not want to have this come through like that, it
just creates a problem on residential streets to have through areas going a 1/4 mile. So
what they are proposing to do is have the access come up and (oop up into the property
like that and at some point access out to Ustick. All the streets within the subdivision will
be built to the Highway District standards with the addition of 5 foot sidewalks as is
required by the City of Meridian. Sewer to the project will be from the extension of the 18
inch South Slough sewer trunk which will come through the site and end right here. I
would like to address the existing South Slough. This dotted line right here represents the
existing easement for the South Slough, it comes right through there and punches under
Locust Grove. The applicant is proposing to realign this so we can have lots here back
up to the south side lots back up to the front side and punch it up where it goes to Locust
Grove existing. We will have the 18 foot Nampa Meridian access on the north side and
we will leave 15 foot on the south side for the City's path, for the pathway plan that
identifies this particular slough as a pathway plan. One point of interest, this particular lot
right here, there is an existing house on that lot right there and it right now provides access
out to Locust Grove. We are wanting to continue that, that house will be tom down but we
want to continue the access out here which is acceptable to the Highway District onto
Locust Grove. The fact being that it just doesn't seem feasible to punch something across
and put a big 7 foot (inaudible) to serve one lot so it was acceptable to leave that access
out onto Locust Grove. Pressurized irrigation will be provided as the City ordinance to tie
into the existing system that wiN be existing once it is put in for Chamberlain. Regarding
•
Meridian C+ty Council
July 19, 1994
Page 69
•
Gary Smith's and Shari's comments, typically I provide a written response to each of them
I did not do that in this case, however, if you want to I can go through them one by one or
have them question me and I can answer. But none of them are insurmountable. I can
submit the stuff provide it to them, or some of the stuff Shari wanted I have already
provided on this plat and submitted it to them, it is a little bit different from the Planning and
Zoning. If you have any questions, or if Gary or Shari has any comment I would like to
address that at that time.
Crookston: What is the average size of your lots?
Merkfe: I don't have a calculator on me right now, but I would guess they are in excess
of 8,Q00 square feet. If I may what I think you are getting at is the R-8 versus the R-4, the
reason we are going with R-8 here is the frontage. We have deep deep lots, 140 feet,
110, 108, we have some extra wide lots, but to go to an R-4 here we would fose a couple
lots. We are only 2.9 lots per acre. The surrounding use is R-8. It is kind of like the same
situation we had over here on Cougar Creek, we have a narrow long side one road down
the middle and we have 74 foot wide lots by a 120 and 140 in that case. So it is our
opinion that the R-8 really it is not a big problem here. As far as the annexation goes we
could with the devetopment agreement set a maximum units on what is proposed tonight
with the annexation.
Corrie: How would the developer feel about 1400 square foot minimum homes?
Merkle: He would probably rather have 1350.
Corrie: Do you think he would go with the 1400, we are going to run into a problem here
before too long.
Merkle: I think that would be acceptable.
Corrie: It would make our job a little easier down the road.
Tolsma: Has this planned changed, Shari has a comment here that Block 1 is over a 1000
feet long.
Merkle: Right, and that was the original submittaf some 2 months ago, but since then we
put the stub street in and we have eliminated that long block.
Tolsma: I see the school district doesn't recommend approval of this one either, do you
have any comments on that?
• •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 70
Merkle: Councilman Tolsma, doss it say in their letter dated May 5th.
Tolsma: I was reading in the findings of fact in here.
Corrie: Are they going to have a mandatory homeowners association with this?
Merkle: Yes, it will probably be in accordance with Chamberlain to the South since they
are trying to make it all one subdivision. Is there anything else?
Tolsma: Anyone else frorn the public wish to offer testimony?
Vern Alleman, 2101 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Alleman: I have some concems and I expressed them at the Planning & Zoning and I don't
know what the status is at this point. One is a question, previously this subdivision the
other part of Chamberlain I believe it is, they had changed the roadways into my property
and I got no notice of it. I think this was after it had been approved. What they did I
approve of I think it was better all the way around, but I am concerned can they come
along and change the access to my property without me having after it has been approved
can they change it. And the other question is, of course it was pointed out at the Planning
and Zoning that because I am agriculture that they have to provide fencing befinreen me
and the subdivision. I wonder what provision there are for that and when the fencing is
to be put in and by whom the fencing is to be put in. Put in by the neighborhood
association, who oversees that it is done and what type of fencing it is. I am concemed,
1 have been very concerned about this all through the Planning and Zoning at the
Comprehensive Plan I have expressed by concerns about this. Farming and subdivisions
are not compatible and it is to their advantage just as well as mine that we have good
fencing berinreen farming and subdivisions because when children get over and this has
been brought out in many of the hearings, when children get over into farming and where
you have livestock you are in for some problem because children can get hurt not only that
we do have the South Slough there they can get into the South Slough and there can be
some problem. And of course I worry about them getting into the irrigation and I have the
extra problems with the irrigation and all that causes.
Morrow: I think to answer your question the action the Council has taken with recent
annexation requests that I think the Council has been very specific and put the developers
and the development folk and realtors on notice that they are to specifically spell out within
the covenants and restrictions that the agricultural uses exist immediately adjacent to
those subdivisions for as long as they choose to exist that those fences go in prior to any
construction in terms of actual homes so that the trash that builders have that blows into
agricultural fields and gets into hay and things like that does not happen. 1 think that our
~ ~
Meridian City Councii
July 19, 1994
Page 71
staff right now is currently dealing with a development that has not put their fencing as
quickfy as possible and I suspect that the Council's direction if it is not quickly remedied
will be to stop building permits, stop anything that goes on in that subdivision until that is
remedied. So, I think that you will find that we are trying to be extremely sensitive to
existing uses for as long as those folks wish to have those uses around. That both the
development folk and the realtors and ultimately the buyers of the property are aware of
what rights are being retained by the existing ordinance of surrounding properties.
Alleman: I would compliment you on that. What type of fencing are we talking about when
w~ talk about fencing, is there any provision for that?
To~sma: (lnaudible)
Morrow: I have seen everything from 6 foot chain link with divider bars, to 6 foot cedar
fencing.
ANeman: So, it is just a matter of stringing a barbed wire fence and saying this
Morrow: No, the fence is designed to be blocking fences that do keep trash and force
quite candidly a lot of my peers are real trashy folk. And the concept is that we stop doing
that, we are not the best of citizens as builders. Most builders and most people that work
for builders do not recognize that pieces of siding and trash that get in a hay stack can kill
a$1000 in the space of a couple of hours. And so I think that this Council and Mayor have
determined that they will recognize that as an issue and deal with it very quickly.
Generally speaking the fences that we are approving are fences that do not allow for sight
through nor pass through debris.
Alleman: And I might say pedestrians
Morrow: As best we can.
Alleman: I guess the other question is can they change the road access and the sewer
without my knowing it once it has been approved or the way they have it drawn?
Tolsma: If it was on the final plat it can't be changed.
Crookston: Not without a request to amend the final plat.
Alleman: Would I know about that though? 1 didn't know about when they changed the
other portions of this subdivision. l never knew they changed it, I compliment them it was
an advantage, it wasn't the way it was previously. What is to say they might do something
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 72
!
that wasn't an improvement and I would never know about and yet it would affect.
Crookston: If there is a substanti~l amendment to the plat there were would have to b~
a new notice, but whether or not, that is kind of a subjective call as to what is substantial
amendment.
Alleman: The thing of it is where the sewer and roadway is as of now is as of I think it
should as best it can be, but if they changed it it would not be to my advantage. That is
why 1 don't know how to address the problem, if they come along and want to change it
I don't think they will but now is the time to bring the question up.
Crookston: We don't really have anything that addresses your specific question.
AI{eman: So they can change it and 1 would never know.
Crookston: Well, it depends on what kind of change it is. It may be something that you
would not be notified of and it may be something that you would be .
Alleman: Can we make a specific that the street and sewer won't be changed without my
notification?
Crookston: That is not up to me.
Alleman: That would be my concern that they couldn't.
Tolsma: Where do we go on this, if we approve the final plat, it is a preliminary plat
(inaudible). So if this plat changes somewhere between now and the final plat what would
be a significant change so that (inaudible).
Corrie: That is the subjective part. 1 guess we could ask you to do it I suppose.
Morrow: 1 think we handle that by making that a condition of approval because it is an
annexation request. I think on the rebuttal that Mr. Merkle will address that issue.
(End of Tape)
Tammy DeWeerd, 2090 West Chateau, was sworn by the City Attorney.
DeWeerd: I reluctantly come up again before you but I know if I wake up in the morning
and haven't done it I would be really angry with myself. I apologize for extending your lack
of sleep. We decided to take you up on this additional rebuttal on another public hearing
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 73
and so here I stand. I want to relay our frustration with the public hearing process, we
went to planning and zoning they said they can only deny on technical merits, we went to
ACHD and they say they only are a small part of the application and can't deny a
development. The school district sends a letter that doesn't have any impact so they all
point to you our elected officials. What is the point of a public hearing where the residents
bring their concerns and want them considered. Then the discussion is closed and it is
a done deal anyway, it is no wonder the residents that we tried to get to come tonight
didn't come. They must have known what we found out tonight. Why can't preliminary
plats be delayed so that what is brought before the Council at a public hearing is allowed
to be iooked into. All of the concerns that are brought forth, why aren't all residents and
affected subdivisions or schools or affected schools required to be notified of new
development that will afFect their quality of life. Poor Councilman Morrow, he has not seen
a member of the School District attend a Council meeting, have you been to a School
Board meeting? Is it possibly that the school district doesn't come here because they
already know that it doesn't make a difference. Will it make a difference, if it will we will
take upon us personally to continue to put pressure on these people to make it to these
meetings. As per the Comprehensive Plan it is stated that continued cooperation befinreen
the City and school district is there to ensure quality education. Obviously the School
District doesn't see it necessary to send personal representatives to these meetings
because it doesn't make a difference. Is it out of line to ask you our elected
representatives to contact the school district and initia#e the cooperation needed to
address these immediate concems. And not those of just selected sites, we want buildings
on those sites. We need to stop pointing fingers back and forth so I ask you to be the
heros and initiate a public meeting with the Council and the school o~cials to answer
questions of growth to the pubtic that puts you all in office. A town meeting addressing the
issue of growth and education of youngsters. We would be more than happy to help with
this effort. Before this public meeting is closed these are the questions we would like
answered and want the opportunity to address the answers and your comments if needed.
Will it honestly make a difference having a school board person here attending these
meeting? If it doesn't why don't you approach them and say the citizens of Meridian need
answers to these concerns. Are you open to a town hall meeting?
Corrie: Yes we are open this is a town hall meeting right now.
DeWeerd: A town hall meeting with the City Council and the school board to address the
concerns of all this growth and what we are going to do with our kids.
Corrie: You are addressing 2 separate entities here, you are addressing the school board
and the City Council. School Board covers the schools, the City Council covers the City.
We can't make decisions for the school board you have to go to the school board with your
problems about schools being over crowded and what have you. We can`t do that
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 74
decision for the schoof board. One of us can go there and meet with the school board but
it doesn't make any difference they make their decisions of the schools and we make
decisions for the City. So consequentiy we have 2 different town meetings our whatever
you want to call it. We can't make decisions for the school system that is where you
should go and make you (inaudible} or however you want to say it onto them on how you
feel and then let them make their decision on what they are going to do with the schools,
we can't. Now you made your decision about telling us about neighborhoods on what you
want to see and what you don't want to see then we make that decision based upon
findings of fact and conclusions of law. But we don't have anything to do with the schools.
I have a feeling the way you are looking me either it is late or you are not hearing what
I am saying or understand what I am saying. We cannot make the decisions for the
schools at this Council level.
DeWeerd: You put the residents in the City with the new developments and they have to
find schools for them.
Corrie: It is part of a free society they can go where they want to.
DeWeerd: That is true but don't we work in cooperation and can't we cooperate to
address these concerns.
Corrie: Yes we do
DeWeerd: We have 600 new students going into a schooi that is aiready at that siae.
Corrie: I understand that and I am sure that everybody in this room understands but we
have no control over the schools. We can't tell you to go build a school there we have no
control on telling peopte you cannot come into Meridian.
DeWeerd: You have the authority to delay passing of a new subdivision while you go out
and you find out some of these facts by working with the school district.
Corrie: We are going in circles here.
Tolsma: We can't delay anything over a legal amount of time.
DeWeerd: All 1 am doing is challenging to address these concerns in the public forum you
and the school district sitting here together addressing to the citizens of Meridian these
concerns of growth and how they will be dealt with.
Tolsma: The Meridian school district sends us a form letter.
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 75
•
DeWeerd: And they sent us the same form letter on Turtle Creek and you refer to on the
Trailer park thing they said the same thing if you look at those things.
Talsma: No, they turned down the trailer park but the other one they said they are not
opposed to growth.
DeWeerd: They are not opposed to growth but
Tolsma: But, how is a contradictory statement like that, we are not opposed to growth
except we don't want to have anymore of it.
DeWeerd: But if they were here it wouldn't make a difference.
Tolsma: They are never here, the only time they show up (inaudible)
DeWeerd: Would it make a difference if they were here?
Tolsma: It probably would
Yerrington: I wonder what the percentage of students in the Meridian School District No.
2 lives inside the City of Meridian? You have part of Boise is this district, you have all the
County, you have Eagle and Star and (inaudible). ( bet you when you get right down to
it that we don't probably have roughly a 113 of the students in School District No. 2 from
Meridian.
DeWeerd: I agree, but we were addressing only those that impact Linder Elementary.
Yerrington: That is true, but is compacting that, but us meeting with them, unless
everybody meets, Boise would have to meet because part of that district is Boise, Eagle
and Star if we met and all did the same thing yes it would probably make a difference. But
just ourselves meeting with them well probably not.
DeWeerd: Food for thought.
Morrow: Gary and Shari do you have any comments, both of you had comments with
respect to this proposed project and your letters are dated May 24 and May 26
respectively. Mr. Merkle has indieated that he doesn't have his normal line by line
response to your questions or comments is there anything we need to address specifically.
Have you met with Mr. Merkle Gary for example and covered your twelve items?
Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
C~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 76
•
Smith: Mr. President, Councilman Morrow, I have not met with Mr. Merkle to discuss these
items. I did receive a copy of a letter that an adjacent property owner wrote to Ada County
Highway District concerned with the large pit that has been dug that is adjacent to his
property that is apparently going to serve as a drainage bed for the number 1 subdivision
which has not been, no construction has taken place on number 1 subdivision with
exception of the street being excavated. And I wonder why this subdivision is even before
us for the Counci! approval. No. 1 subdivision has not gone anywhere other than the
excavation and this letter that Bud Brinegar wrote stated that he is really concerned about
the size of this hole and the water that standing in it. And he is requesting that ACHD to
advise him of what can be done to correct this matter. And actually it is not right of way
it is just a hole in the ground it is just a preliminary plat. My review on this No. 2
subdivision was done May 24th and that is 2 months ago and nothing has happened on
No. 1. 1 guess those are my only comments.
Morrow: I am a little slow will you take me through with respect to subdivision No. 1 is it
entirely different subdivision than this is that correct.
Smith: It is the adjacent subdivision correct, but this subdivision has access through No.
1, until No. 1 is improved this subdivision has no access. The Highway District has said
in their comments that they will not sign off on the plat on No. 2 until No. 1 is an improved
public access connecting that subdivision providing access to it.
Morrow: So, the 2 cannot be developed at the same time?
Smith: I suspect that the 2 can be developed at the same fime.
Morrow. Is your concern that No. 1 gets done and approv~d and signed off before No. 2
is started or that everybody be aware that nothing can go on No. 2 until No. 1 has been
completed or jointly completed at the same time.
Smith: The second part of your comment yes. It woutd have to be done in sequence or
together, but nothing can happen to No. 2 until No. 1 is working.
Morrow: Has a pre-construction conference been heid for No. 1
Smith: No
Morrow: Why are roads being cut, is that normal?
Smith: Sometimes road are cut ahead of time, i don't think pre-construction has been held
on it, I don't know. Like 1 said 2 months ago we reviewed the plans on NO. 2 I don't know
.
Meridian City Council
Jtaly 19, 1994
Page 77
where No. 1 is other than it is back in the fog someplace.
Tolsma: Any questions?
•
Smith: One other thing Councilman Morrow, I would ~ike to get an answer from the
developer on this pit that they have written the Highway District about.
Shari Stiles. 33 East Idaho, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Morrow: Your comments start out with request for annexation and zoning for R-4 for 28
lots on 9.71 acres generally compiies with the Comprehensive Plan and minimum
requirements of the Planning and Zoning Development Ordinance. Apparently, this was
written the 26th of May, apparently there has been a change from we are tatking in terms
of R-8 now.
Stiles: Councilman Morrow and Council, that may have been a typo, but I believe it has
always been proposed as R-8.
Morrow: The Block 1 is over 1000 feet long a variance is required, does the redesign take
care of that situation?
Stiles: Yes I believe that is okay, the block probably still is over a 1000 feet long but there
is nothing they are going to be able to do about it. With the south area property already
approved.
Morrow: Ultimately it solves the problem when the adjacent properties develop and the
stub streets pass on through is that corre~t?
Stiles: Correct.
Morrow: You had a note in terms of the direct access to Locust Grove is prohibited, Block
4 has that been resolved by the Highway District's letter of consent.
Stiles: Did they allow that?
Morrow: Yes
Stiles: I was confused because it said the building was to be removed and they were still
proposing access from that lot and I didn't know why.
Morrow: It sounds to me like one of the things to do here, do you have any other
.
Meridian City Council
July 19, '1994
Page 78
•
outstanding points that you wish to make in terms of your comments with this. You had
12 of them total.
Stiles: I guess it would be just getting the license agreement from Nampa Meridian, we
are going to look into bonding the bike path along there. He does show the landscape
strip. There is not a minimum house size on here yet and t believe he indicated tonight
1400 would be fine. And other than the fact that there is no school and park site in the
area.
Morrow: I have no other questions for Shari.
Tolsma: Anybody else wish to offer testimony on this issue?
Merkle: Back up to Vern Alleman's comment about the street and sewer alignment that
is is proposed, we can just make a condition that what we may approve tonight is what we
are going to go with at final plat and if anything changes from this substantially we will put
the burden on us to contact Vern and get that resolved. Regarding Shari's comment on
the lot access, as ! stated earlier there is an existing house with a bunch of trees around
it and the Slough comes up like this. So with our street the way it is now not us and the
Highway District comparing and not connecting this street through here this basically has
to loop up into the property and provide a long driveway over the slough just to do this lot
seems impractical to me just when we have access on this lot existing out to the street
now. And that is what we proposed and the Highway District is allowing that. So, the
reason it is existing now, we are removing the house we are not leaving it there, it will be
a for sale lot but we do not want to provide another 30 to 40 feet of a 6 foot pipe just for
a long driveway coming down to this lot. It may provide access problems for emergency
or whatever. But it is existing access now and we want to continue it.
Corrie: Who owns the property north of you, there where you have that stub street out?
Merkle: I am not sure of the ownership, but I believe it is a 20 acre piece that goes out to
Ustick. Alleman's property is over here.
Gorrie: What do you intend to do, al! of those at one time?
Merkle: No. 1 the plans are approved, the construction plans are approved, I believe DEQ
has approved the sewer and water. Kevin is working across the street in Pheasant Pointe
and is working from west to east along with the trunk sewer. He does not intend on doing
this concurrently with 1. He will do 1 and then he will do 2. Regarding the roads cut in
phase ~ along with the pit. Back up about a year, 6 months to a year, when we did Cougar
Creek and Howell TraGt on the other side of the street, we realigned the South Slough to
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 79
•
provide Nampa Meridian access and the City's greenbelt, it was about 1600 feet from here
down to the west. When you get further down to the west the realignment basically created
a~II situation, in other words we had to get material to move the channel to the south to
go between the 2 pieces of property. There wasn't enough material on these sites to fill
that so as Kevin had awnership of this property over here some of this street was cut out
to about this location and then the future drainage pit for the phase was excavated out to
generate material to realign the Slough down further to the west. And it is his plan that
when he comes through here to do his subdivision that will be graded to be the permanent
swail, Right now Gary is right it is a hole in the ground but eventually it will be the
permanent drainage pond for phase 1.
Morrow: How deep is the hole?
Merkle: Probably 5 feet.
Morrow: ts there water in it?
Merkle: When there is a little bit of water it percolates out. And that solves us from having
to go out there an do any more drainage test pits because now we know. I believe that
was all that I had written down, are there any other questions?
Corrie: (Inaudible) did that give you your answer on the pit Gary?
Smith: The letter says there are 3 to 4 feet of water standing in the pit and mosquitos
breeding.
Merkle: I am not sure that is the case, when I have been out there it percolates out. When
the adjacent place irrigates to the south water runs down to Locust Grove and fills it up but
it percoiates out.
Tolsma: No more questions? A-nyone else from the public wish to testify on this project?
!f not I will close the public hearing. Council members what is your decision?
Morrow: I guess my first question would be is that has this changed the findings of fact
and conclusions?
Crookston: No
Morrow: I think there are several things we want to do, the 1400 instead of 1350 and
make sure in terms of the, and make sure of the sequence in terms of the agricultural
fencing has that been covered?
a •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 80
Crookston: No it hasn't been covered in the findings. It could be covered in the ordinance.
Corrie: I can be covered in the ordinance and also changes from the preliminary to the
final can be the same way in the ordinance. Like he requested that if there was any
change he would have to be notified.
Crookston: It could.
Morrow: t would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of !aw as
approved by the P& Z with the substitution of 1400 square feet as the minimum.
Tolsma: t notice in the findings here they require a 6 foot cedar fence on the east side of
this property. I just wonder if that would be compatible with (inaudible). Do you have
animals on your side Vern?
Alleman: (Inaudible)
Tolsma: The findings of fact propose a 6 foot high cedar fence on the east side property
line.
Alleman: (Inaudible)
Tolsma: There is also a berm over there, 25 foot landscape buffer and a 6 foot solid cedar
fence.
Yerrington: I will second the motion
Morrow: So to retresh my memory the motion is that we are adopting the findings of fact
and conclusions of law as written for the P& Z with the change of 1400 square feet
instead of 1350.
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law presented by P& Z with exception of a 1400 square foot minimum house, roll call
vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Merkle: Can I make one point please, it is late and I missed something, you said
something about a 25 foot landscape.
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 81
Tolsma: Tha# was in the findings.
Merkle: At the east end of the property with a 6 foot fence?
Corrie: What page was that on?
Tolsma: Page 3 oh I am on the wrong stuff here.
•
Morrow: I would move that we approve the decision and recommendation of the findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt second by Bob to approve the decision of the findings from P&
Z, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Yerrington: I make a motion we have an ordinance drawn.
Morrow: Would that motion include the requirement for a 6 foot screening fence to be
constructed prior to any construction of residences.
Yerrington: Yes
Morrow: I think to be consistent with our other ones we have required that and we have
also required that the covenants and restrictions notice the buyers that there is agricuitural
use. Second
Tolsma: Moved by Ma~c, second by Walt to have the Attorney draw up an ordinance with
the conditions stated by Max and Walt that there be a 6 foot fence on the east side Qf the
property line constructed before any other construction on the property.
Yerrington: Just a question on that, their agricultural endeavors not only on the east but
evidentially on the north. Now if you are going to fence the east why would you not fence
the north?
Corrie: Until such time as it is proven not agricultural. You can make the motion.
Morrow: po you wish to incorporate that into your motion?
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 82
Yerrington: Yes
Morrow: I withdraw the second
Yerrington: I withdraw the first and incorporate it into the original motion.
Tolsma: So, now we have a fence on the north side and the east side with agricultural
properties on the north and east side being protected. All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #22: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONlNG WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FAWCETT'S MEADOWS NO. 2 BY RONALD HENRY:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here?
Ronald Henry, 6301 Charleston Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Henry: Just to be real brief so we can go home, this is an extension to Fawcett's
Meadows No. 1. It is a 5 acre parcel to the south that is going to be added to the
subdivision. There are 10 lots in this proposed subdivision. In just reviewing some of Gary
Smith's comments item #3, the pressurized irrigation is going to be provided. We are going
to take the water out of the existing ditches and pipe it to Ten Mile Creek. Then down the
creek we are going to have a pump station that lift the water out and into the pressurized
irrigation system. The existing ditches across the property will be abandoned. Item #8,
we will have to submit a variance for that for those 2 lots. Sewer service will be extended
across Lot 9 to Lot 10. And the answer to all those questions in item #10 is yes. Shari
Stiles's letter, item #4 that is a common area lot so that will be maintained by the
association. And we will renumber the plat because 15 was left out for some reason. And
everything else 1 agree with and will take care of.
Tolsma: Have you responded in writing to those?
Henry: No
Tolsma: Have you had any conversation with Gary and Shari about this?
Henry: Not specifically about some of these. We have talked about the pressurized
irrigation system.
Tolsma: Any comments of the Council?
~" ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 83
Corrie: This subdivision also has a mandatory homeowners association?
Henry: Yes
Morrow: I guess my only questions would be and they are just a yes and no answer to
both Gary and Shari, are you satisfied with the answers? If not why not.
Stiles: I haven't had any conversations with him, as far as 1 am concerned nothing has
been addressed.
Morrow: Nothing has been addressed in terms of writing or verbally except for tonight.
Stiles: For the plat.
Henry: I guess I was unaware that I was supposed to write back, because in the first
subdivision I realiy didn't have any written communication back to you or Gary about the
requirements. So, this is a new requirement, I didn't know I was supposed to.
Morrow: Mr. Henry what we have been doing here is the Council has kind of taken the
position of most recently if the issues were not pretty well ironed out prior to being
submitted to us with respect to the staff so that we had all the information at our disposal
that we could have to make a decision that we were not approving the projects we were
tabling until that information could be reviewed by our staff folk in terms of the solutions.
Henry: Under the first subdivision, I had similar letters and just really verbally said that I
would abide by all the conditions in those letters. That seemed to be adequate and
therefore I didn't know that I had to respond in writing on this one. But 1 see nothing in
those letters that we can't satisfy.
Morrow: I have no further questions.
Tolsma: Is there anyone else that wishes to testify? Seeing none I will close the public
hearing. Council members.
Gorrie: Mr. President, I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as
stated by the Planning & Zoning.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Its been moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared by Planning & Zoning, roll call vote.
• ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 84
ROLL CALL YOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Mr. President I move that we approve the decision and recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning as well.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve the decision of Planning & Zoning all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: Is there a mation to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance?
Yerrington: So moved
Morrow: Might that motion incorporate in it the conditions of staff are met?
Yerrington: Yes
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Bob to have the attorney prepare and ordinance for
annexation and zoning for Fawcett's Meadows No. 2 by Ronald Henry with the provision
that all the comments of the staff are met in writing before such ordinance is written, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: How about the preliminary plat?
Crookston: You could table until the annexation ordinance is passed.
Morrow: So moved
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Its been moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the preliminary plat until the
annexation ordinance is passed, all those in favor? Opposed?
~
U
Meridian City Council
Juty 19, 1994
Page 85
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Berg: Can I ask what we did with the other one?
~
Morrow: There was no motion approving the preliminary plat.
Tolsma: We have to go back to item #21 to approve the plat of Chamberlain Estates No.
2.
Yerrington: So moved
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Walt, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: We need a motion to approve this preliminary plat.
Morrow: Well on this particular project you made a motion to table the preliminary plat until
the ordinance was drawn up and approved.
Tolsma: We can do the same thing here.
Yerrington: I would like to make a statement that the next time we have 13 items of public
hearings on the agenda that we advertise at the same time for a new City Clerk.
Corrie: Let's table that preliminary plat until the ordinance is approved.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Its been moved by Bob, second by Max to table the preliminary plat for
Chamberlain Estates No. 2 until such time as the ordinance is approved, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
1TEM #23: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNDANCE
SUBDIVISION BY G.L. VOIGT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING:
Tolsma: I wifl now open the pubfic hearing.
~ •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 86
Jim Merkie, 9550 Bethei Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Merkle: Mr. President, members of the Councit, I am here this evening on behalf of G.L.
Voigt the applicant. I am sure you are all familiar with this piece of ground but before we
get started I wi!! back up a little bit. This 97 acre annexation is half way between Locust
Grove and Eagle Road on the south side of Overland Road. It is one of the pieces of
ground that makes the St. Luke's annexation over in this area contiguous with the city
limits. The public hearing for the preiiminary pfat with Pianning & Zoning was heard in
June with the recommendation of approval sent onto the City Council with a condition that
a variance be requested. And I will get into that in a minute. The City Council approve the
annexation of this property on July 5th. (End of Tape) The preliminary plat is for 298
single family residential lots on approximately 97 acres for that gives a gross density of
about 3.076 lots per acre. The applicant is proposing lot sizes with a minimum of 8,000
square foot as required by the R-4 zoning which the annexation request is for also. The
lots are generally between 8,000 and 10,000 square foot however some of the lots in this
proposal are in excess of 10,000 square foot. Home sizes were originally proposed to be
per the ordinance at 1400 square foot, but I am under the impression that the findings
were approve for 1500 square foot and that is acceptable at this time. The applicant is
proposing regarding lot sizes, and this is where the variance comes in, a reduction from
the 80 foot width requirement to 70 foot minimum. Not all the lots would be 70 foot
minimum but that would be a minimum we wouldn't go below that. This reduction is being
requested due to the extent af the open space being provided to set aside, and this is one
item the future school or park site. It is a 4 acre site at the southeast comer of the 97 acre
parce! and it will be coordinated with the school district and city in conjunction with Los
Alamitos subdivision. This is a subdivision southeast that is proposed by Greg Johnson
and then eventually when this piece develops this portion in here will be acquired to bring
the total to about 14 to 16 acres. In the center of this section for a combination school and
park site. In exchange for that dedication and afso the common space opening that we
have here we also are providing the main access and utilities into that school site. The
other pieces have residential streets which will tie into the school site on this vicinity. Over
here this piece of ground will have no vehicular access into it. I am sure this piece will
have it but we wilt provide the main cottector, main thoroughfare, main pedestrian access
from Overland into the school site. Sewer for this project will be extended from the future
Five Mile Trunk Sewer Line which right now is about a mile and a half from tF~is subdivision
up by the railroad tracks in Franklin Road. It is my impression that the St. Luke's people
are putting together a group to finance the extension of the Five Mile Trunk Sewer north
side of the freeway and over the St. Luke's. From that point this developer is prepared to
extend it which is approximateiy about 112 to 3/4 of a mile under the freeway and down to
Overland per the city's facility plan for sewer. !n accordance with the highway district we
prepared a traffic study for the subdivision, come up with some requirements for some
additional widening on Overland Road (inaudible) there is an 18 acre parcel we are
• •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 87
stubbing to the Los Alamitos we are stubbing to. I am not sure of the size of this parcel but
I believe it extends the full 1/2 mile we are stubbing 2 streets into that. We have 2
entrances on Overland and one is the main access into the school site. There is
approximately one, I am not sure of the exact dimension but about a 1 acre to 3/4 acre
homeowners park owned and maintained by the homeowners association. It is not a big
destination park because this will be used by the surrounding subdivisions. Also we have
a space over here that was a litt{e unusable as far as {ots are concerned and will be kind
of another landscape encfave if you wilf. We have submitted a traffic study as required,
submitted it and it was reviewed by the highway district and they have used that study to
come up with their requirements. Streets within the subdivision as typical will be built they
wi11 be pubiic streets built to the highway district standards with 50 foot right of way, 36
foot badc to back and 5 foot sidewalks. The collector street coming down the middle of the
property will have a 5 foot meandering sidewalk and 20 foot common landscape lots on
each side in full length from here to here so they can meander the sidewalk somewhat.
The highway district doesn't want too much of a meandering sidewalk but we feel that the
people utilizing the school are we can buffer them from our lots with providing that
landscaping, and or fencing and shrubs and what not and provide a nice little attra~tive
entrance into the subdivision. As I stated earlier the sewer will be provided through the
offsite extension. The water lines will be extended from existing lines from the west about
a 1/2 mile to a mile to the west. Regarding the City Engineer's and Planning and Zoning
Administrator's comments, { have provided a written response to each of their comments
which they have received prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting. A couple of the main
points on Gary's comments are item #1 concerning the lot dimension of R-4. As I stated
we are requesting through a variance basically a lot density transfer to allow a reduction
of the width from the 80 to 70 feet. This is in your new comprehensive Plan and we will
get into this later. It takes about one way to a lot density transfer can be allowed in
exchange #or open space and set aside schools and park sites which we are trying to
accomplish in this project. The other requirements of the R-4 the averall density we are
only about 3 lots per acre in gross density, they will be in excess of 8,000 square foot
which is the minimum of R-4, the home sizes will be 1500, 14~0 is the minimum in the R-4.
In your packet in the very back 1 have addressed each of Gary's comments. A{so on
Shari's comments #8, she talks about, 1 would like to point out that some of these
comments these were comments made for preliminary p{at when it went through Pianning
& Zoning so some things said in here f have responded to and now we are here tonight
requesting a variance for the same thing so it might be a little confusing but if bear with us,
#g she talks about she would support a lot density transfer in the case that if the site is
donated not merely set aside and my response in my letter to her is that is acceptable if
the preliminary plat is approved as presented here tonight. Another piece of information
you should have in your packet is a copy of a letter from the applicant to Dan Mabe at
Meridian School District. We did have a meeting between a representative of G. L. Voigt's
proposal and one from Marty Goldsmith who is doing Los Alamitos and Greg Johnson was
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 88
•
doing this piece down here. They had a meeting with Dan Mabe to iron out the issues
and location and utilities and access into the site and came up with this concept that each
of the developers will pitch in so to speak their portion of the school site. In Mr. Mabe's
comment to us that day was that this school site will not necessarily be needed until this
section develop outs. So basically the lots in this section are providing their own
elementary school site. In your packet the letter to Dan Mabe of Meridian School District
a response to his comment in his letter to the typical packet that you get that says the
district could not support projects like this without school sites being set aside and
sufFcient uti~ities being provided to the site. 1 think we have accomplished both of those.
{f you would approve the preliminary plat as is and the variance which is the next issue
tonight. With the information presented tonight we would request that you approve this
preliminary plat. If you have any other questions I would be happy to try and answer them.
Corrie: Mr. President, just to make sure in this late hour I am hearing you correctly. Your
minimum size house is going to 1500 square feet?
Merkle: Yes sir
Corrie: And that will be on the final plat as such?
Merkle: Yes
Corrie: !t is stated here 1400 and you said 1500.
Merkle: Right, when we went through the annexation at Council the very last minute the
Mayor said it was 1500 not 1400.
Yerrington: Gary, did I understand you right did you say that the school site is being
donated to the school district?
Merkle: In the applicants words if the preliminary plat is presented here tonight the site
can be donated as a condition of that approval that will be acceptable. My understanding
is it is a combination school park site so I am not sure if we donate it to the City or the
school district, whatever the case may be as a condition of approval of this project that
would be acceptable.
Morrow: I would think that would in our best interest to have that donated to the City of
Meridian for the short term and then that property can always be transferred to the school
district. Shari and Gary do you have any commenis? Shari, would that satisfy your
concems on #8. You are comfortable with the density transfer with the donation of the 4
acres?
~ i
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 89
Sti{es: Yes
Tolsma: Any further questions?
Morrow: I have none.
Tolsma: This is a public hearing, anybody else wish to offer testimony?
Craig Groves, 3920 East Shady Glenn Court, Ada County, was swom by the City Attorney.
Groves: I am here tonight to represent the applicant G. L. Voigt in regards to the donation
of the 4 acre site to the City. I don't believe the applicant is going to have any problem
with that. We do have a tentative commitment with the farm~r that is is possession right
now. That up until the time that 4 acre site is developed as long as there is enough ground
to farm that we would allow him to continue to farm that. So, I would hope that maybe we
cou{d work that into the deal with the city. Our thoughts were that the schooi may want to
build a site there ir~ 3 years and although they may want the ground right there today He
would be able to still farm it.
Morrow: As I see it could work one of several ways, it could very well be that we would
desire to use that portion of property for a park and do it in a shorter period of time than
what the school would. I think nonetheless that f don't have a problem with Art farming it
while it is obviously it is going to develop in phases and that development to that point
could take anywhere from 18 months to 8 years.
Groves: In our legal agreement with the farmer is that he has the right to farm the property
until December 31, 19~.
Morrow: Well, i can't make a decision on anything from my perspective by obviously if we
opted to develop before then f would think it would be up to you to buy him out not us.
Groves: Thank you.
Tolsma: Any other comments or questions? Anybody else wish to testify at this public
hearing? If not I will close the public hearing.
Morrow: That is only 1 S months to December 1996 isn't it?
Corrie: Mr. President, I move tha# we accept the preliminary plat for Sundance Subdivision
noting that the minimum square footage will be 15~ square foot to be on the final plat and
that the proposed park site is donated to the City.
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 90
•
Marrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Bob, second by Walt to approve the Preliminary plat for Sundance
Subdivision by G. L. Voigt and Hubble Engineering subject to the house sizes being 1500
square feet and the 4 acre site be donated to the city for a park or a possible school site
in the future, all those in favor'? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: Afl Yea
ITEM #24: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SUNDANCE SUBDiVfS10N
BY G.L. VOtGT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING:
Tolsma: ts there a representative here?
Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Merkle: Again I am here this evening on behalf of G.L. Voigt the applicant. This is kind
of a follow up issue to the previous issue obviousfy. The variance request in your
application packet is for the lot width red~ction from 80 feet to 70 feet. We are meeting
all the other R-4 requirements, home size 1500, 8,000 square foot minimum, density is
only 3 units per acre well within the R-4. The way it was exptained to me the variance is
the tool that the city has to allow a lot density transfer for the dona#ion and the provision
of op~n space and donation of the school/park site.
Crookston: How many lots are you talking about?
Merkle: There are 298 total.
Crookston: How many would the street frontage variance apply to?
Merlcle: I tried to figure that out, without doing a complete layout the other way I wouldn't
know exactly but not all the lots are 70 they are mid-70's. The culdesac lots don't apply
they all meet the 40 foot on the chord. I would say that there is 60% of the lots and if you
consider that they are 80 instead of 70 that is 15% of 60% of the lots. I think you are
talking in the range of 20 to 30 of the lots probably. You would lose 20 to 30 lots in here
if yau had to go to 80 instead of 70.
Crookston: How many lots are you going to only have 70 to 79.99 street frontage of the
298.
Merkle: How many have less than 80, again without counting specifically I would say it
only affects 50 to 60% of the tots, they are not all 70 some of them are 76, 78, 74.
! ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 91
Crookston: And you are basing this request on the density transfer due to the park site?
Merkle: Right, in addition to the school/park site we are the ones t am not sure if you
consider it a hardship some people might but we are providing the major access, we are
providing the utilities, we have extensive off site costs, we are donating the ground to the
city, for those issues we are requesting through a variance the lot density transfer be
allowed in this case.
Crookston: You are still going to have 8,000 square foot lots?
Merkle: Yes sir
Tolsma: Any questions? Any other person wish to testify in this public hearing for a
variance request? Seeing none 1 will close the public hearing. We need findings.
Morrow: So moved
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt second by Max to have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of taw on the variance request, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
1TEM #25: PUBLIC HEARtNG: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR
ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER AND HUBBLE
ENGINEERING:
Tolsma: I will now open the public hearing and invite the representative speak.
Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney
Merkle: What f know about this project is there was a request for deferral and that is it,
I am not the project manager on it but there was a request for deferrat for reasons
unknown to me.
Tolsma: Does anybody wish to offer testimony on this project?
Francis Margulieux, 2040 Interlachen Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Margulieux: Well, 1 don't know if I am going to get any answers tonight, we have a
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 92
•
concem about what is going to happen at the end of Interlachen Way and where the ciub
house is currently located. Does anybody know.
Berg: That goes with the preliminary plat, this is the annexation.
Margulieux: Are there going to be town houses there or what?
Corrie: 1 am trying to think, David and I had a conversation on fhis one, he was going to
do one of 2 things whichever was appropriate for the City. One was a culdesac right there
so there is no more tra~c on Interlachen.
Margulieux: Are there going to be roads running through. (lnaudible)
Corr~e: Right, I think that was one of the reasons that they do what they are doing. But
he was either going to culdesac or it would run on through and go onto the other side and
connect to the street that would eventually go into the main entrance off of Black Cat. His
feelings were that he would like to culdesac that to Interlachen.
Margulieux: My husband and I have a few concems about what is going in there, we will
be watching that.
Corrie: And something about the club house.
Margulieu~c: We werg just wondering about that, it is so late I just wanted to let you know
that we do have concerns about the schools, the parks, there aren't any parks for me to
take my children and I am concerned about fire services, police services, bicycle safety
and all of those things. I will just cut if there.
Craig Groves, 3920 East Shady Glenn Court, Ada County, was swom by the City Attorney.
Groves: In regards to the application in front of you this evening, the Boise Research
Center on their annexation and rezone that parcel basically relates to a very small section
of ground on the south side of what we call the Thomas property. Every other aspe~t of
the project has already been annexed and zoned, I am not sure what the size is in terms
of acres, 25 acres. The Thomas property was a 25 acre site which 20 was already
annexed and zoned they are just asking for the south part of the property to be annexed
and zoned. And I might speak in regards to in their preliminary plat they have 2 fairly large
areas that they have not designated for development yet, the ones there at the end of
fnterfachen and the other one is on the main drive that comes in. We have talked about
a couple of different uses there. One use would be a fully enclosed gated type community,
cluster housing, single detached housing for the over 55 community with a small club
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 93
house and pitch and put area. It would be a nice use.
Tolsma: Anyone else from the public wish to testify?
Dean Langley, 3195 North Black Cat Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Langley: First of all what did the gentleman mean by deferring does that mean it will just
be brought up again later or what exactly is the nature of that?
Morrow: Well I think to answer your question what I intend to do is they asked to be
essentially tabled we are doing a public hearing. I think I will probably make a motion to
continue the public hearing until our August 2nd meeting so the devefoper can make his
presentation to us verbally on the record. The same that we did before earlier this
evening. I don't see any reason to change that.
Langley: Statement of fact on several items related to this project. Our families own and
operated continuously since the 1940's a 100 acre farm directly west across Black Cat
Road ftom the majoriiy of this development. And f operate a production farm there for the
immediate foreseeable future plan to continue to do that. Although we have no objection
to the development for stated purposes, I think it is important as did at the P& Z hearing
that we simply state that for pubiic record that there will be equipment and machinery used
to operate that ground in grow crop farming, all potential hours and there will be related
issues to that. Also, application of herbicides and pesticides and to include aerial
appiication on that property and adjacent and I see an issue came up in the P& Z hearing
prevailing wind is out of the northwest which means that any dust that kind of thing will be
involved in that development. Three questions after those statements related to that, some
of those issues have been broached and that is control of construction trash from the
property. Currently the water supply for the 100 acr~es comes off of the Eight Mi{e Lateral
through what is to be Ashford Greens. We would assume that the developer is going to
make adequate planning and engineering to supply that water all that way since the main
thoroughfare comes in off Black Cat comes directly over that. And there is also a question
about weed control on that 160 acres both now and during the construction so that there
are spotg of noxious weeds on there now and the developer has been pretty amenable
and have disced it once. Beyond going concerned until the property is transferred and
developed. That concfudes by remarks, any questions?
Tolsma: Questions?
Corrie: I don't think we want to get into one of those situation that Caldwell got into with
the farmer combining.
~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 94
~
Morrow: I guess my comments here generic in nature that probably on these we ought to
include just as a fact that we recognize surrounding agricultural things where they exist
no matter what the subdivision may be. 1 think his issues with respect to the herbicides
and although the weed control is a new issue it is also a very valid issue. In terms of the
property being zoned and annexed and having the responsibility as an owner to control
the weeds so that they don't contaminate an ongoing agricultural operation. t agree with
that also. The other things we have dealt with on a normal basis and I think that we would
continue to deal with in terms of this proposal. So, I think the things that you are asking
for a fairly standard.
Tolsma: That is the first time we have run up against aerial spraying.
Morrow: Aerial spraying is a reality on any iarge piece of ground. We have aerial
spraying going on in the City immediately adjacent to my property.
Tolsma: Any other comments or questions? Anybody else wish to testify, if not 1 wil{ close
the public hearing.
Morrow: Mr. President I would move that we continue the public hearing to the August 2nd
meeting reflecting the request for tabling by the Boise Research Center and they can make
their presentation at the continued public hearing at that point in time.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to continue the public hearing at the August 2nd
meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #26: PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 3 BY STEINER CORPORATION:
Tolsma: Do we have a representative here?
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. President members of the Council about a month and a half ago Steiner
Development committed to prepare a development compliance report. The Mayor and
each Council member received the report and it wasn't in a 3 ring binder but hopefully you
recognize it. Item #6 in that packet was the variance application, a request for 2 items, a
block length be allowed to extend beyond the 1000 standard that the City has by 170 so
~ •
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 95
the block length would be 1170 feet long and that was necessary given the layout of the
fairways in there. And then Steiner Development has donated and the legal description
is in here, 14 acres to the City for the golf course development. And asking then in the
variance for a transfer of density from that 14 acres that is donated into 8 patio homes on
4 lots in the northeast comer of the project. And each of those patio homes woutd be 1500
square feet in size, each individual unit. So, on the single family lot that you see now there
would actually be a 1000 square foot very high value structure a patio home. That came
about with the Teter family that owns property next to this and Steiner Development has
purchased that properly and Mr. & Mrs. Teter indicated they wanted something in Meridian
near a golf course without the large lawn and maintenance with a yard. They wanted a
nice patio home or town house and that got them thinking about this. So that is their
desire to get 8 patio town house units constructed on the 4 singfe family lots and the
variance would then ask for a approval of that to remove that sideyard setback on fhe
interior lot line of those 2 patio home units. I would be happy to answer any questions?
Morrow: I have no questions, I think the transfer makes sense. I think from my
perspective I would like to see the City get the deed to the 14 acres at the earliest possible
time.
Forrey: Is that something that Steiner should prepare Councilman? Okay, we will just take
the legaf description here and prepare something for your review.
Crookston: I don't know whether Gary Smith has reviewed that for compliance with the
plan or not but that needs to be done.
Forrey: Okay, we will pass that onto Steiner Development and get started on that. Any
other questions?
Morrow: No, that was my only comment that the deed and the variance should be hand
in hand.
Tolsma: Any other people from the public wish to testify on this? Seeing none I will close
the public hearing.
Morrow: Mr. President I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fa~t
and conclusions of law on the variance request for the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 by
• ~
Meridian City Council
Jufy 19, 1994
Page 96
Steiner Development, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: Ail Yea
ITEM #27: PROCLAMATtON: YEAR OF THE FAMILY:
Tolsma: In conjunction with the United Nations International Year of the Family and
supported by Soroptimist International of Meridian, Idaho: whereas, families continue to
provide the natural framework for the emotional and material support essential to the
growth and deveiopment of its members of all ages; whereas, families remain a vital
means of preserving and transmitting the cultures and values of our nation and are a
medium for promoting behaviors that can eliminate detrimenta{ inf{uences on society;
whereas, families are capable of playing an important role as agents of development and
constructive changes; whereas, the ability for many families to meet their basic needs has
been weakened by circumstance5 beyond their control; whereas, educational and social
organizations and agencies can direct programs to prepare and empower families to better
fulfill their vital roles in society; whereas, a better understanding and knowledge of family
resources, the diverse forms and functions of families, and intrafamilial relationships can
help in designing programs that will strengthen the family unit, Now therefore t, Ronald R.
Tolsma, Acting Mayor of the City of Meridian do hereby proclaim 1994 as City of Meridian
Year of the Family in the City of Meridian and call upon all citizens individually and in
groups to participate in appropriate programs and events which will enhance the
awareness of family issues and imprave our capability to strengthen the family as the basic
unity of our society.
ITEM #29: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Tolsma: Do you have anything for us tonight Chief?
Gordon: Nothing
Tolsma: Mr. Smith
Smith: Nothing
Tolsma: Ms. Stifes
Stiles: These guys have waited all night for this. I believe Wayne Ccookston has received
a copy of this development agreement, have you? Dakota Ridge.
Crookston: I think that I have but I haven't reviewed it.
~ ~
Meridian City Councii
July 19, 1994
Page 97
Stiles: Andy Byron the developer for Dakota Ridge has had his attorney prepare this and
it is based on our master. One thing if you will notice on the preliminary plat that is
attached he has already had approval of his annexation and also approval of his
preliminary plat, but knowing the city's need for school sites and the school district's he
has prepared a new plat and has talked over with the school district and is offering just a
little over 4 acres for a part of a school site and that is also addressed in this deveiopment
agreeme~t. He is concerned about the deve{opment agreement because his funding
agency is wanting to tie up all the loose ends and to get everything taken care of. 1 don't
know what you can act on tonight if you can authorize after your review and approval but
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign off on this. I have reviewed it and it does have
all the elements that we have that we are working on to require. And I don't know if you
want to say as~ything. The school district or the school site they have offered as it will be
conveyed without cost to the City or the school district and that it will be binding upon the
develop for a period of 3 years from the date of this agreement. I guess after which time
it would revert back to him if the school district decided they didn't need that site of it
wasn't working out obtaining the 8 acres.
Corrie: I was going to say can that be dedicated to the City rather than the school for a
school or park site as such?
Bradbury: The way it is drafted it that it is dedicated to the city or to the school district as
the city may direct for use as a park or school site. Dan Mabe I think in Shari's ~le, Dan
Mabe from the school district has sent a ietter from the schooi district indicating that the
school district is in fact interested in this particular site and we expect that they will take
the property in conjunction with the neighboring properties as those are developed. In the
event that the school district doesn't want it and the City does then the agreement provides
for the City to take it as a park site. At least that is what I intend for the agreement to
provide. if it is not clear we can certainly massage the language.
Crookston: The question 1 have is if something is not done by either the school or the city
within 3 years then it reverts?
Bradbury: That is right.
Crookston: So does that mean that it has to be ongoing devefopment of the school or park
or what are we tatking about?
Bradbury: From my perspective my intention in drafting the agreement was simply the City
says we want it.
Crookston: So nothing has to be done.
C~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 98
^
Bradbury: Nothing has to be developed, it is simply a matter of electing to take the
property.
Morrow: I think my intention would be that we do that now.
Bradbury: I don't think you will get an argument at this hour from anybody.
Morrow: This is being presented to us under Department Reports what action are we
being asked to take here. Is it advisory in nature or it is not an agenda item.
(End of Tape)
Stiles: t had asked to be put on the agenda, I was hoping to have more than one ready
for you tonight and to have it, so you would be able to review it prior to this. But because
of their situation and the fact that they have gone above and beyond what was asked of
them I was hoping that you could not approve this right this minute now, but that you could
authorize upon your review to have the Mayor and City Clerk sign that so we wouldn't
have to wait the extra 2 weeks until the next Council meeting.
Morrow: And you have reviewed this document?
Stiles: Yes I have
Morrow: This document conforms to what we have desire for development agreements?
Stiles: Yes I believe that it does. And it would be contingent upon Wayne Crookston's
review.
Morrow: And Mr. Bradbury has ~mmitted to the language in terms of the city would take
possession of the parcel immediately.
Bradbury: 1 guess it would be upon approval of the final plat. Obviously there are a
number of steps to be taken.
Morrow: I don't have a problem with doing this Shari. The motion I guess would be that
we would approve the development agreement and authorize upon the Counselor's review
and acceptance of such that we authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the
development agreement.
Yerrington: Second
•
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 99
Crookston: I have a question, has Gary Smith seen this?
u
Bradbury: I delivered a copy to his attention at the same time I delivered one to Shari.
Stiles: He has looked at it, he has seen it. I can't say that he has.
Crookston: Not only should it be upon my approval but it should also be on Gary's and
Shari's.
Morrow: I think staff was in the motion wasn't it.
Corrie: I didn't here it but it is now.
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the development agreement for
Dakota Ridge Estates subdivision subject to City Attorney`s and the staffs approval and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign such document when it is reviewed, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MQTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: Counselor do you have anything this morning?
Crookston: Even if I did I wouldn't present it.
Tolsma: Mr. Morrow
Morrow: No
Tolsma: Mr. Yerrington
Yerrington: No
Tolsma: Mr. Corrie
Corrie: I did but I am not going to do it now. { have something very serious that we are
going to have to bring up quickly though is this fee to this Sheriffs office.
Tolsma: City Clerk
Berg: (Inaudible)
~ ~
Meridian City Council
July 19, 1994
Page 100
Yerrington: f make a motion that we adjourn at 2:22.
Corrie: Second
Talsma: Moved by Max, second by Bob to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:22 A.M.
(TAPE 4N FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
< ~
NT P. KINGSFORD MA O
ATTEST:
~
,~.F-.-.. '- r .
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI C RK
• ~
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION OF IiANDY WAREHOUSIN(i
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410 A. HEIGHT LIMITATION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on July 5, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m.
on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appearing through Clay Handy, and
the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony,
the City Council of the City of Meridian makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for July 5, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the July 5, 1994, hearing; that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the notice of public hearing is required to be sent
to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of
the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and
11-9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
of Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
VARIANCE FF & CL - HANDY WARESOUSING PBge - 1
.
•
3. That Ordinance 11-2-410 A. requires that no building in
the Light Industrial District, which the property is zoned, exceed
the height limitation of forty (40) feet.
4. That the Applicant has requested that it be granted a
variance from the above requirement and be allowed to have a silo
which would not be higher than seventy-five (75) feet.
5. The property in question is at 630 East King Street and,
as stated above, is zoned Light Industrial.
6. That the property is adjacent to the Union Pacific Rail
Road; that there are other light industrial uses around the parcel;
that the area along the Railroad right-of-way already has other
elevators and silos of considerable height; that the Applicant
stated that the silo would be enclosed in a building, that the dust
would be collected, that cement materials would go through the silo
and that its hours of operation were from 8: 00 a. m. to 5: 00 p. m. ;
the Applicant also stated that the height of the silo would be in
contravention of the covenants of W. H. Moore, who developed the
property.
7. That the City does have provisions for commercial and
industrial uses, which are contained in 11-Z-413 B; that such
section is specifically pointed out to the Applicant and specific
attention is made to subsections c. , d. , and e. which state, in
part, as follows:
c. "Noise: Objectionable noise which is due to volume,
frequency, or beat shall be muffled or otherwise
controlled."
d. "Vibration: No vibration shall be permitted which is
VARIANCE FF & CL - HANDY WAREHOUSIN(~ Page - 2
• •
discernable without instruments on an adjoining lot or
property."
e. "Air Pollution: Air pollution shall be subject to the
requirements and regulations established by the Health
Authorities."
8. That there were no people appearing at the hearing
objecting to the variance Application.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances o~ the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-416 E. of the Zoning Ordinance and 11-9-612 of the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance, both of the Revised and
Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Zoning Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the things
upon which it may take judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditi.ons existing within
the City and the State.
5. That the following provision of Section 11-9-612,
Variances, of the Development Ordinance is noted which is pertinent
VARIANCE FF & CL - HANDY WAREHOUSIN(~ Page - 3
. •
to this Application:
11-9-612 A. 1. PURPOSE
The Council, as a result of unique circumstances (such as
topographic - physical limitations or a planned unit
development), may grant variances from the provisions of this
Ordinance on a finding that undue hardship results from the
strict compliance with specific provisions or requirements of
the Ordinance or that application of such provision or
requirement is impracticable.
6. That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of
the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the
Application:
11-2-419 A.
"The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision
and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the
public interest where, owing to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming
use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of
lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
Variances shall be granted only where strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go
to the Commission unless directed by the Council."
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-2-419 C. FINDINGS
"A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of
a public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exist:
VARIANCE FF & CL - HANDY WAREHOUSING Page - 4
• •
1. That there are such special circumstances
or conditions affecting the property that the
strict application of the provisions of this
Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or
unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the
requirements of this Ordinance would result in
extraordinary hardship to the owner,
subdivider or developer because of unusual
topography, the nature or condition of
adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions that make
strict compliance with this Ordinance
unreasonable under the circumstance, or that
the conditions and requirements of this
Ordinance will result in inhibiting the
achievements or objectives of this Ordinance;
3. That the granting of the specified
variance will not be detrimental to the
public's welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is
situated;
4. That such variance will not have the
effect of altering the interest and purpose of
this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan.
S. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That no special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application
of the provisions of the height limitation would be
unreasonable were shown by the Applicant.
b. That strict compliance with the requirement that
the height of buildings not be over 40 feet in the
light industrial zone would result in extraordinary
hardship to the Applicant because the height
limitation is designed for fire safety and for fire
fighting; the silo will not house any persons and
only cement materials, which are non-combustible,
will pass through the silo and therefore the need
for fire limitations is not so critical.
c. That the granting of the specified variance would
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
VARIANCE FF & CL - NANDY WAREHOUSING Page - 5
~ •
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated.
d. That such variance would not have the effect of
altering the interests and purposes of the height
limitation in the Zoning Ordinance or the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
9. That it is concluded the Application should be granted,
but the grant of the variance shall not in any way effect or change
the covenants or restrictions on the land as that is a matter that
must be determined by the Applicant and the developer of the
property who placed a height limitation on the land.
10. That the Applicant, as a condition of the variance, must
comply with all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
particularly including, and not limited to, the Uniform Fire Code,
Life Safety Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Electrical Code,
and Uniform Mechanical Code.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN GIESLER
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED l~= ~~ ~~
VOTED--~~ ~ ~
VOTED_ ` ~ t
R~
VOTED
VOTED
VARIANCE FF & CL - IiANDY WAREHOUSING Page - 6
~ ~
APPROVED: ~ DISAPPROVED:
DECISION
It is hereby by decided that the Applicant's Application for
a variance from 11-2-910 A, which limits buildings to a height of
forty (40) feet, is hereby granted and the Applicant may construct
its silo to a height of seventy-five (75) feet, and the Applicant
shall meet all of the City Ordinances, particularly including, and
not limited to, the Uniform Fire Code, Life Safety Code, Uniform
Building Code, Uniform Electrical Code, and Uniform Mechanical
Code.
VARIANCE FF & CL - HANDY WAREHOUSING Page - 7
~
~
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MSRIDIAN
APPLICATION OF MIKE AND SUE CLARKE
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605, M TILING OF DITCflLS
AND A VARIANCE FROM 11-2-414 D
FINDINC~S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on July 5, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m.
on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant, Mike Clarke appearing, and the City
Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, the City
Council of the City of Meridian makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
far July 5, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the July 5, 1994, hearing; that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. 1.b of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that his requirement has been met.
3. That Ordinance 11-9-605 M., PIPING OF DITCHES, requires
CLARKE VARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 1
~ •
all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural
waterways, intersecting, crossi.ng 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 restrain access
to said ditch, lateral or canal. That Ordinance 11-2-414, OFF-
STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES, requires that no building or
structure shall be erected unless permanently maintained off-street
parking and loading have been provided in accordance with the
provisions of this Ordinance and that the parking be paved
4. That the Applicants have requested to be granted a
variance from the above Ordinance requirements and not be required
to pipe the Hunter Lateral, the Cook Lateral or any ditches on the
property, and that they not have to pave the parking areas until
September 30, 1996.
5. That Mike Clarke stated at the hearing that Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District wants the ditch tiled; that he wants
an attractive park; that the water is less than a foot deep; that
if it were tiled he would have to remove the trees that are along
the ditch; that he stated that there is a 36 inch pipe coming in
and the water is 8 feet wide; that he would do a holdharmless
agreement for the irrigation district and he would do maintenance
of the canal. In regards to the paving he stated that he desires
to use compacted gravel for two years instead of paving and that he
would pave in two years; that he would pave the road around the
CLARKE VARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 2
• •
park; that he would have an 8-10 inch gravel base; that he was in
a financial problem.
6. The entire property in question is described in the
variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
7. That the property in the area where the variance is
requested is zoned Light Industrial.
8. That the Applicant does own the property.
9. That no testimony other than Mr. Clarke's was heard at
the hearing.
10. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted
written comment that it requested the City to deny the request for
a variance of the piping ordinance for the following reasons: (1)
There will be a tremendous amount of trash and debris generated by
this facility. The trash will blow into or be thrown into the
ditch and will cause an additional maintenance burden on the
District. (2) Day-to-day maintenance will be an additional burden
because of the activity created by a business such as this one.
The activity will almost make it impossible to perform maintenance.
(3) There will be children in a park such as this one and they
will always be curious and play around and in the ditch which could
be hazardous.
11. The Meridian Fire Department commented that as long as
there is a good gravel base down, Meridian Fire Department wa.ll not
have a problem. Gary Smith will need to approve this.
CLARKE VARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 3
• •
12. That the Central District Health Department submitted
comment which was that they had no objection to the variance
application.
13. That the comments of the Meridian City Engineer, Gary
Smith, are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That the City has previously granted variances from the
piping of waterways; that all such variances have been where the
pipe size to pipe the waterway would be in excess of forty-eight
(48) inches; the Council has not granted a variance for any ditch
where the pipe size was smaller than forty-eight (48) inches.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon which it may take
judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
CLARKE VARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 4
. •
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That the following provisions of Section 11-9-605 M,
PIPING OF DITCHES, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance are
noted which are pertinent to the Application:
"All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of
natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent
and contiguous, on 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, lateral
or canal. The City may waive this requirement for covering
such ditch, lateral or canal, if it finds that the public
purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual
case. Any covering program involving the distribution system
of any irrigation district shall have the prior approval of
that affected district. . . ."
6. That the City Council has met to consider changing the
Ordinance regarding the piping of large ditches; that the Ordinance
may be changed; the decision that was made was that all ditches and
waterways, except drainages, which require a larger pipe than
forty-eight (48) need not be tiled or piped.
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that
must be evidenced and found by the City Council, regarding the
variance of the piping, are as follows:
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing,
that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would be clearly
impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the
subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as
to the specific provision or requirement involved;
CLARKE VARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 5
• •
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this
Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the
subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature or
condition of adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions that make strict
compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the
circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of
this Ordinance will result in inhibiting the achievement
or objectives of this Ordinance;
c. That the granting of the specified variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the
Idaho code; and
e. That such variance will not have the ef fect of nullifying
the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
8. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit,
economic gain ar aonvenience to the Applicant if this variance is
granted.
9. That the requirement of tiling ditches is a health and
safety requirement.
10. That the irrigation district affected has demanded that
this ditch be tiled.
11. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2., regarding the
tiling of ditches, it is specifically concluded as follows:
a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of
the provisions of the ditch tiling Ordinance would
clearly be unreasonable.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this
ditch tiling Ordinance would not result in extraordinary
hardship to the Applicant and if there is any hardship it
is financial and Applicant should have been aware of the
financial commitments.
CLARKE V.ARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 6
i •
c. That the granting of a variance would be detrimental
to the public's welfare or possibly injurious to the
public.
d. That the granting of this variance would not violate the
Idaho Code.
e. That the variance would have the effect of altering the
interests and purposes of the ditch tiling Ordinance
which is included in the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance for safety purposes.
12. That it is concluded that the Application for a variance
from 11-9-605 M, PIPING OF DITCHES, should not be granted.
13. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that
must be evidenced and found by the City Council, regarding the
paving, are as follows:
11-2-419 C. FINDIN(~S
"A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of
a public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exist:
1. That there are such special circumstances
or conditions affecting the property that the
strict application of the provisions of this
Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or
unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the
requirements of this Ordinance would result in
extraordinary hardship to the owner,
subdivider or developer because of unusual
topography, the nature or condition of
adjacent development, other physical
conditions or other conditions that make
strict compliance with this Ordinance
unreasonable under the circumstance, or that
the conditions and requirements of this
Ordinance will result in inhibiting the
achievements or objectives of this Ordinance;
CLARKE VARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 7
•
~
3. That the granting of the specified
variance will not be detrimental to the
public's welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is
situated;
4. That such variance will not have the
effect of altering the interest and purpose of
this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan.
8. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That no special circumstances or conditi.ons
affecting the property that the strict application
of the provisions of the paving ordinance would be
unreasonable were shown by the Applicant, other
than financial reason, which are self-inflicted and
not a cause for a variance.
b. That strict compliance with the requirement that
the parking be paved would not result in
extraordinary hardship to the owner because of
unusual topography, the nature or condition of
adjacent development, other physical condition or
other conditions that make strict compliance with
the pavement requirement unreasonable under the
circumstances, or that the conditions and
requirements of the ordinance will result in
inhibiting the achievements or objectives of the
ordinance. The Applicant made no such showing.
c. That the granting of the specified variance would
be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious
to other property in the area in which the property
is situated.
d. That such variance would have the effect of
altering the interests and purposes of the paving
requirement.
9. The reasons put forth by the Applicant for the variance
of the pavement requirement were financial and that compacted
gravel would work for two years; that such reasons are not
sufficient; that a variance requires that the Council makes a
CLARKE VARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSTONS Page - 8
~ ~
statement of supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned
standards and conditions of the pavement Ordinance have been met by
the applicant; the standards and conditions of the pavement
requirement would not be met by the Applicant's use of compacted
gravel.
APPROVAL OF FINDINC3S OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED ~ K ~T
VOTED~ "~, T
VOTED O K~ n. ~ •
VOTED
VOTED
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it
is decided the Application for a variance from 11-9-605, M TILING
OF DITCHES and a variance from 11-2-414 D, DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING is denied.
APPROVED: ~
DISAPPROVED: ~
CLARKE VARIANCE - FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Page - 9
JUL 19 '94 09~17 NMID
~ . 19 ~ily 1994
l~ieridian Planninq & Zoninq
33 Last Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 8364Z
~
Phones: M~o Cade 208
Or~FiCE rtampo e~6-786t
g~ 3+t3-] S84
SFfUP: htcn~ 466-06eS3
Boiss 3IS~2431
Re: The Flayground/V'axiance Requeat on Pi~inc~ Rsquir~m~ent~n
Dear S~rs:
I have re-r~viewed tha requ~st fa~ a var~.ance on pipix~g the Hunt~r
Late~al thraugh the proposed ~layground AV' Park wi~h Michael and
Su+~ Glarlce. Th~ Nan~pa ~& MQridian Irrigaticn District has no
r~qu3.rencents for pipinq any of our ~aciliti~s. when a development is
dos~e alt~.hdugh both personally as well aB occ~tpationally, I~~el
that al~ ta~i.liti~s should be piped fa~ safety as well as operatioa
~nd maintenance pu~paaQS.
I have always beZieved that the policy on piping tt~at the City of
M~r~dian instituted will b~ a benelit ta the com~auxiity in the
fature for varic~us xeasons. I believe that an ~cceptable
alteraative 3.n the development a! The ~laygrotitnd ~-ould be td t@nce
this ~acility. A f~nee off 4g the Dist~ict's easement rahould add
an element o~C safety as well as security and 3.nsure th~ Di~tri+ct's
cperation and mai.ntenance.
Aft~r reviewing the minutes ~rom yc~ur July 5th meeting. I would
like to qo on the record as statinq that I do nvt believe tt~at I
have ever in ~ny way alluded ta the f~~t that I do not feel that
th~ ditch should be piped or fenced.
If ~urther infarmatson is xequir8d or 3.f Yau
attend a Planning and Zoning meeting on the
this particular prdject, please ~eel frea to
Sina~ely.
-~~~~.y
~
: .s~,~"~',:d
S~
•~Otl~l P. AliC~,4~SQ11
`tiistrict~ Water Superintendent
po: Each Directar
Secretary c~f t~te Board
Bi,].1 Hen~on
Mich~~l and S~~ Clarke
Fi ].e
~
i sas f~xsr sraEer sam+ ~a., roa+o a~s t•a~s
~ pAX ~ 208•888•6201
~ P:2
~~'~~ ~ ' Z~fi~~nt~i~~r~+
Wott].d like ~a hav~ me
Dist=3,~t's behal~ on
~antact me.
• •~, -
. ., } '
RECE~Y~D
JUL i 9 1994
1~-eridian
City Engineer
APPROD(iAAAIE lRR1GA8lE ACRfS
RiV~R fW'W RIC;F~fs • 23,000
easE wto~cr R~ • ao,ooo
~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. ~_7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,
PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE SEWER INSPECTION FEES AND SEPTIC
TANK DUMPING FEES AS ADOPTED BY THE MERIDIAN BOARD OF SEWER
APPRAISERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 7-528 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian creates and establishes the Sewer Board of
Appraisers, consisting of the Mayor, City Clerk, and City Engineer
of the City of Meridian;
WHEREAS, Section 7-529 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian delegates to the Sewer Board of Appraisers
the duty of establishing all rates, charges or fees made and
established under the SEWER USE Ordinance, subject to approval of
the Meridian City Council and provides that the Sewer Board of
Appraisers shall conduct a public hearing within ten days of the
publication of the notice of the public hearing which has been
held.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, that the Resolutions of the Board of Sewer
Appraisers for the adoption of fees for the inspection of sewer
lines and fac.ilities, which Resolutions reads, in part, as
follows:
A. That the Meridian Sewer Board of Appraisers hereby
proposes that the fee for inspection of sewer lines or
facilities, and their installation, should be $2.31 per
lineal foot;
and the Resolution of the Board of Sewer Appraisers for the
~ ~.
adoption of fees for dumping septic tank waste, which Resolution
reads, in part, as follows:
B. That the Meridian Sewer Board of Appraisers hereby
proposes that the fee for dumping septic tank waste into the
Meridian Sewer Treatment Plant should be $33.50 per 1,000
gallons; are hereby approved and adopted by the Meridian City
Council.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the fee$ proposed by the Board
of Sewer Appraisers set forth herein, are adopted and approved.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF MERIDIAN, this ~~day of ~Gt,~ , 1994.
,
APPROVED:
GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
/~~C~/~-~''`''~ti~~7'"+ ~ ~
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR C Y CLERK
r , • ~ ~
ORDINANCE NO. 657
av,..~_ ._.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTATN
REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF THE
NE 1/4 OF SECTION 2, T.3N. , R. 1W. , B.M. , ADA COLiNmW ~=~Tti~Hf~'y Al~ni-fl, ~:~:
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
~
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor o= r~tc~,~;.;,l:il.,/ „va. _ G,.
~ ' ;. -
Meridian, Tdaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of
said City to annex to the said City real property which is
described in Section 1 below:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
Section 1. That the real property described as:
A parcel of land being a portion of the S 1/2 of the NE
'~~ ~~ ~y ~ ~` r:, ~~.J4 of Section 2 T.3N. R.1W. B.M. Ada Count Idaho
., i;_. i.. i i i i i y r r
~~ 70,/~ more particularly described as follows:
`7~
-. .Commencing at an iron pin marking the East 1/4 corner of
- said Section 2, also being on the center line of North
~ .Y Linder Road.
~
(~ ~ thence North 00°00'32" West 460.13 feet along the
Easterly boundary of said Section 2 to a poi.nt on the
';yj.~ if,tt i _
,,„ ± ~~;centerline of said North Linder Road.
/ ~
FcEl~~~ ._ ~ _..-.~hence departing from the Easterly boundary of said
P.~+ .._.__. :5ection 2 North 89°12'32" West 40.00 feet to an iran pin
marking the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence continuing North 89°12'32" West 458.40 feet to an
iron pin;
thence South 00°00'32" East 460.13 feet parallel to the
Easterly boundary of said Section 2 to an iron pin on the
Southerly boundary of the NE 1/4 of said Section 2, also
being on the Northerly boundary of Glennfield Manor as
filed for record in the office of the Ada County
Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in book 45 of plats at page 3676;
thence North 89°12'32" West 2157.64 feet along the
Southerly boundary of said NE 1/4 of Section 2, also
along the Northerly boundaries of said Glennfiel.d Manor,
Glennfield Manor No. 8 as filed for record in the office
of the Ada County Recorders, Boise, Idaho in book 59 of
plats at page 5745, and Glennfield Manor No. 9 as filed
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - TURTLE CREEK/CAIRNS Page 1
, ' • ~
for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder,
Boise, Idaho, in book 59 of plats at page 5844 to a Brass
Cap marking the center 1/4 corner of said Section 2, also
bei.ng the NW corner of said Glennfield Manor No. 9 and
the NE corner of Sunn~rbrook Farm No. 3 as filed for
record in the office of the Ada County Recorder, Boise,
Idaho, in book 63 of plats at page 6315;
thence departing the 5outherly boundary of said NE 1/4 of
Section 2 North 00°15'25" East 1329.17 feet along the
Westerly boundary of said NE 1/4 of Section 2 to an iron
pin marking the NW corner of the S 1/2 of said NE 1/4 of
Section 2;
thence departing the Westerly boundary of said NE 1/4 of
Section 2 South 89°17'36" East 2649.83 feet alang the
Northerly boundary of said 5 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section
2 to an iron pin marking the NE corner of said S 1!2 of
the NE 1/4 of Section 2 also being on the center line of
said North Linder Road;
thence departing from the Northerly boundary of said S
112 of the NE 1/4 of Section 2 South 00°00'32" East
873.03 feet along the Easterly boundaxy of said 5ection
2 and the center line of said North Linder Road to a
point;
thence North 89°12'32" West 40.00 feet to the REAL POINT
OF BEGINNING, comprising 75.80 acres, more or less.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned R-4
Residential; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the
conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for
annexation and zoning.
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-
annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements:
a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and
sewer mains will serve the land.
b. That the development of the property shall be subject to
and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted
January 4, 1994.
c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be required to enter into a development agreement as
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - TURTLE CREEK/CAIRNS Page 2
~ •
authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2,
K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
of Meridi.an and other matters.
d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to
development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M.
which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways,
and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized
irrigation.
e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
f. Meet the requirements and condi~ions of the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of
the City of Meridian.
Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of
the legal description, and map, which shall glainly and clearly
designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada
County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission
within ten (10) days followi.ng the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency,
which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and approy by the Ma or of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this/~~ay of ~' 1994.
APPROVED:
~ ,~,
;.~ ~~ `~
4
MAYOR -- GRANT P. KINGSFORD
ATTEST:
~~c:%f~~i~~~~i~f(f'~..~"'~':'~ 'T
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. -- CITY CLERK
~'T_9 - "F'R"'+' -a ~{°~7 ~.`fA
"4
r ~ ~~:F°N.i' :+ ~ ~ sd
~ ~a'~U c-rm 't't'F ~ f c,
it ~ `i .p ~
n
Z`~ }[M a7'4 ,c+ ~i ~i
~ P'/ r X+,' `~f r~`d Yit.u ,;~.~1y ~~
':;~- ,~
~"~•", ~~ .~ ~
~. ,
. ,-~.~ '~;.,~: ~ : ~.`•;~' ~~ ~
~', ~~ , :.: ~:'~"'` h, ~
Y'~~ ' « . ~, ~.~;~
`ev: ,',-+ 4a,1'~j
o „4~`,,....r w
~yn..~ _ = t ~ , u.,,,~
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - TURTLE CREEK/CAIRNS Page 3
• •
STATE OF IDAHO,)
. ss.
County of Ada, )
I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing
is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4
OF SECTION 2, T.3N., R.1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. 657 ,~l~,y the City
Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the _~ day of
(~' , 1994, as the same appears in my office.
DATED this ~ ~~ day of
., ~ ~.
~ ,•~„ °, ,~.,
y{ .~ .q
~~~J~+~ t~~~
T ~ ~~ ~%ry 1J. /~ ~i ~Y~ ' • ~ `
.~°~ ~
~ ,~`;.: ~~ 'F. ~r
ry : ~~ , „,~
~,, ; ~ r~ ~ .~ ...
~ ~.:. :, ~
:~9 8 ~ ars .~ + $ss ~ T'~ „A~,
y ~ u
i:~ ..~ .,~ ~~ F.+
y a,~ .
STATE OF I
rl _px~
~ 1 ~} `~ Y ~ .{ ~4 ~,~,3T ~
~~' ~, ~i s~~ ~ ~'t".;~i`~
~s... ~ +•: r + ~ .,..x+.5~
'~~'
County of Ada;
_~%~~~' 19 9 4 .
~~.~~i~~~`~--~./C~ * !
City Clerk, City of M idian
Ada County, Idaho
On this ~~h day of ~JU~j/ , 1994, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and 7for said State, personally
appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year in this certificate first above
written.
~ ~~~~~4,~~erea~~2,,~r
~ / ~
.^~~e-~'~" " -
.~. ~' ° ~
SEAL r~ ,~ ~ ~~ -~
_ , ~n
~, ~ _.
;, ~
~.
~ ~~ ~, _ ~
~-' ;.~ ~
;, `vr ~ - v°
: ~ ~ `:' ; ~°
~~ i y: ; ,; : ,o
~~~~~~~~~i~~o~ia~~~~o°~~~
(
Public for ldaho
g at Meridian, Idaho
~ission Expires 8'-0? - 99
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - TURTLE CREEKJCAIRNS Page 4
. ' , • ~ ~
~ ~-
~
~~ ,
i //
_l~'~' ~ I l' ``~ ~
~ I ~ ..~
r-~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~'~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~
~i
,,;~re~ _~ = "- f-
N
O
V ~
~.
w
~
0
o
~
~ ~ M
!~. :.. ~
~
O
.~ W
~
C ~
~
S oo°ao b2"E 8'13.o3i
~ .
, ~ ~ ~ {
~ ~
. ~' ~ ` ' ' ~
, .
, ~ ,~
~ „
,. ~ ,~
_____________ _ ____~ ~________________________
~
~' ~
~ 'N
l "'
( N~
~~~ ~~
`\ ~
~` 2
~ ~kl'p°11-
~~oo,ao
r
','`~
4 ~
~I
~
! ~.._~
~ // ` ~~~
~
i ~
i
i
~ `- / .
. ,6~
,~
,
~r
~ ~%
,~ .
~ ~~
:J ' '
i
M •
~ ~
~
i ~
0 ~
/ ~
W / / ~ i
s `~~~ ~ ~
~" Z
~
i
~~
~ '~-
N oo' 16 ~~~ ~E
t3Za•~~
„
~~
,~
„
~~
~
~~
„
1
1
~
i~
~
~
i
i~
f
~V
3.
.~
N'
~~I
o ~
~
z
ls
~
~
r
_T l"
~~
ld
~
~
~
,
~ '~
,
d
~
~
'
o
..,
~
~~.
'8~1S j SV~IZ
,~--~"-'~."'~p~
_--- a
~ ~ ..
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 5, 1994:
1. TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: FINCH CREEK FINAL PLAT: ~b/e
at a~Pl•~~wt r~~ru~frs
2. TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: CROSSROADS SUBDMSION NO. 3 FINAL
PLAT: ~.~prdvcc! ~v~c~e~-r~n•-ed vK l~.e.th~ d~'~~~ ~'or.~~.e•,.tr
3. TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVtS10N
PRELIMINARY PLAT: ~u.~~ed ~t ~a-~p/.~~,-t veQ~tf~E
4. TABLED AT JULY 5, 1994 MEETING: EXECUTNE SESSION - FRANCIS WRIGHT
LAWSUIT: 6~- - .
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HANDY WARHOUSING
VARIANCE REQUEST: aP,v~~~ ~/f' ~ ~'/~
G~/,~°~v¢, a/eci sian~
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MICHAEL AND SUE
CLARKE VARIANCE REQUEST: CcPPrv Le ~'/f' ~ e%
aP~r~ove dPci~-.o.--
7. ORDINANCE #657 - TURTLE CREEK ANNEXATION: u~oP~o~e~
8. ORDINANCE #658 - G.L VOIGT ANNEXATION/ SUNDANCE: ~~Q~- C/~~~
9. ORDINANCE #659 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/ L-0 -y~-a~/ed- ~-~~ ~ l~'yu-~-°
ORDINANCE #660 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/ I-L C(e~~ti~Oti~rn.l arLc-
ORDINANCE #661 - ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/ C-G ~~~~~
ORDINANCE #662- ST. LUKE'S ANNEXATION/ C-G
10. AMENDED ORDINANCE #607 - MfD-TOWN SQUARE: -{~f/e~
11. RESOLUTION #157 - SEWER INSPECTION FEES:
~pp~o~t a~
~"~" "~~~~"T`^"' ~"`° _ SEPTIC TANK DUMPtNG FEES: P~e~~~~ ? ~~'~~"
13. GARY LEE - JUB ENGINEERS: EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR PINE BLUFF PUD: a p~vvP ~- ~~~ ~e Kte~c..t.o~..r
c~~ Can-c~<~~ec.3.e ~Q~~ ~
14. PUBLlC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE NO. 5 BY tNTERWEST
~~-~.~i~uce~ ~'~i ~c ~~~c~Iyc~ ~r ~if.~~.f'~f- 2 ~`id
i •
DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS:
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FIRE LIGHT
ESTATES BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING:
a~,ow~-•t ~.e~. /~
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TURTLE CREEK
SUBDIVISION BY STEELE AND SON AND JUB ENGINEERS:
~,~y~v~e ~~ ~~
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CANNA LILY
, ~~~,E'Eu..~
ESTATES BY FLOYD AND VICTORIA MADSEN: ~~J~r~~ ~
/.~/~C~o~ d~i ~`io~c.r ' ~kP fl. ~r ~st~ ~~d ~~~•~ :l c c ~ ~, d~k~. L'~pes
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXAT(ON AND ZONING FOR PINE
MEADOWS: a~o~r~+re ~/~ ~ ~lC ~~~rv~~ dP~e~, ~
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES BY
SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES: C'i~ at~f~~~ey z~ /1r~~PQ~' -~'~~ ~ e~L
20. PUBLIC HEARlNG: REQUEST FOR REZONE BY BW 1NC. AND WAYNE
STOLFUS: a~~~ ~~.~ ~'/~' s~ c f~ a~Pnd~c~ ~S ~ S'.et /~~c%r
! ~G~ J'ub~n~~' lQ~cfl'caf,.~ ~P~`I~~Gtv
21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINA~Y PLAT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2.
Gt`~Prvt~'P ~~~' ~ ClL ayn e N-d Qd j4~v ~~-. e.~y a, f~-~~ fc~ ~ re~~ 0't d,~han c~
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A~~~~, ~`~
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FA C TTS MEADOWS NO. 2 BY ~
RONALD HENRY: ~ p~~v~ ~~~ ~C/C ~ ~~l~yaH~~.ey ~v ~jo~-
a~-~~„t~ , ,~,~e~., ,o-,.~'~~a.~a~E ~ ~ v~.d~~,.w i~ p~ ~--
23. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNDANCE
SUBDlV1SION BY G.L. VOIGT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING:
~~°j~Yt~v~e ~-u,~ ~aX~' r~r~mzdi~t inzs /.SbP aj~.,h.. ~-c~Pcr~,~ lr~~ dQn-a~ccc fr~
24. PUBLlC HEARING: VARlANCE REQUEST FOR SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION ~~
BY G.L. VOIGT AND HUBBLE ENGINEERING:
~,~ a; t~zh.e~ ~ ~h,e~'~e. ~~f' 9 e /(
25. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR ASHFORD
GREENS SUBD(VISION BY BOISE RESEARCH CENTER AND HUBBLE
ENGINEERING: c~~ n~ Pi~ ~/~~_ a N~ ~h~
26. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
NO. 3 BY STEINER CORPORATION: ~~h~ ~~~ ~/~~pa^-~--
-f'/f ~` c~ lc.
27. PROCLAMATION: YEAR OF THE FAMILY: a~o,a~~~~~
28. EXECUTIVE SE$SION: BEST WESTERN CONCRETE POSSIBLE LITIGATION:
29. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
~. ~o~~c~/
~~
y ~y/y
~~_~ / _' / 1
NAME:
~ ~ ~CtTY OF MERiD1AN
• . HU8 OF YREASURE VALLEY
33 EAST IDAHO
MERiDIAN, IDAHO 83642
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ~ ' ~
PHONE NUMBER:
~~~ ~Zk~
~'~~r//~ `~
~~1-~3o3Z
d' ~' ~' 7 ~5~`E-
~,..-~- _ . ~
--~~-~-~!~_ ~ _ ~ V~~~_-~ -(~-_---- __---_--_---~_~ ~ --~ ~-~-~r-------
_~Q~__~u ~ ~~~2_ ___r ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8~ ~ s o 6 ~__
I 1 1„ ~. n~ ~~, ~': _._ C,~7 •- t~fl, ~
,
~~~- ~~'7~ 37~~
-------------------~---- ------------------- ______~__~___---_
-~ ~_,~ _~ ~.~ ~ c~C~.~ S,~ ~ _
_ 7~~~-~~~~~~ ______ _____ __~g__ Z7~~~_
~~~~. ~c~es ~~ r~r ~.~~.~ U ,~- S' ~',~- l~ u~ ~
~ ~O~ ~ ~, ~ / . CITY OF MERIDIAN
~~ ~~~ HUB OF ~'REASURE VALLEY
~ ~
y
~~ /~_ G~'~ 33 EAST IDAHO
( / MERIDIAN, iDAHO 83642
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET '
NAME: PHONE NUMBER:
~`'f~ S6 -
../ //~ r~lJp~
~.,,~~,.~ --~~y,.~ L.~----------------------- ~i~x_ ~_~~~ 3
_ _ __ _ _ _
07/19/1994 16:11 12983778962 BRIGHTON CORPORATION '~PAGE 81
~ ~
Br~,~h~Dn
co~porat~on
July 19, t994
Wil Berg
Meridian City
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Me~iciaat~, II3 83F,42
VIA FACSIlVIILE: 887~L813
Lyear Wi~:
We have two applications an tanight's City Counc~l agenda, Bedfortl Place and Ashford
Gr~s. I aak thst the Bodfnrd Place application be defe~red two weeks to Augu~t 2.
Atso, I request that the Ashfard Greens ~nnexation applicatipn be de~red to August 16
when the preliminary plat is echeduled to be heard. Hopefuily, ttte annexation snd
preliminary ptat couXd be heard sequentially and ear~ier in the ~vening. Nrke Warrile may
have als~eady contact~d yau regarding the z~uest ;for de~erxa~ on ,A~shftird Cnret,~s.
Plea~e call if there are any problems wl.th t}ua re~uegt.
~~Y,
G~C~eC
l~avid W. Turnbnll
President
cc: 11~il,ce Wardlc
R'~CEIVED
,! U l i 9 1S94
Ci1'Y OF MERIDIAH
123Q1 W. ~xplorer Drive, $u,ite Z00 • Boise, ~'daho 837~4 ~ TBL 2D8-376-400p ~~'i4X 7A8-3Tl-8962
i •
HUB OF TREASURE YALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY OF MERIDIAN
GRANT P. KINGSFORD
MAYOR
PROCLAMATION
In conjunction with the United Nations International Year of the Family and supported by
Soroptimist International of Meridian, Idaho:
WHEREAS, families continue to provide the natural framework for the emotional
and materiai support essential to the growth and development of its members of all ages,
WHEREAS, families remain a vital means of preserving and transmitting the
cultures and values of our nation and are a medium for promoting behaviors that can
eliminate detrimental influences on society,
WHEREAS, families are capable of playing an important role as agents of
development and constructive changes,
WHEREAS, the ability for many families to meet their basic needs has been
weakened by circumstances beyond their control,
WHEREAS, educational and social organizations and agencies can direct programs
to prepare and empower families to better fulfill their vital roles in society,
WHEREAS, a better understanding and knowledge of family resources, the diverse
forms and functions of families, and intrafamilial relationships can help in designing
programs that wi11 strengthen the family unit,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald R. Tolsma, City Council President of the City of
Meridian to hereby proclaim 1994 as
CITY OF MERIDIAN YEAR OF THE FAMILY
in the City of M~ridian and call upon all citizens, individually and in groups, to
participate in appropriate programs and events which will enhance the awareness of
family issues and improve our capability to strengthen the family as the basic unity of
our society.
DATED this 19th day of Julv , 1994.
Ronald R. Tolsma, City Council President
~ ~
..,::.'r;
.;~,,,
,.`,,,.
.. ..~
0
~"
~a
~ ~
~
~ V
F~i
~, a
O y
V ~
~
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3
O • ,~i ,y
~ 3 0 ~ ~ :~ >,
~ ° a ~ .xs 3 ,~
OU h+ N .~ y
U
~
v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'~ v ~" ~ ~ '~ ~ I
~ ~ '~ p p vi '~ .,.~. ~
w ~ CC! V ++ ~ ~ U
~
~ 'S+" R .~ G~n1 ~ v~ ~ ~
C~' ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~OJ
O ~ ~ G~1 ~ ~ O .~
'~" v 'L~ ~ ~~., '+. G p O e~
~" i~.r ~ ~ ~ ' ~"'~ ,+',w CJ
~ 0 "~ ~ ~ Q"~~ A
Q,
~ ~ ~ > ~ a, ~ ~ ~ o
.~
~ ~ }~., ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ O ~ :~
'~" ~ ++ ~ "~ ~' '" a~ '~„'
o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ v ,~ v ~ .r~ ~ ~..
a .~
:~' ~ ~ > ~ >, ~: ~ ~" ~ . ~'
-~ ~ a ~ ~ v ~ .?~ ~ u
~ a~ ~ a~ -~ $ ~ p. ~~ a~
d ° ° ~ a ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ o ~ ° x ~ '~ ~' °~' ~ Q" ~ °
~ e~ ~. a, .. o v ~,
~ .~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a c9i
~ ~ ~ z~ ° ~ ~ ~~~ °' ~" x~
~ ;~ , o aD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 00 o v
~ ~ ~ ~ "'~ ~ 'iy Q ~ ++ fA
~~ w p ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~" G ~ y ~ ~ v
d
~ ~ v y ~ v v ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
w w ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ •~ ~, ~ ~ ¢. id
O O ~ ~.v O .~ C w.~~. U ~ ~ ~ .~
+, a3
V a~i ,-.. ~ ~ ~ .~ eu G ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~
~ t~ ,~ •~ ~ O G~ ~ ~ 3 O ~ j '~'
v~ ~ '~
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~" ~' ° . ~ a ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~~~ °
~ v w~ ~ o .~ ~ ~ ~ :~~ ~
~.~. -O ~ .~ ~' ~ .b ~ ~Ci ~ ~ a,
w p vi ~~ ~ .4; bA ~ O w ~ y ~.~.
O ~"' b~i0 ~~ t], ~ O b0 CL d0 ~ N ;
.. a ~ ~«. r,
~ o ~ r, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ts,.~ ~c
z ~ `~ * ~ °J >. o ~ '~ ~ ;~ ~
~ ~ N ~ '~ e'~o c~ .d H .y '~''' ~ ~ ~
G a`"i •~ °r ~ ~ v v ~ •~ ~., W
~ ~ ~ ~ .~ aVi o -~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ W
C.7
x~ ~~ N;~ ~ ~'' o ~,~. ~' ~v ~
~ '~ °' °' v ~ '~ ~'' ~ v w b ~
,`+3' ~ ~ i~ e~ u a~ a~ '~ ~ 'G °:
'3 ~w u C v ~•-. ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~
~ w O ,r.,, w ,~ ~~ RS v wr~TJ~ ~~
.~+ V1 y Vf ~ Vi Vi Vj .~ N Q+ W ~ ~ ~
.~ ,z C ,~ .~ ,~ ,y ,r ~ ,~ ~ ~" ~ u z
o ^a ~ ~a ~ ~ ^a ^a ,.~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ rn
~ ~
~ -~ .a 'S ~ z .~ v °`
~.
.° ~
~ ~
x
~
~
~
".:
',i;-.
.:;~ ::
.
;:.~5:
~ ~ n~t~~~~~>
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING CONII~iIS3ION
RON WALSH
PINE STREET DEVELOPERS
PORTIONS OF PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION
INCLUDED IN SECTION 8, T. 3N.,R. lE., B. M. ADA COUNTY
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
PINE MEADOWS
MERIDIAN, IDASO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on April 12, 1994, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken
oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing, and having
duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission
tabled this matter to the May 10, 1994, meeting to hear
specifically from Applicant what the zoning request will be, makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for April 12, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations; that the matter was
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7.
i
•
tabled until May 10, 1994, for clarification of the zoning by
Applicant. ~
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herei~n; that the property is
approximately 23.3 acres in size.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the county; that
the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-15 by the city
of Meridian .
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that some of the property to the
north across Fairview Avenue is platted for commercial and
residential uses; that there is ground platted for light industrial
to the south and east of this property; there is unplatted ground
to the west.
5. That the property i.s adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property;
the owners of record are Dee and Helena Lowe, Jim and Lisa Beard,
and John Wasden; that the owners have submitted consents to this
annexation and zoning request.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the parcel of ground 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
~ •
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. There were no people appearing at the hearing either to
object or to support the Application.
10. That the Applicant did not indicate the intended
development of the property, did not submit any development
proposals, and only submitted the request for R-15 zoning as of
April 28, 1994; at the hearing the Applicant, Ron Walsh, stated
that he was not particular about the zoning but would take an R-15
zoning; that the Applicant did not indicate that there was park
land or an open space corridor proposed in his development.
11. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
12. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there a=e pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed.
13. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines.
14. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department,
Meridian School District, Central District Aealth Department, Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District, U. S. West, the Meridian Planning
Director, Meridian City Engineer and the Ada County Aighway
District submitted comments and those comments are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
15. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented, among
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
~ ~
other comments, that a sanitary sewer line exists along the north
side of Fairview Avenue approximately 270 feet west of the
northwest corner of Lot 6 and that a sanitary sewer line exists
approximately 600 feet south of the south boundary of Lot 7; that
no information was presented to show how this parcel would be
sewered by gravity; that a water line exists along the north side
of Fairview Avenue that is adjacent to this parcel and that a water
line exists approximately 600 feet south of the south baundary of
lot 7.
16. That the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented that
the annexation and zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan;
that a park is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for this area;
she requested that the Application be tabZe until a new Mixed
Planned Use Development zone was adopted; and she stated that the
annexation could then be approved subject to receipt and approval
of a development agreement.
17. The Meridian School District's comment on this annexation
request was that it will accelerate the need for the District to
construct additional classrooms and/or adjust attendance
boundaries; Meridian schools do not have excess capacity; and it
asked for support of a d'evelopment fee statute on new home
construction or a real estate transfer fee to help offset the costs
of building additi.onal school facilities.
18. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development area.
Z9. That the R-15, Residential District is described in the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
~ ~
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows:
(R-15) Medium High 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
units per acre. All such districts 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.
The predominant housing types in this district will be patio
homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, townhouses,
apartment buildings and condominiums.
20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc. ) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided ..
~~
.
22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the ruraZ area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and Aigh density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiwns."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
~ .
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
24. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
25. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current resi.dents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and tuture
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
•
~
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
26. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which if
possible would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in
the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
27. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
28. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
29. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable ainenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;" ~
30. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pa9e ~
~ i
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve: ~
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
31. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestri.an pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicvcle-Pedestrian
Desiun Manual for Ada Countv (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
32. That section 11-2-417 D states, 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.
33. That proper notice was given as required by law and al.l
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
~ •
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of .notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries af the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under ldaho Code, Section 50-222,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, with the consent of the owners of the property, and is
not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
• •
S. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of anriexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, and L; that the development
agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the
Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or
personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact fee or
transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation
until the requirements of this paragraph are met.
The development agreement, as a condition of zoning, shall
also specifically address the use and development of the subject
property as allowed in 11-4-417 D; that the parcel shall not be
annexed by ordinance until the development agreement is entered
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
~ •
into by the Applicant and the owners, and the City of Meridian;
that the Applicant may have to apply for different zoning than the
R-15 to meet the development requirements and the interests of the
Applicant, which will require additional application, fees, notice
and hearings.
10. That the Applicant's property would be in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan if it is developed as a planned development,
and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer and
of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire
Department, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning
Director and City Engineer and these Findings and Conclusion shall
be met and addressed in the development Agreement.
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to
install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance.
14. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
~ •.
15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assign~s.
16. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of
Meridian.
17. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
DLCISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in
the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law but that no annexation ordinance be
passed until a development agreement, including a commitment for
use and development, is entered into.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DISAPPROVED:
Page 12
~ ~
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
~~ ~~
Fact and Conclusions this _~.L_ day of July, 1994.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
VOTED ~~~~ ~ ~
VOTED Y~ ~ ~ ~
VOTED E ~7 ~ T
COUNCiLMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
(INITIAL) ~
~
APPROVED ~
VOTED
VOTED
DISAPPROVED
FIND{NGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -~'o~ l~~lLS~
~
~' ~ ~1NAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
SHEKINAH INDUSTRIES
ANNERATION AND ZONIN(3
A PORTION OF TSE NE 1/4 NE 1/4,
SECTION 18, T. 3N., R. lE., B.M.
PRESTON'S ASPEN GROVE ESTATES
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LA.W
The above enti.tled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on July 19, 1994, at the hour o~ 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and
taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing
through Mike Preston, and having duly considered the matter, the
City Council makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the Findings of Facts made by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission are by this reference incorporated herein as
if set forth in full, with the facts set forth below being
additions thereto and if a conflict exists, these Findings shall
govern.
2. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two ( 2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for July 19, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly con5idered at the July 19, 1994, hearing;
ASPEN GROVE ESTATE3 ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 1
~ ~
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.
3. Mike Preston testified at the City council heari.ng that
development would be of 40 acres less 6 or 7 acres; that there
would be 131 units and 3 acres of commercial; that it was a
standard plat; there would be a density of 4.39 which was under the
R-15 allowances; that he desired R-15 because of the narrower lot
size;; that he would do a development agreement; that he would do
a corridor to the Meridi,an City park but that he was too close to
the park to add any park land; that he thought a Mixed PUD was
appropriate because there is a conglomerate of uses in the area;
that he could buffer and screen the large houses that are in the
area; that he would not disturb the ditches except for piping and
re-routing; that he had met the intent of the Comprehensive Plan;
that he is not exceeding the density; that he was willing to hold
off on the commercial if that is what the City desires; that he
would install pressurized irrigation; that he would meet the City
Engineer's requirements; that there would 50~ of the houses larger
than 1,300 SQUARE FEET and 50~ less than that amount; and that
there would be some stick built homes and some manufactured homes.
That in rebuttal to the testimony presented by the people
referenced below, Mr. Preston stated that Five Mile Creek would be
protected; that the corridor was required in the Comprehensive Plan
and was not his idea; that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan allows
what he proposes and that values would be increased rather than
ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Pege - 2
~ ~
decreased; that he does not know the exact design of the houses;
that he will have strict covenants; and that this project would
provide affordable houses.
4. There were people testifying at the hearing:
a. Reece McMillan testified that he had a question on road
access; that a corridor was not acceptable; that there
should be no commercial on the south part of Franklin
Road; and that there were wet lands in the area that
needed to be protected.
b. James Witherell testified that he had not been contacted
by Mike Preston; that he agreed with the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law adopted by the Planning and Zoning
commission.
c. Ellwood Rennison testified that he was apposed to this
subdivision; that the developer had proposed this poorly;
that the commercial property is set up to be that in the
Comprehensive Plan; that he had written a letter to the
Corp af Engineers and had written to the City; and that
he had a question on the covenants.
d. Morgan Plant testified that he wanted this project to be
denied; that it wonld infringe on the praperty values in
the area; that Preston was not working with the
neighbors.
e. Ann Witherell testified that the property is not
adjoining a park.
f. Al1an Fox testified that the property to the south is up
for sale and other property will do the same; most houses
in the area are on one to five acre tracts; that R-2
would be good zone for the area; and that there were
already many accidents at the intersection of Locust
Grove Road and Franklin Road.
g. Gregory Oyamma testified that the R-15 zone would
deteriorate the other property in the area; that the
Meridian cemetery is between the park and his land; that
Five Mile Creek would be impacted; that it was not good
to have a stop light at Franklin and Locust Grove Road.
h. Richard Lee testified that the project would detract from
the quality of life.
i. Patricia Rennison testified that Chief Joseph Elementary
ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE7CATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 3
~ •
School is at maximum capacity.
5. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, testified that sewer
to this project was contingent on the St. Lukes sewer being
installed to Eagle Road; that Shari Stiles, Planning Director and
Zoning Administrator, testified that it was not appropriate to
annex this land until the wet lands issues were resolved.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That the Conclusions of Law made by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission are by this reference incorporated herein as
if set forth in full, with the Conclusions set forth below being
additions thereto and if a conflict exists, these Conclusions shall
govern.
2. That it must be emphasized, as stated in the Planning and
Zoning Conclusions, the Comprehensive Plan indicates in the
RESIDENTIAL POLICIES that the City is to protect and maintain
residential neighborhood property values, improve each
neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for
residents, and encourage compatible infill development which will
improve existing neighborhoods. And the Comprehensive Plan
indicates in the RURAL AREAS that new urban density subdivisions
which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses
sha11 provide transitional densities with larger more comparable
lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and
rural residential densities; it is specifically concluded by the
City Council that the development proposed by the Applicant would
ASPEN aROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 4
~ •
not meet the above goals and would not be in best interests of the
City of Meridian.
3. That it is concluded that the property requested to be
zoned R-15 does not abut or have direct access to a park or a
sufficient open space corridor; that therefore the zoning of the
property as R-15 does not meet the Zoning Ordinance and annexation
and zoning would not be in the best interests of the City of
Meridian.
4. That it is concluded that the existing residences in the
area, four of which would abut this development, including those
that are east of Locust Grove Road, need to be buffered by
transitional densities and larger more comparable lots, such as R-2
or R-3 lots or lots that have less density per acre; that the
property requested to be zoned C-N should not abut the single
family residential property to the south and should be located more
along Franklin Road rather than adjacent to the existing homes on
Locust Grove Road; that the R-15 zone is too dense of a residential
zone this distant from the center of town and in an area which is
developed with one dwelling unit per one acre or more; that the R-8
zone would be more compatible along Franklin Road to a depth of not
more than 150 feet and then have R-4, or less dense zoning
southerly therefrom progressing to R-2; that the R-2 zone should
abut the single family residential property which is shown on the
proposed plat to the south of the proposed C-N property; that it is
not the City's intention to plan the plat for the property but the
way that it is proposed to be zoned and plated now does not fall in
ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEJCATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 5
• •
line with the Comprehensive Plan because the existing residential
lots are not adequately buffered, the density is too high next to
an existing very low density, there needs to be transitional
densities and larger more comparable lots, such as R-2 or R-3 lots
or lots that have less density per acre, and the annexation and
zoning would not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian.
5. That it is concluded that the if the Applicant does not
amend its plat, request one or more different zones which require
larger lots, and consent to a delay in the annexation process until
a new plat is prepared, filed and considered by the Planning &
Zoning Commission and the City Council, this annexation and zoning
application will be denied.
6. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does amend its
plat, request one or more different zones which require larger
lots, consent to a delay in the annexation process until a new plat
is prepared, request and have new hearings on the amended plat, and
if the Commission and City council approve of the amended plat,
that this property could be annexed and zoned as approved.
7. That it is concluded that if the Applicant does amend its
plat, request one or more different zones, consent to a delay in
the annexation process until a new plat is prepared, request and
have new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission and
Council approve of the amended plat, then the Applicant shall meet
all of the conditions of these, and the Commission's, Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law.
ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION COUNCIL FF & CL Psge - 6
~ •
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED__C%'~H-
VOTED
The Meridian City Council hereby decides that with compliance
of the conditions contained herein in these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, including filing an amended plat, request one
or more different zones which require larger lots, consent ta a
delay in the annexation process until a new plat is prepared,
request new hearings on the amended plat, and if the Commission and
City Council approve of the amended plat, then the annexation and
zoning would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian, and
the Council may then approve this annexation and zoning; that if
these conditions are not met the property is not annexed and zoned
and the Application denied. If the request for an amended plat, or
a request for addition time, is not filed with the City on or
ASPEN GROVE ESTATE3 ANNERATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 7
~ ~
before by October 3, 1994, the applications of the Applicant,
including but not limited to, those for annexation, zoning, and
subdivision plat approval, shall be deemed denied.
MOTION : ~~~
APPROVED: DENIED:
ASPEN GROVE ESTATES ANNE7CATION COUNCIL FF & CL Page - 8
i OR~GINAL
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING CONII~IISSION
BW, INC.
REZONE APPLICATION
1225 E. FAIRVIEW
FROM LIMITED OFFICE (L-O) TO C-G AND R-8
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
May 10, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner,
appearing through its representative, Dan Torfin. The Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered
the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of a public hearing on the Rezone Application
was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said
public hearing scheduled for May 10, 1994, the first publication of
which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter
was duly considered at the May 10, 1994, hearing; that the public
was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence;
and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio
and television stations.
2. That this property is Iocated within the City of Meridian
and is owned by the Applicant. The property is described in the
application which description is incorporated herein; that the
property is presently zoned L-O Residential; the area surrounding
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSTONS OF LAW Page 1
~ •
is a mix of commercial and residential use properties.
3. That the request to rezone is to rezone the northerly 135
feet south of Fairview Avenue as General Retail and Service
Commercial, for use as a veterinary clinic, and the balance of the
remaining L-O property to R-8 to be made a part of the adjacent
Danbury Fair Subdivision.
4. That this zone change request complies with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and development objectives in this portion of
the City.
5. That the C-G District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 11. as follows:
( C-G ) General Retail and Service Commercial : The purpose
of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses
which are customarily operated entirely or almost
entirely within a building; to provide for a review of
the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and
service oriented and are located in close proximity to
major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of
travel-related services as well as retail sales for the
transient and permanent motoring public. All such
districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and
Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not
constitute strip commercial development and encourage
clustering of commercial development.
and the R-8 District is described in Section 11-2-408 B 4. as
follows:
R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the
(R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and
two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8)
dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas
where such development has or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed
to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2j 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.
6. That the Applicants representative stated that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1'aqe Z
~ ~
property was 3/4 of an acre, that the north portion was going to be
a veterinary clinic, that the south portion would be included into
Danbury Fair Subdivision, that Jackson Drain was not on this
property and is tiled in the area, there was 80 feet of frontage,
that there would be landscaping including perimeter fencing, that
there would be no outside kennels and that it was not a boarding
facility.
7. That the veterinarian, Mike Peterson testified that there
would be some boarding of small animals but only inside the
building and that there would be no outside boarding of animal.
8. That Bernadine Morgan testified stating that she was
concerned about outside kennels and that she desired protection
from the construction that would take place.
9. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian
Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Central District
Health Department, and the Meridian Planning Director submitted
comments, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full;
that the Irrigation District commented that all lateral and waste
ways must be protected; that municipal drainage must be retained on
site; and that irrigation water be made available to the
development. ~
10. That the Meridian Planning Director commented that rezone
is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, that the
veterinary clinic would provide a good buffer from Fairview Avenue
with landscaping required along Fairview Avenue and
landscaping/screening next to adjacent residential area, any
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
• •
irrigation conveyance/drainage structures wi11 need to be tiled,
the Jackson Drain must remain open, and that coordination with
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to possibly allow a bike/walking
path is encouraged along the drain.
11. That the property is located on Fairview Avenue which is
designated an Entryway Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan; the
Entryway Corridors Goal Statement includes the following statement:
4.4U Encourage 35-foot landscaped setbacks for new
development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as
a condition of development approval, landscaping along all
entrance corridors.
12. That there have been recent commercial additions along
Fairview Avenue.
13. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
14. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
15. That Section 11=6-606 B 14, requires pressurized
irrigation.
16. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
• •
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants'
property.
2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and state.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions upon granting a zoning amendment.
4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning
amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-
416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances 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.
5. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City
shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review
of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and
conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
specifically concludes as follows:
(a) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan
amendment is required.
(b) The area included in the rezone designed to be rezoned to
C-G is an area that probably would have been rezoned in the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
. .
future to a commercial zone.
(c) The area included in the rezone application is intended
to be developed in the fashion allowed in the new zones.
(d) There have been changes in•the area which tend to dictate
that the property should be rezoned, and the property is
designed to be developed in a fashion which comports with the
existing development and the residential uses in the area.
(e) That the property must be designed and constructed to be
harmonious with the surrounding area.
(f) The proposed uses should not be hazardous or disturbing
to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood.
(g) The property will be able to be adequately served with
public facilities, and connection to municipal sewer and water
is required.
(h) The proposed use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and services
and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community .
(i) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental
activity to any person's property or the general welfare.
(j) Development as a veterinary clinic should not cause a
significant increase in vehicular traffic.
(k) That this rezone will not result in the destruction, loss
or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major
importance.
(1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of
City of Meridian.
6. It is further concluded that the recommendations,
comments, and requirements of the City Engineer, if submitted,
shall be met and complied with.
7. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District, if
submitted, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District shall have to be
complied with.
8. As a condition of rezoning, if there is room, the
FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF I~AW Page 6
~ •
property shall meet the requirements of the Entryway standard of a
35 foot landscaped set back, which must be landscaped.
9. That it is concluded that the rezone is appropriate and
should be granted.
10 That it is further concluded that the Applicant must, as
a condition of rezone, look into whether or not irrigation water
can be supplied by an irrigation district and a pressurized
irrigation system installed that uses the irrigation water from the
irrigation district; if irrigation water from an irrigation
district can not be used, that the Applicant shall look into
supplying irrigation water from a well; it is further recommended
to the City Council that if irrigation water from a district can be
used that such water use be required as a cond~ition of rezone; that
if irrigation water from an irrigation district cannot be used,
that the Applicant be required to drill a well for its water for
sprinkler use, as a condition of rezone. It is further concluded
that if irrigation water from an irrigation district is not
available or if a well cannot be drilled to supply water for
irrigation, that this paragraph not be a condition of the rezone.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONB OF LAW Page 7
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ~~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
~ ~ ~,~~,y~
, ~
DECISION AND RECOI~IIKENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Rezone requested by the Applicant for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet
the water and sewer requirements, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
requirements, Ada County Highway District requirements, the Uniform
Building Code, the fire and life safety codes, ~' L''- " ii~~
, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that
the Applicant meet the requirements of paragraph 10 of the
Conclusions regarding irrigation water; and that the Applicant meet
the 35 foot landscaped
Comprehensive Pla .
MOTION:
APPROVED•
set back required under the Meridian
DISAPPROVED:
VOTED ~'~"
VOTED "
VOTED
FINDINt~S OF FACT AND CONCLUSION6 OF LAW pa98 8
~ •
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions this l~~ day of July, 1994. ~h~c~~ ~/~ ~~et,~~%,
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
C~UNCtLMAN CORRIE
VOTED~ /~ l
VOTED ~ ~~
VOTED x ~7~
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
(INITIAL)
APPROVED ~
VOTED
VOTED
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- 13~.1/~~ ~Q.~2o~E
~ ~ ORlGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION
REVIN HOWELL
ANNERATION AND ZONING
NE 1/4 L Section .5 , T 3N
R.lE., B.M., Ada Countv
CHAMBERLAIN ESTATE3 #2 SUBDIVI3ION
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on May 31, 1994, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through his engineer, Jim Merkle, and having duly
considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning
was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said
public hearing scheduled for May 31, 1994, the first publication of
which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter
was duly considered at the May 31, 1994, hearing; that the public
was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence;
and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio
and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -1
a •
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately nine and 8/10 acres in size; the property is south of
Ustick Road and West of Locust Grove Road.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as
(RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-8
Residential type development; that the Applicant states in his
subdivision application that the subdivision lot size would be a
minimum or 6,500 square feet, that the preliminary plat submitted
for approval also show that most of the lots are substantially
greater than 6,500 square feet; that there would be 28 lots in the
proposed subdivision; that the Applicant in its subdivision
application states that the minimum square footage of home would be
per the Orda.nance, that there would be 2.88 lots per acre.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that the residential property is
developed in the~R-8, Residential fashion, but only with single
family dwellings; that most subdivisions in the area, except for
Chamberlain Estates No 1, were annexed with the condition that the
minimum house size be 1,350 square feet.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property and
has submitted the request for this Application for annexation and
zoning.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -2
~ ~
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-8 Residential; that the present use of the property is
for agriculture and a house; that the intended development of the
property is for an R-8 subdivision and the subdivision Application
states the density would be approximately 2.88 dwelling units per
acre.
10. The Applicant's representative stated that they would
install pressurized irrigation both in this subdivision and in
Chamberlain Estates No 1; that they would re-align the South
Slough; that the house would be removed but that they would try to
save as many trees as possible; that there would be a common lot
along the South Slough for maintenance; that there would be a 20
foot landscaped berm and fence; that a fence would be placed along
the South Slough along the back of the lots; that there would be
fencing along lots on the north; and that there would be fencing
along stub streets to the north and east subdivisions access will
be from Finch Creek to the east.
11. That the subdivisions to the west have not been fencing
the South Slough but have been landscaping the Slough.
12. That comments were received from the Meridian City
Engineer, City Planning Director, Fire Department, Police
Department, Meridian School District, Ada County Street Name
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -3
~ •
Committee, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, and Idaho Power Company, and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth~in full.
13. The Meridian City Engineer, Gary 5mith commented, among
other things, that the annexation legal description needs to be
amended to include the adjacent one half of Locust Grove Road, that
restrictive covenants need to be submitted, and that the highest
seasonal groundwater level needs to be established to aid builders
in setting the bottom of their house footings a minimum of one foot
above that elevation; and the Planning Director, Shari Stiles
commented that a license agreement with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District needs to be executed for the relocation of the South
Slough; that the area for a proposed bike path must be provided
separately from lots; that covenants need to be submitted; that a
20 foot landscaped easement along lgr maintained by a homeowners
association needs to be provided; that an elementary school site
sti11 needs to be provided in this area; that a development
agreement is required as a condition of annexation.
14. The Meridian 5chool District's comment in another
annexation request where the students would be in the Chief Joseph
attendance zone was that the subdivisa.on proposed for the land
would mean 42 elementary aged children, 32 middle school aged
children and 29 senior high aged students; that Chief Joseph
Elementary School is at 117~ of capacity, Meridian Middle School at
130~ of capacity and the Meridian High School at 117$ of capacity;
the District went on to state as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -4
~ ~
"Considering these facts, Meridian School District can not
recommend approval of this subdivision at this time. If and
when you do, it will be a certainty that students from this
subdivision will be transfer~ed outside of Chief Joseph
Elementary attendance zone. The school district will have to
be allowed time to review an alternative solution to the
attendance problem."; ~
the Meridian School District did submit a comment for this
Application and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full; its comment was that this subdivision will cause increased
overcrowding in all three schools; that before they could support
this subdivision, land needs to be dedicated to the district or at
least made available for a school site in this area; that the site
would need water and sewer service available."
15. That two people testified on this Application; Vern
A11men stated that he wants there to be fencing along the South
Slough, that he had concerns over irrigation, that he wanted
fencing of the perimeter of the subdivision to prevent trash from
dispersing, and that he wondered about in the road layout; Don
Bryan testified that there should be fences constructed to separate
subdivisions and agricultural land.
16 That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area.
17. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
18. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -5
~ ~
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
19. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
20. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows:
(R-8) Medium Densitv Residential District: The purpose
of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of
single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This
district delineates those areas where such development
has or is likely to occur in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to
permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family
dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable
land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer
systems of the City of Meridian is required.
that the R-8 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,300 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's
representative stated that the subdivision eventually applied for
would comply with the neighborhood.
21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc. ) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided ..
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -6
~
~
23. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and High density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states a~ follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, townhouses arrangements), . . ."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for alI income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
25. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
26. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment
in different applications that a determination of ground water
level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a
comment is equally applicable to this Application.
27. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that
annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement
including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -7
~ ~
site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to
impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by
the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that
such comment is equally applicable to this Application.
28. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
29. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -8
. ~
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots
in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
30. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
31. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
32. That Section 11-9-605 A 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenitiesj shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
33. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or uni.mproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -9
. *
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
34. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada Countv (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
35. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLU3IONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -10
~
.
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the
present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation
would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, which is not the titled owner, and the annexation is not
upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -11
• i
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the
previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey,'relating to the lack of
adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future
park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-
asides for future public service use, that a school site was not
reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of
annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any
assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when
required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City;
that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this
paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject
to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requi=ements of
this paragraph are not met.
10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer,
including those he specifically stated in his comments and those
stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada
County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District,
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -12
~ •
Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, and the comments of the
Meridian Planning Director referenced herein, shall be met and
addressed in a development Agreement.
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to
install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance.
14. That as a condition of annexation the house size of 1,350
square feet must be met; that this is concluded as a condition of
annexation because most of the other subdivisions in this area have
that as a condition of annexation and it was only not required of
Chamberlain Estates No. 1 due to an oversight.
15. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-8 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
FINDTNGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -13
r ~ ~
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
a V
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED %
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOT
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREARER) VOTED /
DECI3ION AND RECOI~II~IENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City ' of the City of Meridian
C'~u~e~~
that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the
property described in the application with the conditions set forth
in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that if the
conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed.
MOTION : ~,~,~
APPROVED jI~
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -14
~ ~
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions this ~~ day of July, 1994.
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
(INITIAL)
APPROVED ~
VOTED~ ~ ~T
VOTED~. ~`~
VOTED ~ R , T
VOTED
VOTED
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW --
'~ ~ OR!GINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING CONII~IISSION
RONALD L. HENRY
ANNEXATION AAiD ZONING
A PORTION OF THE N.W. 1/4 OF
SECTTON 19. T.3 E., R.1 W., B.M.
MERIDIAN MEADOWS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION
MERIDIAN, IDAIiO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on May 31, 1994, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having heard and taken oral and
written testimony and the Applicant appearing in person, and having
duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning
was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said
public hearing scheduled for May 31, 1994, the first publication of
which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter
was duly considered at the May 31, 1994, hearing; that the public
was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence;
and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio
and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 1
~ ,
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 4.7 acres in size.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R-T
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property
be zoned R-4 and stated that the use proposed woul.d be for proper
residential as dictated by the zone and submitted a proposed
preliminary plat.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that some of the property to the
north is platted for residential and some property to the north is
unplatted and vacant ground; that there is R-4 residential property
to the west across the Meridian/Runa Highway; the property to the
south is platted in larger acreage parcels; the property to the
east is vacant ground and farther to the east is R-4 residential
ground but is developed at about R-3 but developed platted.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property,
but the owners of record, Aarlow R. Minegar, Leonard D. Reed and
Sherri L. Norman, have requested this annexation and zoning and the
application is not at the request of the City of Meridian.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
S. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSTONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 2
~ ~
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the property is included within
an area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Single
Family Residential area.
9. There were no property owners, or anyone else, appearing
at the hearing to object to the application.
10. That the Applicant indicated that the intended
development of the property is, as stated above, for single family
dwellings; in the subdivision application it is represented that
the lots zoned R-4 would have a minimum of 8,000 square feet per
and that the houses would have a minimum square footage of 1,600
square feet.
11. The Applicant stated at the hearings that there would be
10 lots for single family dwellings, the subdivision application
states there would be density of 2.13 lots per acre; he also stated
that he needs a variance on set backs for lots 9 and 10, Block 4
that 1ot 8 Block 1, and that he would install a pressurized
irrigation system and that all ditches would be discontinued in use
and that he would do covenants and restriction.
12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT N0. 2 Page 3
~
lots.
•
14. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
15. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department,
Meridian School District, Meridian City Engineer, Ada County
Highway District, Ada Street Name Committee, Central District
Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and the
Meridian Planning Director submitted comments and such are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
16. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that the
annexation description needs to be prepared from the warranty deed
description so that the adjacent State Highway 69 right of way is
not excluded, that covenants need to be submitted, that the highest
seasonal groundwater level needs to be established, that the sewer
service for Lot 10 may need to cross Lot 9, and that access for
lots 9 and 10, Block 4 needs to be taken care of.
17. The Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented, among
other comments, that rest=ictive covenants need to be submitted;
that license agreements with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
need to be submitted, and that a development agreement is required
as a condition of annexation.
18. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 4
areas by proh~ting the intrusion of in~npatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four ( 4) dwellings units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.";
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided ..
.'
21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and High.density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 5
• ~
23. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
continue farming in the area.
24. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
25. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 6
~ `
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which if
possible would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in
the City, because of the i.mperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
26. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
27. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
28. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
29. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
,improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 7
• ~
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
30. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada Countv (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
31. That the Applicant submitted an application for
preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and
zoning which application included a preliminary plat.
32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 8
~ •
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning use application under ldaho Code, Section 50-
222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City
Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record
submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, with the consent of the owners of the property, and is
not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land.
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 9
~ ~
requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the i.nclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the
previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, relating to the lack of
adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future
park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set-
asides for future public service use, that a school site was not
reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of
annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any
assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when
required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City;
that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this
paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject
to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of
this paragraph are not met.
10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT N0. 2 Page 10
~ ~
including those he specifically stated in his comments and those
stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada
County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District,
Bureau of Reclamation, and the comments Meridian Planning Director
shall be met and shall be addressed~in a development Agreement.
12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance.
15. That the house size representation of 1,600 square feet
must be met and those representations of the Applicant made at the
public hearing.
16. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
17. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
18. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
19. That if these conditions of approval are ~e~ met the
n ot'
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT N0. 2 Page 11
~ ~
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER ~ VOTED
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTE
CHAIRMAN JOANSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECONII~~NDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in
the application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and that if the conditions are not met
that the property be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/FAWCETT NO. 2 Page 12
~
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions this ~ day of July, 1994. ~'''''~`~~~' J~~`~ ~~~' ~~
ROLL CALL
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
(INITIAL)
APPROVED
~ ~~
VOTED,~ G~T
~~
VOTED_~
~
VOTED~ ~~
VOTED
VOTED
DISAPPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW --
~ ~ OR! GINAL
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION OF STEINER DEVELOPMENT
FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 1000 FOOT BLOCK LEN(3T8 REQUIREMENT AND
A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND 3IDE-YARD 3ETBACK TO
ALLOW EIGHT L8) PATIO HOME3 IN THE R-4 ZONS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU3IONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on July 19, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m.
on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and taken oral
and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for July 19, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at
the April 19, 1994, hearing; that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the notice of public hearing is required to be sent
to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of
the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and
11-9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
of Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
3. That Wayne Forrey appeared on behalf of the Applicant,
Steiner Corporation; that Steiner Development is donating 14 acres
to the City for a golf course development; that Applicant's are
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3/STEINER DEVELOPMENT
~ •
asking for a variance of the 8,000 square foot block size of the R-
4 District to allow eight 4,000 square foot lots for eight single
family patio homes as a result of a transfer of density due to the
transfer of 14 acres that is being donated for a portion of the
golf course to allow eight (8) patio homes on four (4) single
family lots in the northeast corner of the project with each
individual unit being 1500 square feet in size; a variance of the
side yard setback on the interior lot line of the four patio home
unit lot lines, and a variance of the block length to extended
beyond the 1000 standard by an additional 170 feet, making the
block length 1170 feet long for the fairways necessary in the golf
course layout.
4. That it was concluded in the public hearing before the
City Council, May 17, 1994, that the preliminary plat be approved
subject to receiving the development certification document and the
development agreement.
5. That the ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND COVERAGE CONTROLS in
Section 11-2-410 A of the Zoning Ordinance, allows single family
swellings in the R-4 District, requires that the lot size in the R-
4 Zone be 8, 000 square feet and that interior side set backs be
five (5) feet per story in the R-4 District; the SUPPLEMENTAL YARD
AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS in 11-2-410 B 2. states as follows:
"Yard requirements for Multi-family Dwellincrs: Multi-family
dwellings shall be considered as one building for the purpose
of determining front, side and rear yard requirements. The
entire group as a unit shall require one front, one rear and
two (2) side yards as specified for dwellings in the
appropriate district.",
T
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3/STEINER DEVELOPMENT
~ •
and Section 11-9-605 E. of the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance states as follows:
"Every block shall be so designed as to provide two (2) tiers
of lots, except where lots back onto an arterial street,
natural feature or subdivision boundary; blocks shall not be
less than five Hundred feet (500') nor more than one thousand
(1,000') in length."
6. That the property is zoned R-4; that planned residential
developments are a conditional use in the R-4 District.
7. That the Central District Health Department, Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department have
submitted comments and are incorporated herein; that the City
Engineer, Ada County Highway District, and other governmental
agencies may submit comments and they shall be incorporated herein
if submitted.
8. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, which is a planning
tool, states, at page 68, as follows:
"1.20U Density transfers will be allowed in the exchange for
school sites, open space dedications, or for access easements
to linear open space corridors, which contain bicycle and
pedestrian pathway systems."
9. There was no testimony from the public, either opposing
or approving of the Applications.
CONCLU3IONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3/STEINER DEVELOPMENT
~ ~
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Zoning Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the things
upon which it may take judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That it is concluded that the special condition which
makes these variances acceptable is that Planned Residential
Developments are allowed as a conditional use in the R-4 District,
that there only going to be single family dwellings, the eight
patio homes are part of an entire single family dwelling plan of
which only eight 0-lot line patio homes have been reguested to be
allowed, the patio homes will be a minimum size of 1,500 square
feet, the layout of the golf course tends to require a longer block
length to allow for the length of the fai.rway and there is a
density transfer relating to the exchange of 14 acres of golf
course land for the eight patio homes on four R-4 lots; that the
Applicant is giving up 14 acres and receiving only an additional 4
building sites; it is concluded that the density transfer is of
benefit to the City; therefore it is not unreasonable to allow the
Applicant the variances requested.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3/STEINER DEVELOPMENT
• ~
6. That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of
the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the
Application:
11-2-419 A.
"The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision
and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the
public interest where, owing to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming
use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of
lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
Variances shall be granted only where strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship. A variance appli.cation does not go
to the Commission unless directed by the Council."
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-2-419 C. FINDING3
A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a
public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exist:
1. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance would
clearly be i.mpracticable or unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance would result in extraordinary
hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer
because of unusual topography, other physical
conditions or other conditions which are not self-
inflicted, or that these conditions will result in
inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of
this Ordinance;
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3/STEINER DEVELOPMENT
• ~
3. That the granting of the specified variance
will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated;
4. That such variance will not have the effect of
altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
8. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application
of the provisions of the applicable ordinances
would clearly be unreasonable since the golf course
layout requires a longer block so the fairway is
not transgressed, the Applicant is donating a much
greater portion of land than he is receiving in the
form of four additional building sites for single
family dwellings.
b. That strict compliance with the requirement that there be
only 8,000 square foot single family dwelling lots would
result in extraordinary hardship to the applicants as a
result of factors not self-inflicted since the City
requests the development of the golf course.
c. That the granting of the specified variance would
not be detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to other property in the area in which
the property is situated.
d. That such variance would not have the effect of
altering the interests and purposes of the set back
Ordinance or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That it is concluded the Application should be granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3/STEINER DEVELOPMENT
• i
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTE
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
APPROVED:
DECISION
DISAPPROVED:
It is hereby decided that the variances requested, which are
set forth in paragraph 3 of the above Findings of Facts, are hereby
granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 3/STEINER DEVELOPMENT
~ ~ ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MFRIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF G. L. VOIGHT
FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE R-4 STRELT FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENT OF 80 FEET
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on July 19, 1994, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m.
on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appearing through its
representative, Jim Merkle, P. E., and the City Council having
heard and taken oral and written testimony, the City Council of the
City of Meridian makes the following:
FINDINC~S OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the plat for
Carnelian Subdivision was published for two consecutive weeks prior
to the scheduled hearing for July 19, 1994, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the July 19, 1994, hearing; that
copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and
television stations.
2. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11-
9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
3. That Ordinance 11-2-410 A, Zoning Schedule of Bulk and
FiNDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGHT Page - 1
~ •
Coverage Controls, requires that the street frontage in the R-4
Residential District be Eighty (80) feet; that the property is
zoned R-4 Residential.
4. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a
vari.ance from the above street frontage requirement to allow a
minimum of seventy (70) feet of street frontage on lots within the
subdivision in lieu of the required minimum of eighty (80) feet of
street frontage in an R-4 zone; in the letter accompanying the
Application, Mr. Merkle stated that the variance was being
requested for a lot density transfer to allow a minimum of 70 feet
of street frontage, that there would be a density of 3.07 dwelling
units per acre, that a private homeowner's park was being provided,
additional landscaped common area and a four acre school/park site
is proposed to be set aside for the school district; he further
stated that the extensive open area, the four acre school/park site
and the construction of a callector street, total approximately ten
acres of non-buildable area within the subdivision and that a
typical R-4 zone would allow 290-380 lots within a subdivision of
this size but because of the schoolipark site this subdivision
would only have 298 lots; he also stated that there were no special
conditions or circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the
land; that the hardship was not a function of the site, by meeting
the school districts need for acquiring school sites and the
extension of city sewer and water to the school site; and that the
off-site extension of the five Mile trunk sewer will add extensive
financial hardship to the project; he finally stated that the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGHT Page - 2
~ .
variance falls under the density transfer process as stipulated in
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; the REQUIREMENTS: VARIANCE
statement submitted with the Variance Application is incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
5. That the entire property in question is described in the
subdivision application and is incorporated herein as if set forth
in full.
6. That the Applicant is not the owner of record of the
property but the owners of record, N. L. Patel, Inc. , Sanja Ray, M.
D. , Inc. and Ravinder N. Gutpa, M. D. , Inc. , have requested the
variance and consented to the Application.
7. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, which is a planning
tool, states, at page 68, as follows:
"1.20U Density transfers will be allowed in the exchange for
school sites, open space dedications, or for access easements
to linear open space corridors, which contain bicycle and
pedestrian pathway systems."
8. That based on the density transfer due to the park site,
Applicant is making this request; that the development is of
approximately ninety-three acres and the density transfer would be
of approximately four acres for a total of approximately ninety-
seven acres; that at ten feet per lot, due to the variance, with a
lot depth of 100 feet for 290 lots, there could be a gain by the
Applicant of approximately 6.65 acres and only a loss of four
acres; that the above calculations are not factual because the 70
foot frontages would not be on all lots and a few of the frontages
are at 80 feet or greater, but the proposed plat shows the vast
F'INDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGHT Paqe - 3
• i
majority of lots being designed with 70 to 72 foot frontages.
9. That no people appeared at the hearing objecting to the
variance application, but there was one written objection which is
discussed in paragraph 10 below; that the Meridian Fire Department
commented that this will make for some very small lots; that
Central District Health submitted comments and are incorporated
herein; that the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Nampa
& Meridian Irrigation District may submit comments and they shall
be incorporated herein if submitted.
10. That Mr. David R. Lombardi, of Givens Pursley & Huntley
law firm submitted a letter on behalf of his client, Mr. James F.
Griffin, objecting to the density which will result from any
reduction in the lot width and frontage requirements; that the
letter states that a request for a variance from the requirements
for an R-4 zone in the first development to take place in Section
20 is inconsistent wi.th the goal of the Meridian City Comprehensive
Plan, which is to provide sensitive, intelligent guide for growth
in the City; that this is likely to establish a precedent for
development in the entire section and area which is more dense and
less desirable than contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
CONCLUSION3
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice of the proposed
subdivision to owners of property within 300 feet of the external
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGAT Paqe - 4
• ~
boundaries of the Applicant's property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section
11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record submitted
to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice.
4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual
conditions existing within the City and the State.
5. The Comprehensive Plan is, as stated on Page 1 of the
Plan, primarily a policy document identifying policies to guide
future development within the City of Meridian and the area of city
impact; the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by ordinance but it is
not a document that controls over existing zoning ordinances and
regulations.
6. That the following provisions of Section 11-2-419 A, of
the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the
Application:
11-2-419 A.
The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance
from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision
and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the
public interest where, owing to special conditions, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance
would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming
use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGHT Page - 5
• ~
same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of
lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall
be considered grounds for issuance of a variance.
Variances shall be granted only where strict application
of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go
to the Commission unless directed by the Council.
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as
follows:
11-2-419 C. FINDIN(~3
A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a
public hearing) the Council makes a statement of
supportive reasons based directly on the evidence
presented to it which supports conclusions that the
mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have
been met by the applicant and unless all of the following
exi.st:
1. That there are such special circumstances
or conditions affecting the property that the
strict application of the provisions of this
Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or
unreasonable;
2. That strict compliance with the
requirements of this Ordinance would result in
extraordinary hardship to the owner,
subdivider or developer because of unusual
topography, other physical conditions or other
conditions which are not self-inflicted, or
that these conditions will result in
inhibiting the achievements or the objectives
of this Ordinance;
3. That the granting of the specified
variance will not be detrimental to the
public's welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is
situated;
4. That such variance will not have the
effect of altering the interest and purpose of
this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGHT Pacre - 6
~ •
8. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or
profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant in that the
Applicant would not have to meet the ordinance requirements that
other developers of R-4 subdivisions have to meet, particularly in
near and adjacent areas; the sewer and water installation that
Applicants complains of have to be met by other developers and such
is not grounds for a variance; the Applicants states in its own
Application that there are no special conditions or circumstances
which are peculiar to the land and that any hardship is not a
function of the site, but of ineeting the school district need for
acquiring sites and the extension of city sewer and water to the
school site, and that the off site extension of the Five Mile trunk
sewer will add extensive financial hardship toe the project; that
such reasons are not grounds for a variance; from the amount of
ground going to the school/park site compared to the amount of
saleable, developable, and buildable ground that would be coming
baak, the density transfer appears to be to the benefit of the
Applicant; it would be in the best interest of the City not to
grant the variance.
9. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically
concluded as follows:
a. That there are no special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of the set back Ordinance would clearly be
unreasonable, since other developers are being asked to
do the same things as the Applicant.
b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the
80 foot street frontage requirement would not result in
extraordinary hardship to the applicant as a result of
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGHT Paqe - 7
~ •
factors not self-inflicted.
c. That the granting of the specified variance would be
detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated.
d. That such variance would have the effect of altering
the interests and purposes of the 80 foot street frontage
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.
10. That it is concluded the Application for a variance
should not be granted.
11. That it is concluded that the Applicant could design the
subdivision so that each lot would have 80 feet of street frontage,
that there are no geographic reasons why the 80 foot frontage could
not be met, and that the only reasons presented for the variance
were financial hardship, if that in fact is a reason.
12 The City has in the past granted similar variances as
requested by the Applicant but has also denied such variances; each
application must stand on its own merits and the granting of one
variance is not a precedent for granting others.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby approve
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON VOTED
COUNCILMAN CORRIE VOTED
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTE
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
FINDINGS OF' FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGAT Page - 8
~ ~
DECISION
That it is decided the variance from the R-4 street frontage
requirement of eighty (80) feet is hereby denied.
~/~
APPROVED:~
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - VOIGHT Paqe - 9
r~e~ Pl~~e ~: c jc ~~~ .
~ ~'~- g ~ ~~-`~-
EBERLE, BERLIN~ KADING~ TURNBOW & MCKLVEEN,
CHARTERED
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSElORS AT LAW
CAPITOL PARK PLA2A
3O0 NORTH SIXTH ~JTREET
STEPNEN A.BRADBURY
POST OFFICE BOX 136$
BOISE, IDAHO 8370)
July 15, 1994
SENT VIA HAND DELIVERY
Shari Stiles
Planning and Zoning Administrator
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
TELEPHONE
(208) 344-6535
FACSIMILE
(206) 344-8542
JAMES L. BERLIN
OF COUN3EL
T. H. EBERLE (1922•Ip771
Re: Dakota Ridge Estates Subdivision Development Agreement
Dear Ms. Stiles:
As you know, I have been working with Andy Byron in connection
with the above referenced project. Andy has asked me to deliver to
you the enclosed Development Agreement for review prior to
consideration by the Mayor and City Council at their meeting of
July 19, 1994. Please note that I have not included Exhibit A, the
legal description, or Exhibit C, the plat, since those documents
are still being prepared by the project engineer, Roylance &
Associates, P.A., and I wanted you to have ample opportunity to
review the enclosed and make any comments or suggestions you may
have. The legal description and the plat will be delivered to your
office just as soon as they have been completed.
Once you have had an opportunity to review the enclosed, and
should you have any questions or concerns or should you wish to
discuss the proposal in greater detail, please feel free to give me
a call.
Very truly yours,
~
r ~_ t~~~,~,~,~„I,~,c,;
STEPHEN A. BRADBURY '/
SAB:jkr
Enclosure
cc: Andy Byron
Wayne Crookston
~ ~
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and enteTed into this day of
, 1994, and the between the CITY OF MERIDIAN, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION of the State of Idaho, party of the first
part, hereinafter called the "CITY", and AVENUE ONE, a California
general partnership, party of the second part, hereinafter called
the "DEVELOPER", whose address is P.O. Box 5465, Sherman Oaks,
California 91413.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, DEVELOPER is the sole owner, in law and/or equity, of
a certain tract of land in Ada County, State of Idaho, described in
Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and
WHEREAS, the State of Idaho legislature, in 1991, passed Idaho
Code 67-6511A, Development Agreements, which provides that cities
may enter into development agreements with developers upon rezoning
of land; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has passed two development agreement
ordinances, one when land is rezoned, 11-2-416 L, and one when land
is annexed, which is when it is also rezoned, 11-2-41? D; and
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has submitted an application for
annexation and zoning, or an application for rezone, of that
certain property described in Exhibit "A," and requested zoning of
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 1
July 15, 1994
~ •
R-4 and has submitted a subdivision preliminary plat for said
property which has been recommended for approval by the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER made some representations at the public
hearing before the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission as to
how the land would be developed and what improvements would be
made; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has authority to place conditions and
restrictions upon annexation or rezoning of property;
WHEREAS, DEVELOPER deems it to be in its best interest to be
able to enter into this agreement and acknowledges that this
agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and
request; and
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER, as sole owner of said land, has made
request to the CITY of Meridian to have the same annexed to said
CITY, or rezoned, and has submitted to the CITY a Plat thereof
which has been approved for annexation by the CITY and as part of
the annexation or rezone the CITY adopted and approved Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law; and
WHEREAS, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law required
that the DEVELOPER enter into a Development agreement; and
WHEREAS, the said City Council in the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law annexed or rezoned the property subject to
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 2
July 15, 1994
i
•
deannexation if the DEVELOPER did not enter into a Development
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
DEVELOPER agrees, and hereby binds his, its, or their heirs,
successors and assigns to this agreement, in consideration for the
annexation, rezone, or the non-deannexation of the area, as
follows:
1. That the above recitals are contractual and binding and
are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
2. That DEVELOPER, in accordance with its representations
before the CITY, shall, on the land described in Exhibit
"A", only construct single-family houses, all such
single-family houses shall have at least 1,400 square
feet of floor space, exclusive of garages.
3. That the property zoned R-4, described in Exhibit "A",
shall have lot sizes of at least 8, 000 square feet, which
is the size represented at the CITY hearings, and shall
meet all of the requirements of the R-4 zone and have no
duplex units, town houses, or patio homes constructed on
said property.
4. That there shall be no change to increase the number of
lots or the size of lots as shown in the preliminary plat
submitted with the request for annexation, zoning and
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 3
rWy is, i9va
• •
preliminary plat approval, which is incorporated herein
as if set forth in full herein.
5. That DEVELOPER will, before annexation, or deannexation,
file or cause to be filed with the City Engineer, a
complete set of "Subdivision Improvement Plans" showing
all streets, utilities, pressurized irrigation
facilities, sewer, water, drainage, street and other
similar signing and barricades, and other such
improvements contemplated within the subdivision, which
Plans and all improvements shown thereon shall meet the
approval of the City Engineer. The Subdivision
Improvement Plan, or Plans supplemental thereto, shall
also show the proposed location of pressurized irrigation
facilities within or that may affect or be affected by
the development. Said Subdivision Improvement Plans are
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference.
6. That DEVELOPER will, at his or their own expense,
construct and install all sanitary sewers, storm drains,
pumping stations, water mains and appurtenances, fire
hydrants, curbs and gutters, pressurized irrigation
system, electrical transmission lines, natural gas lines,
telephone lines, sidewalks, cross drains, street, street
surfacing, street signs, and barricades as well as any
and all other improvements shown on the Subdivision
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 4
July 15, 1994
• •
Improvement Plans. DEVELOPFR shall also install
telephone, electrical power, gas lines, and television as
required for the development.
7. That DEVELOPER will construct and install all such
improvements in strict accordance with the filed and
approved plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans, and the
City Standard Engineering Drawings and Standard
Engineering Specifications current and in effect at the
time the construction of said improvements is
accomplished, or as otherwise agreed between the
DEVELOPER and the CITY if the standards and
specifications are more restrictive and onerous at the
time of construction than at the time of execution of
this Agreement.
8. That DEVELOPER will provide the City Engineer with at
least fifteen (15) days advance written notification of
when and of what portion, or portions, of said
improvements he intends to complete and the time schedule
therefor; and agrees to make such modifications and/or
construct any temporary facilities necessitated by such
phased construction work as shall be required and
approved by the City Engineer.
9. That DEVELOPER will have "corrected" original drawings of
the Subdivision Improvement Plans of all said
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 5
luly 15, 1994
~ ~
improvements prepared by a Registered Professional
Engineer and will provide the CITY with said Plans or a
duplicate mylar copy of said Plans. The Subdivision
Improvement Plans of the proposed improvements shall be
"corrected" to show the actual constructed location (both
horizontally and vertically) of the various water and
sewer lines, all utility lines, and pressurized
irrigation lines and their individual building service
lines, the curb and gutter alignment and grades, etc.
The "corrected" subdivision Improvement Plans shall
include a"Certification" thereon, signed by the
Registered Professional Engineer in charge of the work,
that said Plans of the various improvements are true and
correct and that he (the Registered Professional
Engineer) has inspected the construction of the various
improvements (water lines, sanitary sewer lines,
pressurized irrigation lines, gas lines, electricity
lines, storm drain lines, curb and gutter, street paving,
etc.) and that the materials for and the installation of
the same were all done in conformance with the applicable
City Standard Engineering Drawings and Standard
Engineering specifications governing the construction of
these facilities.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 6
July I5, 1994
• i
10. That DEVELOPER will, immediately upon the completion of
any such constructed portion, portions, or the entirety
of said development, notify the City Engineer and request
his inspection and written acceptance of such completed
improvements.
11. That DEVELOPER agrees, that upon a f~nding by the City
Council, duly entered in the official minutes of the
proceedings of the City Council, that a portion, or
portions, or the entirety of said improvements need to be
completed in the interest of the health, welfare and/or
safety of the inhabitants of the CITY, the DEVELOPER will
thereupon, within a reasonable time, construct said
needed improvements, or, if he does not so construct
within a reasonable time after written notification of
such Council action, and the CITY thereafter determines
to construct, and does construct such improvement, or
improvements, the DEVELOPER will pay to the CITY the cost
of such construction, in such manner and under such terms
as the CITY shall order after conference with the
DEVELOPER. Provided, however, the City Council shall not
make the finding set forth in this paragraph except at a
regular or special meeting of the City Council and unless
the DEVELOPER has been notified in writing of the time
and place of such meeting at least three (3) days prior
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 7
July 15, 1994
i i
thereto and has been given an opportunity to be present
in person or by counsel, and to be heard on the merits of
the proposed finding.
12. That DEVELOPER shall, at the request of the CITY, convey
to the CITY or to Joint School District No. 2(Meridian
School District), as the CITY may direct, approximately
four (4) acres of its real property in the location and
configuration as is depicted on Exhibit "C" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for use
by the CITY and/or the Meridian School District as a park
and/or school site. Such conveyance shall be made
without cost to the CITY or the Meridian School District
except such closing costs and recording fees as are
normally incurred in a transaction of such nature, all of
which shall be paid by the entity taking title to the
said property. The covenant contained in this paragraph
shall be binding upon DEVELOPER for a period of three ( 3)
years from the date of this Agreement after which time
the DEVELOPER'S obligations as described herein shall be
of no further force or effect.
13. That DEVELOPER agrees that upon his, its, or their,
having received written notification from the City
Engineer, that any of the requirements herein specif ied
have not been complied with, that the CITY shall have the
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 8
July 15, 1994
• i
right to withhold the issuance•of any Certificates of
Occupanc~ within such annexed area and/or shall have the
right to withhold the providing of culinary water service
to any part, parcel, or portion of such annexed area
until such time as all requirements specified herein have
been complied with; provided, however, the DEVELOPER
shall have the right to appear before the City Council at
any regular meeting after any Certificate of Occupancy or
any water service shall have been withheld for reasons
set forth in this paragraph, and shall have the right to
be heard as to why such Certificate of Occupancy should
be issued or water service allowed. The Council shall
then decide whether said Certificate of Occupancy shall
be issued or water service to said property allowed, and
its decision shall be final, except that the rights of
the parties are preserved at law and equity.
14. Developer agrees that in the event any of the
improvements required herein are not timely installed,
the CITY may, at its sole option, install the
improvements and declare the entire cost of said
improvements to be immediately due and payable and may
seek to collect such sums in the manner provided by law,
or may pursue any other remedy set forth herein or as may
be available in law or equity. In the event of such
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
July 15, 2994
Page - 9
• •
declaration, all sums due shall.bear interest at a rate
of the prime interest rate of First Security Bank of
Idaho, plus five percent (5~k) per annum, until paid.
15. That DEVELOPER agrees to, and does hereby, grant a
security interest in the land which is the subject of
this Agreement, to secure the installation of all
improvements including, but not limited to, sewer, water,
irrigation and drainage piping, pressurized irrigation
system, landscaping and berming, and fencing. In the
event of DEVELOPER's failure to complete such
installation, the CITY may install such improvements and,
without notice, foreclose this Agreement as a mortgage in
accordance with the mortgage foreclosure laws of the
State of Idaho; provided further that upon request of
DEVELOPER, the CITY will execute and deliver a partial
release of the lien created herein against all or any
portion of the subject land, upon completion of that
portion of the total improvements installed which relates
to the percentage of improvements that have been
installed as compared to the total amount of
improvements.
The CITY further agrees that upon request of
DEVELOPER, the CITY will, by written agreement,
subordinate the lien created hereby, to any mortgage,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 10
Juty I5, 1994
~ •
deed of trust, or other security device required to
secure the payment of any loan or advance made to
DEVELOPER for the sole purpose of financing the
construction of improvements upon the land which is the
subject of this Agreement; provided, however, that the
financing entity shall first warrant and represent in
writing that it understands that the contemplated loan or
advances will be used solely for the construction of
improvements upon the land and that it will take
reasonable precautions usual and customary to the
financing and lending industry to ensure that the loan
proceeds or advances will not be used for any other
purpose.
The CITY may also require surety bonds, irrevocable
letters of credit, cash deposits, certified checks or
negotiable bonds, as allowed under 11-9-606 C of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the CITY of Meridian,
to insure the installation of the improvements, and the
DEVELOPER agrees to provide such, if required by the
CITY.
16. That DEVELOPER agrees that those portions of the water
main or the sanitary sewer line, for which the CITY has
expressly agreed to enter into a latecomers agreement, if
any, for including any water or sewer line extensions,
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 11
7uly 15, 1994
• •
increased line size or capacity, are required because of
future service needs originating from properties not
owned by DEVELOPER and located within the vicinity of the
subject development; that sound planning requires
construction thereof at the present time in order to
accommodate future expansion and development. In
recognition of the cost savings which can be accomplished
by construction of such excess capacity and/or
improvements concurrently with the facilities to be
constructed for DEVELOPER's purposes, and the
impracticality or impossibility of constructing such
excess capacity and/or improvements separately or at a
later time, DEVELOPER agrees to design and construct such
facilities subject to the CITY's agreement to enter into
a latecomer agreements to reimburse DEVELOPER for a
portion of the costs of such excess capacity. DEVELOPER
agrees to obtain three independent bona fide bids for the
performance of such work from qualified and responsible
contractors and shall deliver copies of such bids to the
CITY prior to the commencement of such work. Such bids
shall be solicited and itemized in a manner which allows
clear and specific identification of that portion of the
construction work for which the CITY may possibly agree
to enter into a latecomers agreement. The CITY's
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 12
luly 15, 1944
• •
obligation to enter into a latecomers agreement to help
DEVELOPER to pay for such costs shall be limited to the
lowest of such bids irrespective of whether the lowest
bidder is in fact selected by DEVELOPER to perform the
work.
17. That DEVELOPER agrees that no Certificates of OccuRancy
will be issued until all improvements are completed,
unless the CITY and the DEVELOPER have entered into an
addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be
completed in a phased development; in any event no
Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in
which the improvements have not been installed,
completed, and accepted by the CITY.
18. That DEVELOPER agrees, in recognition of the unique and
peculiar circumstances relative to this development, to
the special conditions set forth in Exhibit "B" attached
hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and
agrees to construct a perimeter fence around the entire
parcel prior to any construction, except where roadways
and streets for access are located and except where the
CITY has agreed that such fencing is not necessary.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Pac~e - 13
July 15, 1994
. •
19. That DEVELOPER agrees that any.notice required by this
Agreement shall be given at the following address:
CITY OF MERIDIAN: DEVELOPER:
City Engineer ' Andrew D. Byron
City of Meridian 3431 E. Gloucester
33 E. Idaho Boise, Idaho 83706
Meridian, Idaho 83642
20. That DEVELOPER agrees to pay all recording fees necessary
to record this Agreement with the Ada County Recorder's
office.
21. All covenants and conditions set forth herein shall be
appurtenant to and run with the land and shall be binding
upon DEVELOPER's heirs, successors or assigns.
22. This Agreement shall become valid and binding only upon
its approval by the City Council and execution by the
Mayor and City Clerk.
23. That DEVELOPER agrees to abide by all ordinances of the
City of Meridian and the property shall be subject to
deannexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or
successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development
Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
DATED The date, month and year first appearing.
DEVELOPER
By
Andrew D. Byron
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 14
July I5, 1994
• •
CITY
By
~ GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR
By
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERR
STATE OF IDAHO )
) SS.
County of Ada )
On this day of , 1994, before me,
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared ANDREW D. BYRON, known, or proved to me, to
be a partner of the General Partnership that executed this
instrument and the person who executed the said instrument on
behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such
General Partnership executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal, the day and year in this certificate first
above written.
SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAFiO
RESIDING AT:
STATE OF IDAHO )
) SS.
County of Ada )
Qn this day of , 1994, before me,
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared GRANT P. KINGSFORD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.,
Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, known to me to be
the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian that executed
this instrument and the persons who executed the said instrument
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 15
Iuly 15, 1994
• ~
on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that said
City of Meridian executed the same. -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal, the day and year in this certificate first
above written.
SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAIiO
RESIDING AT MERIDIAN, IDAHO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Pac~e - 16
July 15, 1994
~ ~
EXHIBIT "B"
TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO
AND
AVENUE ONE
This subdivision is for 125 single-family dwelling units with an
overall density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre. The DEVELOPER
shall:
1. Tile those portions of the Rutledge Canal which are located
wholly,or partially within the subdivision or form a portion
of the subdivision boundary in accordance with approved
construction plans to be submitted with the final plat.
2. Extend and construct water and sewer line extensions to serve
the property and connect to Meridian water and sewer lines in
accordance with approved construction plans to be submitted
with the final plat.
3. Construct all street improvements within the subdivision in
accordance with the requirements of the Ada County Highway
District.
4. Dedicate the necessary land from the center line of West
Ustick Road for public right-of-way in accordance with the
requirements of the Ada County Highway District.
5. Pay any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the CITY.
6. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the CITY.
7. Berms and landscaping on entrances shall be provided and
maintained by the Homeowners Association.
8. Pressurized irrigation is to be provided to all lots within
this subdivision. Evidence of approvals from appropriate
irrigation district/canal company and downstream water users
shall be submitted to the CITY with the final plat.
9. Construct and install a six-foot cedar or similar wood fence
around the perimeter of the property.
EXIiIBIT "B"
DAKOTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 1 of 2
~ ~
10. Construct any pedestrian pathways as may be depicted on the
final plat in accordance with the requirements of the
ordinances of the CITY.
11. Construct all planting strips and reserve strips as depicted
on the final plat in accordance with the requirements of the
ordinances of the CITY.
12. Convey to the CITY or to Joint School District No. 2, as the
CITY may direct, approximately four acres of its real property
in the location and configuration as is depicted on Exhibit C
for use by the CITY and/or the School District as a park
and/or. school site in accordance with the provisions of
Section 12 of this Agreement.
EXHIBIT "B"
DAKOTA RIDGE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page - 2 of 2