HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 12-190 q
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 5,1995:
(APPROVED)
TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR
CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL
SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE, AND MICRO -BREWERY BY
SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
3. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: AMENDED FINDNGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL
JANUARY 16, 1996)
4. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: ORDINANCE #718 - SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3
SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
5. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLY & ASSOCIATES
ANNEXATION: (APPROVED)
6. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3
SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL
JANUARY 16, 1996)
7. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON
RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
8. AMENDED ORDINANCE #681 - VAN AUKER ANNEXATION: (TABLED
UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
9. AMENDED ORDINANCE #686 - VAN AUKER ANNEXATION: (TABLED
UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM: (APPROVED FINDINGS;
APPROVED DECISION)
0 9
11. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 5,1995: REQUEST FOR
A VACATION OF AN EASEMENT BY JEFF LOFFER: (CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FOR JANUARY 16, 1996)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT (AMENDED)
FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEV:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
13. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 5,1995: REQUEST FOR
A VARIANCE FOR LENGTH OF CUL-DE-SAC FROM 450' TO 476.50'
FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST
INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR JANUARY
16, 1996)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR THE
PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.: (APPROVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT; TABLE FINAL PLAT UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD
PLACE SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (APPROVED
WITH CONDITIONS)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALLEY
CENTER MARKET PLACE BY W. H. MOORE COMPANY: (APPROVED
WITH CONDITIONS)
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 28.49
ACRES TO C -G BY BILL HOWELL: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
JANUARY 2, 1996)
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
TRUCKITRAILER SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY BY BILL HOWELL:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR JANUARY 2, 1996)
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENT
TO PIPE THE EIGHT MILE LATERAL AND NINE MILE DRAIN BY
R.T. NAHAS COMPANY: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR JANUARY 2, 1996)
20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE 20 FOOT
PLANTING STRIP ADJACENT TO LOCUST GROVE ROAD TO A 10
FOOT PLANTING STRIP IN SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY
0 6
MARTY GOLDSMITH: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR JANUARY 2, 1996)
21. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE AND R.V.
REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM:(APPROVED)
22. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND
BRAKE ALIGNMENT SHOP BY DENNIS & JANET BUTTERFIELD:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1996)
23. CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION NO. 3: (APPROVED)
24. CC&R'S FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 3: (TABLED UNTIL
JANUARY 16, 1996)
23. BEER/WINE LICENSE FOR JACKSON FOOD STORES FOR 1995:
(APPROVED)
24. BEER/WINE LICENSE FOR GODFATHERS PIZZA FOR 1995: (APPROVED)
25. RENEWAL OF BEER/WINE/LIQUOR LICENSES FOR 1996: (APPROVED)
26. LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
FOR DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN FOTHERGILL SUBDIVISION:
(TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 2, 1996)
27. DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
A. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. AVEST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS:
(REQUIRE LANDSCAPE COMPLETION BOND FOR
MCDONALD'S)
•
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 5,1995: arfra re -
TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR
CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION:
2. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL
SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE, AND MICRO -BREWERY BY
SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS: -7-,,,9?1. uA;e&e !E� / yG m7�,
3. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: AMENDED FINDNGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION: ['i a'-Z4�.% V /hFP
4. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: ORDINANCE #718 - SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3
SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION: �� 4->.-7i'/ � 146 /'?Y1
5. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLY & ASSOCIATES
ANNEXATION: afflil-avz
6. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3
SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
7. TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON
RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION: 7'A /e ah 7w . A,
8. AMENDED ORDINANCE #681 - VAN AUKER ANNEXATION: a
Wi n' /E h""fly
9. AMENDED ORDINANCE #686 - VAN AUKER ANNEXATION: 1a,!W
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM:
11. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 5,1995: REQUEST FOR
A VACATION OF AN EASEMENT BY JEFF LOFFER: Pi�� ftpy
-Er: �x,t'Cie e e w 'ir/'z c 1c
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT (AMENDED)
FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO.5 BY INTERWEST DEV:
fab /e ezo f77 7�n. /,G n if 71
0 0
13. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 5,1995: REQUEST FOR
A VARIANCE FOR LENGTH OF CUL-DE-SAC FROM 450' TO 476.50'
FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST
INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: li d 4cfi y ev p �pu2e
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR THE
PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.: 4, rrvvz-
"q,ta', p6a W//t -Imbee »,
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD
PLACE SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: A-,Ppr�'✓�
F', �aCjr<.i",-rne,:+� -�4.. c•',. -cats on1
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALLEY
CENTER MARKET PLACE BY W. H. MOORE COMPANY: u pry le.
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUES1rFOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 28.49
ACRES TO C -Q BY BILL HOWELL: ('i% vctfzzy fn prepare
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
TRUCK/TRAILER SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY BY BILL HOWELL:
C att y ro F u /f eI Z o� 212"'
19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENT
TO PIPE THE EIGHT MILE LATERAL AND NINE MILE DRAIN BY
R.T. NAHAS COMPANY: ,'/7 / G2ft'�r' 7'�11-
20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE 20 FOOT
PLANTING STRIP ADJACENT TO LOCUST GROVE ROAD TO A 10
FOOT PLANTING STRIP IN SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVI ON NO. 1 BY
MARTY GOLDSMITH: L'/hi atfr�)"ej tL% prepay e �e A-
21. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE AND R.V.
REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM: Vvlvv-:e
71/f ee%rppro� e, &Cdi b�
22. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND
BRAKE ALIGNMENT SHOP BY DENNIS & JANET BUTTERFIELD:
23. CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION NO. 3:
i f',f'ry✓e
24. CC&R'S FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 3:
fJ1Q 6tkc,fi / JCcr� /� =� fz� /7.
2,T ;23. BEER/WINE LICENSE FOR JACKSON FOOD STORES FOR 1995:
Gip�rs��/�z
26. 24' BEER/WINE LICENSE FOR GODFATHERS PIZZA FOR 1995:
Ci��7rvv-e—
`7, 2,8'. RENEWAL OF BEER/WINE/LIQUOR LICENSES FOR 1996:
t�pprov-�
0 0
2e• 26., LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
FOR DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN FOTHERGILL SUBDIVISION:
f�.�e �.-f,2 .Ian. �^- i<<>yd /-•n,
2q. ?a: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: ✓
A. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
1. AVEST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS:
0 i
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 19,199
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, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Bill Gordon,
Jim Johnson, Marty Goldsmith, Jim Hourte, Robert Baumgartner, Doug Hoy, James
Burdick, Mr. & Mrs. Gugel, David Collins, Michael Forsy, John Sheets, Lori Adamson,
Kevin Merritt, Jim Bourquin, Marlo Burquin, Samya Gotcher, Casey Gotcher, Bill Howell,
Angie Howell, Michael Fluto, Maida Hutner, Lynn McThomas, Macicolm MacCoy, Jonathan
Seel, Wes Kelly, Terry Smith, Ted Hanson, Dan Vie, Robert Green, G. Howe, Maureen
Howe, Norma Vice, Ralph Shoemaker, Gene Smith, Brian McColl, Dave Roylance, Ted
Hutchinson, Ted Hanson, Mike Wardle, David Turnbull, Becky Bowcutt, Russ Hunnemiller,
Steve Bradbury, Roy Harada, Jay Reeves, Mervin Lingley, Lynn Thomas, Brad Miller,
Michael Clark, Lew Lous, John Shipley, Fred Bell, Dirk Marcum, Elaine Schlekeway, Larry
Derkin:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 5,1995:
The minutes of the previous meeting held December 5, 1995 were approved as written.
ITEM #1: TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: RAMON YORGASON: REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF WELL DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR CROSSROADS
SUBDIVISION:
Gene Smith: (Inaudible) the agreement is in place for them to own and operate that
system. The agreement for them to make the connection was not part of that agreement
that is why Mr. Yorgason has committed to make that connection.
Crookston: I would recommend that the City be shown or have a copy of that agreement
so that the City can ascertain that it is in fact in place.
Gene Smith: The agreement with Nampa Meridian?
Crookston: Yes
Gene Smith: The agreement with Nampa Meridian does not include the connection
between City and the pressure irrigation system. That is what I am saying, that Mr.
Yorgason has agreed to do that Nampa Meridian has not.
Crookston: But you do have an agreement between Ramon Yorgason and Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District do you not?
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 2
Gene Smith: Yes, it is their system.
Crookston: I think the City should have a copy of that.
Gene Smith: And we can provide a copy.
•
Crookston: And a written statement as to Ramon's willingness and obligation to do the
single point of connection.
Gene Smith: And that can be provided.
Crookston: I think that is what we need Gary.
Smith: That is fine.
Gene Smith: I would propose that based on providing that evidence to the City Engineer
that it be approved based upon that.
Morrow. Mr. President, I would like to move that the Council approve the request for
reimbursement of well development fees to Crossroads Subdivision subject to receipt of
a copy of the agreement between Nampa Meridian and the developer of the Crossroads
Subdivision and a written statement from the developer that he will do the single point of
connection and anything that is required to make that effective. That would authorize the
Mayor and the City Clerk, and City Engineer to review that documentation and being the
reimbursement.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved and seconded to grant the request for reimbursement of well
development fee for Crossroads Subdivision subject to the licensing agreement between
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and Ramon Yorgason and also a letter from Mr.
Yorgason stating that he will commit to the single point hook up and that everything will be
go from that point on.
Morrow. No, the motion would authorize upon receipt of that information and approval of
that information the motion would authorize the City upon the approval of the Mayor, the
City Clerk and Gary Smith to begin reimbursement of those well development fees.
Tolsma: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 3
ITEM #2: TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL
SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE AND MICRO -BREWERY BY SANDPIPER
RESTAURANTS:
Tolsma: Being how I was not present at that meeting I am not sure what it was tabled for.
Morrow. Mr. President, the motion to table was made pending a presentation by the owner
or his representative. This has been tabled several times awaiting that presentation. We
haven't yet seen a presentation, so that is why it is on tonight's agenda and off the table
from December 5.
Tolsma: Is there a representative here?
Corrie: Mr. President, may I ask one question? Gary, there was also an extension of
Central Drive by the Ada County Highway District, was that ever, what was the result of
that, anything yet?
Smith: Councilman Corrie, I haven't heard anything from the Highway District, I don't know
whether Shari has or not.
Stiles: Councilman Corrie and Council, Sandpiper was working with Ada County Highway
District on getting an access that would have gone on to the extension of Central Drive
over there. I didn't receive another letter today that they wanted it tabled again, but I
believe that is the reason. This has been tabled so long because they are trying to work
that out with Ada County Highway District.
Morrow. Mr. President, I would move that we table item 2, the conditional use permit for
a full service restaurant, lounge and micro -brewery by Sandpiper Restaurants until our
meeting in January 16, 1996.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved to table the conditional use permit until January 16 for the
Sandpiper Restaurant, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Shari, can you make sure that somebody shows up that night from there, can you
give them a call.
ITEM #3: TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
E
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 4
0
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR SALMON
RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION:
Tolsma: Was there a problem with the amended findings of fact at the last meeting?
Morrow. I believe that was tabled to try and resolve the issue with respect to the well.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) There was a letter on the desk (inaudible) from the Department of
Water Resources.
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, as a result of your last meeting, you asked some
questions concerning the status of the well that the developer is using for irrigation water
purposes. I contacted Water Resources Department by letter, requested an answer to or
response to three questions that got from that last meeting that you had. The letter that I
received today, a copy of which was placed on your desk is the manager, the Western
Region Manager response to my questions.
Morrow. In brief that response is?
Smith: The first question I had asked concerns the impact of well interference should the
use of this well impact adjacent residential wells. Basically he said that the Manager said
that the well interference issue is most commonly a situation worked out between property
owners. If in fact one well is interfering with another if the property owners can't work it out
between themselves then the court has to. The second issue that I asked is if the City has
approved the use of this well for irrigation purposes do we have any liability or
responsibility if there is a well interference occurrence. His answer to that, the approval
of appropriation of this water is the Department of Water Resources responsibility and not
the municipality. So, he wasn't aware of our role in a well interference matter. The third
thing I asked concerned the proof of beneficial use. According to his response the
irrigation wells do not require a proof of beneficial use such as our municipal wells do. The
developer as volunteered apparently to have a consultant monitor those wells on an
annual basis provide that information to the department, the department will review that
information and the developer or homeowners would be responsible for the expense of
that consultation. Those three questions 1 posed to him and those are his responses. I
believe that was those 3 things were the issues that you has raised as a Council at the last
meeting.
Morrow. Mr. President, if I may offer up an observation on my part. It seems to me that and
I understand what you are saying here but as a City where we are annexing and zoning
ground and I want to move past the time frame of Mr. Goldsmith's ownership here. We
have a certain responsibility as a City to be a good neighbor to the existing properties that
E
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 5
are already there. It seems to me that Mr. Goldsmith's involvement in this project and the
life of the project if very short term. I think it makes sense that what we do as a City in
terms of the development agreement or findings of fact and conclusions that we address
some of those issues that need to be covered with respect to the homeowners association
for that subdivision is ultimately going to be the one that is responsible for taking care of
the irrigation water within the subdivision and also for, if there is a problem with the
surrounding wells due to their usage of that. It seems to me that the responsible act on
our part is to set some sort of guidelines as to what this Council and future Council's may
think is appropriate in the running of that subdivisions affairs with respect to the water
system. I think clearly in hindsight we probably should have gone with nothing but surface
water and have this not be an issue. Unfortunately we didn't have the foresight to do that
so now we have to deal with this issue. So I think from my perspective what I would like
to see is have some guidelines so that the future homeowners association and those
citizens that live within the subdivision have a feel for the procedure to solve the problems
should they arise and that future Council's have some insight into what we were thinking
when we approved this and move forward with it. So, 1 offer that up as how I see this,
certainly it is open to debate from the other three of you. I guess where I am at right now
is that the decision in terms of the findings of fact and conclusions doesn't solve those
issues to my satisfaction.
Tolsma: Gary, isn't there a gallon per minute on that water right for a well, the same as
what we have for the City?
Smith: There is, yes there is an annual appropriation in acre feet, and I think there is also
a minor inch or gallons per minute regulation on it, requirement.
Tolsma: We don't know what that gallon per minute is though?
Smith: It is in the water right information. It is 0.46 CFS and that is 206 gallons per minute.
Tolsma: That is what Department of Water Resources (inaudible).
Smith: They won't monitor it no, I have tried to get that several times. This last time, they
just do not monitor the irrigation well situation. That proof of beneficial use is the question
that I raised because that is the monitor of the flow rate from the well. They just don't do
it on an irrigation well. They did say in this letter that they would review the information
that is provided to them by a consultant. The will not pay for that review. That would be
the developers responsibility.
Morrow: I think part of my response here Ron is that if we don't have some sort of
guidelines all we are setting up is future hassles between homeowner associations and
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 6
property owners. The only winners in that deal are attorneys. It seems to me that it is
responsive on our part to have at least some guidelines to get everybody headed in the
right direction so that the problems can be resolved. I would like to hear the Counselor's
opinion concerning that.
Crookston: It would be best to have a monitor, some type of monitoring device to
determine what the flow of the water was. The problem that I have with what the
Department of Water Resources says is that they will, it says this office would be willing
to annually review information submitted by a private consulting firm which would be
collected at the well owners expense. I don't know that annually is enough warning if there
is a problem. That is the biggest problem I have with what came back from the Department
of Water Resources.
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, I don't know what kind of pump is in the well, but
typically wells are outfitted with a pump that will produce a certain quantity of water. One
of the items on the transfer water right that is attached to that letter I put there for your
review, condition 1 states that the right hold shall install a suitable measuring device or
shall enter into an agreement with the department to determine the amount of water
diverted from power records and shall annually report the information to the department.
Once the pump is in the hole and the motor is attached to the pump and they are pumping
200 gallons per minute which is their allotted diversion rate then it is only with some
degree of difficulty that changes. Obviously there are ways to do that with a valve partially
closed, but when you make that annual inspection make sure the valves are open and I
am sure the Department of Water Resources does that because they do that at our
municipal wells. They monitor how much we are pumping. So, if the pump rate is
established at 206 gallons per minute and that is their diversion rate then like I say it would
take some effort to change that. Not that it couldn't be done but it would take some effort.
If this was a submersible pump it would mean pulling the pump out of the hole with a rig
that is designed for that type of work and it is not an easy process. Disconnecting the
piping and so forth. There are some conditions, there are some other conditions attached
to this transfer of water right that may be of interest to you. Even on our municipal wells
we get one visit from Water Resources that the time that we prove up on the well, so to
speak, proof of beneficial use, typically they are running so fast and furious between
different jobs of the State that we don't get a re -visit.
Crookston: I guess the other thing, one thing that we would still need even assuming that
there is sufficient water to start out with, or whatever the footage was, to make sure that
the sprinkler system that is put on does not require to, in order to sprinkle everybody's
lawn that is going to be attached to it, does not require more water to provide enough
water for irrigation. I guess in essence to match up the irrigation needs as to whether or
not there is sufficient water to supply those needs which I also assume that would be a one
11
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 7
Cl
time check, one time investigation. But the problem is who is going to know when all of
the connections are connected that are going to be connected. When you have twelve
houses in there they don't require as much water. When you have 135 houses it takes
more water. At some point in time it might be staged that ultimately it needs to be
determined that there is enough water in that well to serve every home that is connected
to it for sprinkling services.
(Inaudible)
McColl: Wayne, if you recall, the source of water for irrigation for these, there are two
subdivisions is the well in Salmon Rapids and also there is a whole bunch of surface water
in Los Alamitos. We had already decided and entered into an agreement with the City
Engineer that the well in question would be used, it is 23 acre feet. It would be used for
phase 1 Salmon Rapids, phase 1 Los Alamitos, and only a portion of phase 2 of Los
Alamitos and that is 119 homes. That we have already decided. One of the ironies of
what is before you now is we are bringing up this issue on Salmon Rapids No. 3 to the
extent that Salmon Rapids No. 3 is if you will held up. The water for Salmon Rapids No.
3 is not going to come from this well at all ever. That by bringing Salmon Rapids NO. 3 on,
in fact by bringing Los Alamitos No. 2 on the remainder of it and then Los Alamitos No. 3
and Salmon Rapids No. 3 we are then going to have access to all of the surface water.
The pressurized irrigation system will then have as the source not only this well but the
extra water. So it is actually ironic that we kind have gone over this issue. I think it is a
legitimate concern of the neighbors and I understand at the public hearing they raised
those concerns. But the well was approved and maybe it shouldn't have been I don't know
but the well was approved for numbers 1 and numbers 2 in both subdivisions. Now all we
are trying to do is bring the third one on which in fact is going to help solve this problem.
In connection with this I think the developer has in a sense gone out of his way because
he has volunteered to hire a consultant on a yearly basis who will make a report as to
whether or not he is going beyond his water use on that. Once this new system is brought
on it would be anticipated that the water use out of the well is going to go down, he may
not even need to use all of the water. Anyway I didn't know whether people had recalled
that and I wanted to bring that to you attention.
Tolsma: Does that answer your question Mr. Morrow?
Morrow. No, I still think it is contingent upon the Council in terms of these findings of fact
and conclusions for us to put in here clearly what it is that we are after and expect. I mean
such as in the decision to phase that surface water shall be used for pressurized irrigation
if possible. Well what does that mean in the future, what does it mean now? Does that
mean I say it is not possible and we do something different and go on from there. I am
having a problem getting through how we are handling this if our goal here is to make a
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 8
trouble free, hassle free lifestyle for both parties. We need to give somebody some benefit
of what it is we are trying to do. I recognize that Mr. Goldsmith is the developer today, but
this subdivision will be there 50, 60 years after he is out of it and done and there ought to
be some sort of reasonable guidelines as to what those folk can expect. Probably the
reality is that the neighboring places become subdivisions also at some point down the
future and it is not an issue. But it seems to me to just make good government to try and
get a handle on what the guidelines are. I am not sure that these documents spell out the
guidelines. I would like to hear from Max and Bob as to what they think.
Corrie: Well, Mr. President, I agree somewhat with Walt. I think regardless we are going
to have to write new findings of fact on this. This doesn't address all of the requirements
that we have asked for in this letter. So we are going to have to re -do it anyway. Maybe
we can work that into the satisfaction of the Council. Do you agree we are going to have
to re -do the findings. We can't approve these as they are.
Morrow. No, I won't vote for these as they are.
Tolsma: So we need to prepare newfindings then more or less addressing the pressurized
irrigation as a (inaudible).
Corrie: And the monitoring as well.
Yerrington: Mr. President, I move that we prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
Morrow Second
Tolsma: Its been moved and seconded to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of
law for Salmon Rapids No. 3 Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: Does that also mean that you wish to table item #4, the ordinance #718,
annexation and zoning of Salmon Rapids Subdivision?
Morrow. So moved
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved and seconded to table ordinance #718 for Salmon Rapids No.
3 Subdivision, item #4 on the agenda, all those in favor? Opposed?
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 9
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Mr. President, when is that tabled to?
Morrow: January 16.
Tolsma: Do we want to have the findings prepare for that time or before that time?
Morrow. My wish would be to have them prepare before that time so we could review them
prior to that meeting.
ITEM #5: TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: ORDINANCE #719 - LANGLY & ASSOCIATES
ANNEXATION:
Morrow. I believe that was tabled pending resolution of the legal description issues, was
that completed Gary?
Smith: Yes
Morrow. And it was to your satisfaction?
Smith: Yes
Tolsma: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED
IN THE NW 1/4, AND THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, T.3N, RAE OF THE BOISE
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is
there anybody from the audience wishing to have Ordinance #719 read in its entirety?
Seeing none is there a motion?
Morrow. Mr. President, I would move that we approve Ordinance #719 with the suspension
of rules.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance #719 with suspension of
the rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 10
ITEM #6: TABLED DECEMBER 5,1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY
FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Morrow: Mr. President, it is my understanding that since we have not annexed we can't
very well grant a variance. And so both items 6 and 7 would have to be tabled pending
items #3 and 4 coming off the table and being approved. So moved
Yerrington: What date certain?
Morrow. January 16.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved and seconded to table items 6 and 7 until January 16 all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: AMENDED ORDINANCE #681 - VAN AUKER ANNEXATION:
Morrow. Mr. President, pending information that was received this afternoon it appears to
me that it would be prudent to table both items #8 and 9 until the 16th by virtue of my
conversation with City Engineer Smith that there now appears to be some non-
conformance with the requirements of the annexation and zoning. It appears to me that
it is in our best interest to table this until those issues are resolved between now and
January 2nd or 16th.
Tolsma: Is there a motion?
Yerrington: So moved
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved and seconded to table items 8 and 9 until January 16, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE
REQUEST BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM:
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 11
Tolsma: Any questions of the Council on the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the
variance request?
Morrow. The variance request was for tiling of the ditch, the Eight Mile Lateral. It was
clearly spelled out that the size of pipe required for that is substantially greater than the
48 inch diameter that we use as a guideline. Therefore I would move that we adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions as written.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as written for the variance request by Kevin Howell and Dirk Marcum,
roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: Is there a motion on the decision?
Morrow. I would move that it is decided that the application for a variance from 11-9-605
M is granted that the applicant shall not, let me start over. It is decided that the application
or a variance from 11-9-605 M is granted that the applicant shall not tile the Eight Mile
Lateral, that the applicant shall place and construct landscaping along the Eight Mile
Lateral as a condition of being granted the variance. I believe that includes in the findings
of fencing the Eight Mile Lateral.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: The decision has been moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 5,1995: REQUEST
FOR A VACATION OF AN EASEMENT BY JEFF LOFFER:
Tolsma: Is Mr. Loffer here?
Dave Roylance, Roylance Engineering, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: This is a request to vacate a 20 foot easement and replace it with a 15 foot
•
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 12
easement along the north boundary of Lot 5, Central Valley Corporate Park. We have all
the documents back from the appropriate utility companies and I have a list of those here.
We have signed documents back and I believe Shari also has copies of these, we can ask
in a minute. But we have signed documents back from TCI, US West, Idaho Power,
Intermountain Gas, and City of Meridian Department of Public Works. We also notified all
property owners within 300 feet and to my knowledge there was no negative concerns with
this request. So with that we are asking that you approve this vacating of the 20 foot
easement and creation of the 15 foot easement.
Tolsma: Any questions of Council?
Morrow. I have a question I guess to clear up some confusion. In my mind the findings as
they come from P & Z are for Lot 5 Block 1 and the latest information is Lot 6, Block 1.
Can you give me a hint as to what we are doing there?
Roylance: I think what it was and I am not sure, another one of my associates is taking the
lead on this and she could not be here tonight. Originally I believe we were pursuing an
easement on Lot 5 and on Lot 6. As I understand it as I remember, ACHD did not approve
it on Lot 5. Therefore we moved it to Lot 6. As I also understand it in discussions that I
think my associate had with Shari that if we notified the property owners of the change
from 5 to 6 that we would not have to go back to P & Z and we could come to City Council
and conclude it here. So that is what we have done, we have a list of all property owners
within 300 feet mailed out a notice of what we were doing and asked for responses be
returned if there were any problems. Then we mailed out notices to all the utilities
changing it from Lot 5 and 6 to just to 6.
Morrow: I guess Dave the original application that I have before me dated July 19,
essentially it says legal description of easement area to be vacated and the person or
entity who is to receive the deed for the land and it is filled out that this is an easement
for Lot 5, Block 1. So then, and that represents the western property line of Lot 5, 20 foot
easement. According to the staff reports there was substantial objection by both ACHD
and for storm drain purposes and I don't see anyplace in that application where it alluded
to Block 6. The findings of fact and conclusions that came from P & Z are for Lot 5 and in
tonights packet there is a reference to Lot 6 which is immediately east of Lot 5 and it is
describing an easement on the north property line. So, I guess the confusion in my mind,
I am not seeing any reference to Lot 5 and 6. 1 have seen a reference to Lot 5 on the
original application, Lot 5 with respect to the findings and then we have a separate packet
that is talking about Lot 6 block 1. Maybe Shari could give me some guidance as to where
we are at.
Stiles: Councilman Morrow and Council, this was originally noticed for Lot 5. It was denied
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 13
by P & Z because of the objections of Ada County Highway District. Then they elected to
go to Lot 6 and they were working out with the Highway District the particulars of this. It
is not really a particular concern to the City except that these utility companies be notified.
In talking with Wayne Crookston he agreed that it would be okay if they got waivers of
notice from all of the property owners within 300 feet. Notifying them that a change has
been made from Lot 5, to Lot 6. They did turn in those waivers and they also got letters
of consent from all of the utilities that are involved with that vacation. That is where we are
now.
Tolsma: Mr. President, question for the Counselor, how do we get to where we need to be
then? Obviously the findings are not correct.
Crookston: That is correct, under our zoning ordinance for a change in the application the
Zoning Administrator has the authority to determine if the change is significant and if she
determines that it is significant then it should go back to Planning & Zoning. If she
determines that it is not significant then it can go forward. So it is a decision by the
Council to determine whether or not the change in the legal description is of sufficient
difference than was initially started out with to decide whether or not the applicant has to
go back to Planning and Zoning.
Roylance: If I could interject, Wayne, isn't that also the purpose of those notices of waiver?
So that those affected by this would have due process. By mailing out the notices I
understand that solves that concern, at least that was my understanding of it.
Crookston: That is why I suggested that be done it is still a Council decision as to whether
or not they feel that it is enough of a significant change to require it to go back to Planning
& Zoning. The problem when you change in essence the legal description the people that
receive the mailing either initially or when they were sent out the second time changing the
lot that is fine for those people (End of Tape) didn't care if it was Lot 5 but they may care
if it is Lot 6. That is the only problem.
Roylance: Well, if you could support this we would appreciate it. I know our client is
anxious to build on this lot. If we have to go back to P & Z so be it, but we would appreciate
if it could be dealt with tonight.
Tolsma: Any other questions for Mr. Roylance? This is a public hearing, is there anyone
else from the public that wishes to offer testimony on this? Seeing none we can close the
public hearing.
Corrie: Mr. President, again Shari do you find it significant enough that we should go back
to Planning and Zoning. If I understand you right you said it was not.
0 9
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 14
Stiles: Councilman Corrie, no I do not feel it is significant enough.
Morrow. I think I am in agreement with that, this is not surrounded by anything residential,
this is strictly a commercial project. It looks to me like at the very least we have to do new
findings to clarify the issue because the findings we have don't apply to this at all.
Crookston: That is correct.
Morrow. I don't see any reason for it to go back to P & Z personally.
Corrie: Nor do I.
Morrow. So Mr. President, I move we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of
fact for Lot 6, Block 1.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to prepare new findings for the vacation of
easement by Jeff Loffer, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT (AMENDED)
FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT.
Tolsma: Is there a representative here from Interwest Development.
David Collins, Collins Engineering, 3350 Americana Terrace, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Collins: We have had some modifications to the original preliminary plat as submitted.
Working in conjunction with Mr. Eddy to the west with his thinking on development
proposals we changed a couple of the streets to continue through to the west. We have
gone over the details with the staff and submitted a preliminary plat showing and reflecting
those changes. All other details and comments in the staff report we have no problem
with. We have worked with them on all points and they have been resubmitted. If there are
any questions.
Tolsma: This is a public hearing, anybody else wish to offer testimony on this Haven Cove
Subdivision No. 5? Seeing none we can close the public hearing, Council members.
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 15
0
Morrow. Questions for Gary and Shari, Gary have you received satisfactory action on your
items both the general items and the site specific comments as addressed by Bruce
Freckleton your assistant?
Smith: Councilman Morrow, Council, I did receive a written response from David Collins
to our observations at the review of the preliminary plat. He did respond satisfactorily to
our comments. I also received a letter from the Highway District that they had, because
there is an unusual, the applicant has proposed, well I guess the Highway District used the
word unusual. It is a different type of drainage control on one of the streets in the
Subdivision. They asked for my input as to their questions and I responded to them. I sent
a letter to Mr. Collins or a copy of the letter I responded to the Highway District. I also have
sent out a memorandum to the Meridian Fire Department, Chief Bowers, Meridian Police
Department, Chief Gordon, and the Meridian School District, Superintendent Hailey,
requesting their input to the width of right of way that is being proposed for West Wave
Place. Particularly with the Fire Department, the proposal for street drainage on North
Mora Avenue which is curb and gutter on one side only and cross slope drainage of the
street rather than a crown section. The barrow ditch proposal along the East side of North
Mora Avenue. I have not received a response back from those departments. I sent that
out on the 18th. The proposal that Engineer Collins is making for drainage control along
North Mora Avenue is unique to the City of Meridian. We have not had an installation such
as he is proposing. I am not entirely opposed to it for sure because one of the problems
we continue to have is the concentration of drainage water to the point of disposal which
can create some problems. This particular proposal is utilizing a barrow ditch and surface
treatment or grass area treatment of the water as it progresses to drain to water retention
pond or detention pond. So it is a new type of drainage control for the City of Meridian,
it is used all of the time in rural areas where you have larger lots and you don't have curb
and gutter. But I wanted to get input from the Fire Department particularly because there
is a hydrant adjacent to the barrow ditch area. I wanted their input as far as connection to
that hydrant is concerned. I have spoken with Chief Bowers informally but I would like to
get something in writing with him. Then on the narrower street, we continue to have
proposals to use narrower right of ways, narrower paved sections. I guess my concern is
parking on these narrower streets. What we may need to do with parking both from
signage if necessary and enforcement of signage. Obviously if we sign something no
parking or limited parking then we have a enforcement problem. Chief Gordon I know has
his hands full without dealing with parking issues. That is an issue that I think needs to be
answered. In this particular case the Highway District will approve of a 42 foot wide right
of way with a 29 foot back to back street section. Mr. Collins and his developer is
proposing a cul-de-sac on West Wave Place to be a 42 foot wide right of way leading to
the cul-de-sac.
Morrow: For the record what is our normal?
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 16
Smith: Normal, our standard residential street is 50 foot of right of way, 37 feet back to
back at curb street section. So we are dropping eight feet in width of improved street
section and eight feet in width of right of way. It still provides 5 foot sidewalks on both
sides of the street. Our ordinance for non -continuous residential street allows 40 to 46 foot
of right of way. So this falls within the allowance for the City of Meridian ordinance for non -
continuous residential street, cul-de-sac being non -continuous. Fire truck access really
need some input from Chief Bowers, school bus, those sorts of things I need from input
from the school district. Because like I say, especially in PUD's we are seeing narrowing
streets being requested. Granted the narrower street section will have a tendency to slow
down traffic, but on a cul-de-sac street, especially the short cul-de-sac streets I don't think
that is the real issue anyway.
Morrow. I have no further questions of, no I do, Shari, your conditions dated November 8,
you had 9 conditions. Have those all been complied with?
Stiles: Item 1, the variance will be up tonight. The pump house they are still showing
within the 20 foot planting strip. I have asked for a detailed plan of that landscape area
to show how that will fit so it is just not an ugly building in the middle of their berm there.
I haven't received that yet. It appears that they have re -designed to meet the 8000 square
foot minimum and the lot frontage. That was my main concern on that.
Tolsma: Also, Council members, in the packet we had a letter here from Mr. Tom Geile,
have you all read that, some of his concerns about the fencing and (inaudible) livestock
(inaudible).
Corrie: Mr. President, Shari, is covered here in number 8, would that letter cover what you
are saying is perimeter fencing that they are asking here, or are they asking for more than
a perimeter fence? Have you had a chance to read that yet?
Morrow: I think Mr. Corrie, the item 8 refers to construction perimeter fencing which is
temporary in nature. Mr. Geile's letter is asking for at least on his common property which
is still agricultural that permanent fencing to be done not piece meal by each lot owner but
by the subdivision up front.
Corrie: Okay.
Stiles: Councilman, we are requiring perimeter fencing to be placed prior to building
permits. The only time we allow the temporary is when it is in a phase when it doesn't
make sense to install a fence but we have been requiring a permanent perimeter fence to
be in place before building permits.
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 17
Morrow. On the exterior boundaries?
Stiles: Yes
Morrow: And does that satisfy Mr. Geile's desire, his boundaries contiguous with the
subdivision lot numbers or phase No. 5?
Stiles: I believe that would address his concerns.
Corrie: His second paragraph states what you are stating too that the purpose of the letter
is to permanently construct a fence between his property and Haven Cove No. 5 is a
(inaudible) that is what you are saying if I read everything correctly.
Stiles: They are phasing this project, I was under the understanding that this phase 1
would be the northern portion and phase 2 would be the southern portion which would
mean that they could fence just a portion of the exterior boundary there. I don't believe
they are getting building permits until the extension until they do (inaudible).
Tolsma: Any other questions of Council?
Smith: Mr. President, Council members, Phase 1 is, we had a discussion about this
subdivision I think it was at the last meeting where they are going to install sewer and
water in phase and have a non -development agreement for phase 2. Before we would
issue an building permits in fact before we even sign off on the plat they will either need
to have access through what is called Haven Cove No. 6 to the northwest corner or they
would bring access down to Pine Street for the subdivision. But nevertheless they would
do phase 1 which is about half of Mr. Geile's west boundary. So they would need to in
accordance with Shari's request, number 8 request, they would need to install permanent
perimeter fence along Mr. Geile's property boundary for the length of phase 1. Then, in
order to keep construction debris from blowing off the site I would assume he would need
to install temporary fencing for the remainder of Mr. Geile's boundary. Shari says that is
correct.
Morrow: Then when phase 2 comes out of the non -development agreement then the
permanent perimeter fencing goes on from there.
Smith: Yes sir.
Tolsma: Any other questions of the Council?
Morrow. Mr. President, I would move that we table this until January 16, pending resolution
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 18
with the issues with respect to fire, police, school turn around and drainage issues that Mr.
Smith commented on and have not yet been addressed by our staff or other staffs.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this until we have the Fire Departments
approval, school district's approval and the drainage approved until January 16, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Mr. President, under the circumstances I think on item 13 that we need to table the
request for variance at that meeting on 1-16-96. Oh, I 'm sorry it is a public hearing.
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 5,1995: REQUEST
FOR A VARIANCE FOR LENGTH OF CUL-DE-SAC FROM 450' TO 476.50' FOR HAVEN
COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT:
Tolsma: At this time I will open the public hearing, is there a representative here?
David Collins, Collins Engineering, 3350 Americana Terrace, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Collins: The request is on State which turns east and then south into North Mora Court.
Just the dimensions of the project end up with a cul -de -sax 476.50' long and your
ordinance carries a limiting requirement. There is a condition in there requesting we put
an additional fire hydrant partially into the cul-de-sac. We contacted Mr. Bruce Stuart of
the Meridian Water Department that deals with the locating of the fire hydrants for the Fire
Department and worked out the location of those hydrants with him and then reflected that
on the preliminary plat, the latest edition.
Tolsma: Any questions of the Council for Mr. Collins? This is a public hearing, anyone
else in the public that wishes to offer testimony on this culdesac length? Seeing none I
will close the public hearing.
Corrie: Mr. President, we would request that the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the variance to be presented on 1-16-96 meeting.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Bob, second by Max to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 19
and conclusions of law on the variance length of the cul-de-sac, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR THE
PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here from the Playground?
Ted Hutchinson, Tealy's Land Surveying, 109 S. 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Hutchinson: Members of the Council this is a 3 lot subdivision of the Playground that is
at the northeast corner of Overland and Locust Grove Roads. This is a development that
is currently under the development agreement with the City of Meridian for the
development of the R.V. park and the golf driving range. It is owners desire now to
subdivide this ground into 3 lots. One lot will contain the R.V. Park, one lot will contain the
driving range and the third lot will be in the middle there subject to future development.
We have reviewed the comments from staff and have no problems with those. We are
seeking your approval of this application tonight and if there are any questions that you
have I will answer those at this time.
Tolsma: Any questions for Mr. Hutchinson?
Morrow. You have no problems then with any of the problems that have been addressed
by staff?
Hutchinson: No we read through those and have no problems with those.
Morrow. Including the ACHD conditions?
Hutchinson: Including the ACHD conditions yes.
Tolsma: Any other questions? This is a public hearing, anybody else from the public wish
to testify on the request for preliminary plat for the Playground Subdivision?
Ted Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hanson: It is more of a question, you are approving everything they have done or what
they have submitted to you? My question is those lights on that driving range that are on
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 20
at night just about blind everybody that lives on the north side of the freeway. Have you
ever noticed that, I don't know about the traffic going by there how it affects them. But if
you are looking at those lights shining on the back of the house, it doesn't happen to do
it on mine but several to the west of me they do. I talked to several neighbors with respect
to that and they are not happy with the fact that you go out in the back yard and you can't
see anything when you look south, you are blinded. I don't know whether that pertains to
the approval of the plat
Tolsma: Counselor, isn't there an ordinance that pertains to lights or is that just (inaudible).
Crookston: We have in the past I don't recall whether we did on this parcel of ground or
not but we have in the past required lights at shopping centers, we did it at the Fred Meyer
area, we have done it since then to require that those lights be set so that they do not
shine that light into residences. That could be a condition as part of the preliminary plat.
We are not dealing with annexation here but that could be done for the plat.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to testify on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public
hearing. Council members?
Morrow: Mr. President, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for the
Playground Subdivision subject to all City staff conditions, Nampa Meridian staff
conditions, ACHD staff conditions and a modification of the lighting so that it doesn't
impact the residences on the north side of the freeway.
Yerrington: Second
Crookston: I do have a question, as 1 heard your motion Councilman Morrow, you said
approve the preliminary plat, this is a combination of both the preliminary and the final
which is allowed in our ordinance when the lots are less than 4.
Morrow. And I think my motion was to approve the preliminary subject to those conditions
and I guess what I am saying is before we approve the final plat I want to see that those
conditions are met.
Crookston: That is fine, I just wanted to raise that question.
Corrie: Mr. President, discussion, the letter from Mervin Lindley be entered into the record
as well for the Zoning Administrator to take into consideration as part of that fact. They are
talking about the open irrigation ditch, you gave it in general comments, Bruce Freckleton
did I guess and I wanted to make sure that is included in part of it if that is appropriate
Gary.
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 21
Tolsma: It has been moved and seconded to
Smith: Councilman Corrie, Council members, we received that letter and I believe Mr.
Lindley was in maybe Monday I guess and talked to me about the ditch on the adjacent
property of the transport, truck and trailer proposal that is before you tonight. So
depending on which property it is on you are absolutely right that ditch will need to be
piped and taken care of.
Tolsma: Okay, we have had a motion by Walt, second by Max to approve the preliminary
plat for the Playground Subdivision subject to Nampa Meridian Irrigation's, Ada County
Highway District's and the City of Meridian's staff conditions being met and modification
of the lots so they do not impact the neighbors on the north side of the freeway. These
conditions have to be met before the final (inaudible)
Morrow: That is correct, my motion was only for the preliminary plat. I realize the
application if for a split preliminary/final, the motion is strictly for the preliminary.
Tolsma: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: Wayne, would you table the final plat then until these other conditions are met?
Crookston: Yes you would, if it is on the agenda, my agenda that I have which must be an
earlier agenda only has the preliminary plat but I knew that they applied for both. So that
should be tabled also.
Morrow. So moved
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the final plat until January 16, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BEDFORD
PLACE SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here?
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 22
Mike Wardle, Hubble Engineering, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Wardle: Approximately a year and a half ago the Council approved a preliminary plat for
Bedford Place Subdivision which essentially a 40 acre parcel just south of Ustick Road
lying north of the Fothergill Pointe subdivision that had previously been approved.
Subsequently one half of this subdivisions has been final platted and construction has
been under way for some time both on the improvements as well as the homes there in.
One of the early points of the proposal was a greenbelt system along the re -aligned south
slough at the south end of the property. In the original proposal the south slough shown
in this shaded area to the north was going to be re -aligned along the common boundary
with Fothergill Subdivision. In fact plans were approved by both the City and Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District for that relocation. One of the problems that occurred however
was that when the construction commenced and the depth of that particular facility became
evident to homeowners in the Fothergill Subdivision they approached the City and
concerns expressed led to a meeting on the 9th of May, 1995 in the offices of the City with
members of the City being present, the Mayor Grant Kingsford, Councilman Walt Morrow,
City Engineer Gary Smith, representatives of the developer and Hubble Engineering and
the developers of the adjacent Fothergill Subdivision and some neighbors who had
expressed the concern. There was one other factor that had come to the fore during the
approval process for the re -alignment of the South Slough or Finch Lateral and that a
speck statement and I believe and I am aware that your Council packet has all the items
that have been presented to the Planning Commission a month ago. But one very specific
statement from the license agreement agreed to between the developer the Brighton
Corporation and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District states as follows, and this is coming
from license agreement page 11, item N, the construction plans identified in paragraph A
of this exhibit state that the licensee intends to construct a bike path within the district's
easment (inaudible). The District does not by entering this agreement of license approve
authorize or acquiesce construction of said bike path or any bike path within the District's
easement of the Finch Lateral. Those two items taken together, the concern of the
adjacent property owners and the specific statement or reference by Nampa Meridian that
they are not approving a bike path in tha area lead to the discussion and a memorandum
of understanding and agreement between the parties and those parties be specifically
private parties the City gave the good offices for the discussion but did not specifically sign
the agreement between Brighton or the adjacent property owners or developer. But in that
agreement the consensus was that Brighton could in fact amend its plat, to tile the South
Slough and gain approval for some additional lots along that area to off set the cost of
construction for that that had been previously approved. And yet with the maintaining of
some common area facilities in the form of a tot lot that would be acceptable to not only
the property owners in Bedford Place but also without restriction to adjacent properties as
well in the Fothergill Subdivision. Now the specific concept has not been presented to the
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 23
City for the approval but the idea. I will take this off and pass it to the Council for the record
as showing a tot lot area that would have some type of playground equipment in it. A half
course basket ball facility and then some area on the sides of that for activity functions that
might be possible, it is still fairly small but nevertheless is a usable area. So, what we are
talking about then instead of the open lateral it will be piped along the frontage of the
street, there will be eight additional lots platted for construction and then the maintenance
of a common area for tot lot, half course basket ball and passive activities that might be
appropriate. I will represent this to the Clerk for the record. Mr. President, members of the
Council, I don't think there is any point in going further, I think it is a pretty straight forward
situation. There is only one comment that we would make in as much as it seems that
those adjacent to it and the developer did come to an agreement that the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District comments in the packet that we received for this particular meeting had
an interesting statement. And I just want to clarify what transpired. The bottom of their
comment sheet in your packet, they have a bold note that says the 15 foot access to
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's lateral may not be acceptable. The interesting think
is that they appear to be talking about the Onweiler which goes through the middle of the
project and has already been approved in both easement and access. If their comment
pertains to the South Slough, what is being proposed is precisely the same arrangement.
In fact it is not just a 15 foot easment unencumbered easement for their access it is
actually 25 feet. The plat shows that clearly. If there is any mis conception on that part it
would be clarified in a license agreement wit them for the tiling of this lateral. If there are
any questions specific to that we would try to respond to those.
Morrow. Mr. Wardle, I have a question with respect to the minutes when this went through
P & Z, a point that Mr. Crookston raised. In terms of whether the basket ball facility was
supposed to be a half course or a full court. He indicates that he will have to go look at
his notes and records to see. Have you researched any, after your presentation before P
& Z and this came to be an issues. That issues come up only from Mr. Crookston. We
have not found any record of this (inaudible) he was not involved according to the minutes
of the meeting that were held on the 9th of May. I am not aware of any subsequent
discussions that talked about specifics of those improvements. No, Mr. Turnbull is here
I sure if there is other information, but there is no record that I can find from that
discussion. It lead to a commitment for a full court basketball facilitate.
Crookston: Excuse me, I did intend to look at the record to find out what was done. I have
not had the time to do that and I apologize for that. If the Council desires me to do that still
I certainly will do it. I think I would like to satisfy my own mind as to whether or not that was
done or not. As I recall it, just in conversations I don't know if it was stated at a public
hearing or not. As I recall it, it was to be a separate tot lot and a separate basketball court.
I cannot recall specifically whether or not it was a full sized basketball court, meaning a
basket on each end. I just don't recall that specifically. But what I do recall is that they
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 24
were to be separate lots. But I need to check the record on that. It may not have been,
that is just how I recall it.
Wardle: Mr. President, the one item that is noted in the minutes of that meeting, it says that
the Brighton Corporation, this is item #3 in the proposal, that Brighton Corporation develop
the equivalent of a minimum of two subdivisions as common area, tot lot and basketball
court or volleyball court for children and residents of both subdivisions. Now, the area in
question is substantially more than what would be two lots in that particular zone. Mr.
President that is the end of my presentation if there are questions.
Tolsma: There was one question that I had on the main street through this subdivision I
believe there was supposed to be and your map doesn't show it (inaudible) green area all
the way through this (inaudible) Fothergill Subdivision. (Inaudible) in the entrance but it
was supposed to be a green area all the way through this subdivision as more or a corridor
street.
Wardle: Yes, Mr. President, in fact there is a common area strip on the east side of that
street. There is no common area when you get into Fothergill Subdivision, you are simply
back to existing lots. That street actually is under ACHD standards now, 56 foot collector
no access by any lots. Those have that buffer strip. I would believe that it shows that strip
along there.
Tolsma: It just wasn't colored on your map.
Wardle: That was an earlier version.
Morrow. Mr. President, I would like to have Gary's comments and then Shari's comments.
Corrie: While they are doing that, Mr. Wardle I had a question, on the faxed message from
David Turnbull to you it is part of the record here, evidently your conversation with Mayor
Kingsford and Councilman Morrow that NMID (inaudible) along the laterals (inaudible) to
satisfy the Fothergill neighbors to construct a tot lot and a basketball court as a
neighborhood amenity. I guess was the tot lot and the court together in this one?
Wardle: No, Mr. President and Mr. Corrie, in fact if you look at that little schematic again
it shows both facilities, we just haven't detailed it particularly but it does show both. The
playground for the children and a basketball facility. It is a half court.
Tolsma: Any other questions of Mr. Wardle.
Morrow I would like to hear the staff comments and Mr. Wardle's response to those
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 25
comments please.
0
Smith: Mr. President, Council members and Councilman Morrow, the staff comments from
public works department are pretty straight forward. I think the only thing that we asked for
additionally than what had been supplied was a map indicating the location of the soil test
pits. But that is a minor item. Sanitary sewer and water will be provided off the existing
lines that are presently serving the number one subdivision. That is all my comments.
Morrow. In your testimony to P & Z you talked about the and I am quoting now, "we just
need to be sure that this is a workable easement for all parties concerned this hasn't been
transmitted to you from my department and I just wanted to have that of record." It is in
response to questions about the easement for Nampa Meridian. Has that been resolved
to your satifaction?
Smith: I think Mr. Wardle resolved it at the hearing that night Councilman Morrow. It is a
similar situation to what exists with Onweiller lateral which was in phase #1 subdivision.
So the irrigation district easment is basically overlapped by the public right of way. I don't
believe that is a concern now. (End of Tape)
Stiles: (Inaudible) final plat stage we would get a copy of the license agreement and those
other changes would need to be made. The rest I believe is self explanatory.
Tolsma: Any other questions of staff? This is a public hearing is there anybody else that
wants to offer testimony on this?
David Turnbull, 12301 West Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Turnbull: In as much as Walt and I were the only ones at the meeting on May 9th that was
referenced by Mr. Wardle I thought I would just address any issues that might have been
brought up there particularly with regard to the tot lot and the basketball court. I believe
one of the Fothergill neighbors is also here to testify. Basically what we had envisioned
and this is consistent with what you find in most neighborhood park amenities is a half
court basketball court with a tot lot. I did reference in the Planning and Zoning Commission
that we plan on putting in the manufactured tot lot equipment is the same one that did the
Mill Creek Subdivision on Overland Road, that Bryce Peterson did. It is a fairly substantial
peice of equipment I think it is manufactured out of south central Idaho and that is what we
intend to provide there. So it will be very durable and long lasting. As for the basketball
court, my point is that we are trying to provide some surrounding greenscape buffer as
well. My contention would be and Walt may be able to verify what the intent was. My
contention is that a full court basketball court would neither be desirable nor feasible.
Basically if you are going to have an outdoor sports facility you want the directions to face
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 26
north south to keep the glare of the afternoon, evening sun out of your eyes. The only way
to do a full court basketball court in this situation would be to run it east -west and not to
mention it would eat up a lot of the green space. I might note that entire area whether you
consider it a separate lot I suppose it could be platted as separate tot lot and basketball
court lot but I don't know that does any good. It is probably better off being platted as one
common area lot. In any case that entire common area lot there is roughly the length of
a football field, 300 feet long, 100 yards long. Anyway, if the Council has any other
questions I would be glad to address them.
Morrow. The lots will be maintained and owned by the homeowners association will they
not anyway?
Turnbull: The common area lot, yes.
Morrow. So it does not matter if it is one lot or two lots.
Turnbull: Correct.
Morrow. Thank you
Turnbull: As you can see we have provided a separation between (End of Tape)
Tolsma: Council members?
Morrow. Mr. President, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat subject to staff
conditions, ACHD conditions and Nampa Meridian conditions.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the preliminary plat for Bedford Place
Subdivision subject to staff conditions, ACHD conditions and Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District conditions, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VALLEY
CENTER MARKET PLACE BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here?
Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 27
Attorney.
0
Bowcutt: This particular property is approximately 39 acres in size. It is located north of
Overland Road on the south side of 1-84. It is just west of Meridian Road. The property
adjoins the Sandman Motel, the JB's Restaurant on its east boundary to the west is
Mountain View Equipment. Then obviously north is Interstate 84. The blue area that you
see right there in the northeast corner is Five Mile Creek that runs through there or Ten
Mile Creek runs through there. It goes under the Interstate, there is also a City sewer main
that runs through that area. There is an easement that exists. We have water, it is
available right at this point, we will have to extend the water to our west boundary and then
we will hook onto the sewer on that northeast corner. We have approximately 26
commercial lots as you recall a few months ago we annexed and zoned this to C -G. The
applicant is proposing some retail or office uses in this particular development. It does
have the overlying planned development areas zoning or comp plan over the top of it. The
uses will require a conditional use application. Ada County Highway District as reviewed
it, they have approved it with the four approaches. The Commission has endorsed the staff
report. They have checked it for off site visibility because of the little hill that is right in this
area here. They have checked our site visiblity and it meets all ACHD standards. The
internal roadways are proposed as private. The reason we have done that is to allow
maximum flexibility when this property develops if we go in with public right of ways we
have to go through a lengthy process to vacate the public right of ways. And therefore for
example up on the cul-de-sac area on the northwest corner if a particular user was going
to purchase all four of those lots and say put one large building we basically just vacate
the easement versus going through the right of way vacation. That process takes about
six months. In our discussions with the applicant these street sections will be built to
public street standards with a 41 foot section, 5 foot sidewalks, we have provided a 60 foot
easement, the original submittal we had 50. Shari requested 60 and we have modified that.
I have provided additional information to staff that they requested in their original review.
We will be meeting as I mentioned before all ACHD's requirements. They have requested
that we construct sidewalk along Overland Road. We also have the Kennedy Lateral that
comes across Overland Road, runs along our South boundary. That will have to be piped
with a 36 inch pipe. I have discussed it with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the
applicant is fully aware that will need to be piped and the (inaudible) will have to be
reviewed by Nampa Meridian and any alteration of that facility. It also has to come out of
the right of way, we will have to dedicate additional right of way and right now with the
additional right of way the lateral runs within the public right of way or the future public
right of way. At the Planning and Zoning Commission they asked us to submit a landscape
plan up along Overland Road, we did submit that plan to staff and came back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and we agreed that we will include the maintenance
provisions and landscaping provisions within our covenants governing all of these lot
owners. The landscaping along Overland Road would be an easement and those facilities
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 28
0
would be put in at the time that the first lot is proposed to be developed. One of the things
the Planning & Zoning Commission brought up is they didn't want to see the landscaping
done in a peice meal fashion, you may have one lot come in one year, two lots down
another lot comes in so we would have a break in the landscaping. They wanted to see
that done all at one time. The only request that we did have was with the lateral, the
landscaping would have to coincide with piping of the lateral because as you can well see
this is where the lateral will be piped, we will also have to coordinate our landscaping with
Nampa Meridian to make sure that we don't have any deep rooted trees that would disrupt
t hat pipe. Staff has also requested that we improve along that Ten Mile Creek, do some
landscaping there so that we have something that is aesthetically pleasing. The applicant
agreed that it will go in on that bank but we have that sewer line to contend with so we
can't plant any deep rooted trees but we could go with some smaller trees some
shrubbery, some lawn areas. We don't want to disrupt that natural flow. That is a
protected stream, it is listed on Water Resources list so we don't want to do anything to
disrupt that in any way. I believe that is it, do you have any questions for me?
Morrow: I have a couple, with respect to the private road system within the subdivision.
How is the proposal handled to maintain those roads?
Bowcutt: Basically they will be the responsibility of all the lot owners.
Morrow: Is there a mechanism, such as in residential subdivision it would be called a
homeowners association, is there an association set up in conjunction with the covenants
and restrictions to allow or to make that happen?
Bowcutt: Yes, we would have to provide the document and I think in my response to staff
that document would be provided with the final plat prior to your review of the final. The
documentation that lays out and spells out maintenance, how those dues will be allocated
and so forth for perpetual maintenance of this facility. It would be very similar to a good
example is Boise Town Square Mall, those are not public streets that run internally within
that facility. Those owners, they share the cost, they are different pads in there and so
forth.
Morrow. But in that case there is one major owner that being the Price Company, here you
could have as many as how ever many lots. In the covenants, the association will have the
ability to levy assessments and collect those assessments from the lot owners?
Bowcutt: Typically that is how it is handled.
Morrow. And in the structure of that, who makes the determination of when the road needs
to be repaired?
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 29
Bowcutt: Who would make the determination?
Morrow: My point being is that if the City of Meridian or ACHD came along and said this
road is in need of repair how does that get to happen? As opposed to the association
saying no we don't think it needs to be repaired and so then you have a clash between 3
entities.
Bowcutt: I understand, I don't think I can answer that question at this time without
consulting with the client. Jonathan Seel is here with W.H. Moore and potentially he could
answer those questions. One thing that we do recommend for our clients is that they build
these to the ACHD standards, have them tested in the event that they ever wanted a future
dedication of these streets then that ability is there to dedicate them. They meet all
standards and we have documentation from different testing laboratories. The compaction
ratios and everything are correct.
Morrow: 1 understand that, my point here is though at year 10 it may be by pavement
management program would say that it needs to be seal coated and my concern for the
general taxpayer is that the association gets together and gives the roads to ACHD in
need of repair and we as taxpayers fund the repair of the road when rightfully they ought
to fund the repair of the road. I am interested in seeing some sort of mechanism so that
doesn't happen automatically.
Bowcutt: That is understood, and typically I think a plantation where their streets started
to just basically fall apart due to poor construction I was told ACHD would not accept those
until they were brought up to their standards. Those particular, of course that was a
residential development they did an LID out there to bring those up to standards and specs
and then dedicating them. ACHD will not accept them is my understanding if they do not
meet the standards so that burden isn't passed onto the the taxpayers.
Morrow. In that particular situation the issue was handled in such a way, the roads were
too narrow and to meet ACHD specs. So the condition of ACHD specs and so conditions
of ACHD taking those roads was that the subdivision in future subdivision development
phases would widen the roads and do it all at homeowners expense and so the
homeowners association pays dues and a special assessment to off set cost. Actually I
have a spec house in there so paid two fees and that is how that issue was handled. But
my concern here was that we have some sort of mechanism that spells those out.
Bowcutt: Well I think Jonathan can probably address that and when that final plat comes
in that document would be submitted simultaneously. The City Attorney could review that
to make sure that those mechanisms that you are discussing are in there.
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 30
0
Morrow. In reviewing the minutes from the P & Z the landscaping was a major issue and
how it is maintained and you addressed those in your presentation tonight.
Bowcutt: I addressed when they will be put in and maintenance of the landscaping, I did
not address that, would be the responsibility of each lot owner since these are commercial
lots. They just typically hire a maintenance company and they do everybody's.
Morrow. With the exception of the common area, the common area is determined by the,
Bowcutt: I don't have a common area.
Morrow. in other words the landscaping that fronts along Overland is up to each individual
property to maintain.
Bowcutt: Yes sir, that is what the applicant was requesting. However the applicant would
put the facilities in to make sure that we had consistency of landscaping and it
aesthetically looked good like it was done with a plan and not piece meal fashion.
Morrow. I think very candidly for your information from my perspective Overland Road is
to be a 90 foot section line right of way, it is a major arterial. My interest would be that the
owners association maintain so that there is a consistency and so that the City in the event
that it is not being properly maintained has somebody to go to and say let's get it
maintained as opposed to the City having to deal with 6 or 8 property owners individually
and different standards of maintenance for each.
Bowcutt: Understood, I think Jonathan can probably address that.
Yerrington: I had one question on your ditch Becky, I think it is 48 inch and not 36 inch tile,
you should measure some of that out there.
Bowcutt: John Anderson indicated that he thought a 36 would work there based on the
flows and the pipe sizing they had in Elk Run. Obviously that won't be determined until we
get ready to do the design. I got the 36 inch from him.
Yerrington: Well, it is 48 across the road.
Bowcutt: Is it 48 across the road, okay I will bring that up to Mr. Anderson.
Jonathan Seel, 8150 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Seel: I had just one other comment and I will address the concerns of the Councilman.
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 31
The other request that we had is back here as Becky mentioned, we have a 35 foot
setback for landscape. In this area right here we of course have the canal and that falls
in that 35 foot setback. That is really kind of a moot issue. This particular lot, Lot 8, Block
6 and Lot 5 what you are asking for or what has been requested is 35 foot setback for
landscaping. What we would like to suggest is that be reduced down to 20 feet. The
reason behind that is, I think the intention here is to create somewhat of a focal point. If
you can kind of visualize going down 1-84 by the freeway once this area is totally
developed which presumably should that is the reason we are getting into this. This whole
area will be landscaped, you will have buildings, trees, you will have a variety of stuff. It
will no longer be a focal point, it won't be a focal point any more than one person out here
in this audience is a focal point. What it does is it really cuts down the area of our lots
here. I think we can get 20 feet in here and keep in mind if you are going to have
landscaping in these lots you are still going to get a, what I would call a buffer or
something that is going to be aesthetically pleasing, give you what you want but allow us
to have lots that are developable. I think that still addresses what you want. We recognize
up here along Overland you want the 35 feet because it is a focal point. We think back
there 35 feet on the back end along 1-84 when people are doing 65 and 70 down the road
it is probably a little bit more than what we would like to put in. I don't know if there are any
questions on that.
Corrie: Mr. President, you said there will be landscaping in each individual lot?
Seel: Each individual lot is certainly going to be developed, you are going to have some
landscaping presumably. You are going to have requirements in the City that you are
going to have a certain amount of trees and so forth per areas of asphalt. So what I am
suggesting is that it is just like a house (inaudible) you do have landscaping, it isn't like
you have landscaping and this is just going to be asphalt (inaudible) I think the intention
up here is to have it, but I don't think it is really necessary back here. We are losing 15 feet
of essential land.
Corrie: So you will still be landscaping the front as well as the back?
Seel: Yes sir, we would have the buffer along here and would certainly have the buffer
along here, here you are going to have it along with the canal and than falls within the
canal easement so it is really a moot issue. But over here in these particular lots what I
would like to suggest is we reduce it down to say 15 or 20 feet which again will be
landscaped. We can provide a plan for that, we can assure that is put in in a certain form.
We would like to avoid having to do 35 feet. As I say if you look at the comprehensive
plan it talks about encouraging doing landscaping it does say specifically 35 feet. So we
are asking that be reconsidered. If there are any questions on that? I was going to
respond to your concern of the roads. We are doing a park over here in Meridian, Meridian
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 32
E1
Business Park right now. I think what our intentions be is that we are building the roads
in conformance with ACHD which of course you are very aware you have to have certain
compaction, the depth of the asphalt and so on. If we go ahead and do that we will either
dedicate those roads I think as soon as they are constructed if that is their decision. I don't
visualize that we are going to defer that 5 or 10 years down the and say let's hand those
over to ACHD. So I am not sure that the maintenance issue is probably at least in my mind
its big concern is it might be. I don't think it is our intention, our intentions is to do these
as public roads, I think our intention would be to dedicate those to ACHD as soon as the
project is completed and not delay that. I don't see any incentive on our part if we do that.
I think what is going to dictate is ultimately what is developed within that park. If it is retail
it might be something different, but I think in this case if it is warehouse or office or that
type of thing then I think we would clearly dedicate that immediately.
Morrow. I take some issue with your comment, from my perspective in terms of develop out
as you and I both know this is an up and down game. The Meridian park that you are
referring to has been almost 15 years at development and build out from time of original
approval. What I am suggesting to you is that in the case of this that point of your
dedication of those to ACHD when it is built out could be 15 years from now. Very candidly
it seems to me like we need some sort of protections in there within that association to see
that those things happen and if in fact they are dedicated to ACHD in 4 or 5 years than fine
the issue doesn't apply. But if they are dedicated at some point in the future or not
dedicated at all as the association may desire than we need to have some provisions to
make sure that those things happen. I use as a case in point some private roads in the
Boise area and these have become major issues. It is my understanding that Boise no
longer looks at private roads because of the maintenance issues, is that correct?
Seel: That I don't know, I know in response to Meridian Business Park those roads were
dedicated immediately in phase 2 which we are completing right now. We will dedicate
those this spring when the asphalt is complete, we are partially through. But I think
presumably we can address your maintenance issues and your concerns and I think they
are viable ones. We don't have any specifics right now and I would be a liar and sat here
and tried to tell you we had something planned out and spelled it A, B, C, D. I think that
is a viable concern and we can take a look at that. I can't give you an specific answers at
this point.
Morrow: I understand that, my last question is with respect to the Ten Mile Drain. You
indicated that there was going to be some landscaping along that?
Seel: Yes, there is a buffer back there that will be landscaped too.
Morrow. How do you work that out with, it is my understanding that is owned by the Bureau
E
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 33
0
of Reclamation and Nampa Meridian has a maintenance agreement.
Seel: I believe that is my understanding.
Morrow. Do you have to do any license agreement with Nampa Meridian or the Bureau of
Reclamation to do landscaping along through there?
Bowcutt: We will have to obtain their approval, submit a plan and obtain approval from
them. I have talked with both John Caywood he is the one that faxed me over the
information on it is a preserved water way on the preservation list. And I have talked to
Anderson about it.
Morrow. What does a preserved water way mean?
Bowcutt: That you can't go in and alter the channel or modify it. It is a natural drainage
channel. So we can go in and dress it up, if there was natural repairing areas that they
they deem valuable obviously we couldn't disrupt them.
Morrow. Thank you, I have no further questions.
Tolsma: This is a public hearing, does anyone else wish to offer testimony on this?
Russ Hunnemiller, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hunnemiller: My main concern, I own the property to the east which is Mr. Sandman. I am
concerned about setbacks from property for fire. I am concerned about loading and
unloading trucks for noise and also landscaping on that side. That is about it.
Tolsma: Any questions of Russ? Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this plat? Seeing
none I will close this public hearing.
Morrow: I have questions for the staff, Gary, have your comments been addressed, the
ones dated September 7, to your satisfaction?
Smith: Councilman Morrow yes they have.
Morrow: And Shari, have your comments been addressed and I guess I would also ask
your opinion with respect to common area issues in terms of the landscaping and your
experience with private road issues.
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, are you referring to the 35 feet?
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 34
Morrow: Yes
0
Stiles: We have been requiring that on all developments, some
incorporating that as a drainage swail or something. They have b
something so they are still being able to use it for something that is
are just talking about the reduction to 20 feet on the north.
Morrow. That is my understanding, your comments there.
of them have been
een able to use it as
useful to them. They
Stiles: 1 guess depending on what kind of a plan they had I haven't seen a plan submitted
on exactly what they would be doing along that corridor or maybe something that they can
do along Ten Mile Drain would compensate for a reduction in that. I don't know, I can't tell
without seeing a plan.
Morrow. And the issue with a common ownership lots, in terms of whether we ought to do
those as individual lots or have them a common area that is owned by the subdivision and
maintained by the subdivision owners association.
Stiles: From an enforcement perspective it would be much easier if it were a common
ownership and a separate lot.
Morrow. I have no further questions.
Corrie: Mr. President, Shari, I have a question (inaudible) what are you going to do on that
east landscaping next to the Sandman, what are your recommendations?
Stiles: The plat does show some grass along there, I don't know if that is some existing
grass or not. The fire wall issue would be taken care of during the building permit, they
wouldn't be issued a building permit if they didn't have the appropriate fire walls. Although
there are people that will be sleeping in the motel it is a commercial use and they do have
the same setbacks as this plat which would be zero setbacks.
Morrow: Could those issues (inaudible) each issue here is a conditional use permit
required could not some of those (inaudible) on each use for those lots that are adjoining.
Stiles: Yes, and I am sure if we got a request for trash compactors and a loading dock that
would probably need to be revised.
Corrie: If 1 was sleeping there I would certainly hope so.
Morrow: I have no further questions.
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 35
(Discussion Inaudible)
Morrow: Mr. President, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for the Valley
Center Market Place subject to staff conditions, ACHD conditions, and also subject to the
addition of a owners association with landscaping areas being separate lots owned and
maintained by the owners association, also subject to the private road being owned and
maintained by the owners association. With the authorization that the 35 foot landscaping
on the freeway be allowed to be a 20 foot landscaping area along the freeway.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved by Walt, second by Max to grant the request for preliminary
plat for Valley Center Market Place subject to staff conditions, ACHD conditions, that the
landscaping and the private road be through a homeowners or business owners
agreement and that the 35 foot landscaping on the north side next to the freeway be
limited to a 20 foot strip.
Morrow. I think you said a businessman's agreement, I prefer business owners or owners
association.
Tolsma: Business owners or owners association to take care of the landscaping and the
private road, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Yerrington: Mr. President, I move for a five minute break.
Corrie: Second
FIVE MINUTE BREAK
ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 28.49
ACRES TO C -G BY BILL HOWELL:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here?
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: As you know this is an application for annexation for a zone designation of C -G,
General Commercial designation with a conditional use permit for a truck dealership
facility. I would like to introduce the people who are here who may have some questions
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19,1995
Page 36
of the applicant Bill Howell is here in the room, he is standing up here, he would like to
speak with you after I finish my presentation. Also the project engineer Dave Roylance is
here on my right. The traffic engineer, the gentleman that prepared our traffic analysis Mr.
Dan Thompson is here behind me, he just raised his hand. The gentleman who performed
and prepared the sound study or the noise level study Jim Howell is here on my left. Each
of these gentlemen are available to answer any questions that you might have. What we
wanted to do so that we could make it easy for you folks to see what it is that is being
proposed and for all the people in the audience I suspect that is why most of these people
are here, we put some slides together that we are going to put up on the screen. Jim is
going to run the slide projector for me because he doesn't think I know how and he is
probably right. Never let a lawyer touch anything mechanical, that is one of the things I
have learned. So with that let's hit the lights and get off and running. I bet they don't let
you touch anything mechanical at your office do they Wayne?
Crookston: You hit the nail right on the head.
(Slide Presentation)
Bradbury: This first slide is just an introduction slide it tells you we are here for the
annexation request, it is actually not a zone change, well zone change from a County zone
into a City zone and the Conditional Use Permit. Transport Truck and Trailer is, I guess
what I would like to do is give you a little background regarding the existing business and
the existing facility. What it is and it is important that you understand just exactly what kind
of facility we are talking about. It is a dealership for the sale of new and used trucks and
trailers. It also includes a service, a repair and service facility as well as the sale of parts
and supplies. Picture this facility as being analogous to an automobile dealership and you
get the idea. It is like an automobile dealership where they will sell new and used cars,
they will fix cars and they will sell parts. Same basic idea only in this case we are talking
about trucks as opposed to automobiles. The existing facility is located in Boise near
Gowen Road and it is on a piece of leased land. It has been in business for nine years and
in 1995 they project a total business volume of about $20 million. Mr. Howell wants to
relocate his facility out here to Meridian on a larger piece of property where he can meet
the needs of his growing and expanding business. Currently they have 42 full time
employees with the projection that within 5 years they will be up to 60 employees. They
are running a payroll of about $1 million now with the expectation that if they reach 60
employees in 5 years they will be up to about $1 million and a half dollars in payroll. I tell
you that so you understand the type of facility that we are talking about and the potential
economic impact that it could have on the City of Meridian in bringing some jobs to the City
as opposed to having them remain in Boise. One of the things that you also ought to be
interested in is that one of the differences between a truck dealership that we are talking
about here and an automobile dealership is that of all the sales volume 85% is generated
•
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 37
0
by telephone or telemarketing system that they have. Only 15% of the sales volume comes
from walk in trade. They service an area that encompasses the 11 western states and as
you might imagine most people aren't going to be driving into Boise or Meridian to kick
tires. What they are going to be doing more than anything else is making their purchase
arrangements primarily by telephone. The reason I tell you about that is so that you get
an idea of when I begin to tell you about the traffic that is likely to be generated at this site.
Why it appears to be relatively minimal or at least minimal from what you would otherwise
expect. We will talk about that a little bit more later. We have a series of slides that we
are going to show you, three different topics. Talk about the site, the building and then
Mat the display area might look like. We will go through each one of those one at a time,
go ahead Jim. This is a quick vicinity map which gives you an idea of where the project
is located. The proposal that you have before you tonight contemplates a project on 12
acre site on Overland Road, Interstate 84 is to the north of it, the northerly boundary,
Overland Road is the Southerly boundary. It is located, I would estimate about 1/4 mile
east of Locust Grove Road. That would put it somewhere around I don't know 3/4 of a mile
thereabouts from Eagle Road and the Eagle Road interchange. That would be of course
on the eastern side. To the west of course is the Meridian interchange further down.
What you see here is the site plan for the facility. As I indicated we are talking about a 12
acre site on that site would be a 43,000 square foot building which would house the sales
facility, the parts facility and the service facility. That picture is oriented north and south.
To the south, the blue portion that is the building. The furthest south is the sales area and
then the furthest to the north is the service area with parts in between. All the way up to
the north you can see an area where there is a line of, probably from your view it just looks
like black dots, what that is, that is the display area of new tractors, new trucks. That would
be located along 1-84 behind a 35 foot landscaped area and in front of another landscaped
area. Those trucks are up above grade a few feet so we have a sloped landscaped area
going between the display area and 1-84 and then a slope back down toward the south
toward the rest of the facility. It also shows and maybe I should say this first, the
landscape plan or the landscaping that is shown there is conceptual only. One of the
things that we make sure you understand is we would like to work with staff to be certain
that we get a landscape plan and an arrangement that is satisfactory to the City. We will
be showing, what we are conceptualizing and we are of course more than willing to work
with staff and try to get something that everybody can be happy with. It also shows a 35
foot landscape area on Overland Road and the southerly portion of the property and that
would be bermed as required by the City. We are also showing a ten foot side yard
planters where there mould be shrubbery and trees, all of that to be determined with staff.
You can't see it very well but coming out from the building extending to the side lot lines
there on the sidelines are the security gates, we anticipate that we would have perimeter
fencing also for security. The scale is a little bit difficult to picture and let me see if I can
help you. From the southerly boundary line of the property north to the building is
approximately 140 feet. That gives you an idea that it is setback a fair distance from
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 38
Overland Road. Now the difference between what you are seeing tonight and what the
Planning and Zoning Commission saw some time, I guess it was last month or so, is first
of all the facility has been down scaled from its 20 acres proposal to a 12 acre proposal.
So we have taken 8 acres out of the project. Second, there is no body shop and paint
shop as was being proposed at Planning and Zoning Commission. That facility will stay
at the existing site, at his existing site in Boise. Also one of the main differences is that
there is no leasing facility being proposed. That has been eliminated altogether. There
aren't any present plans to put a leasing facility on this site or on any other, no present
plans. What I would like to make it as clear as I can to you is that this facility it is not a
truck stop like the Burns Brothers truck stops you see, there aren't going to be trucks
coming day in and day out for fuel. It is not a trucking terminal operation where trucks are
coming in and out to be loaded and unloaded and for shipping and receiving. It is a
dealership like an automobile dealership. I will also talk a little bit more about the building.
These are some build elevations that have been prepared by the applicants architectural
firm. You see two elevations, one is looking north from Overland Road and that is the top
elevation you can see there is a fair amount of glass in the sales area. The other one
would be looking west, I guess that would be if you were standing over toward the R.V.
Park and looking, no I am going the wrong may, that would be on the opposite side looking
toward the R.V. Park at the facility. The construction is going to be textured concrete
panels and of course glass for the display areas with service bays that will have doors
overhead doors that open and close to allow the vehicles to come in and out. I will
probably say it a little bit later but I will say it now because it is on my mind. All of the
servicing of vehicles and trailers will be handled inside the building. It is not a matter of
having a great deal of activity outside. The sales are handled inside the building primarily
outside is simply areas to display vehicles and to store vehicles that are waiting to be
repaired or have been repaired. This type of a building it is a little hard to see it from these
kinds of drawings but I have been told that the will resemble buildings that you might see
in a high tech park and for a little something closer to home, we think it is going to be
similar in quality to the Meridian Ford facility that was recently approved and is just down
the street from this one. Here is another view, you can get a little better of an idea from a
perspective view. You see a canopy that is going to be out towards Overland Road, that
is the sales portion of the facility. As you can see, you see a great deal of glass and some
nice interest in the building, it is not just a flat with a flat shell without any relief. This is a
photograph of a building that was designed by the same architectural firm which exists in
Seattle. This happens to be a diesel repair facility and is similar in what you can expect
to see on this site except for a couple of things. One this facility doesn't have a sales or
display area so you are not seeing that canopy and as much of the glass out front as you
would see on the building that we are proposing. But, what we were hoping this slide
would give you an idea of the type of quality of construction that we are anticipating for this
project. Here is another angle, a little bit closer view of that building to give you a better
idea of what it is we are hoping to accomplish here. This shot is an interior shot of the
•
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 39
9
service area in that building in Seattle. The facility that is being proposed by Mr. Howell
would use this same design and this same sort of facility for his service area. As you can
see it is clean, and well lit. It would be of course insulated for sound and there would be
air handling facilities as required in order to maintain the air quality inside the building.
One of the things that I understand was spoken to at the Planning and Zoning Commission
and this might be a good time for me to talk about it is the potential for environmental
hazards as a result of this facility. First of all you have to understand we are not talking
about fuel sales, there are no fuel sales on this site. So there is not going to be any
underground storage tanks for any of those types of chemicals. There is not going to be
any bulk oil storage on this site and as proposed there is no paint work taking place on this
site. The applicant is fully aware of all the environmental regulations to which he is
obligated to comply. The EPA regulations, OSHA regulations, Department of
Transportation regulations. I guess the reason I suggest we talk about it when you look
at this because you get some sort of an idea that we are not talking about a facility where
people are going to be walking around ankle deep in sludge and slime. It is a clean and
well operated facility as being proposed. The next group of slides are going to show some
of the vehicles. This is a photograph of some of the vehicles which are on display at the
existing site in Boise. The reason that we are showing these to you is so that you get an
idea of what it is, the types of vehicles which are going to be displayed along 1-84 and
would be displayed and sold at the facility. We are talking, we are not talking junkers, we
are talking very expensive shiny new vehicles. I don't know (End of Tape) we have a
couple more slides that show generally the types of vehicles that would be on display. I
want to make it clear to you that we are in fact talking about new and used vehicles. The
ones you are seeing here happen to be new vehicles which are on display. This is
essentially the type of displays that you would be seeing. Of course what we are talking
about is having them landscaped or presented around a landscape treatment as well. You
can also see here that this site in Boise has a security fence and we would expect you to
see the same thing here in Meridian if it were to be approved. Mr. Howell, after the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, commissioned a traffic assessment to be done
actually Bell Walker Engineers was hired to perform that it is called a trip generation and
traffic distribution analysis. The report I believe is in the packet that was delivered to you
folks earlier. What Bell Walker did is they took a look at the business records, the actual
business records from Mr. Howell's existing facility in order to reach their conclusions
about the amount of traffic that was likely to be generated by this facility. The conclusion
that Bell Walker reached and Mr. Thompson is here to speak about it if you have questions
of him. This facility would generate about 212 vehicle trips per day. Only 38 of those trips
would be trucks. If we took that in hours, I am talking about hours of operation, if you are
looking about a 12 hour day, 12 hour operating day, you are talking about 3 trucks per
hour or maybe one truck every 20 minutes. Of course that assumes that they are evenly
spread and we all know that is not exactly the case. But I think you get the point, it is not
generating a great deal of truck traffic on a daily basis. It is not generating a great deal of
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 40
L
traffic at all on a daily basis. To put this into perspective 212 trips is less than a 20 lot
residential subdivision according to what Ada Planning Association and the Ada County
Highway District projection of residential subdivisions. the 212 trips includes sales visits,
service visits, parts purchases, and employees coming and going each day. And also
anticipates the growth in the sales volume the analysis assumes that there would be this
growth that we are talking about or proposing. The analysis also included body shop work,
well that has been eliminated, it is being left back at the other site and so actually it is
overstated, the 212 trips is overstated, the applicant tells my by probably 15 or 20%. So
the number is actually going to be a little lower than that. Now the, our traffic consultants
also made a determination or attempted to analyze where these trips are going to be
accessing the site or how they are gong to get there. Based upon their analysis and more
detail of it is in the report, cutting to the chase they are figuring 95% of the trips would be
accessing this site from the Eagle Road interchange. You can get into that a little more if
you would like. Ada County Highway District of course also looked at this project and you
have their report in your file. Ada County Highway District took a dash at it and figured it
was going, they estimated the facility would create less than a 1000 trips per day, less than
a 1000 and this reports bears that out I think. Ada County Highway District also said in
their report that in July of 1995 they had a traffic count on Overland Road and Overland
Road was running about 7000 trips per day so if you take the 200 that we are estimating,
212 that we are estimating per day trips and factor that into the 7000 that exist on
Overland Road this facility is going to generate less than 3% of the traffic on Overland
Road. That is only 3 out of every 100 vehicles. The Highway District has by the way
reviewed and approved the down scaled version at their tech review committee and Dave
Roylance can talk to you about that a little bit if you want. They have imposed some
requirements one of those that a center turn lane be constructed on the site and of course
the applicant is willing to do in order to have a place for trucks to come and go in and out
of the facility. The Ada County Highway District said this about the project, they said, "the
transportation system will be adequate to accommodate additional traffic generated by the
proposed development." So it sounds like the Ada County Highway District is determined
and is comfortable with the transportation infrastructure is in place for this type of a use.
Also, since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the applicant had a sound level
analysis done to give an idea of what types of sound pollution or noise pollution might be
generated as a result of this facility. There were apparently people who were concerned
about the noise that might be generated. It was an in house study performed by Jim Howell
who is here now running the slide machine. What he did is take a sound meter and
recorded the level of sound in decibels at 15 second intervals for 20 minutes at various
sites throughout the County. He gave us 80 readings at each site. The numbers that you
will see on the display in front of you are average sound levels over that time period. So
you take all of the readings and average the number and you get the numbers that you are
seeing in front of you. Now, so that you understand what we are doing here this is the
same methodology that was used by the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency in the
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 41
study that was done for the City of Boise. Alright, the first level up there is the current site
by that we mean the existing facility over in Boise and it came out with a decibel reading
of I guess about 52 decibels and that reading was taken on the premises. The next one
down is the Peter Built site that is a similar facility also in Boise, relatively near to the
existing site. That facility does essentially all the same things that the existing facilities
and the proposed facility would do except that it has a body and paint shop which wouldn't
have here in Meridian. That the average decibel reading of the sound level there was
about 51 decibels. To still give you an idea of comparisons, go down to the bottom one
where it says Cherry Plaza, that was a reading that was taken out there at the Cherry Lane
Plaza commercial site here in Meridian. There the average decibel reading in that 20
minute period was in excess of 60. The point of that is that you get more noise in a retail
facility than you do in this commercial facility which is being proposed for this site. Another
reading that is perhaps interesting is the Overland and Bonefish that is just right down
there where the Meridian Ford facility is. The reading there was what 57 Jim, 57. And the
middle two, the Eagle Road and Island Woods Club House and that is helpful for you to
understand a couple of things. One if you take a reading on a heavily traffic street as it
shows it is really high. But if you move into a residential subdivision a little distance and
in this case went into the club house and I am assuming that you are familiar with the
Island Woods Subdivision it has the club house under the clock tower inside. You can see
that the decibel reading drops significantly when you get into the interior or the subdivision
even though that subdivision may border a heavily traffic street. I guess you might also
be interested to know that on the proposed site, the sound level is not on the graph here
but the sound level test was done just the other day and that one came in at 49.6 decibels,
that is what you get ambient noise right now with nothing else there. So you are talking
49.6 on the site with nothing there and probably 50 to 52 once the facility is in place. It
seems like a fairly modest increase. Okay, so what do you learn from all of that, well one
you learn that the sound level is more of a function of traffic volume than land use. Streets
are what cause noise not the land use. The sound level for this facility is less than what
you would expect from a retail shopping center shown at Cherry Plaza. Another
conclusions is that sound level for this use is comparable to another use like it. So we are
not talking about this one being unusually noisy or for that matter unusually quiet. It is
similar to another similar use. Another conclusion that you draw from this data is the
sound levels on the interior subdivisions drop substantially from that which is the arterial
or high volume traffic street which borders that subdivision. Yes, there is an impact on the
first row of houses in the subdivision that borders an arterial. That impact exists and will
exist whether this facility is approved or not. But when you get inside the subdivision the
impact is dramatically less. Another conclusion that you can draw from some of the data
that we have presented is that the sounds that are produced at this site are going to be
mitigated by the landscaping treatment that we are talking about 35 feet on Overland
Road. The distance from the adjacent uses, the residential uses and the proposed
residential uses across Overland that I am talking about we are talking about 240 feet from
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 42
the building to the first row of houses, 90 feet of road right of way and 55 feet of
landscaping in between, I say 55 feet because we have 35 feet from this facility and 20
feet of landscaping strip of a facility that is proposed, or for the subdivision that is
proposed across the street. And then of course you have the distance back to the
building. So what we would like to suggest to you and think that a logical conclusion that
you can draw is that this facility would not be incompatible with neighboring uses as a
result of any noise that might be produced because one the traffic to be generated is
minimal, we are talking only 3%, and the on site noise, the noise that might be produced
from the site itself is relatively modest, as a matter of fact it is about the same or just
slightly greater than what is found inside the Island Woods subdivision club house. And
then of course there is some buffering. I am back to the vicinity map and the reason I am
showing this to you again is I want to give you an idea of what all else is out there. The
recently approved starting with the far left hand side of westerly the Meridian Ford facility
that was recently approved and then you have next to that you have Arnold Machinery
facility which is existing and of course you might say it is a similar use at least it is a heavy
equipment type of a facility. You have Western States equipment, again, a facility that
operates heavy equipment that might be coming and going. You have got the Inland
Coca-Cola which is out there in the facility, that Stor-Mor Systems project that is out there.
So as you can see this is not a facility which is being suggested be dropped smack dab
in the middle of nowhere with no other commercial type uses around it. We acknowledge
of course that there are residential subdivisions in the southerly side of Overland Road
and there is a proposed residential subdivision which I understand is called Sundance
which has got a preliminary plat approval which is directly south of this facility. But I think
you also need to recognize the distances that I was talking about from that proposed
facility we are talking about 250 feet away. And there is the Overland Road arterial which
is in between the two. Your comprehensive plan recognizes and states that arterials are
intended to serve as boundaries between neighborhoods and as buffers from what might
otherwise be incompatible uses. The proposed subdivision, the Sundance subdivision was
of course approved after the comprehensive plan was enacted and after this site was
designated as a commercial site or a proposed commercial site. The facility will be served
by central water and central sewer. Water is in Overland Road it is back at the Playground
R.V. Park, back away so it would have to be extended to the site. The sewer is on the
other side of Interstate 84. The proposal would be to extend that sewer line in conjunction
hopefully with other developers in the area. The Sundance Subdivision expects to be
served with sewer through that same line. Dave Roylance can talk a little bit more about
that. You might also be interested to know the hours or operation, the facility is proposed
to be open at 7 a.m. and closed at 6 p.m. generally speaking. The applicant expects that
80% of the time and that is based upon his existing facility 80% of the time the facility is
closed by 6. Occasionally in order to accommodate emergency repair services the facility
may have to be open until 11, that probably is about 5% of the time. The balance the other
15% is somewhere between those two hours probably by 8 o'clock in the evening. So we
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 43
are not talking contrary to what was understood and believed in the past we are not talking
about a 24 hour facility. We are talking about a facility which is closed 80% of the time by
6 o'clock in the evening. Based upon the information that we have been able to develop
we believe that the facility complies with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan
seeks to encourage commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian, I don't want to spend a
lot of time with this, you probably know what you comprehensive plan says better than I
do. The proposal would bring up 60 jobs in Meridian with a payroll of $1 and a half million
dollars and you can anticipate that you would see a significant positive effect to the
property tax base as a result of the facility. The site is designated on your comprehensive
plan map as a mixed use area where commercial uses are anticipated. It is designated
according to your comprehensive plan as a priority development area. It is supposed to
attract businesses which are in the words of the plan attractive and compatible with high
volume traffic corridors. We have to face facts, there are two high volume traffic corridors
which are on either side of the site. I think that the pictures that we have shown you show
that this is in fact an attractive facility and it is certainly compatible with the high traffic
volume that you find on Interstate 84 and Overland Road. But by the same token it itself
generates a relatively moderate amount of traffic. We also believe that the facility
complies with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. As I read the zoning ordinance it
qualifies as a commercial use as defined in the ordinance because we are talking about
sales and services as opposed to an industrial use which is the topic of discussion at
Planning and Zoning. The ordinance defines and industrial uses as manufacturing and
processing and testing. We are not manufacturing or processing or testing we are selling
and servicing. I think it best fits a commercial use as defined. The C -G zone is designed
for commercial uses to be conducted in the building and this one is. It is designed for
those that are automobile and service oriented which this is. And it is to fill the needs of
travel related services and of course this one undoubtedly fits that criteria as well. Sales
lots as defined in the ordinance are permitted in a C -G zone under a conditional use permit
process and of course we have applied for that. As a matter of fact the Meridian Ford
dealership was approved as a conditional use in a C -G zone and we believe this is a use
which is analogous. Finally, there are, because there is a conditional use application there
are a number of criteria which the facility must meet in order to comply with the
requirements for a conditional use permit. First that it is in accordance with the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, I have just spoken to that. Another is that it be
harmonious with existing or the existing and intended character of the area. I have
demonstrated to you that there are other similar uses along Overland Road and that the
impacts to the adjacent residential uses are far less significant than might have been
originally imagined. That is the traffic generation is minimal, the noise generation is
minimal, the visual impact is minimal, it would be landscaped professionally and buffered,
we are talking about a nice looking facility. Another criteria is that it not be hazardous,
disturbing, or detrimental to neighboring uses. Basically the same information applies in
the terms of the generation of the traffic and the minimal noise and the hours of operation.
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 44
It appears to us that the facility meets all of the applicable criteria of the zone and we ask
for your approval. That is all for the slides. We have seen the staff reports that have
been prepared by Shari Stiles and by Bruce Freckleton I think did the Engineer's report
and of course we are perfectly willing to work with all of those and comply with all of the
conditions that they set out. I understand also that there were some letters which were
submitted recently by individuals who were in favor of the project, I think that the City Clerk
has those. I would simply ask that those be included as part of the record. That concludes
my presentation, I am certainly willing to answer any questions that you might have of me.
I f you intend to ask any hard questions let me point out one of these others guys to
respond to those. With that then I think Mr. Howell, Bill Howell would like to address you
very briefly. Thank you very much.
Bill Howell, 10455 Jay Road, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Howell: I just, Mr. President and Councilmen, I will do this very briefly because this tends
to drag on a little bit. 1 wanted to just re -cap very quickly, I think Steve made most of the
points and addressed the issues that you weren't privy to in person that were brought up
at the P & Z meeting and some issues that obviously we take very seriously and went to
great lengths to examine and bring facts back to this meeting so that the correct perception
of this project could be had rather than one based more on rumors or conjunction. I think
that has been done very well and obviously we have the expert people here in various
areas in a position to answer as well as I would like to avail myself obviously to the
questioning and further address those issues. But really leave everyone here with all the
knowledge that we can impart and the fact that we really are striving to and have left this
project malleable so that is does fit the location that we are pursuing and we can become
a good commercial neighbor for the City of Meridian. That is really all I have, I am happy
to answer any questions for you folks that you want to direct to me. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anybody else wish to offer testimony?
Robert Green, 1261 East Peacock Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Green: I hold a license with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the
National Board of (inaudible). 1 am retired from MK after about 20 years of construction.
As far as a homeowners association for Sportsman Point we have submitted a little letter
here that we oppose the annexation and development of the aforementioned property
(inaudible) as follows. The proposed use is industrial and not compatible nor harmonious
with adjacent properties. The use shall noise, odors, visual pollution greater levels
normally associated with residential activities. Such a development is not appropriate in
keeping with the present planned use of the adjoining and local property. Traffic and
safety issues are yet to be resolved. In conclusion a majority of the homeowners in
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 45
Sportsman Pointe Subdivision oppose the annexation and conditional use permit as
requested by the applicant Bill Howell. I would like to submit this and then continue one
with the few things that I have. Since you are talking about the annexation and things and
remembering that just because what we did before doesn't necessarily mean that it is right.
The tractors, the caterpillar place and like t hat if you look at the loads that they generate
and you look at the condition of the roads on Overland in that area they are deeply
deteriorated. So I would suggest that if the project would continue that loading and
everything of the roads would conform with the requirements of the American (inaudible)
and the entire road be rebuilt between those two places. There was a mention here that
there was no fueling facilities. I am assuming in that case there that fueling of the vehicles
and de -fueling for during repair will not be done. If so, de -fueling of those tanks and things
like that will require facilities to conform to the requirements of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers as adopted by the Idaho State. You were also talking about loads,
I don't know if there are going to be loaded trucks in here or not. If there are loaded trucks
in here with specific or unknown loads then I would request a disaster plan be made
because we don't know exactly what is going to happen and this is going to be located
right in a residential area which you gentlemen have already recently approved and
everything like that. The traffic load (inaudible) about the sound level I don't know when
it was taken but it doesn't seem to be very noisy about midnight. So, it is pretty noisy
about noon or six o'clock when everybody is coming home but it is not noisy then. So I
question the sound readings. Like I say, EPA, environmental impact statement, conformity
to the (inaudible) roads the American Concrete Institute. I believe at the present time for
your comprehensive plan approved December 21, 1993 it doesn't meet that requirement
because I believe the gentleman was talking here defined commercial and defined
residential as some of the things going on. Some of the things he mentioned is exactly
what is industrial. I could be wrong but that is what it seemed like to me. And the last
thing in conclusion, since you already mentioned about a complaint to the Playground
place the golf course or whatever you want to call the thing, the lighting is bothering the
people across the highway, so if we do that we better make sure all the lights are off in that
area too. That is all I have to say, thank you very much.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony?
Roy Harada, 871 E. St. Martin Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Harada: I have kind a unique way of showing you how this operation actually works. I
have been involved in heavy truck sales for 19 years myself. And to compare an
automobile dealership to a heavy duty truck dealership is like comparing the mess a
poodle left in your yard to a Saint Bernard. They are not alike in anyway, shape or form.
The operations are totally different in application and servicing. They bring up the point
of traffic and I really question how they came up with the statistics on it. Saying 172
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 46
vehicles in and out. Gentlemen if you just take, there are 63 employees going in and out
of that place and going to lunch that is more than the 172 trips they are speaking of. They
have service and parts people going there in and out. They have sales people, they have
customers going in and out. Parts and trucks, caterpillars, Cummins, every other shop.
They 38 truck trips in and out, that is 19 vehicles, they have 17 bays. I would say that if
they only have 19 vehicles being serviced they will be broke before the end of the year.
I don't think that they are giving you the information that is truthful. I think they are trying
to tell you what you would like to hear. They bring up the point of being open from 7 a.m.
to 6 p.m. what I would like to know is what happens after you approve it and they change
the hours. What protections do we have that later on they don't go to 24 hours. Every
major super freight liner dealership in the United States that I know of is open until at least
12 o'clock most of them are open 24 hours a day. I would ask the City Council to take a
look at Mr. Howell's contracts to see what freight liner expects out of him as far as hours
of service. One of the duties of the dealership is service major accounts, US Express, and
other accounts that work 24 hours a day. The traffic is not only in and out traffic but the
noise level caused by the jake breaks going up and down the hill over there by Sportsman
Point, Hunts Bluff. Those people will be bothered day and night if this dealership is allowed
and later on to be opened 24 hours a day or until midnight. On the point of the sound level
test I would question the validity of the test and how it was done. That being Mr. Howell's
relative or some other Howell going out with some type of meter and checking sounds at
whatever times he feels like it is not a very scientific method of checking noise levels. I
think I pointed out that the traffic test is an absolute farce, there is no way that the traffic
will be that low as a result of this truck dealership. My concerns are because I live in that
area and I am very concerned about the resale value of my property. They bring up the
point of the economic impact they are going to have by coming in here, but gentlemen I
would venture to guess that if this is not approved because of the development of St.
Alphonsus and other developments around that area that will have other types of more
compatible industries coming to that area that in the long term will bring in more people at
higher income levels to live in those areas plus also the value of that property tax accrued
from that property will be higher versus what that will bring and how it will affect the
lowering of resale value of properties that are already existing there. I think from a safety
standpoint is as that gentleman pointed out as to the hazardous chemicals those trucks
are hauling and hydrous ammonia, gasoline, you name it, pull a CDL book out and take
a look at the different types of materials those trucks will be hauling up and down that road.
There will be triple tankers, triple trucks. What happens if a teenage kid pulls out of one
of those subdivisions and his mistake there is no way those trucks can stop. As far as the
traffic flow that they pointed out, the natural flow of traffic from this dealership because of
the plant being in Portland will affect both of those intersections not just one of them.
Common sense says that those people will pull off on the Portland side exit, i.e. the
Meridian exit and then go out on Eagle. When those trucks pull out it takes them a full 1/2
mile to 3/4 of a mile to get up to speed. If you think you have traffic problems on that road
•
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 47
0
now with the other developments that are going in you don't have a clue what is going to
happen if a truck dealership goes in. They show you pictures of a Detroit Allison franchise
go out and see where that thing is built in Seattle, it is in an industrial park area it is not
in a residential area. You gentleman got in your car and looked at their operation out
there, they showed you a pretty picture of trucks lined up against the fence, take a
snapshot of the back side of that facility that is what you are going to have if you allow
them to build that. That is all I have got to say.
Michael Forgy, 1720 S. Goldsmith, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forgy: I want to state that I am representing the Hunts Bluff Homeowners Association as
their President. What I have seen tonight is probably one of the best smoke and mirrors
marketing schemes that 1 have seen in a long time. First of all I take offense as a
homeowner in Meridian to think that my representatives you Council members could be
swayed to allow such a project by the flaunting of $1.5 million a year. This City will grow
it will be prosperous. As the gentleman before me stated the property owners will
contribute at least that much money over the years to come. I think this whole presentation
missed the point in my mind. Let's assume as all of these statistics have created us or
made us to assume that this facility is open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. that is the prime time, I
have two children waiting for school buses on Overland Road. Those are the prime hours
that schools buses travel Overland Road. There is an assumption that 95% of the traffic
is going to go by Eagle, it is an assumption. Let's say that it turns out to be 70% and 30%
of the them access by Meridian. We are talking 1 truck every 20 minutes, what is it at that
point in time. What is the likelihood that Meridian will be faced with a traffic school bus,
tractor/trailer accident. I think there is prime property available in many different places in
Meridian that this facility could be located. Steve indicated that only 15% of this sales
volume is by walk in. My question is then why do you need a larger facility. If it is not walk
in and it is all done by phone and you can warehouse it why move. They are asking for
a variance in a proposed plan. Once the variance would be granted the ability to again
do more of what they wanted to would be more easily accomplished. It would not take the
amount of hearing that this has taken. I ask you tonight as responsible representatives of
our community looking out for the welfare of our citizens and particularly our children to
deny this request for variance.
Tolsma: Does anyone else wish to offer testimony on this request?
John Sheets, 1099 E. Borzoi, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sheets: I have listened to all of the data that he has presented and number 1 1 work with
statistics all day long myself so I can understand how you can slant numbers to say
anything you feel like saying. So good job in presenting some numbers that don't tell the
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 48
truth to me whatsoever as a homeowner in Meridian. If you look at tractor/trailers and you
look at the size of that road on Overland, if you have ever had to walk down that road,
drive a bicycle down that road two cars and one pedestrian is a real snug fit to start with.
Anywhere between Meridian, Locust Grove, anywhere on up that hill where you can't see
what is coming the traffic in there already to me is tight. You can't get out in the morning
at times. You go out in the mornings when there is fog on the road, the Coca-Cola truck
pulling out already to me are a menace. I have almost gotten hit there twice just this past
year. I don't believe that any of these people who have generated this data live in that
subdivision they also don't know what the sound coming off that road into a second story
house one block away from there is like. They don't live there they don't know what they
are talking about. That is what I want to talk about is kids who play on that road, near that
road, wait for school buses on that road. We have two kids that go to school they have to
wait out there for buses, one of them is a new driver, I don't want to think his chances are
to be against a truck that didn't see him pulling out in time. I have seen what happens to
18 wheelers versus cars, it is not a pretty site. That is all I want to leave in your minds, I
don't think these people are responsible, I don't think they presented the facts and I don't
think if you act on their facts that you will be keeping your minds open at all. That is all
I want to say thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this?
Kevin Merritt, 832 E. St. Martin, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Merritt: Gentlemen, I come to you tonight as a representative for Meridian Greens
Homeowners Association where I represent over 225 homes and we are growing
everyday. For the record we would like to state that we oppose this subject application
and for the following reasons. We have heard a lot of interesting testimony tonight I think
we need to change the name to possibly Disneyland truck sales I think my kids would
probably enjoy going there it sounds like such a pretty place. First of all I would like to
question the validity of the tests that we saw from all of their experts. First of all were these
experts approved by whom, did Ada County approve any of these tests, did the City of
Meridian. So what validity certifies these tests or certifies anybody to do these tests.
Secondly, one of the largest concerns to this going in is obviously the traffic problems.
That is a major concern, one truck rambling down the road is obviously one truck
compared to one car it is not consistent as a truck trying to gain up speed to 45 mile an
hour speed limits which is posted on Overland Road right now it would take that truck
several 100 yards to get up to speed and be an impedance to traffic. Next, concerns about
the environmental issues. There was not much detail went into their presentation
concerning the service work that they are going to be doing about the trucks coming in
from all over the contrary to be serviced or worked on. These trucks could be hauling
hazardous materials and you are bringing them into a residential area. Although Overland
E
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 49
is designed as a major traffic corridor as I heard it described here tonight the fact that thin
veil of Overland being acceptable for safety from an industrial site versus a residential site
just the width of the road that is not enough. Next, all the existing developments in the area
must use Overland Road for a means of egress and access. Additional traffic signs would
be necessary or perhaps not desirable by the mandatory users. The increased noise level
and visual and air pollution brought by this increased highway type truck traffic on
Overland road will be a major annoyance and a problem for all residents of this area. Also,
the type of tall standard lighting which would be required for this type of facility is not going
to be compatible with the planned R-4 or L-0 mixed planned zoning south on Overland
Road. We have heard testimony tonight that described the problem with the lighting at the
golf course. Obviously they are going to want to display their trucks in a manner in the
evening so I assume if they do honor their agreement to close the facility at 6 o'clock they
are still going to be turning on lights to display their wares. Next, we do have great
concerns on their honesty as to whether this facility is going to be operated in the time
frame that they have described. I question that greatly just on the fact from what we saw
during the Planning & Zoning hearings to what we are seeing tonight. We are seeing such
a dramatic change and I am wondering if they aren't getting a foot in the door to expand
operations at a later date. There is no industrial use present or planned that is compatible
with the applicant's purpose of this area. They used the Caterpillar, Coca-Cola facilities
as examples. These businesses are compatible, and have a standing history of being
compatible. There is no argument there. Allowing this business to become established
sets a tone for the surrounding areas the surrounding properties in this area. If this is
allowed to go in you have set the tone, you have set the complexion for what that area will
support. As a resident in that area I am here to tell you that this is not what the residents
of that area want. We don't want it, it is not compatible. I hope that their presentation as
polished as it was and described as smoke and mirrors that you come to agree with me.
Most of the points listed above will definitely incur an increase in tax dollars for the
residents of Meridian. it could also lower the property values of the homes in the areas
and thereby decreasing the tax dollars coming into the City of Meridian. In essence this
request by Bill Howell is not conducive to the surrounding area and therefore from the
standpoint of President of the Meridian Greens Homeowners Association we recommend
that the City Council decline this application.
Ted Hanson, 1882 Bently Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hanson: I just had a couple of quick items there for the Council members and President.
Presuming that the project did go through and with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
Cook Lateral in front of the properties I would like to have in the notes or whatever that if
it went forth that the tiling of that lateral in front of their property be in by the 10th of next
April that is imperative that we get delivery further down the line. We receive water which
at one time would have been through the middle of this. They have reduced the size of the
0
Meridian City Council
December 19,1995
Page 50
L
project leaving repair and paint facilities back in Boise. We have a ditch that goes from
Overland Road to the freeway and north. We have 103 acres that we are irrigating over
there which you have as I am a member of the Locust View Heights water users
association. One other quick thing was and it wasn't spelled out in their presentation was
in that amount of acreage where is the drainage water going to go off of that property? Is
it going to soak into the ground, you have quite a bit of surface that will be covered in the
front end of that property. I think that is one point that we need to cover down the line.
(End of Tape)
Jay Reeves, 1053 E. St. Lucia Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Reeves: I have seen this proposal before and I have looked at it a little bit and it has been
described here as a smoke and mirrors. It is pretty easy to go out in a situation like this
and get people riled up. I think there are key people that can go out and are very
successful at getting people riled up and bringing them here. I probably don't share a
popular view point in my subdivision, I also live in Meridian Greens Subdivision. I don't,
I am not familiar with the traffic studies and everything, all the noise level stuff in there, but
I do know, I do believe a lot of the traffic will draw down Eagle Road to get to this
development. I look at the concerns of the incompatibility with the existing businesses or
existing developments in the area, the subdivisions and the businesses. I don't see it
being a whole lot different than the other businesses that are also along the front of the
freeway there right now. I as well as everybody else gets the honor of tomorrow having
their property tax bills due. Places like Western States, Arnold Equipment and Meridian
Ford those other businesses have not damaged my property values attested to the fact
that my property values went up, my taxes went up 17.5% this year. One of the things that
Ada County residents have asked for a number of times in the past is property tax relief
and I think what Meridian has to do is look at diverse businesses, look at a number of ways
to broaden the tax base and not burden on all of the residential people in the property tax
area. I think that businesses have to be scrutinized and they have to be compatible with
Meridian's growth plan, but also too I think that what the Council has to do is look at the
fact that often times meetings like this I believe get attended by people that have very
negative view points. And that is the majority of the opinion you are going to hear. Now
my feeling is that again I am not 100% familiar with everything in the proposal but I think
that it shouldn't just be thrown out whole handily by a bunch of, if it is smoke and mirrors
on one side and it gets to be scare tactics on the other. That is kind of my opinion. Thank
you.
Mervin Lindley, 1790 Cadillac Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lindley: I live in the subdivision that is immediately north of the freeway which is I guess
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 51
immediately north of this proposed development. My prime concern on the thing is the
irrigation ditch that supplies the water to our subdivision. Also, drainage from the property
and there most likely will be the use of herbicides to keep the weeds under control, what
happens to those herbicides? Most of my concerns if not all of them have been taken care
of by others thank you.
Lynn Thomas, 1320 E. Peacock, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Thomas: I am not, I oppose this request. And I guess I am most baffled and maybe to
clarify for the gentleman back there regarding smoke and glass and mirrors I am having
trouble with which Bill Howell is talking to us. In the minutes from the meeting before P &
Z it wasn't as if we dreamed this smoke up, it says here that the applicants annexation and
zoning application stated that the present use of the land is agricultural and that the
proposed use is industrial unless the City has typed that up wrong. A couple of weeks ago
we had in that same testimony where he stated that they were going to go forward with the
project in phase one whether or not City sewer was provided or not and they would like to
request Bill to use Central District Health I mean use a septic system. Tonight now we are
going to bring City sewer and tonight we are not industrial use we are commercial general.
That is also adjacent, it stated in there it is adjacent to industrial uses and I am not aware
of anything within a 1/4 mile of it that is industrial. Then when Mr. Howell here decided to
clarify a few issues he stated that the fleet maintenance shop is primarily a full service
facility and that the phase 2 plan within the 20 acres will be a body and paint shop. I know
tonight he eliminated that, two weeks ago I presume he was under oath felt that was
actually what he was going forward and two weeks from now who knows what he will want
to go forward to presuming that tonight he is telling the truth. That evening they also said
that they figured 75 to 100 vehicles would be coming in there trucks, full size, anticipated
daily trips of full size road tractors and trailers would be up to 53 foot long and 75 to 100
per day. We have some clarification from him regarding the smoke. Also two weeks ago
it was going to be operating hours were going to be from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. that has been
changed. My guess regarding that I would hope that if in fact they have decided what they
really want to do with the entire project that they decide and keep with that plan a little
longer than 4 weeks and rearranging it as convenience allowed. Secondly, the approval
will in fact I believe change the complexion of what I believe seems to be intended in that
next mile section. There seems to be a lot of with the Playground that is going to become
or my understanding is entertainment, recreation that sort of use. You have the power mall
that is on one side and that sort of retail should hopefully continue as the comprehensive
plan suggests commercial general use. I would expect that sort of use to continue and
congregate that sort of direction rather than industrial. I am also intrigued if in fact he is
going to be in control of the 20 acres if he thinks industrial is next to him right now when
it is a driving range I am really curious as to what he thinks will be a compatible neighbor
for himself within his own 20 acres. I do not believe that such development should be
E
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 52
0
encouraged or deemed appropriate in that area as described in the Meridian City Planning
and Zoning Commission did not find it compatible. Let's not forget that in the mile section
south of this in the Sundance subdivision, we are not talking about school buses for the
residents of Sportsman Pointe or Meridian or along Overland, we all are looking forward
to the elementary school going in that mile section just south of it. So we are not having
just school buses along Overland travelling and picking up kids, in our subdivisions you
are going to have the school buses traveling that arterial delivering kids frankly directly
south of this development. I believe you have been told what is palatable this evening I
don't recall him being sworn in this evening and I would, what his intentions are are very
difficult for this resident to understand where he was two weeks ago and where he is
tonight and where they are going to be 3 years from tonight when I am still a resident here.
Therefore I cannot feel comfortable with this proposal as indicated. I would love them to
come to Meridian yellow freight needs a good neighbor, 1 think they are compatible.
Brad Miller, 3084 E. Lanark, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Miller: I am here on another matter, it wasn't my intention to speak on this, but it turns out
that I work for Ronald W. Van Auker Inc. and we are the landlord of Bill Howell currently.
I am here all this smoke and mirrors and character assassination and frankly I am offended
by that because Bill Howell is an outstanding person and an outstanding businessman who
runs a clean operation. We have had him there for a number of years and never had a
complaint from adjoining property owners, from ACHD, from the City, from anyone. Within
the past 60 days I had an extremely extensive environmental survey done on the property
financing requirements that I have. It came out and keep in mind that Bill has the paint
and body shop there, it came out without any problems. All agencies were contacted, all
agencies records were reviewed, there have not been any complaints regarding Bill Howell
or his operation or the existing facility and what he is doing there. I would like to give you
my word that Bill is a good man and he runs a clean operation. The City of Meridian would
be lucky to have him in the City of Meridian operating his business. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else?
Green: I am not too certain about this who is good and who is bad and all of that. I am
sure as heck not anti -growth (inaudible). The gentleman here I don't question him or Mr.
Howell I am wondering I guess (inaudible) residential or (inaudible) I don't know if it is
industrial or not if it is the same thing maybe it is worthwhile to consider it. But if it is
apples and we have oranges here maybe we ought to stop talking about grapefruit.
Thanks.
Michael Clark, 4098 N. Julian Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 53
Clark: Nothing against any of the parties here but having the property directly west of this
proposed development or proposed use with a driving range and proposed park we are
going to have a lot of youth. When you build the miniature golf that is going to be put in
there I don't feel like this is a compatible usage. I am quite concerned about that. With
the type of vehicular traffic that might be there or whatever might be I am not sure. The
drainage problem has been brought up as well and that drainage would have to come
across my property and as it now the drainage doesn't work going out the freeway because
the ditch apparently on the north side of the property can never be cleaned out for some
reason. There is always a back up of water there now. These are some concerns that I
think need to be addressed. Thank you.
Tolsma: Does anyone else wish to offer testimony on this?
Lou Lous, 582 E. Kingsford Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lous: Just again speaking as a resident of Meridian Greens thinking about the people that
are here today and the people that have been represented by the homeowners association
presidents etc. The people that have been represented and that have spoken opposing
this and I am one of them are the people that are shopping in Meridian that are supporting
the City of Meridian, their children attend the schools of Meridian. They are the people that
make Meridian such a great City. Simply it is my wish and desire that the Council that
represents Meridian and the people that reside in Meridian would look at the wishes of
these people and take their concerns into consideration against one person who wants to
open up a business in the City. Thank you.
Jim Burquin, 1834 S. Goldsmith, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Burquin: Right now Overland Road is not a safe arterial. It is the worst excuse of an
arterial that I have ever heard. To put even one more truck on that road is dangerous to
all the residents along that road. I come out of there and I see children that are almost hit
on a daily basis. I ride my bicycle along that road, it is like taking your life in your hands,
it is fools work to be on that road. It is barely manageable with one car and a bicycle in
a lane. When you put a truck in there I have been in the ditch enough to not ride that road
very often. So, I generally put my bike in my truck and drive out of Meridian and then ride
my bike. That is not acceptable as a resident that is not acceptable. This is not an
acceptable project. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this?
Ron Thomas, 2600 East Overland Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
E
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 54
Thomas: I live on Overland Road just east of this proposed project, about 100 feet from
this proposed project. You talk about Overland Road being busy I have hard time going
out and even getting my mail standing out there. I don't know, I am sure you people realize
you have a school proposed directly south of this. I don't know how long it is going to take,
you have school buses pulling and turning off of Overland Road and going down south to
this school. I don't know how long it is going to take all of these trucks to pull onto
Overland but they can't pull on fast enough. It is going to be bumper to bumper in the
mornings it is damn near bumper to bumper cars out there as it is in the morning. And how
they are going to get buses and trucks at that particular time in the morning is beyond me
let alone having school buses and kids walking to and from school that you have
designated ground out there for school I assume you are going to put one out there. That
is another thing that scares me, the school kids, the buses and size and amount of these
trucks that are going to be pulling on and off of there. Thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this?
Norma Vise, 1741 South Blacksmith, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Vise: I just wanted to go on record that I am opposed to this, but I also have a question.
Are there any plans of expanding or widening Overland Road and improving the road?
Morrow Mr. President, I will answer that, the issue with all section line road within the City
of Meridian and our impact areas, all section line roads are dedicated to a 90 foot right of
way, the build out is to 5 lanes. You should be aware that there is a projected overpass
in that area for South Locust Grove Road to go over the freeway. That the design work for
the rebuild of Overland Road has essentially been done and a portion of it is budgeted in
the five year transportation capital improvements plan with Ada County Highway District.
And so essentially these plans started some 7 years ago. So that is where we are. Very
candidly the first one that came to completion was the extension of Cherry Lane from
Linder to Black Cat. That is a prototype of what all section line roads will look like.
Vise: Thank you.
Becky Bowcutt, 1111 S. Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bowcutt: Good evening, I am here on behalf of one of my clients Gary Voigt. He owns the
property just south of this project on Overland Road. Our two entrances are directly across
from this. The staff report that I saw from ACHD a few months ago indicated they wanted
them to align their approach with ours. My client wanted me to come this evening and do
something that I have never done before and that is speak in opposition to a particular
project. Basically his reasons are that this area is predominantly residential. He
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 55
understands that there is mixed use overlay in the comp plan on the north side of
Overland. However, this particular use is very intensive and feels that it is an industrial
use and not commercial use that could be compatible and complementary to the existing
residential development in that area. We have a 290 lot single family residential
subdivision with in excess of 8000 square foot lots that will be across the street from this.
There is also 4 acres if you recall that was set aside for an elementary school lies at our
south boundary. The collector street that we will constructing will lead to that elementary
site. The other adjoining parcels are going to participate and create this elementary site.
He feels that this use will definitely damage this project that this Council has already
previously approved. The affect would be extremely detrimental. I would like to mention
that in your comprehensive plan under the mixed use policies of Overland and 1-84 there
are certain statements which are applicable goals when evaluating annexation or rezone
and development of this area. Under 5.6 it states development of a variety of compatible
land uses should be provided in speck plans and proposals for future development. The
key word there is compatible. Secondly in 5.8 it says development in these areas should
be based on functional plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed use
conforms to the comprehensive plan policies and our compatible with surrounding
neighborhoods. 5.9 states the integrity and identity of any adjoining residential
neighborhoods should be preserved through the use of buffering techniques etc. The key
here is integrity and identity of neighborhoods and compatibility. My client doesn't feel that
this project is compatible. From a planning perspective this is a very intensive use. I have
been in planning for many years now and projects that were this intense were typically
found in an industrial zone. When I was with Ada County this type of truck transit terminal
or anything categorized as a contractors yard was not allowed in the commercial zones
they were only allowed in industrial zones. We feel that this is not an appropriate use. The
public facilities that are out in that area, one Overland Road is not in condition to basically
handle this type of traffic. We feel it would be detrimental and one issue that I would like
you to consider is the availability of those or the condition of those public services. This
will have a major impact on this area. If it is approved I think we will have to go back and
re-evaluate that Sundance and I sure wouldn't want one of those homes backing up to this
facility and we do have homes that I have I think there is a 20 foot buffer to Overland Road
proposed on the original approved preliminary plat. Those lots would never sell. I just
can't picture them being marketable. Thank you.
Neta Heitner, 767 E. Kingsford Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Heitner: I don't have any new evidence to present but one gentleman said that the only
people who show up are the negative people are those few people who oppose things. I
think I represent the mothers and the grandmothers who aren't' here tonight because they
were depending on your good sense to turn this down without them being here. There is
now way that us mothers and grandmothers raising children that we want to have to worry
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 56
about keeping the physically contact of our child to know he is safe. I don't think my
grandchildren would be safe from the streets in Sportsman Point or in Meridian Greens if
we have to worry about these trucks. So I plead with you to tum down this proposal. Thank
you.
Tolsma: Anyone else from the public?
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: I am a civil engineer representing the applicant. Regarding the reconstruction
of Overland Road, this project as I understand would be subject to ACHD impact fees. So
this project would help fund the reconstruction of Overland Road. As far as the lighting, in
fact I did contact Gary Voigt or attempted to roughly 10 days ago by letter and by fax. The
purpose of my contact just to see if I could mitigate and soften some of the impacts of our
project to his since we assume that he would be most impacted since his project is directly
across the street. It was roughly a two page letter and I said if I could get together with you
or Becky by telephone or fax anyway possible we would be happy to work with you to
soften the impacts as they pertain to your project. That is we will soften the lights, put in
deflectors to where they won't impact the front row of houses for example. We can do
higher berms, bigger setbacks instead of a 35 foot landscape strict consider a 50. We can
set the building back further and we could do directional signs to encourage the traffic to
go east bound toward Eagle Road and so forth. So there was a good faith effort on my
part to try and soften the impacts there and I didn't get as much as a call back. I called two
or three times and faxed and talked to Becky and no call back. But we still stand ready to
mitigate and soften these impacts to the extent we can. Regarding the septic tank and
drain field issue that was brought and brought up at P & Z, let me just make a final
correcting statement here. That was a misstatement made by somebody from my staff who
misunderstood my instructions to her. This is what it is, this project contemplates us
extending the sewer to the site period and the water, no septic tank, no drain field. So we
do envision central sewer and central water. As far as incompatibility I mean that is an
issue you will have to work out on your own we all have our definition of what is
compatible. This might not be an example of good planning but the Dennis Dillion facility
on the freeway 1-84 near Orchard sold these same type of tractors for quite a few years
along with other heavy trucks. Right behind there are apartments, residential areas with
no buffer at all. Maybe again that is not good planning but there it is. We here do have
Overland Road which is designated as a buffer in your comprehensive plan. That road
right of way as stated is 90 feet, we have at least a 35 foot landscape buffer they have 20,
the building is setback 100 to 150 feet so we have 250 to 300 feet of buffer here, Dennis
Dillion facility has nothing they have a neighborhood backing right up to it. Regarding the
Cook Lateral and any other lateral that crosses our facility. We do intend to tile that in
accordance with the requirement of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. If approved we
F-
L
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 57
intend to have it done by April 10th. Regard the drainage, all the drainage will be retained
on site in a retention pond. A few years back we could use French drains and those types
of things, those are no longer acceptable. So this would be retained on site in a retention
pond it would not flow into adjoining properties. As far as the commercial versus the
industrial I really think that is semantics. Again, I think you will have to come to that
conclusion is this thing commercial or is it industrial. But what I would offer is Western
States is commercial we are, if Arnold is we are, if Inland Coke is commercial we are. We
are just like them. If Meridian Ford is we offer that we are. So again I think that is just a
matter of semantics. Becky stated that we are a truck terminal, we are not a truck terminal,
again we are a sales facility. To me a terminal implies selling of fuel and a truck stop and
that is not us. Clearly that kind of an operation would be commercial, she is right, that
would not be allowed in Ada County. But that is not what we are proposing. Regarding the
change of our project from 20 to 12 and changing of the hours of operation and changing
or removing the body shop and the paint shop I would just like to say that really isn't being
slippery or evasive. When we came to Planning and Zoning we really thought this project
would be endorsed for the most part. We thought it was compatible with the area. We
thought it would be endorsed and we didn't know what if any the opposition would be.
When we found out what it was that was an attempt again to be compatible to soften the
impact and to mitigate some of these concerns. It was not intended to misrepresent or be
deceptive. We came in and found out that there were some concerns and so we all got
together with the developer and tried to soften those impacts. So again it is not an attempt
to change. It is an attempt to soften some of the concerns that we heard at the hearing.
I think that is all that I have, could I answer any questions relative to the engineering or
anything that I have presented here?
Tolsma: Any questions of the Council? Anyone else from the public wish to offer testimony
on this?
Green: (Inaudible) the civil engineer just mentioned that he is going to have a retention
pond. When I was working out at INEL because of the retention ponds out there which
contained contaminated effluent but still this is a contaminated effluent too, it required an
environmental impact statement. Therefore you must have it.
Tolsma: Anyone else from the public?
Harada: I just want to make one comment, I am glad the engineer brought up the point
of Dennis Dillion, I worked there for 15 years in the heavy truck department. When the
truck dealership was allowed to be there, one of the critical things that the City of Boise
required was the only access road we used was Orchard. They felt it was too dangerous
for us to use any of those side roads where any residential was at. The only traffic flow
out of there was onto Overland by the dealership. Their point being at City Council there
9 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 58
was we don't want your trucks anywhere in the residential areas for fear of the children or
other vehicles and safety. So I am glad he brought that point up.
Tolsma: Anyone else from the public?
Bradbury: I would like to take a few minutes to respond to some of what has been said.
I guess I have a couple of general comments that I would like to address. The first has to
do with and Dave Roylance mentioned it and covered it quite well but I think it bears
repeating. The applicant is put in a real tough spot, when he comes to the City of Meridian
with a proposal that he wants to have built and he gets to a public hearing and he
encounters opposition that either legitimately should or maybe shouldn't have known that
it was coming but in any event he encounters opposition. So as a consequence the
applicant goes back, people are worried about traffic, let's do some traffic studies and find
out just what the facts are. People are worried about noise, let's go do some noise studies
and find out what the facts are. People are worried about the overall impacts, how can we
adjust this project so that it minimizes those impacts and addresses the concerns that are
raised, the legitimate concerns that are raised by the members in the community. He does
that and then he is criticized for it. That to me just seems unfair and in appropriate. I don't
think that it is, that this Council should be swayed by what is nothing more than undo
criticism of a good faith attempt to try and present a project which would be acceptable.
A number of people addressed and questioned the validity I think were the words used of
the studies that have been presented. You guys know and I know that Bell Walker
Engineers is a well known and well respected traffic engineering firm in this area. I don't
think that Bell Walker Engineers is in the business of presenting to you folks bogus reports
because you folks are going to see those guys again. They will be back to give reports on
other projects. These people, Mr. Thompson here is not going to write a report that you
guys can't believe in because the next time he is here you will never believe him. I guess
I am a little bit stunned by the fact that these people feel bold enough without any
background and without any facts to back up their assertions to just flat claim that these
reports are bad. What are the facts? The noise level study, they also attacked that, Jim
Howell sitting right here. If you have any doubt about the methodology or about the validity
of the test or how he did, by all means ask him. We brought all the back up data, we are
more than pleased to supply it to you. Mr. Thompson is here you can talk to him about his
report, I am sure he would be pleased to stand, and he might even like to stand up and
defend himself. The other thing that strikes me about this is what we have attempted to do
tonight and again have been criticized for is presenting to you folks factual information
upon which you can base your decision. We have done our best to present to you the
facts as we could develop them so that you folks would be in a position if you chose to
approve the project and would have facts to back that decision up. What you have heard
in response and it is not untypical are emotional replies without any facts. People say
simply draw the conclusion that it is incompatible and don't tell you facts. They draw the
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 59
0
conclusions that the roads are unsafe without any facts. They draw the conclusion that
there is too much traffic on the road without any facts. The reason is the facts don't bear
them out as those facts have been developed by the experts the people who are trained
to deal with these issues. I would suggest to you folks to take a good hard look at the facts
and not be swayed by merely the emotions that have been presented.
Crookston: Hold it down, everybody please be quiet, everybody has a chance to testify.
So get the person testifying free room please. We have to keep this on record in case
there are any appeals. And sometimes our system doesn't pick it up, it picks up a lot of
the background stuff so we need it quiet. Thank you.
Bradbury: In reference to Mr. Greens question about when the sound level test was taken,
mid-day. It is in the report that you have got in your package. In response to the issue of
how you deal with the hours of operation, how you control the hours of operation, simple
you impose it as a condition of approval. After all there is an application for a conditional
use permit before you. That is how you do it and I think you guys know that. With respect
to the overall safety of the street, Ada County Highway District who is in charge of the
street sin this County says that the transportation system is adequate to accommodate the
traffic that is going to be generated by this use. We attempted to provide you and did
provide you with information about how much traffic that is. It is a 3% change considerably
less than what you might expect if you had some other supposedly less intensive use.
Another commercial use, a retail use will generate a lot more traffic than that and I think
you know that. One of the gentlemen indicated that we were requesting a variance, I didn't
understand what he was talking about. Let me tell you there is no variance requested
contained in this application. Ms. Bowcutt testified to a number of things and indicated
issues about the intensity of the use and I guess I just have to reiterate what Mr. Roylance
said. They don't know the facts, we tried to talk to her client and he refused. They don't
know the facts, they don't even know what the project is. Mr. Voigt didn't talk to us, Mr.
Voigt didn't appear tonight to hear about it. I don't want to take up all of your night
because it is already late and I guess I would just like to close by saying that we have tried
hard to present to you a complete analysis of the impact of the project and a complete
analysis of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan and how it complies. I know
there is a lot of talk about industrial use or commercial use. It is simple, the solution to that
question is simple just look at the ordinance, just read it. It says what a commercial use is
and an industrial use. I am satisfied to let you make that call because I think you will make
the same one that I have made. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you
very much.
Tolsma: Anyone else from the public wish to testify on this?
Thomas: If they took the traffic study and the sound study at the same time in the middle
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 60
of the afternoon, they ought to get out there when there is some traffic, when there is some
noise. I live there, I live 300 feet off of Overland and I can hear that Overland now standing
on my front door it is so loud you have times in the morning from probably 6:30 until 8:00
when there are school buses and Coca-Cola and a few of the other just general traffic
trucks are running down there. I don't know what they were thinking about when they were
doing the traffic study or sound study in the middle of the day. Maybe a complaint a little
bit about now getting back with another developer. The sewer is going to have go through
I believe, I am under the impression for them to have sewer they going to have to come
through my property and I haven't had anybody talk to me at all about it. The
communication has been, I don't know, there hasn't been any with me. I am within a 100
feet of the project and I am already in the City limits and I have been zoned commercial
and I haven't had any communication from this developer or any of the people from the.
I was left with the impression at the Planning and Zoning meeting left me kind of sour on
the thing to start with and now all of the sudden I find out that they made other
arrangements or had arrangements already made. But the communication, I haven't had
no communication with this project so I don't think that is a very valid comment. But I still
am concerned about the traffic problem with the students and the kids going directly across
the street I don't know how long it is going to take one of these trucks to pull onto
Overland. They are not going to pull like they do with an automobile and I had a terrible
time pulling onto Overland with an automobile let alone with a truck or a semi -trailer or
doubles or triples let alone trying to get on in front of buses. Between the school buses
and the rest of the trucks I don't know what to expect. It will be bumper to bumper at that
time in the morning, at noon you can walk down the middle of Overland. But from 6 to 8
o'clock in the morning you can't hardly set you garbage pail out there they are blowing the
garbage barrels off the side of the road. You can't walk out there on Overland now to get
your mail. You just don't dare get out there, the traffic is so narrow you can't get out there
let alone setting up a bunch of trucks (inaudible) just that much more of the delivery stuff,
everything else. That is all I have to say, thank you.
Tolsma: Anyone else wish to offer testimony on this? Seeing none I will close the public
hearing. Council members, any comments from anybody. (Inaudible)
Crookston: You can but anybody that wants to testify in this other application has the right
to testify.
Morrow: My observation is that there is substantial new testimony based on tonights
testimony that is different than in the findings of fact and conclusions as forwarded by P
& Z. So I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and
conclusions.
Yerrington: Second
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 61
0
Tolsma: It has been moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attorney prepare new
findings on the public hearing request for annexation and zoning by Bill Howell, all those
in favor? Opposed?
Corrie: Mr. President, since we are running late tonight I hate to take up more time (End
of Tape) I would like for the Council to be aware that as far as my thinking on the findings
of fact that I have listened to tonight and seen from the Planning and Zoning my
preference would be to deny this annexation based upon quite a few facts that I have
heard tonight. I have no difficulty in that Mr. Howell is a good man. I have told him at
previous meetings that I had with him that I thought this would be better down around the
Yellow Freight Line myself. I don't think it should be in a residential zone. There is some
good points brought up tonight. I am concerned with the unknown loads that come into this
town being with the Fire Department we don't even know what is going down that highway
half the time. What I have been told if we did know we would be very concerned. So, just
for the public's notification since like I say I probably won't get to vote I want to let you
know where I am coming from. I would deny if it was my choice.
Tolsma: Can the findings be prepared by January 16?
Crookston: They certainly can yes, you need to make a decision as to when you want
them. That was not done.
Tolsma: Do you want that part of the motion Walt?
Morrow. I guess the technical question here is if you are going to prepare findings of fact
and conclusions then essentially from the Council if you are going to hear them on the 16th
then 2 of the 4 members on the Council will be new members that have had no input. If
you are going to prepare findings of fact and conclusions that deal with this issue it
appears to me that it needs to be done under old business on January 2. 1 will ask for
advice from the counselor as to how we deal with that in terms of a transition?
Crookston: You analysis is correct, it is the decision of the City Council to decide what date
you want this to come back. By deciding that you will either stay with the same people that
are here right now or they will be moved. That is a decision that the Council must make.
The Councilmen leaving cannot come back on say July 5 come back and render a
decision. Once they are out of office they are gone. If you want this to be heard by this
Council or decided by this Council you best have it set up so it comes to be heard as old
business on January 2.
Morrow. My preference would then be to have it in terms of the date would be to have this
heard on January 2.
9 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 62
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to have the findings of fact and conclusions of law
to be read on January 2, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM # 18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A TRUCKITRAILER SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY BY BILL HOWELL:
Tolsma: I think what the Council would want on this is all the previous testimony that was
on the previous item, the request for annexation and zoning, the same testimony would be
used on this hearing for a conditional use permit also. But you are more than willing to
testify, but the testimony we can use it as the same testimony as before.
Berg: Wayne do we need that motion?
Crookston: Yes you do.
Yerrington: So moved
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Bob to have the same testimony be used for item 18
the public hearing request. I will open the public hearing and ask a representative to
represent.
Howell: I am not going to give any testimony, I simply want to indicate that we certainly
consent to having the record of the previous hearing incorporated into this one.
Tolsma: Anybody from the public wish to testify on this?
Kevin Merritt, 832 E. St. Martin, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Merritt: I will be brief, what I would like to do right now is just submit to the City Council
written testimony of what the statements that I read in the past I would just like to submit
it to the City.
Tolsma: So noted then. Is there anybody else from the public that wants to testify on this
issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing on this item. Council members. Utilize
the same findings we will (inaudible).
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 63
Yerrington: Are these the same findings Wayne?
E
Crookston: They would be you have those are, the findings that you have are both the
annexation and zoning and conditional use permit.
Morrow: Mr. President I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new
findings of fact and conclusions and have them prepared for our January 2 meeting under
old business.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have new findings prepared for the conditional
use permit and have them ready for the January 2 meeting under old business, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
FIVE MINUTE BREAK
ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENT
TO PIPE THE EIGHT MILE LATERAL AND NINE MILE DRAIN BY R.T. NAHAS
COMPANY:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here for Mr. Nahas?
Gene Smith, Hubble Engineering, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Smith: First off it is a little nerve racking for the applicant's representative to walk into a
public hearing and see the place packed, it is nice to see them all leave. Our request is,
first of all I am here representing R.T. Nahas Company on Corporate Park, Central Valley
Corporate Park No. 5 which is just north of the freeway and East of 1 st. This being the
hotel and this is Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5. As one of the conditions of the
preliminary plat it was to either pipe or request a variance for the Eight Mile Lateral and
the Nine Mile Drain which crosses this property. The Eight Mile Lateral runs through here
and the Nine Mile Drain just crosses the one corner of this one lot. In our application we
stated our justification, what we felt was justification that meets the conditions of this
request. That justification is spelled out, I believe you have a copy of the application there.
Item #15, states that flow through the Eight Mile Lateral at this site is 100 CFS per Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District. We have included a letter from John Anderson at Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District backing up that amount. That flow will not pass through a 48
L
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 64
0
inch pipe which has been the policy of this Council to limit piping of a ditch which as
capacity greater than 48 inch. Currently there are a couple box culverts crossing the Eight
Mile Lateral, they are 4 by 12 box culverts and clearly would not fit within a 48 inch pipe.
Secondly the Nine Mile Drain is used to drain ground water from the site and surrounding
properties. Piping of this drain even with perforated pipe could potentially raise the water
table in the immediate area. Also piping or tiling of the Nine Mile Drain was no allowed by
Army Corps of Engineers for Central Valley Corporate Park No. 1 those deemed wetland.
Item 22 goes on to say that granting this variance would allow the applicant to develop the
property in a similar manner as nearby properties have been without creating excessive
economic cost which would inhibit development. The applicant will not create excessive
profit by this variance but would make development more economically feasible. That
would conclude my remarks I would be glad to address any questions or comments which
you may have.
Tolsma: Any questions for Mr. Smith?
Corrie: I guess I have one, the Nine Mile Drain does Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
have anything to do with that?
Smith: I don't believe so, it is under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps.
Corrie: The reason that I brought it up is because this variance request for both the Nine
Mile and the Lateral their comments were on the Eight Mile Lateral.
Morrow: They have a maintenance agreement with the Corps and that is their only
involvement.
Tolsma: This is a public hearing, is there anybody else from the audience that wishes to
testify against this variance? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council
members what is your desire? This is that canal that runs through the Corporate Park and
has not been required to be tiled before it got to the park and it (inaudible).
Morrow. I might suggest that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of facts and
conclusions.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: It has been moved and seconded to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of
law on this request for the variance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 65
E
Smith: May I ask just a point of clarification, what period of time would those be available?
When would that come up?
Morrow: Some time next year.
Berg: Normally it would be the next City Council meeting.
Smith: So would that be the 2nd?
Berg: Yes
ITEM #20: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE 20
FOOT PLANTING STRIP ADJACENT TO LOCUST GROVE ROAD TO A 10 FOOT
PLANTING STRIP IN SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY MARTY GOLDSMITH:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here for Salmon Rapids Subdivision?
Brian McColl, 420 W. Washington, Boise, was called by the City Attorney.
McColl: I have about 45 slides that I would like to show you. The first and 45th slide I
have in my hand just to remind the Council of the purpose of this request for the variance.
Locust Grove 90 foot right of way to the north of Salmon Rapids No. 1 is Sportsman Point
Subdivision. Sportsman Point Subdivision has got an existing fence line that fences off
a 10 foot berm. Salmon Rapids when it was approved the City had an ordinance requiring
a 20 foot berm. So that subdivision was approved with a 20 foot berm. The Salmon Rapids
fence in fact is back another approximately 10 feet behind the Sportsman Point fence if
you were to shoot a line down there, they are not in line. Originally the fence at Salmon
Rapids that the developer put up was put up in line with the Sportsman Point fence. In
other words it was originally put up in the middle of this 20 foot berm and not on its
perimeter and not on the lot lines. This created substantial problems. They were
problems admittedly created by the developer my client placing the fencing on the berm
instead of on the perimeter of the berm. The problems that it created were that there were
a number of homeowners and I am not sure how many, I think at four and perhaps more
who when they either signed their lot option agreements or in fact closed on their lots down
here the fence was in the if you will incorrect position. When the developer became aware
that it was in the incorrect position and more importantly when the City Planning Director
became aware that it was in the incorrect position he as asked to move it back and he did
so. When it was moved back that gave those several lot owners who had purchased with
the fence in the incorrect position the fence being moved back now to the lot line they
legitimately I think felt that they have been cheated if you will out of ten foot additional
piece of property although that property was never legally theirs and it was never because
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 66
it was beyond their lot pins. The result of the complaints that came before this Council at
an earlier meeting was a meeting between the developer, the Mayor, Councilman Morrow,
City Engineer. At that meeting there was a suggestion I think by the Mayor that we come
back to the Council and request a variance and that is what is before you tonight. We are
seeking a variance to reduce this planting strip from the 20 feet down to 10 feet which
would then permit a movement of the fence back to where it was originally placed. Put that
fence in line with Sportsman Point. This is not a slam dunk, if the variance is granted it is
two stage process. I think we have to first get the variance and then we have to deal with
perhaps a re -platting of these lots to bring their corner pins out about 10 feet. That would
require going to the present owners in the subdivision. It was the Planning Director's
suggestion and actually strong suggestion that we first whether or not the Council would
entertain the variance before going to the trouble of seeing whether we could get a replat.
So, this is the first step in that process, it is not an easy decision, I think there are pros and
cons. The pros in terms, in my view, in terms of granting the variance is that there will be
consistency, it will presumably somewhat appease those homeowners who were of the
impression their lots were 10 feet deeper. In fact that berm is substantially more than 20
feet because when the developer put the berm in he built the berm out onto the right of
way so there will be still a pretty substantial berm left even if the fence is moved back out
until of course Locust Grove comes along and widens. That would appear to me to be the
con. The con is when and if Locust Grove exercises, widens its roads and uses up more
of its right of way then the size of the berm between Locust Grove and the fence will be as
now as it is in the case of Sportsman Point. I think it is a difficult decision, I do think the
equities lie in favor of granting this variance in as much as we are only talking about a
variance for the length of this particular subdivision it would be consistent, it would
appease the homeowners. The other small point that I gleam from the public record from
a previous hearing is that if the fence is moved back out is will also go slightly up the hill
and will provide those homeowners with additional privacy that there was some complaints
about. So for those reasons we would respectfully request this variance be granted. If
there are any questions I would be happy to entertain them.
Morrow. Was there not also in terms of the meeting that you referenced we talked about
doing the variance and we also talked about immediately at the same time going forward
with the process to get the home owners approval within the entire subdivision in terms of
doing that replat. It was our or at least my understanding because of the covenants and
the common area and the purchase of lots essentially it took approval of everybody that
had purchased lots within the subdivision when that was going on to approve of the
process.
McColl: There are two points there, certainly we have to go to the homeowners. I haven't
done the full legal research to determine what the legal answer is. It occurs to me that one
answer would be to replat and I believe that under a replat we would probably have to get
approval of all the homeowners. But another answer would be that if the variance is
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 67
0
granted then the fence presumably could be moved back that would leave 10 feet of
common area inside the fence for those various lot owners. And it would be possible if,
I haven't answered this to my satisfaction legally but short of doing a replat it may be
possible for the homeowners association to then either outright deed or just grant a license
to those individual lot owners to use that back 10 feet. The sure fire way would be to do
the re -plat, it is possible that we couldn't get everybody's approval. if we didn't get
anybody's approval this whole thing would be for not. I was thinking after that meeting
that we go ahead and try and get the replat and the Planning Director said don't even
bother doing that let's see if the Council will even entertain the variance. If the Council is
not going to entertain a variance it is probably a waste of time and approaching one body
is probably a little more difficult than approaching the other body.
Morrow. I have no further questions.
John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Shipley: It seems to me that I had Shari Stiles out one day and we were talking about
widening the road out to 90 foot which would from the centerline of the road would be 45
foot each way. Now, if we you remember correctly, I believe the reason they moved the
fence back was because they couldn't get 45 foot out of the centerline of the road. If they
do this does this mean they are going to take an extra 10 foot on my side of the road and
when they get ready to do this because they need to make the road 90 foot wide and it
needs to be a 45 foot easement from centerline out on either side. My other concern was
that where this culdesac comes out, you can spit that far from where that cul-de-sac comes
out of the 45 foot easement comes. Cul-de-sac's inherently have a house at the end of
them, not an existing road that is going to be widened. This thing was one of Roylance's
designs as I remember right and as you see that culdesac right there touching the road
that is a big problem there because people are just going to drive right on over the
sidewalk or whatever. They can't possibly box that in with a fence because when they had
the fence where it used to be it come in at the side of the cul-de-sac. There is a problem
there, are they going to widen the road to 90 foot and take the extra ten foot off of my side
because they give them 10 foot back on that side. That is my question, and I don't think
that we need to approve this until the Highway District says what they are going to do.
Inherently the Highway District, they have in the third phase of the thing they have a road
coming in on a guard rail at the canal there. There has already been a truck that went
through that and 1 showed you guys pictures of that. It is messed up and (inaudible).
Frank Luellen, 2486 South Ruby Rapids Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Luellen: I am one of the residents that was here at the last hearing. My objections were
that when I purchased the property was told that extra ten feet, I was aware of where the
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 68
pins were, I went and asked for a copy of the covenants so I would know how to build my
home, where to put it and obey all the covenants. I was told by a representative of Marty
Goldsmith's company that 10 feet was mine to use whatever I wanted with it. I started the
home, did a basement home, had a basement poured, the house framed and the roof on
and he proceeded to come in and dig the irrigation system up and place three valves in
my backyard so he could service Los Alamitos across the road. I objected to that and that
is how the fence problem came into notice by the City because I called and talked to Gary
Smith about it. He came out and looked and found out the fence was in the wrong place
according to the plat. I asked him if there could be a variance to change the plat and he
said it is possible. So I tried to approach the Goldsmith company, Farwest Development
to re -plat it. That I as a homeowner would get all the other homeowners together and we
would try to do it for him not to move the fence, please don't move the fence until we try
to do at least what we are trying to do tonight. He refused, he went ahead and put the
fence in and thumbed his nose at me just like he did when I asked him to re -locate the
valves tot he back of the property rather than in the center of my property. My question
has never been answered yet as to why I have to have valves in my backyard of that
service and help supply the water across the street. Why the fence being brought in it
came down the berm and now you can see the knees of the people walking by. When it
was back up the berm you could see about their shoulder level. I was told by a
representative of the City that the Highway Department had no problem with that 10 feet,
that it was true that it could be lined up with Sportsman Point, they didn't have a problem.
They could still widen the street to where it was. The man is not going to lose ten feet of
property. As far as the cul-de-sac is concerned down on the end, the fence is still out
where it was, the fence jogs out again at the cul-de-sac. So at one end of the subdivision
it is out and the other end it is in. I just drove the cul-de-sac tonight because I had been
given a letter by the homeowners association quoting Marty Goldsmith that my trailer
sitting in my driveway which is a utility flat bed trailer no sides on it was in violation of the
covenants. So I went around the subdivision to see how many other trailers were in the
driveway and I counted 4 or 5 other trailers in the driveway. I moved mine, I obeyed the
thing, I went around tonight just before I came to this meeting, all the trailers that were still
in the driveway that were in the driveway the night I got my letter are still in the driveway.
I just feel like because I brought this thing up I am being picked on as a homeowner. I fully
believe that if there is logic that fence can be moved out with Sportsman Point. If you had
to widen the street Sportsman Point's would have to be moved also if that was true. But
I have been told that the Highway District has no problem with it. I have been told that all
we have to do is get it re -platted, I understand it is a problem of getting all the homeowners
to agree to it. I believe a lot of that footwork has already been done. But I could have
saved Marty Goldsmith a lot of money by trying to do this as homeowners and trying to
keep the fence where it was. I would like the consideration of the Council to approve this
variance so we can, I am willing to help the man get the signatures of the homeowners to
move that out. It makes sense economically for me to take care of that property instead of
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 69
0
the homeowners all to have to take care of that ten feet and for all of my neighbors down
that street to take care of that extra ten feet. That is ten more feet that the homeowners
have to chip into maintain where we will do it for them.
Fred Bell, 2500 Ruby Rapids Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bell: I am in favor of moving the fence back out the ten feet where it was when we
purchased our lot there. I do have some pictures here that I would like to present to you.
If they do move this fence back out where it was I would like to see that it is built up to
some kind of a City code. When they moved the fence in the ten feet from where it is now
they simply knocked the fence down used the same lumber of the original existing fence
they just poured concrete, got new posts to set in the concrete and then nailed those
boards back up. There are no hangers, no nothing to support that fence. There are 4 by
4 posts mounted in concrete and then they have taken 2 by 4's and just nailed those posts
and then they simply nailed the vertical boards to those 2 by 4's. I will give you these
pictures to keep I would you like you to see what I have to look out my back door and look
at. It is absolutely a cobbled up ugly mess. So if they do approve to have the fence
moved I think it should be built property. It should have hangers put on for the horizontal
2 by 4's to be set into like a fence is supposed to be built and made out of all new lumber
and not reuse this mess that we have got to look at now. Behind my house I have partially
used lumber here, brand new lumber here, it is a mess. Also, when the moved the fence
in he had to sod the ground and put sprinkler lines in to take care of that berm outside the
fence. Mr. Goldsmith got that done they rolled out the sod, I don't remember the exact
date it was near the end of September when the sod was delivered a crew came and rolled
it all right out and took care of it and since the end of September all the pallets were
stacked on the sidewalk at the end of the fence, right at the entrance of Time Zone and
Locust Grove and as of tonight when I left home to come down there the pallets are still
there. (Inaudible) I have called Marty 6 or 7 times without any exaggeration to try and
communicate with him. I get his roofing company an they say they will give him a message
and to this date I have never spoke to the man I have never seen the man. I don't know
who he is. I got a threatening letter like Frank did about my trailer and my boat. In the
CC&R's it says they have to be in a screened in area. I would be more than happy to
screen in an area if I knew where the crazy fence was going to be, how far to put parking
back there to accommodate my boat and my utility trailer. 1 will screen them in, until the
fence issue is resolved I don't know where I am going to park them. I can't complete my
landscaping, I couldn't complete my sprinkler system. I don't know if I am going to have to
sprinkle ten feet more or where the fence is now. I tried to get all of this done before winter
set in, I actually moved into the completed home in October. I finally got tired of waiting
and fighting dirt and mud and what have you so I went ahead and had the place sodded
and then hydroseeded the back. I have put in a sprinkler system ten foot in from where the
fence is now so I would have some place to park my trailer and my boat. If the fence goes
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 70
out then I have to put in another row of sprinkler systems which I don't mind doing, I would
like to have the extra room. By moving the fence back out where it was in the beginning
everybody that walks on the sidewalk that was built on top of the berm instead of down the
berm a ways everybody just looks over the fence and if you are sitting out in the backyard
having a barbecue people wave at you and holler at you and I have never seen these
people before. You have no privacy. One of the questions we had here was with the
individual homeowners get that ten feet deeded to them or what. I guess you guys will take
care of that, it doesn't matter to me whether it is deeded to us or not. I would just like to
enjoy the extra room and have the fence up where everybody can't look over the top into
your backyard when you are having a picnic or barbecue or whatever. I have gone
through the subdivision and gotten the majority of the signatures of the people that live in
there, several more people have bought homes and moved in since this was done. But
here is the majority of the signatures of the people that do want the fence moved.
Something that took place in an earlier hearing tonight was absolutely amazing to me, I
didn't' know that our homeowners association in Salmon Rapids was furnishing the
irrigation water for Los Alamitos across the street. If that is the case I think those people
should be paying in our homeowners association to help maintain that well and pipe line
and everything for them to get water out of. If we are going to have to furnish it for them
I think they should have to maintain it. I have seen nothing that I can remember in the
CC&R's or anything that says that they are getting water out of that. I have tried to live up
to the CC&R's. I am in trouble right now I guess with the developer with building a storage
shed out back and not contacting the architectural committee. But I called and called and
couldn't get a returned phone call so I built it. It has the same exact siding as my home it
has the same vinyl windows as my home, it has the same architectural grade shingles as
my home, but now he tells me he could fine me $10 a day for everyday my storage shed
sits there on my property because I didn't get it approved. It is not that I didn't try I got a
very expensive shed built there that I don't know what I am going to do with it. I would like
for and the letter that I sent back to him answering his threatening letter to me was we
would like to have a homeowners association meeting because I would like to get some
people that live in the subdivision on the committee so we have some say so to what is
going on in there. We have never had a meeting, he says we don't live up to the CC&R's
but he hasn't either. I think before any further development is granted to him like the next
phase of Salmon Rapids in an earlier meeting this year you guys said he was not allowed
to go any further in Salmon Rapids until he had all of his problems solved in there. He
doesn't have them all resolved by a long ways. It says that every home when construction
begins in the CC&R's it says they have to be completed within 90 days. There is one Miles
home that they have been working on, where they buy one of these kits and work on it
themselves, they have gone way over. There is another one on the corner of Time Zone
and Locust Grove that he sold the lot to and then refused to close on the lot, the house
was started, it is 3/4 the way done and now all work has stopped on it because I guess it
is in litigation. He is not living up to his own CC&R's how can you expect us to do it. We
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 71
0
would like to see that house finished, everybody comes into the subdivision, I am a realtor
and I do open houses in there and what have you and people say what is wrong with this
subdivision that one house has just been sitting there, it never gets completed. Well, it is
an embarrassment to say that well it is in a lawsuit right now it can't be finished. Well we
don't want to buy in here they have lawsuits going and down the road they go. Here I am
marketing and trying to sell homes and what have you in that subdivision and it is pretty
tough to do. Basically I have covered about everything I have here in my notes or
someone else has done it. If you have any suggestions to me how we can get him to
respond and get some of the homeowners in Salmon Rapids Subdivision into the
association there are a whole lot of us that would like to be a part of it and have some say
so and at least know what is going on in there. I have no idea who to contact for the
architectural committee, I can't get response from the man, I can't comply with what he
asked me to do and I am more than willing. I don't want to break the rules but after nothing
happens for a while I am the type to just go ahead and do it. That is all I have.
Corrie: Mr. President, Fred I have one question, you said you had a letter that said you
were going to be fined $10 a day, who does that money go to if you don't have a
homeowners association?
Bell: Marty Goldsmith at this point he is the homeowners association at this point.
Corrie: Okay, thank you.
Bell: Also, our association dues are $240 a year, we have nothing, I don't know what it is
for, if I am not mistaken and I could be wrong, but I think the association dues in
Sportsman Point are $135 and they have tennis courts, volleyball courts, playground, they
got all kinds of things in there for their money and we are paying Marty $240 a year I would
like to know for what. Thank you.
Bell: I did forget one thing, when we had the first snow, we got like 5 inches of snow and
had been in contact with the Mayor several times about standing water in the curbs and
across the road to take the water down to the pond where it is supposed to go and
disappear. That water has stood in the portion where it crosses the street since September
it is now dry, it has been dry for two days, the first time it has been dry since September.
The Mayor had me call the Highway District to talk to them, he said it was something that
they had to handle. They sent a man out right after the snow, we had water running over
the top of our sidewalks because the gutter couldn't take and it melted really fast. There
is so much trash, dirt and debris along the curbs and gutters the water couldn't flow. There
is a big lake that sits right outside my house where the water comes from the upper end
of the subdivision down the south side of Time Zone and then crosses Time Zone to the
north and then curves to the west and then goes north again down Ruby Rapids around
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 72
0
the end of the cul-de-sac into a drain. It has a lot of area to cover and there is a lot of
water that comes down off of there from people running sprinklers all night long and it runs
off their yards over the sidewalks and down the street. Then when the snow melted it did
a real number on us just lucky that day that it was really melting fast running down through
there the County man, County highway man come out, he shoveled the gutters for 4 solid
hours trying to get that water to go somewhere because I was out helping him. There was
so much trash and debris and stuff that the builders and developers or somebody ought
to be taking care of it, mud that they have tracked off the lots into the streets, pieces of 2
by 4 different types of lumber, insulation, all kinds of stuff. He said there is not supposed
to be if I remember right over a 2% back up or build up, ponding of water. Where the road
cut crosses Time Zone from the south and north well it wasn't' just down in the gutter part
which is about that wide where the cut is it was clear out on the asphalt, it was a huge
area, it was a lake. While we were trying to shovel trying to get someplace for that to go
(End of Tape) another fellowfrom Ada County Highway District or Department or whatever
you call it, called me after the young fellow was out shoveling snow trying to get the water
to run, and he said well what do you think will solve the problem, well if they put another
cut across Time Zone take half of that water that is coming from the upper end of the
subdivision well the clear top of the subdivision all the way down where half of it can run
down the other side of the street instead of all on the side that I am living on that would
help immensely. So they come out and took pictures of one thing and another and they are
considering having that done because it can't handle the amount of water that comes from
above. What they have in there doesn't drain properly, it doesn't have enough slope or
something. I guess it is up to code but it won't handle the amount of water that comes
down off of all those streets onto one short street. I am in favor of getting this fenced
moved but any further development from there as far as another phase goes I am dead set
against. I hope that you fellows up to he won't do any more subdividing in there until all the
problems he has now are solved. Thank you.
Shipley: I hadn't remembered some of the things that are bugging me. This one street
that comes down here on an angle and the cul-de-sac is shown almost touching Locust
Grove, every house on this side has got several porch lights, the one right down here has
6. Every dang one of them shines right in my bedroom window, do I have to keep the
drapes closed all the time or it just lights it up in there. There are nine homes on that side
of the street and they all shine down there. Because the cul-de-sac comes down there so
dam close to the road there is no way they can build a barrier there to keep all them lights
from shining in my house. It don't really bother me all that much but my wife I hear it every
day. She gets out there and she is hollering at those people in that subdivision what is the
matter with you people you got run your lights all night long are scared of one another?
It is like I have lived out there for 24 years and my aesthetic values are slowing going
away. Last August or July I brought up the situation with the trash blowing out that cul-de-
sac and on my property and my cows picking it up and eating it and doing whatever. I still
•
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 73
•
have trash, gobs and gobs of it. He built up a little fence doodad there about this high, 3
or 4 foot high out of woven wire and then somebody tore a part of it down so they could
walk through there because they didn't think that ought to be there and there is another
gob of trash over there now. I caught him up there on the third phase they were putting up
some signs about a month ago and I asked him to clean it up. He was there he had his
pick up there, he didn't clean it up and I mentioned to him you know you put that road in
there up against that guard rail where that guard rail blocks my vision when I am coming
up my driveway. My daughter has a big old dent in her front fender from somebody running
into here because she didn't' see them when she come out there and could have got killed.
Last summer before the water went out the kids are out there screwing around in that
street, they drove right through the guard rail and it is proof enough. On a foggy night
nobody is going to see that guard rail, they are not even going to stop. So that phase of
that property there, I have had continuous problems. The well is another thing, he put that
sucker in without going through Water Resources first. It is ten foot, it is less than 100 foot
from the canal and Planning and Zoning told him to use surface water and I was at the
meeting and he got up and screamed at them why are you going to make me use surface
water, you don't' make everybody else do it. And the man said well somebody has to be
the first and you are it. And that was it but then he come and superseded it by coming to
City Council and you guys okayed it evidently to use that well and if you didn't okay it to
use that well then he is using it. He remodeled a well and it was registered in Faye
McDermotts name when he remodeled it and I called him and they said we don't know
anything about the remodeling of that well we send him a letter. So he got up there and he
talked real soft to him and he got them to okay it I guess. So they hooked it up to Salmon
Rapids and to Los Alamitos before anybody even knew about it. So, there are problems
to be settled before he does anything else, he needs to clean up the trash over there for
one thing like he was told to do. I am just sick and tired of it, my aesthetic values are going
away just hand over fist. Everyone of these subdividers comes in and they just present all
of this stuff and everybody that lives there don't have any say so. I can't even vote for you
men because I live in the county, but you guys are making decisions that affect my life.
Tolsma: Anybody else wish to testify on this? Seeing none I will close the public hearing.
Morrow. Mr. President, I might ask Mr. McColl, you know this business that we are in in
terms of building and development stuff is pretty simple business really. I think that quite
candidly as a critic being in the same industry most of these issues that these folks are
dealing with are fairly simple issues and a responsible person would address those issues
and take care of it. I realize that this is a little off the subject but I think that some of the
complaints that we heard tonight are really valid. It would seem to me that with respect to
your client that it is kind of a live and let live world and it would be a whole lot easier for
him and more profitable if he started paying attention to business as a reputable
builder/developer would do. That is not a difficult, unreasonable request. Some of these
171
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 74
0
issues are fairly small, the trash issue and so on and so forth. That is kind of a no brainer.
A large part of his problem I think in terms of I think the man is his own worst enemy to
some degree. This is not really the proper forum and the proper hour for you and I to be
discussing this, maybe the three of us can discuss it at a future point. But I would hope
that you would give the man some advice about being compatible with his neighbors, with
his buyers already. I know that in our business your best advertising is from satisfied
customers. Obviously to me it doesn't sound like he has very many. That has got to cost
him lot sales. So, maybe, you can use your powers of persuasion to begin turning the guy
around and dealing with some of these fairly simple issues to start with and you can get
into the more complex ones and he gets on down the road and makes a buck or two the
people that buy are happy with the product they got and the City is happy because we
have happy citizens and don't' have to deal with some of these kinds of issues that we
shouldn't have to be dealing and that we by and large don't have to deal with other
developers. Just a point of observation.
McColl: I also recognize that this is probably not, procedurally the appropriate time but the
substantively I have certainly had my eyes opened and I want to assure Mr. Luellen and
Mr. Bell and Mr. Shipley that I have made notes of all the comments that they had and I
will discuss them all with my client. I can be to a certain extent a point of contact with
respect to some of the matters that are more in the area of legal issues. Your comments
have not gone unnoticed certainly by me and all I can do is represent to you that I will visit
with my client on these matters.
Corrie: Mr. President, I would like to move that we direct the City Attorney to draw up the
findings of fact and conclusions of law for the variance for the next meeting.
Morrow. Second
Tolsma: It has been moved by Bob, second by Walt to have the City Attorney prepare
findings for this for the January 2nd meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR LIGHT AUTOMOTIVE AND
R.V. REPAIR SHOP BY KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM:
Tolsma: Do we have a representative here?
Marcum: My name is Dirk Marcum, Mr. President and members of the Council so far on
my project I have come up with my revised landscape plan that fully with all of the
considerations of the size and species that were required. So I have got that, I have a
L
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 75
preliminary elevation of the building which was asked for. So I have got all my paperwork
done there. I was advised by Counsel to contact Elaine Schlekeway which I have on a few
occasions got with her. So 1 guess I will let her speak and then I will go from there unless
there are any questions from the Council?
Scheleway: Elaine Williamson Schelekeway, my house sits fairly close to the property that
Dirk Marcum is wanting to develop. We have had quite a few conversations between the
two of us. I am mostly concerned about the closeness of the sheds that are on the east
side of my house which is fairly close to the fence. He has said that he would be willing
to set them back the ones that are closest to my house. So it would be easier for us to see
out of our windows which I have five windows on the east side. But, we can't quite seem
to come to an agreement on how far to set them back. He marked today where he thought
they should be and 1 checked it out after he was gone and I think it should be another 30
foot setback. Because where he set them back it is still comes out even with my house as
I sit at my kitchen table I would be staring right into a storage shed out that window. Also,
I live on a farm, and on a farm you use your back door primarily like a front door, where he
wants the shed the minute I step out the back door which is used like a front door for me
I would be looking right straight into the shed. So I am asking that he push those ones in
that back row back another 30 feet and then I think we could get along. Thank you.
Marcum: Last time I was at the meeting we brought the big plat so I will walk up and give
you guys a close view of the plat here real quick. This is Elaine's house this is what we
are talking about right here and I moved this building back, I told her another 30 feet so
it is at the end of her house and then it would be a parallel line with the rest of it. So, see
right here guys this building stuck out originally (inaudible) and I moved it back 30 foot,
scribbled it out, I will have the new plat down that they all line up then all the way across
the row. Before it did stick down to here they just drew it on here when they originally
platted it because (inaudible) so here whole house, this is parallel with all the buildings
show she can view clear down the whole row then.
Morrow. Let me ask you this, I saw this for the first time and thought at 7:00 this evening
so I am not real familiar with what we are doing here. This portion up here is where the
R.V. repair stuff is. What are these other buildings?
Marcum: This here is mini -storage and it what should I say that area is, it is approved for
that anyway. Here is the big one so you can see it, this is already zoned for this use, this
use is what I am trying to get my conditional use permit for. Elaine is talking about her, see
her house is here and I was going to cut this building off because she couldn't see past
all the buildings anyway. Elaine is asking to drop this building back 30 more feet in size
and I already reduced it 30 feet for her. Due to our landscaping and what not guys the four
foot berm and the trees and everything eventually her view is going to be blocked anyway,
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 76
when the landscaping matures. I would also be willing on this corner building here we
could maybe adjust the fence so that because of the fence due to ordinance and code
there is, it would be a 6 foot high fence I would be willing to move it in and then down so
that it wouldn't' block her view to the fence. You know you build down the property line it
is required I would be willing to adjust the fence so it wouldn't. Because otherwise the
fence is going to block your view.
(Inaudible)
Marcum: Well, okay but I am willing to adjust on the fence. I cut the building off 30 feet,
I have moved back to the front of the building and had that little area landscaped that extra
up your sideline instead of before it was going to be building or pavement. I can go ahead
and landscape a little piece you guys like this up and over like at that little corner. So, but
that, the meeting is actually for like Mr. Councilman Morrow says it is for the conditional
use here but it all the same piece of property that we are working here. And that is an
approved use at the other end we are just, I am just trying to work with Elaine to make it
somewhat agreeable. So are there any other questions?
Morrow. I have none.
Marcum: Hillside Nursery did the landscaping (inaudible). Here is kind of an idea of what
the building will look like, the front and the rear. It is designed, it is concrete tilt up and he
had a recessed area to walk under the front here, you can't really tell by this, but it this is
our tentative design (inaudible). So I guess that is all I have to say unless there are some
other questions.
Schelekeway: Could I add something, where I am asking him to allow another 30 feet for
me by the house he still has I would say between 150 and 200 feet of a storage shed that
is going to be right behind my house back to the canal that I am not complaining about. I
am only asking about what is close to my house. If he doesn't move that shed back a little
farther yet it is going to make a real dark comer on the back of my house and I have been
broke into twice before so I am kind of concerned about that.
Corrie: Mr. President, I guess my concern is, is that drawn to scale? If that is drawn to
scale your building is not behind your house it is the edge of you house comes in there so
am I assuming wrong?
Marcum: It is to scale and where we have ended up now is the building comes, it is within
a couple of feet of the corner of your house the back corner of your house now.
Schelkeway: No, it is a lot more than that, because you marked it on the fence it is right
L
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 77
out there now I went out and looked.
0
Marcum: It is pretty close if you look down that line, it is pretty close to the back of your
house you have to be. We are 45 feet, 35 feet for landscape and 30 foot more back to
where the building starts.
Schelekeway: Yes but it is probably 8 feet from the back of the house already.
Marcum: The building sets 10 foot off the property line too so that will help, it is not
(inaudible) approximately down the back to the building anyway.
Morrow: Mr. President if I might, kind of where we are at with this deal is we are dealing
with a conditional use permit for the R.V. repair shop. The storage buildings which are
under the same ownership in terms of the same lot, the same land are an approved use.
The issue between Ms. Schelekeway and Mr. Marcum are such that I don't think there is
anything that we can legally do with respect to the resolution of that. I think that is an
agreement between the two of them that certainly I would support in terms of helping to
preserve review and being a good neighbor. But I think the issue before us is the
conditional use permit and that is really all we can do as a Council is rule on that. I would
ask some advice from Counselor in terms of that observation.
Tolsma: Well most of that is in the findings of fact and conclusions of law (inaudible).
Morrow. And I understand that and I guess where my confusion is here is with respect to
the storage facility. In other words I don't think that we can put a condition on this
conditional use for the light automotive and R.V. repair that mandates a 30 foot setback
or a 60 foot setback with respect to Mrs. Schelekeway's view. What I am asking is for
some advice from the counselor concerning that.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Crookston: Let me ask a question first. Mr. Marcum, that portion of the storage sheds, do
you own that land?
Marcum: Yes
Crookston: Is that part of the storage that has been there for a long time?
Marcum: No, this is vacant land, that is back behind me now. See guys, my legal
setbacks to be clear up here where we were and I am willing to move it back an extra 30
feet.
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 78
I]
Crookston: Those storage sheds are part of this application for a conditional use?
Marcum: No this is just my piece of property, our whole design for the City what we are
going to do with the whole piece of property. The conditional use is only on the building
but this is our whole design what we are doing. This is a legal use on this part which was
fine. So that part hasn't' got anything to do with what we are trying to address, last time
you told me to address the problem because she spoke out at the last public hearing
because we are just going for our whole piece of property use. So Counsel instructed me
for Elaine and I to get together which we have been and she knows plenty of times on the
phone and as she said I have been out there and marked it off for her and everything. I am
willing to do a little more landscaping in the corner like (inaudible) since I dropped it back
30 feet.
Crookston: Mr. President, the City really has no jurisdiction over the storage sheds
because they are not in front of you at this time. It is only the R.V. repair shop.
Tolsma: (Inaudible) So what we are looking at is the findings of fact and conclusions of
law heard at P & Z then.
Crookston: That is correct.
Morrow. Mr. President I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared for P & Z.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the findings of fact prepared by P &
Z, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Tolsma: Is there a motion on the decision?
Morrow: Mr. President I move that the City Council approve the conditional use permit
requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions
set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Corrie: Second
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 79
Tolsma: It has been moved and seconded to approve the decision and recommendation,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow. I might further add that I would like to see Mr. Marcum honor his commitment to
do the 30 foot and whatever if it helps Mrs. Schelekeway, I do recognize that her property
long term will be industrial or commercial or something like that but in the mean time I
would like to see it be as pleasant as possible.
Marcum: We have already got it re -platted (inaudible) and I told Elaine (inaudible).
Morrow We will hold you to that.
ITEM #22: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND
BRAKE ALIGNMENT SHOP BY DENNIS AND JANET BUTTERFIELD:
Tolsma: Is there a representative here for that?
Morrow. I move we table this to January 16.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table this until January 16, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED:
ITEM #23: CC&R'S FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION NO. 3:
Crookston: I am sorry 1 didn't bring them with me.
McColl: Mr. President, I will just remind Counsel the CC&R's for Los Alamitos No. 3 are
about 2 pages long they are just a second supplemental they annexed it. They were sent
over to Counsel on November 21 st on December 3rd he sent me a letter saying they were
fine. He also said the same for item #24 but of course that hasn't been annexed yet so
that is probably inappropriate to act on #24. But we would respectfully request that you act
on #23.
Morrow. Everything is up to snuff on #23 then?
0 •
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 80
Crookston: Yes
Morrow. Mr. President I move that we approve the CC&R's for Los Alamitos Subdivision
No. 3.
Yerrington: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the CC&R's for Los Alamitos
Subdivision No. 3, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #24: CC&R'S FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 3:
Tolsma: So the CC&R's for Salmon Rapids No. 3 need to be tabled.
Corrie: So moved Mr. President to January 16.
Morrow. Second
Tolsma: It has been moved to table the CC&R's for Salmon Rapids Subdivision No. 3 until
January 16, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #25: BEER/WINE LICENSE FOR JACKSON FOOD STORES FOR 1995:
Yerrington: Chief have you finger printed these people yet?
Gordon: No sir, I have not had any problem with their application.
Yerrington: I move for its approval.
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the beer and wine license for Jackson
Food Stores for 1995, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #26: BEER/WINE LICENSE FOR GODFATHERS PIZZA FOR 1995:
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 81
Gordon: That also there is not any problem with that.
Yerrington: So moved for its approval.
Morrow. Second
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Walt to approve the beer and wine license for
Godfathers Pizza for 1995, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #27: RENEWAL OF BEER/WINE/LIQUOR LICENSES FOR 1996:
Gordon: No reason why they should not be approved.
Yerrington: Don't we have one that has not come in?
Gordon: That is correct, that is not my problem.
Berg: That is not our problem.
(Inaudible)
Tolsma: Approve the ones subject to your
Berg: The 127 Club has not submitted their application for renewal, so as of December
31 st at midnight
Tolsma: They can't celebrate new years.
Berg: Until they do something next year.
Crookston: You are talking about a full one year not just 11 more days?
Berg: Yes
Tolsma: Is there a motion to approve?
Yerrington: So moved
Corrie: Is the motion to accept the 127 Club or all on the list that he had? I will second that
01 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 82
then.
Tolsma: Moved by Max, second by Bob to approve the renewal list from the Chief for the
beer/wine/liquor licenses for 1996, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #28: LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
FOR DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN FOTHERGILL SUBDIVISION:
Crookston: That is bale of wick, Mayor Kingsford desired that we get that done. He made
some commitments to get it done. I am working on it right now with Nampa & Meridian's
attorney. I got a copy of the license agreement that was done for the Wilson Drain in
Nampa. I had a discussion with him to ask him whether or not there is a different license
where the City owns the land. Shari and I discovered that the City owns this land that is
right next to Fothergill Subdivision. In my discussions with Dan Steenson Nampa
Meridian's attorney he said initially there was a difference. I talked to him this morning and
he said that we still need to do the same type of license as was done for Nampa for the
Wilson Drain. I have that but I have to take out some things, he said take out what you
deem is inappropriate and I have to do that. I had requested this to be on the agenda
tonight so that it would be on the agenda on the 2nd to see if we could get it totally done
and passed while Grant is still Mayor, but I still have work to do on it.
Morrow. So the issue is you want us to table it until January 2nd?
Crookston: Yes
Morrow. So moved
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Its been moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the license agreement for
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District until January 2 under old business, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #29: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Tolsma: Shari Stiles
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 83
Stiles: Mr. President and Council this request was initiated because of the McDonald's
desire for occupancy. They want to occupy next week. The development agreement has
some conflicting passages in it. Dakota Development added what they wanted to protect
themselves and the City added what they wanted to protect themselves and what
happened is they are very contradictory statements. Basically it requires that all of the
improvements be completed prior to any occupancy on the site. Obviously there is not
going to be any landscaping, that is going to be able to be installed prior to next week. I
didn't feel that this was a staff decision and that the Council should be the ones to
determine what kind of bonding requirements if any or just exactly how you would like to
proceed. There is another issue about the Locust Grove Road but I would like to not bring
that up at this time and get a meeting with the Highway District and Walt I guess and Gary
set up so we can work that issue out. This is strictly for the McDonald's occupancy.
Morrow. What you are suggesting here Shari is as per my conversation with Larry Sale
today that we as a City will meet with ACHD to resolve those issues. It seems to me like
there is some legitimate conflict there and they are not aware of our position. So, it makes
a certain amount of sense that we meet with them and iron that out.
Stiles: Don Bryan would like to be involved in that meeting too.
Morrow: That is fine. So the issue that we are just going to deal with tonight is the
occupancy certificate or temporary occupancy certificate for the McDonald's project and
what you feel we should be asking in terms of bonding for landscape improvements and
those kinds of things that cannot be done this time of year, is that the issue?
Stiles: Yes
Yerrington: Could we get something like 25 big macs per day until it is completed?
Durkin: I am Larry Durkin with Dakota Development, you know this just hit me tonight
when I was re -reading this at about 7:30 in the back but it is a subject that we discussed
in a meeting and I re -read this development agreement tonight and I really think that we
have a pretty comfortable out here in the development agreement. This is a document that
was drafted by Wayne and signed by all parties and it is recorded. But, in the paragraph
3 it states that it is agreed, I am just going to summarize it here, it states that the
improvements once there is a conditional use permit granted that they are not part of this
development agreement. That is my interpretation of it, so what we did is the development
agreement was entered into. Since that has occurred we have gotten conditional use
permits for the construction on each individual parcel. So, it is my opinion that the
improvements that are required in the development agreement are now not part of the
development agreement but they are part of individual conditional use permits for each
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 84
parcel. Each of these parcels is under construction right now, we are on schedule, we will
be fully opened and completed by the 15th of April and weather permitting that will include
the landscaping. Right now we don't have the, because of the weather, we don't have the
ability to plan the landscaping that is required in front of the McDonald's right here. We do
have the berm roughed in but we just haven't been able to with the weather we haven't
been able to finish it. So, it is my opinion that I don't know if you share that, at the end of
the agreement it says under no circumstances will an occupancy permit be granted unless
all the improvements are completed. But earlier in the document I think we are relieved of
that requirement I don't know what your thoughts are on that Wayne? I want you to know
that everything is going on schedule, we have the majority of the paving in. We haven't
paved in certain areas around the Fred Meyer building because it doesn't work for that
construction. But everything related to the entry's and everything related to McDonald's
is completed in this whole section.
Yerrington: When do you plan on the opening of Fred Meyer's?
Durkin: It will be before the 15th of April, we don't like to say the exact date for competitive
reasons but it will be between the 1 st and the 15th (inaudible).
Morrow: Mr. President, if 1 might, to bring some expertise to bear here this is not an
unusual request for a commercial project, typically what is required is and we as a City in
terms of the building department are structured to do these things. In the P & Z with the
P & Z enforcement officer now which was part of that same plan was to get us in the
position to do these things. How we would accomplish this is that we would require a
completion bond of somewhere as a matter of policy that the Council will set at 110% to
125% of the value to complete the project. The bond will also have a completion date and
then we would issue a temporary occupancy that wouldn't be signed off on until all things
are completed. And so with these types of requests with Commercial stuff this is a fairly
simple procedure to implement. Now having said and that Shari's reasoning for bringing
this before the Council is valid because it is also the first time that we have been able to
get all of the players into a position that we have been trying to over the last couple of
years so we can actually do this as a City. So very candidly her bringing it before the
Council is a real valid point. In the future most of this type of stuff is done at the staff level
and doesn't come before a Council because it is a fairly standard procedure that is fairly
simple and is one of the kinds of things that we as a Council can empower our staff to do.
Durkin: There is a little bit of a quirk here. I just want you to know that the improvements
all of the landscaping for entire parcel including the landscaping on and in front of this
parcel are part of the Fred Meyer conditional use permit and is part of their building permit.
So, technically you can hold their $11 million store opening up if this isn't completed it is
not, when we got the conditional use for the Fred Meyer a lot of the neighbors were
Ci
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 85
0
concerned that things weren't going to be finished so we put all of the perimeter
landscaping in that application. The berming which is a real sensitive concern that is in
their conditional use permit. It is not part of McDonald's conditional use permit and it isn't
part of ours.
Morrow. Would not McDonald's landscaping be the stuff to the north of the store? That is
what you figure is there? That is theirs? Then it would appear in this case to protect the
City's interest that we (End of Tape)
Yerrington: Of course you are probably going to have the problem on some of the others
too aren't you?
Durkin: I don't think so, we are scheduling the grand opening of this building almost the
same day that the Fred Meyer opens. The same with this building, I really can't imagine
that we will be facing this again.
Morrow. Those buildings and pads are independently owned are they not?
Durkin: I own them.
Morrow. And they are leased, do they have the potential of being sold separately? Is this
a separate description?
Durkin: Yes, separate lots, parcels.
Crookston: What the development agreement does indicate that, it says, with the City's
remedy for failure to construct or install such on site improvements being as provided in
the ordinances of the City or the denial of a certificate of occupancy with respect to the
buildings constructed on said lot. So I think that if the City wants to withhold the
occupancy permit they can under that language. But that is the Council's decision.
Durkin: The request we are making is real common of a request when you are building
this time of the year. We are willing to bond and we are willing to cooperate however you
want to go forward. They want to open next Tuesday and I thought that we were covered
with the other language in the document that is covered in the language that says once a
conditional use permit is granted those improvements are not (inaudible) they are
automatically taken out of the development agreement.
Crookston: This is in the same paragraph.
Durkin: I interpreted it (inaudible) I am really not concerned with the (inaudible) we are
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 86
0
proceeding (inaudible) and this quite common we do that with other municipalities.
Crookston: It is up to the Council.
Morrow Well, what 1 would suggest as for the Council from my perspective we need to get
the procedure started because we have worked for almost two years to get to this point
so that we have a procedure. These are good folks to have the practice run with and 1 am
totally confident in everything getting done and accomplished on time. But I think we need
to go through with using the bond with the completion date (inaudible) that is how we
designed the system let's press forward with it.
Corrie: So you have a completion date then some time in April?
Morrow. Well Bob, usually on these things we can have a wet spring we are talking are
about (inaudible) landscaping they might all be operating under temporary occupancies
until the 15th of May. I would think we would give a little bit of breathing room, most of
these things are done with common sense.
Durkin: I have a number for you for the landscaping on the over all parcel the landscaping
is $108,000 for the entire project. McDonald's this parcel right here is 3.19% of that or
would be $5,313 that is the contract amount that we have for landscaping on (inaudible)
what is legally referred to as parcel 4.
Morrow. Well I think that is reasonable, Gary your thoughts?
Smith: I think that is a reasonable suggestion.
Morrow: So we take the entire contract amount of the $108,000 and we take the
percentage for each parcel, we multiply by the 110% or whatever and that is what we ask
for the bond.
Smith: Sounds alright to me.
Crookston: In our bond ordinance where the City is authorized to have bonds there is
110% for one kind of bond and 120% for another kind of bond. For a cash bond I think it
is 110% for a surety bond I think it is 120%.
Durkin: I recommend that we stick with cash.
Berg: Also that is easier for (inaudible).
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 87
Morrow. Alright, I will make the motion then that we require a completion bond of 110% of
the value of the landscape improvements for McDonald's completion date to be May 15,
temporary occupancy until completion of all requirements.
Yerrington: Just the McDonald's?
Morrow. That is all he is asking for right now, that is all the power that we have in terms
of the temporary occupancy.
Corrie: Second
Tolsma: Okay, it has been moved and seconded that we have a bond of 110% of the
estimated cost of the McDonald's landscaping, completion date May 15th, temporary
occupancy up until that particular point of time.
Morrow. No, temporary occupancy until all the requirements have been completed. And
that is end of the motion and as a sideline the information is all on our commercial
occupancy permit system.
Tolsma: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Durkin: May I make another quick (inaudible) regarding the ACHD meeting that you
(inaudible). I want you to know that we are in a little bit of a predicament as the developer
on the project. We have tried to everything in good faith and go forward, we have a 200%
bond, a cash certificate of deposit bond, not a bond, certificate of deposit that ACHD is
holding for us. We have to have these street improvements completed by April 15 or we
forfeit that or that would be their call. The reason we are not going forward on it is because
of coordination matters between the City of Meridian and ACHD and it is putting us in, we
are working on the (inaudible) we are working with Meridian and I have no comfort that is
occurring as far as (inaudible). So I just wanted you to be aware that (inaudible). I think I
am just asking that you make that a priority (inaudible).
Morrow. I think where we are at is I reviewed with Gary and Shari some things concerning
this Friday and I returned Larry Sales call this morning in person and he and I reviewed
the issues. The long and the short of it was we agreed to move forward fairly quickly and
resolve the issues.
Tolsma: Chief?
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 88
Gordon: Nothing Mr. President.
Tolsma: Ms. Planning and Zoning Administrator?
Stiles: I am done
Tolsma: Mr. Smith, you must have something you are passing out another epistle?
Smith: Mr. President and Council members, just some interest for you. They are replacing
a bridge over Ten Mile Creek on Linder Road, they are going to close Linder Road south
of Franklin. The proposal is to connect the temporary road with Waltman Lane and put all
that traffic in the Landing and all of the parcels to the west of Linder road onto Waltman
and into that intersection at Meridian, Waltman and East First. I don't think it is going to
work, I have talked to the Highway District, talked to their construction people they are
going to check with their traffic people but it looks to me like they are putting 5 pounds of
sand in a 3 pound bag. In case you start getting calls of inquiry this is what they are
proposing to do.
Corrie: That is going to be two weeks when they do that.
Smith: Yes, sir that is what they are proposing.
Tolsma: Is that all Gary?
Smith: Yes sir.
Tolsma: Counselor?
Crookston: I don't have anything, but Walt has something that I am interested in.
Morrow. Sir I have two things, one is just briefly this is an informational item only. In terms
of the publishing requirements that we talked about before, as a point of bringing direct
cost to the table and it has to do with the things that we were talking about at or strategic
planning session the direct cost of the 14 days of the publishing we had to do in terms of
our interest per day is $2562, in terms of lost impact fee revenues is $8194. So the net
cost of that 2 week delay to us as a City is $10,756 dollars. I don't want to kill a dead issue
I just want you to be aware of the financial impacts to us as a City in this case in terms of
not being able to have the flexibility of publishing more than one place. The second thing
is that passing out for your review from the golf course committee this will be the first of
several things to come down the pipe. These are, this is (inaudible) there are 3 papers in
each one, I am sorry 4 pages. What the issue is the top three papers will give you
0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 89
examples of the front and the back of the passes that the corporate sponsors get for their
$10,000. There is a sample from each of the three that have so far donated that. The
fourth page is a sample of the contract that will be signed for those donations guaranteeing
those passes. So having said that I will have Wayne talk about the contract.
Crookston: I have drafted this basically at the request of Patsy Fedrizzi to put together a
corporate membership. She indicated to me that a corporate memberships were going to
be issued for those people who had pre -paid $10,000 for the right or the company and
individual has provided $10,000 worth of improvements for the golf course. I drafted this
agreement to basically set forth some of the things that a person gains by paying the
$10,000 or doing $10,000 worth of work. They are that they get 100 passes per year to
play golf at Cherry Lane, they can use them themselves if it is a company and let's say it
is Albertson's and Albertson's wants to have a golf tournament and use all of their passes
for one year in one day all they have to do is make arrangements with the golf course to
put that on. If they are going to use them on a day by day basis the just take the pass to
the golf course and hand it to Wally or Anita or Jennifer or any employee there it is just like
having a pre -paid ticket. They wanted it to last for ten years so then they would ultimately
over the 10 years get 1000 passes for the $10,000 donation. Anybody could use them as
long as they had the pass. I would like to see, I didn't know exactly how the golf committee
wanted it so this is just what I drew from my little discussion with Patsy. What 1 would like
to see is this done and then have a few more contractual limitations and restrictions and
grants on the back. All I did was address what Patsy indicated to me. The idea is to have
a contract with the corporate members I think we need some more language on the back.
Morrow. The reasoning for bringing these before you so you can review them and give us
back your input as a Council so I can present the input from the Council at our next
meeting. Then we can put everything together and tie up the loose ends and go on from
there.
Yerrington: Has this been run by the Idaho State Golf Commission?
Crookston: No it hasn't, not that I am aware of. When I printed it out, I noticed there are
some glips in there that need to be removed the basic language is correct. So I would like
to see some more put on the back.
Morrow. I am not looking for your input tonight, it is just a means of making a presentation
so you can review it, tear it apart, put it back together, offer suggestions whatever it is so
we can press forward. That is the end of my presentation.
Tolsma: Max
• 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 90
Yerrington: Nothing, I just wanted to, engineer, I see them putting sidewalk up on the
railroad track on the east side today. They are probably going to do the left side tomorrow.
Smith: Yes sir.
Tolsma; Bob?
Corrie: No
Tolsma: Will
Berg: Since the Mayor isn't here I will (inaudible) I bring this up just because he asked me
to bring it up. A business has contacted him about doing a map of the City of Meridian
which they have done for Nampa, McCall and a few other ones. It has advertising on the
back. He wanted to get your reaction to this. (Inaudible) but he wanted to know how much
of involvement the City wants to play in this (inaudible) or maybe how much we should
maybe have the Chamber of commerce be the contact person or somebody else to do it.
But this is what they did in Nampa, you might just want to pass it down.
Corrie: What is Nampa doing?
Berg: Nampa (inaudible)
Corrie: Are they asking the City to put dollars in this?
Berg: He is wanting us to promote it?
(Inaudible)
Morrow. My input is that is a private sector deal and let the private sector do it.
Berg: So should I direct that guy more or less to the Chamber of Commerce office. He just
wanted the input on there so I will tell him that.
Corrie: I move we adjourn.
Morrow: Second
Tolsma: Moved and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
0 0
Meridian City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 91
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:46 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
�AN�AL�h4fe+CQU
ATTEST: x� r1�
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI ERK
PUBACITY OF MER DIA T
C MEETING SIGN-UFSHEET
if 7- 7 9 y-3
(r -lyw�c �• Vr 'V-365'-
CITY OF MERIDIAI`
PUB& MEETING SIGN- SHEET
ram
�
950J5�;U
ORDINANCE NO. 719 f8 0o C'
OF MERIDIAN�j0- PM �:AN ORDINANCE OF THE CsQ
REAL PROPERTY WHICH ISIDESCRIBED AS AA PARCELANNEXIOF NG LAND of DWTHE0
NW 1/4 AND THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 NORM,_ RANGE 1 EAST
OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND,-..fPROVTPING-,AIS
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of
said City to annex to the said City real property which is
described in Section 1 below:
NOW, 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 located in the NW 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of
Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described
as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 16, T.3N.,
R.1E., B.M., thence S 89°22'54" E 818.95 feet to a point
on the South line of said Section 16, the Real Point of
Beginning of this description;
Thence N 0°37'06" E 25.00 feet to a point on the
Northerly right of way of Overland Road;
Thence N 36°52'54" W 485.74 feet to a point;
Thence N 66°51'55" W 261.30 feet to a point;
Thence N 0°24105" E 140.10 feet to a point;
Thence N 51°28156" W 384.81 to a point on the West line
of said Section 16, being the East line of Annexation
Ordinance #660.
Thence N 0°49'23" W (formerly N 0°41'32" W) 1766.71 feet
along the Easterly boundary of Annexation Ordiance #660
to the West 1/4 corner of said Section 16;
Thence S 89°23'35" E (formerly S 89014147" E) 149.48 feet
along the Easterly boundary of Annexation Ordinance #660
to a point;
ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POWER HALL Page 1
0 0
Thence N 0°45'08" E 54.75 feet (formerly N 0°45'13" E
54.92 feet) along the Easterly boundary of Annexation
Ordinance #660 to a point on the Southerly boundary of
Annexation Ordinance #659 which is also the Northerly
right of way line of I-84;
Thence N 89009138" E 758.53 feet along the Southerly
boundary of Annexation Ordinance #659 to a point;
Thence S 85045108" E 438.46 feet to the Southeast corner
of Annexation Ordinance #659;
Thence S 85044130" E 1176.86 feet along the Northerly
right of way of I-84 to a point;
Thence S 89°54'21" E 172.98 feet along said Northerly
right of way to a point on the East line of the SW 1/4 of
said Section 16;
Thence S 0013'49" E 1299.59 feet along said East line to
the Northeast corner of Jewel Subdivision;
Thence N 89023'14" W 1339.40 feet to the Northwest corner
of Jewel Subdivision;
Thence S 0031136" E 1326.93 feet to the West 1/16 corner
common to Sections 16 and 21, TAN., R.lE;
Thence N 89022'54" W 513.59 feet along the South line of
said Section 16 to the Real Point of Beginning of this
description.
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned C -G
General Retail and Service Commercial; 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 at his expense 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.
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POWER NALL Page 2
0 0
C. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be required to enter into a development agreement as
authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address inclusion into
development of the property the requirements of 11-9-605
C, G., H 2, K, and L of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters;
that the property may be de -annexed if the terms and
conditions of the Development Agreement are not
satisfied.
d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to
development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M.
which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways,
and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized
irrigation.
e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of
the City of Meridian.
g. There shall be no development or use, whatsoever, of the
property other than a Planned Commercial Development.
Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of
the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly
designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada
County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission
within ten (10) days following the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency,
which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 19th day of December,
1995.
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POWER MALL Page 3
F-1
ATTEST:
TUT -60.
MAYOR -- GRANT P. KINGSFORD
` - �-
l
T -1 -IAM G. HER G, JR.,//-4/CITY CLERK
STATE OF IDAHO,)
. ss.
County of Ada, )
\\\\VIII III H t flr)II
pn ATF'
r o
SEAL =
T
C fi
90 '•,��T 1S1 z`0,
9C° ,f
�'�rnnun nl1111`���
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 PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW
1/4 AND THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF
THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. 719 , by the City Council and
Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the 19th day of December, 1995,
as the same appears in my office.
DATED this 19th day of December, 1995. ( n
City Clerk, City of M4/ridian
Ada County, Idaho
\lalluumurff/�
SEAL
7. R" �
00CF�ttl l .
"" IIIII! tilllll`I\`
ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POVPER MALL Page 4
0 0
STATE OF IDAHO,)
. ss.
County of Ada, )
On this Iq t- day of December, 1995, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally
appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year in this certificate first above
written.
2 /✓�-�.
SEAL �`: Nota Public f Idaho
®r ding at M6eldian, Idaho
E Lc,1 S My Commission Expires 4 -29 -?_00 b
Of
1481"'00`
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - LANGLY/POKER MALL Page 5
� N fA �''E6'E,'/5B 53 a 86' 4ffi,46r � i
45'oe E
w. -r-
s. 13 Prye—. _ _ E 1.116.86
1 P4 -_ - --
3
N
—_
i
-- v
\I I
I \8��
k4hrm/�
--9�
. hW.CaDNEK �.
+�bNvlz MALL ANNEXATION _
16 AGRC�
r � N
)gTw
o5e4w: O.I.s.
Ihb map b made ! daa avpv*g by hb f my
�& fixmry alWl mr 6e Ihhk hr haaurria nr
N Ibb map Mapr 6eving do dia'bimm may
wrNen y "n"e..r. u.e in any dpnl Fmn
Wmmian NM (aunty
a
N:69a2504' m 13419.40'
BOARD OF ADA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES OF THE OPEN MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1995
9:00 A.M.
The Board of Ada County Commissioners met this date in an Open Meeting in the
Commissioners' Conference Room of the Ada County Administration Building to act on the
following items. Staff members present: Kay Bird, Community Services; and Barbara
Miller and Shari Srrong, Clerk's Office. Minutes Recorder: Heidi Cooper.
IN THE MATTER OF CALL TO ORDER -
Commissioner Bisterfeldt called the meeting of the Ada County Commissioners to order at
9:05 A.M.
IN THE MATTER OF ROLL CALL e
In attendance were Commissioners Vernon L. Bistedeldt and Gary Glenn. Gary Glenn was
out of town attending a Congressional hearing.
IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTIVE SESSION:
1. Medical lndigency Session
ACTION: R. SIMMONS MOVED TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE
SESSION TO DISCUSS MEDICAL 1NDIGENCY
APPLICATIONS WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LC.31-
874, MUST BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL; AND THAT THE
VOTE BE BY ROLL CALL. V. BISTERFELDT SECONDED.
R. SIMMONS; AYE; AND V. BISTERFELDT, AYE. THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
K. Bird presented the Board with Medical Assistance Case Nos. 9512-47 through 9512-88
and General Assistance Case Nos. 9512-23GA through 9512-64GA, and recommended the
suggested approvals and denials.
K. Bird presented letters of correspondence, dated 12112195, for approval.
ACTION: R_ SIMMONS MOVED TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION. V.
BISTERFELDT SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Atter returning to open session. the following action was taken:
ACTION: R. SIMMONS MOVED THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR 35 APPROVALS AND 54
DENIALS LISTED IN THE SUMMARY OF REQUESTS
PREPARED BY COMMUNITY SERVICES ON MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE CASE NOS. 9512-47 THROUGH 9512-88 AND
GENERAL ASSISTANCE CASES 9512-23GA THROUGH
9512-64GA BE APPROVED; THAT THESE DOCUMENTS
BE KEPT ON FILE IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
OFFICE; THAT THE MINUTES REFLECT THE
APPROVALS AND DENIALS; AND THAT THE CHAIRMAN
BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE BOARD. V. BISTERFELDT SECONDED AND THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Post -1t` Fax Note
7671 0...
rc
horn
co 10an1 MOAAA
Ageco.
ergno x
PMno A —�,33
Fay b
Fut Y
DEC 19 '95 1658
PPZE. 01
01
DEC -19 95
9
ACTION: R. SIMMONS MOVED TO AP
CORRESPONDENCE, DATED
SECONDED AND THE
UNANIMOUSLY.
•
PROVE THE LETTERS OF
12/12195. V. BISTERFELDT
MOTION CARRIED
ACTION: R. SIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR
THE MEETING HELD ON THE ABOVE DATE; AND THAT
THE CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE
MINUTES ON THE BOARD'S BEHALF. V. BISTERFELDT
SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
u:r I 04.,p]. .
B. Miller presented the following license renewals: A ,i's Courthouse, 7211 Colonial, Beer
$100.00 and Wine $100.00; A J's Fit Stop, 830 W. Bannock, Beer $100.00; A J's
Parkcenter Health Club, 555 W. Parkcenter Blvd.. Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00;
Aladdin Egyptian, 111 Broadway #115, Beer $75.00 and Wine $100.00: Bavarian Food
& Deli, 1307 S. Orchard, Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00;
The Beer House, 9751 Cory Ln., Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00: Black Palomino
Lounge, 1255 Curtis, Beer $100.00 and Wine $187.50; Bogies, 1124 Front, Beer $100.00
and Wine $187.50; Boise Park Suites Hotel, 424 E. Park Center Blvd., Beer $100.00 and
Wine $100.00; Brews Brothers I1 Inc., 650 Vista Ave., Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00;
Caper's Restaurant, 401 W. Parkcenter Blvd,, Beer $100.00 and Wine 100,00;
Cindi's Floral, 1776 W. State St., Beer $25.00 and Wine $100.00; Cindi's Floral, 8057
Fairview Ave., Beer $25.00 and Wine $100.00; Clays West, 7680 Vallejo Rd., Beer
$75.00; Cost Plus Inc., 1157 N. Milwaukee, Beer $25.00 and Wine $100.00;
Costco Wholesale, 8109 Franklin Rd., Beer $25.00 and Wine $100.00; Crow Inn, Inc.,
6781 Warm Springs Ave., Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; Fortune Wok Restaurant,
5163 N. Glenwood, Garden City, Beer $75.00; Gifted Gourmet, 108 N. Latah, Beer
$25.00 and Wine $100.00; Gloria's Mexican Restaurant, 3210 E. Chinden Blvd, Eagle,
Beer $75.00;
Great Wall Restaurant, 10398 Overland Rd., Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; Hannah's,
621 Main St., Beer $100.00 and Wine $187.50; Hilltop Cafe, Milepost 14.4, Hwy 21,
Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; interlude Bar & Grill, 213 N. 8th Street, Beer $100.00
and Liquor $187.50; Irongate Lounge, 2360 University Dr., Beer $100.00 and Liquor
$187.50;
,1B's Restaurant, 1565 S. Meridian Rd., Meridian. Beer $75.00 and Wine $100.00; Joe's
All American. 100 S. 6th St., Beer $100.00 and Liquor $187.50; Ken Hamilton
Presentations, 335 E. 1st St., Meridian, Beer $100.00; Ken Hamilton Presentations, 335
E. Ist St., Meridian, Beer $100.00; Ken Hamilton Presentations, 335 E. 1st St., Meridian,
Beer$100.00;
DEC 19 '95 16:59
PAGE. 02
9 6
Loco's, 10548 Fairview Ave., Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; Lucky 13 Inc., 1602 N.
13th Street, Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; Meridian Bowling Lanes Inc., 324 S.
Meridian St., Meridian, Beer $100.00 and Liquor $187.50; Overland Bar, 3907 Overland
Rd., Beer $100.00 and Liquor $187.50; Pacific Rim Restaurant, 1605 B N. 13th St., Beer
SI00.00 and Wine $100.00;
The Pantry Restaurant, 1545 Shoreline Dr., Beer $100.00 and Liquor $187.50: Partners
Bar, 2210 Main St., Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; Penn Market, 4596 Chinden Blvd.,
Garden City, Beer $25.00 and Wine $100.00; Pepper's Mexican Food, 3614 W. State St.,
Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; Raedean's Restaurant, Inc., 4969 Overland, Beer
$75.00 and Wine $100.00;
Red Robin Burger & Spirits, 267 N. Milwaukee, Beer $100.00 and Liquor $187.50;
Sani s Saloon, 10937 W. State St., Star, Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; Shiga Japanese
Cuisine, 100 N. 8th St. #215, Beer $100.00 and Wine 5100.00; Smitty's Pub, 1811 S.
Latah, Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00; The Torch Lounge, 1826 Main St., Beer 5100.00
and Liquor $187.50;
Kasey Casual Dining Inc., 3250 N. Lakeharbor Ln., Beer $100.00 and Wine $100.00;
Toll Station Pizza, 4091 W. State St., Beer $100.00; Turner's Lounge, 4022 State St.,
Beer $100.00 and Liquor $187.50; 127 Club, 127 Idaho St., Beer $100.00 and Wine
$187.50; and 27th St. Market, 819N. 27th St., Beer $25.00 and Wine $100.00.
The following new license: White Water Saloon, 1646 Meridian Rd., Meridian, Beer
SI00.00 and Wine 5100.00.
ACTION: R. SIMMONS MOVED THAT THE LICENSES BE
APPROVED; THAT THE INFORMATION BE INCLUDED
IN THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING; AND THAT THE
CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD. V.
BISTERFELDT SECONDED AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Warrant Register (12/8/95)
ACTION: R, SIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE CLAIMS AGAINST
THE COUNTY SUMMARIZED ON THE WARRANT
REGISTER DATED 12/8/95; THAT THE BOARD DIRECT
THE AUDITOR TO PAY THOSE CLAIMS; AND THAT THE
REGISTER REMAIN ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK. V. BISTERFELDT SECONDED AND THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Personnel Action Fon»s
ACTION: R. SIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING
PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS: 4 NEW HIRES, 4
PROMOTIONS, 10 STATUS CHANGES, 5 RESIGNATIONS,
AND 5 MISCELLANEOUS; AND THAT A COPY OF THE
SUMMARY SHEET REMAIN ON FILE IN THE
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. G. GLENN SECONDED AND
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Resolutions, Ordinances, Contracts & Agreements
DEC 19 195 17:00 PAGE. 03
a. Agreement
No. 2696 between Ada County and Boise County for Blood
Drawing Services
b. Agreement
No 2697 between Ada County and Cantril Nielsen, M.D., for
Psychiatric Health Care Services
C, AnreementNo.
2698 between Ada County and Boise Anesthesia for Forty
Percent Reimbursement Rate
d. Aoreement
No. 2699 between Ada County and Idaho Tr asportation
Department for Right of Way and Permanent Easement
f. Resolution
No 858 Adjusting the Ada County Budget to Reflect the
Receipt of Unscheduled Revenue to the Sheriffs Budget
ACTION:
R. SIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENTS
JUST NAMED. V. BISTERFELDT SECONDED AND THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
IN THE MATTER OF ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Board this date, the meeting was
recessed at 9:20 A.M.
Ada Cotutty Clerk
Vernon L. Bisterfeldt, Chairman
4
DEC 19 '95 17;01 PRGE. 04
December 19, 1995
To: CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
Meridian City Hall
33 East Idaho Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
From: MERIDIAN GREENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Post Office Box 301
Meridian, Idaho 83680
Subject: Transport Truck and Trailers, Inc. (Bill Howell) request for Annexation and Rezoning, and a
Conditional Use Permit
The Meridian Greens Homeowners Association (225+ homes with more to be added) requests
to go on record as totally opposed to this subject application for the following reasons.
The proposed location for a Transport Truck and Trailer Sales and Service facility is not
appropriate or in keeping with the present or planned use of the adjoining and local area property for
the following reasons:
• Overland Road, presently at two lanes and in the planned near future three lanes, is not
designed for this type of use.
• The traffic intersections at both Eagle/Overland and Meridian/Overland are already too
congested. The proposed volume of truck and trailer servicing will constitute a highly
increased hazardous condition at these two major intersections and the connecting section
of Overland Road, since this will be their 24-hour road-testing loop.
• The above intersections are not designed or presently planned for this type of use based on
traffic volume and traffic safety issues. Private cars, school buses, and commercial
vendors enter and leave the several subdivisions along Overland between Meridian Road
and Eagle Road. There is also considerable traffic from Locust Grove entering Overland.
• Already existing developments around that area must use Overland for a means of egress
and access. Additional traffic signals would be necessary but perhaps not desirable by the
required mandatory users.
• The increased noise level, and the visual and air pollution brought about by this increased
highway type truck traffic on Overland Road will be a major annoyance and problem for
all the residents in this area.
• The type of tall standard lighting which will he required for this type of facility is not
compatible with the planned R-4 or L-O/Mixed Plan zoning south of Overland Road.
•
The 24-hour per day service which goes with this type of business is not compatible with
any of the present or proposed future use of the property along Overland Road (Meridian
to Eagle).
• There is no industrial use, present or planned, that is compatible with the applicant's
proposed use of this area.
Most of the points listed above will definitely incur an increase in tax dollars for the residents of
Meridian. It could also lower the property value of the homes in the area thereby decreasing the tax
dollars coming in to the city of Meridian.
For the above stated reasons the Meridian Greens Homeowners Association strongly feels this
application should be denied.
Kevin Merritt, President
MERIDIAN GREFNS IIOMEOWNFRS ASSOCIATION
0 6
RECENED
D E C 1 9 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
December 19, 1995
Mr. Wayne Berg
Meridian City Clerk
City Hall
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mr. Berg:
Recently, my husband and I became aware of a planned "Big Rig
Sales and Service Center" to be located on the north side of
Overland Road east of the driving range. We recently moved from
Boise to the Sportsman Pointe Subdivision, which is one of
several directly impacted by this proposed project.
We are aware that the Planning and Zoning Committee opposed this
project several months ago, and feel that they had just cause to
do so.
We would now like to urge the City Council members to vote
against the approval of this plan for a number of reasons, the
largest of which include noise level, hours of operation, and
impact on traffic flow through the area. It also goes without
saying that there may be a negative effect on property values in
the area adjacent to the project.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ed and Sheila Cunningham
1325 E. Puffin Street
Meridian ID 83642
Y'� I
December 19, 1995
To the Meridian City Council,
RECEIVER
C t C 1 9 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
The members of the Locust View Heights Water Users Association are concerned about the open
irrigation ditch that goes through the property adjoining the east boundary of the golf driving
range, that is between Overland Road and Interstate 84.
This ditch, that gets it's water through the Hunter and Cook Laterals, supplies water to
approximately 103 acres of properties north of Interstate 84, but no properties south of I-84.
Our question is, will we retain easy access to this ditch? Will the ditch be relocated, tubed or
both? If the ditch is tubed will there be adequate clean outs at reasonable spacing? If the ditch is
tubed what kind and size of pipe will be used?
Another concern is drainage water from this property. How will this be taken care oV
C7L
Murvin L. Lindley
President, Locust View Heights Water Users Assc.
1790 E. Cadillac Dr.
Meridian, ID 83642-6214
Phone 888-1229
Roylance & AssociatAA.
Engineers • Surveyors a Londplonners
4619 Emerald. Suite 0.2. Boise, Idaho 83706
Telephone(208)336-7390, Fax (208) 336-7391
TO LA Qt f t l�� I Li I W1
5 i
D E C 1 3 1995
GENTLEMEN: Veda OFMEHIDLAN
WE ARE SENDING YOU
❑ Shop drawings
❑ Copy of letter
0
d[EVUEEQ VF cT1MU6016T3 L
❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover
❑ Prints ❑ Plans
❑ Change order ❑
the following items:
❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
y
/
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval
❑ For your use
❑ As requested
❑ For review and comment
❑ FOR BIDS DUE
REMARKS "J"'L r
COPY
❑ Approved as submitted
❑ Approved as noted
❑ Returned for corrections
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ Return corrected prints
19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
SIGNED: v?""" r
DEC 18 '95 04:32PM CENTRAL DISTRICT H D
cinl:CENTRAL •
DISTRICT
EALTH
PARTMIENT MAIN OFFICE
.a pmvenrana veal disease and disability; to
95-522
December 18, 1995
City of Meridian
Sherry Styles
33 E. Idaho
Meridian,.iD 83642
P.2/2
N. ARMSTRONG PL • BOISE, ID 83704-0826 • (208) 375-52 11 • PAY 397-WIn
yfes; and to provat and promote site hwltl, dnd gaality of our environment.
RE: TRUCK/TRAILER SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY ON OVERLAND, EAST OF
LOCUST GROVE
DearMs. Styles:
Central District Health Department has received an application for
this project and witnessed testholes at the project site.' This
project has not been completely evaluated by this department
because more information will be needed concerning waste water
flows.
The on-site sewage system proposed has not yet been approved by
this office.
Prior to considering, an on -.site sewage system further, we would
recommend that all avenues ,be pursued for connection to. the
Meridian City Sewer.
Sincerely,
ToSchmalz, E.R.S.
Senior Environmental Health Specialist
cc Martin O. Jones, Environmental Health Supervisor
AVA / DOW COUNTY OWE
107 N. Armstrong Pboe
Fbae, ID 83704-0825
Ph. 3755211
Serving Valley, Ebnore, Boise, and Ada Counties
RMORE COUNTY OFFICE
520 E 81h Street Nodh
Momw Home- ID'
83647 Ph. 587.9225
F"
u
VAILEY'COUNFY bma
P.O. Box 1448
WCal, ID 83638
Ph. 634-7194
PAGE. 02
DEC 18 '95 16:36
J & L ENTERPRIZES, INC. AvAvAvAvAvAvAvAvAvAv
P O Box 486 • MERIDIAN , ID 83680 • Telephone (208) 378-9676 • Fax (208) 378-8728
Meridian City Council and Mayor RECEIVED
City Clerk's Office DEC 1 8 1995
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642 CITY OF MERIDIAN
Subject: Transport Truck & Trailer, Inc.
We would like to ask a favor of our City Council and Mayor.
Transport Truck & Trailer is willing to relocate their business to our growing area. It
seems they have encountered opposition from some anti -truck Meridian residents.
Complaints of noise from Jake brakes (which doesn't happen on flat roads) and the safety
of big trucks (actual safety record is very good) seem to be some of the issues. We have
been in the trucking industry for over 30 years and being proud owners of our own trucks
and trailers for the last ten years, we have heard all of this and more, but its just not the
facts. Please consider the revenue generated by the trucking industry and the
convenience of supplies every person enjoys everyday from the trucks in our Meridian
area.
Mr. Bill Howell is a very successful businessman who is fair, open and easy going. He
treats all his business dealings with honesty and makes everyone feel that they are
important to his business. He is as fair with the single -unit owner -operator as he is with
the large fleet owners.
Being property owners who realize the growth and demands for the increasing taxes
required to meet the continue pressures on schools, police and fire departments, we feel
that the addition of this business would be a most welcome asset to Meridian.
One last request:
Please ask yourselves if the oppositions are really anti -trucking or are they anti -growth,
anti -business.
Thank you, G i ` /
E. J. Adamson and L. M. Adamson
1240 Northgate Court
Meridian, Idaho 83642
e&e.-(
• �� f� ly
December 19, 1995
City of Meridian
City Council
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Id. 83642
Re: Truck/Trailer Sales and Service Facility on Overland, East of
Locust Grove.
Dear Council:
The Sportman Pointe Subdivision Homeowners Association
opposes the annexation and development of the aforementioned
property. Specific Objections are as follows:
1. The proposed use is Industrial, and not compatible nor
harmonious with adjacent properties.
2. The proposed use shall create noise, odors, and visual
pollution of greater levels normally associated with
residential activities.
3. Such a development is not appropriate in keeping with
present planned use of the adjoining and local property.
4. Traffic and Safety issues have yet to be resolved.
In conclusion the majority of homeowners in the Sportman Point
Subdivision oppose the annexation and conditional use permit as
requested by the applicant Mr. Bill Howell.
nated Homeowners Association Spokesperson
M. Thomas
0
December 19, 1995
Mr. Wayne Berg
Meridian City Clerk
City Hall
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mr. Berg:
RECEIVED
DEC 1 9 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Recently, my husband and I became aware of a planned "Big Rig
Sales and Service Center" to be located on the north side of
Overland Road east of the driving range. We recently moved from
Boise to the Sportsman Pointe Subdivision, which is one of
several directly impacted by this proposed project.
We are aware that the Planning and Zoning Committee opposed this
project several months ago, and feel that they had just cause to
do so.
We would now like to urge the City Council members to vote
against the approval of this plan for a number of reasons, the
largest of which include noise level, hours of operation, and
impact on traffic flow through the area. It also goes without
saying that there may be a negative effect on property values in
the area adjacent to the project.
Thank{ you four your consideration,
Ed and Sheila Cunningham
1325 E. Puffin Street
Meridian ID 83642
RECEWEV
DEC 1 9 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
December 19, 1995
To the Meridian City Council,
The members of the Locust View Heights Water Users Association are concerned about the open
irrigation ditch that goes through the property adjoining the east boundary of the golf driving
range, that is between Overland Road and Interstate 84.
This ditch, that gets it's water through the Hunter and Cook Laterals, supplies water to
approximately 103 acres of properties north of Interstate 84, but no properties south of I-84.
Our question is, will we retain easy access to this ditch? Will the ditch be relocated, tubed or
both? If the ditch is tubed will there be adequate clean outs at reasonable spacing? If the ditch is
tubed what kind and size of pipe will be used?
Another concern is drainage water from this property. How will this be taken care of?
Murvin L. Lindley
President, Locust View Heights Water Users Assc.
1790 E. Cadillac Dr.
Meridian, ID 83642-6214
Phone 888-1229
DEC 18 '95 04:32PM CENTRAL DISTRICT H D
Cg
CENTRALDISTRICT
rHEALTH
DEPARTMENT moi- MAINOFFICE .
Ir.
95-522
P. 2/2
•
N. ARMSTRONG PL . 801SE, ID 8370VIM . renal 17911,1
aaa atraowty; to promote heatr44fes0les, and to protect and promote the healUi oral d" -_.. 1 „^ y" -VJW
qa try of ow en�ironmenc
December 18, 1995
City of Meridian
Sherry Styles
33 E. Idaho
Meridian,. ID 83642
RE: TRUCK/TRAILER SALES AND SERVICE
LOCUST GROVE. FACILITY ON OVERLAND, EAST OF
Dear Ms. Styles:
Central District Health Department has received an application for
this project and witnessed testholes at the project site. ' This
project has not been completely evaluated by this
because more information department
flows. will be needed concerning waste water
The onsite sewage syste
this office. m proposed has not yet been approved by
Prior to considering. an on -.site sewage system further, wewould
recommend that all avenues .be
Meridian City Sewer. pursued for connection to. the
Sincerely,
rom Schmalz, £,H.S.
Senior Environmental Health Specialist
cc Martin O. Jones, Environmental Health Supervisor
ADA '/ 8015E COUNTY OFFICE
707 N. Armstrong Pbce
DOW, ID 8370d-0825
Ph. 3755211
Colley, Elmore, Boire, and Ada Counties
ELMOAE COUNTY OFFICE
520 E. 81h Street NWh
*wtoln Hon19.ID
83647 Ph. 567.9M
VALLEY COUNTY bFF10E
PA. Bos 1448
MCCOU, ID 83638
Ph. 634.7194
DEC 18 195 16:36 PAGE. 02
0 0
J & L ENTERPRIZES, INC. AVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAV
P O Box 486 • MERIDIAN , ID 83680 • Telephone (208) 378-9676 • Fax (208) 378-8728
Meridian City Council and Mayor RECEIVED
City Clerk's Office DEC 1 8 1995
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642 CITY OF MERIDIAN
Subject: Transport Truck & Trailer, Inc.
We would like to ask a favor of our City Council and Mayor.
Transport Truck & Trailer is willing to relocate their business to our growing area. It
seems they have encountered opposition from some anti -truck Meridian residents.
Complaints of noise from Jake brakes (which doesn't happen on flat roads) and the safety
of big trucks (actual safety record is very good) seem to be some of the issues. We have
been in the trucking industry for over 30 years and being proud owners of our own trucks
and trailers for the last ten years, we have heard all of this and more, but its just not the
facts. Please consider the revenue generated by the trucking industry and the
convenience of supplies every person enjoys everyday from the trucks in our Meridian
area.
Mr. Bill Howell is a very successful businessman who is fair, open and easy going. He
treats all his business dealings with honesty and makes everyone feel that they are
important to his business. He is as fair with the single -unit owner -operator as he is with
the large fleet owners.
Being property owners who realize the growth and demands for the increasing taxes
required to meet the continue pressures on schools, police and fire departments, we feel
that the addition of this business would be a most welcome asset to Meridian.
One last request:
Please ask yourselves if the oppositions are really anti -trucking or are they anti -growth,
anti -business.
Thank you, - j. 4 �
E. J. Adamson and L. M. Adamson
1240 Northgate Court
Meridian, Idaho 83642
r-ecetveit, 12
Salmon Rapids Subdivision
We the following Homeowners request that the fence parallel to S. Locust Grove
rd. be moved back 10 feet (in it's original position).
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE
(-W7 o?
Salmon Rapids Subdivision
We the following Homeowners request that the fence parallel to S. Locust Grove
rd. be moved back 10 feet (in it's original position).
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE
�_ 1 u^ _—_ _ �y�___L j7fre_Le-- Kir __ �" `' % ----------
0 0 ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION OF KEVIN HOWELL AND DIRK MARCUM
FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-9-605 M TILING OF DITCHES
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on December 5, 1995, 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 Tracey Persons,
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 December 5, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the December 5, 1995, 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 11-9-605 M., PIPING OF DITCHES, requires
all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HOWELL/MARCUM - VARIANCE Page 1
0 0
waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous,
or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either or both sides of
the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with
tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to restrain access
to said ditch, lateral or canal.
4. That the project site is approximately 4.21 acres and is
zoned I -L; that a conditional use application to allow for the
construction of an automobile/recreational vehicle repair shop on
approximately 1.49 acres has been submitted before the Planning and
Zoning Commission; that the Eight Mile Lateral crosses Franklin
Road through a 72" pipe arch, exceeding the 48" standard
established by Meridian City.
5. That the Applicant is requesting that it be granted a
variance from the above ditch piping requirements and be allowed
not to pipe the Eight Mile Lateral; that the Eight Mile Lateral
runs along the entire northerly boundary of this site; that
previous variance requests allowing canals, ditches, or laterals
not to be tiled that required more than a 48" pipe to tile have
been granted.
6. That the Applicants propose, as a portion of the
Conditional Use Permit, to fence the perimeter of the entire site
BO there will be no safety hazard posed by not tiling lateral.
7. Tracey Persons, the Applicant's representative,
testified, stating again what Bill Henson, of the Nampa 6 Meridian
Irrigation District, had made comment to, that the 48 inch existing
pipe would not support the water flow at this site; that a 72 inch
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HOWELL/MARCUM - VARIANCE Page 2
0 0
round pipe would support this flow.
B. That the comments received from the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District stated that the Eight Mile Lateral at this
location has flows of about 5,000 miners inches of water and that
it is doubtful whether this amount of could or would flow through
a 48 inch pipe.
9. That Kevin Howell and Dirk Marcum are the owners of the
property. of the property.
10. That the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department and
Meridian City Water Department submitted comments regarding this
application and they are incorporated herein as if set forth herein
in full.
11. That no other testimony was heard at the hearing.
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 Ordinance.
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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HOWELL/MARCUM - VARIANCE Page 3
judicial notice.
4. That the City Council may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes,
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and the State.
5. That the following provisions of Section 11-9-605 M,
PIPING OF DITCHES, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance are
noted which 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 is considering changing the
Ordinance regarding the piping of large ditches if the piping would
require a pipe larger than 48 inches; that the Ordinance may be
changed.
7. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that
must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows:
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council
unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing,
that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would 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;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HOWELL/MARCUM - VARIANCE Page 4
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 be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area in which the property is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the
Idaho code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying
the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
8. That there does appear to be a specific benefit, profit,
economic gain or convenience to the Applicant if this variance is
granted; however, to require tiling of the ditch would cause
extreme hardship to the Applicant, and the Council is considering
amending the ditch tiling ordinance so that ditches of this size
would not be required to be tiled; the City has previously granted
variances where the size of the tile would be greater than 48
inches and for the Eight Mile Lateral.
9. That the requirement of tiling ditches is a health and
safety requirement; that in a prior variance application it was
stated that it may be more hazardous to have the ditch tiled than
it would be not to have it tiled and it appears that to require
tiling of this ditch would not achieve the safety purpose for which
tiling is required in the Ordinance.
10. That the irrigation district affected has not demanded
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HOWELL/MARCUM - VARIANCE Page 5
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 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 result in extraordinary
hardship to the Applicant.
C. That the granting of a variance would not 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 not 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 be granted.
13. That as a condition of granting the variance, the
Applicant shall place, and maintain, landscaping along the Eight
Mile Lateral to improve the aesthetics of the property.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HOWELL/MARCUM - VARIANCE Page 6
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN MORROW
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN CORRIE
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
0
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED v A`
VOTED
VOTED
DECISION
That it is decided the Application for a variance from
11-9-605 M is granted; that the Applicant shall note the Eight
Mile Lateral; that the Applicant shall place and construct
landscaping along the Eight Mile Lateral as a condition of being
granted the variance.
APPROVED• x I - DISAPPROVED•
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
HOWELL/MARCUM - VARIANCE
Page 7
TRANSPORT
TRUCK and TRAILER, INC.
December 20, 1995
Will Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 E Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Mr. Berg;
CEI1
DEC 2 0 1995
CITY OF MERIDIAN
I have enclosed a paper copy of the slide presentation as given before the Meridian City
Council on the evening of December 19, 1995. The service bureau that supplies our
photographic needs will not have duplicate 35mm transparancies finished until late
morning tomorrow. I will hand deliver a set to your office at that time. Please feel free
to keep the transparencies with the file. Thank you for your patience with us.
S' cerely,
�Ji Howell
4665 Enterprise St. • P.O. Box 15324 • Boise, Idaho 83715 • 208-344-0999
n
CD
CD
X
O
0.
O
CD
O
0.
O
sv
N
-
O
C
�
cn
CD
CD
CD
v
FF
L
V�
o
N
O
cin
.
o
m
_
oo
Z
U
°
o
CCD
7n
°
o
CD
rn
v
cn
p
ccn
o
CD3
CD
°
0
°
CD
�°
C)
m
m
o
CD
v
(n
0
cn
CD
cn
CD
v
FF
O
rr
CD
00 9
CA a
cn
o =r
0
CD
CD
CD
Ul -
p
O
CD
W
-0
OO
<
o
ch
CD
O
(
cn
u)
�
Q
�
Q
�
7rj
CQ
�
n
.w•waww wowo
4
wnmiww
now
ww�ou
wowwnv oo.
wawwe
•Sa
Li
0000
i
z
°p 0
XZ,
034o
!
m
omzpti=!
A m m .0 C; �oou•. .wov. wowo
�cap�0.
�
ila�Z
000 0Z'M
0q-4 33 r.D !
s
m F
m i b
z ww•newr
&b b
M
z
a
°mzp
MM mr
cw
°rbo
N4lmcm
Wmymm°m
op
(a>m<
.0>pmo
>1,m�a
omr>o
V°25
O(a9i
�D0 a
mZ>
Q
-----------
�m;
a
..�. .b o
L J
C • DRIVING RANGE / RV PARK % I
I I
mid,-J 111111111111 If H I I
a I _
e�i•g� I — m �na.e.
1 m d
4$,;�6 III ! . T� a,
��€•#� p m rrFWLR I II �-N-II-I� > 111 m 9 r
a}
am s
�Z
R
III la ��
yco
0
n I I I s1
r III I ��W
{C-1
IIII( o n Am
X
oM 4>�
m p4l 9l m y z z Z
I :r+`• 0
8F
II / m
III t °
aip =In ... 1 1611 I' i€� ! • °
gm= mP D 66 RE€ al`1�6�i�S66666I, �� 1
m;
a1mcm , g 3Bliq 6g......
comm sPmm•� 11"1R �I•1R8,16F '.•' 1 F
em«0 >aDr71 B�E6 it `��°�1€;d!�'911 i
W«a«m ��««O>
>18o� +� 9 :: '� Ill�lg ii4N yd11 ° 1 6
YM_ rm y
mp �> {d��i i. 61 �31�rra i�lr t
1� �r9 ii �jj1•:�.A1
M
Z 1 D 1•s!� AR�[ j•"t¢M9 1 4
iy> [ 11 Viii V71€ 4
16 i $
f
950a-iea9 ;,`, # 817E PLAN OOO
TRANSPORT TRUCK AND TRAILER
Y 1 ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES PA OOO
c � Engineers Surwyory Landplannera ya ./.
M19 Emeda Su11. 0-2 Bdw Itla o 83)09 (20a) 33a-7390
7
(V
G
zT
n'
m
(n'
v
l<
p
N -0
n CD CDO
(n Q
N CCD
Cl
TI
P%%
V
W :C
Z
CD CW
O
CCD o
cn
n• �
CD
® pp
U) C:
l< �.
c�
0
N �
0
CD CD CD
Cn
CD N
Q.
1l
n
r+
ILI
r; A
WR
Fw
rT � P. � v .. � I�• � I r I
v/�
n �
O �
CDC7 Cn N Cn O
�- O v O O 3-6
3 cD :33 O
CD
CD CD r C7 v CD
O :3
cn CD v
=s Cn
-s CD
v N < N
07 CD n
c: in O cD CD CD
O0 CD CD n CSD
cn —
CD 3 O CD
CD O CSD
_Q cn CD
o go
v
3 (nCD
CD <
cn 0 .
CD O
�.
O —
cn
0
O
3
CCD
C
O
CQ
O
Q
:3.
0
CD
CD C
U) CCD
c�
O :D
� O
C: CCD
CD m
:3 N
O.
CQ �
cr O
En
�• O
n in
'D '-"-
;n
cr
c�
0
5 cn
CD CD
N U.
C
C7
O
O
C% cn
O
CD r•*
CQ zr
CD CD
CD
CD X.
<
.cam
0• O
L
W
OuCi
�3
c
CD
-
CDD
N
L•
O
CD
Q.
CCD
zT
CD
CD
N
O
c�
L
W
�0
C�3oi
00
--4
0
CD
[7
CD
n
T
C)
CD
Q
�
`G
o
CD
O
—
C
-
Cn
C7
—
CD
Cn
CD
-0
7.
p
0
:3
�
CD
—
v
Q
v
m
CD
CD
CD
CD CD
o
�<
<
a
v
2
CD
�'
0
0
CD
N
O
�_
CD
0
z'
N
CD
N
n
r
_0
Cn
CD
CD
v
m
m
n
ty
NW
n
=r
Oi
Ol
O
N
3�
O
�
"
U
7
a
a
p
C
m
N
0
Q
O
O
=
v
,O"(1
Q(D
90
fn
D
CD
s
fn
N
n
CD
CD
fn
N
O
i
O
N
O
A
O
O
0
D
CD
D
CD
rF
Q
O
i
r
CD
CD
N
a
10001/004
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
� ] ado county highway district
318 East 371h • Boise. IdOho 83714 • Phone (208) 345-7680
DATE: December 7. 1995
DELIVER FAX TO: INTERESTED PARTIES
TITLE/DEPARTMENT:
ADDRESS:
RECEIVING FAX NUMBER:
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES 4
Including Cover Sheet
FROM ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT FAX NUMBER (208) 345-7650
NAME: Jerry D. Nyman. Dirertnr
TITLE/DEPARTMENT: ACHD
COMMENTS: Enclosed for Your attentign is a rnnp of tha action
taken by ACHD Commissioners. This information is provided in
order that your jurisdiction will have adequate time to determine
your vote at the APA Board meeting to be held on December 18.
You may be lobbied by citizens, so if you have questions, please call
PLEASE CALL US IF YOU 00 NC7 RECEIVE ALL FAX TRANSACTIONS Terry Little at
SUCCESSFULLY. (208) 345-7680. 345-7676.
DEC 07 '95 10:44
208 345 7650 PAGE.01
11
coc�no
JAMES E. BRUCE, President December 7, 1995
SHERRY R. HUBER. Vice President
SUSAN S. EASTIAKE. Secretary
ACHD COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
BENCH -VALLEY TRANSPORTATION STUDY
At their meeting on December 6, 1995, ACRD Commissioner Jim
Bruce moved to submit the following recommendations for the
Bench -Valley Transportation Study to the Ada Planning Associa-
tion Board at their meeting of December 18, 1995. Commissioner
Eastlake seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
1. We intend to construct the following projects to improve
north -south and east -west connections between the valley
and the bench in the Bench -Valley Study area:
A. Curtis Road, 3 lanes, Fairview to Veterans Memorial
Parkway at Chinden, including intersection improve-
ments;
B. Ustick Road, 3 lanes, Cole to connection at new Cur-
tis extension (includes portion of Mountain View);
C. Glenwood/Cole 2 -way couplet, south of Goddard -Moun-
tain View;
D. Maple Grove, 3 lanes, McMillan to Chinden;
E. Five Mile, 3 lanes, McMillan to Chinden.
2. We intend to construct the projects in the following order:
A. First, Curtis Road and Ustick Road, design in 1996,
right-of-way acquisition in 1996 (to the extent fund-
ing allows), and completed in 1997, construction in
1998 and 1999;
B. Second, Maple Grove, design and right-of-way acquisi-
tion as funding allows, construction to follow immedi-
ately if funding is available;
C. Third, Five Mile, design and right-of-way acquisition
at the same time as Maple Grove, construction after
Maple Grove;
D. Fourth, Glenwood/Cole couplet, defer design until
first three projects are completed, acquire protec-
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Bolse, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345.7680
DEC 07 '95 10:44 208 345 7650 PAGE.02
0 0
ACHD Commission Recommendations
Bench valley Transportation study
December 7, 1995
Page 2
tive right-of-way if property is threatened by devel-
opment. We intend to reexamine this corridor if the
Spaulding Ranch Historic District is permanently
protected in public ownership.
3. We intend to provide extensive design elements to mitigate
the impact of these roadway connections to ensure the
continuation of these single family residential neighbor-
hoods. We intend the three lane streets will have land-
scaped medians wherever possible, designated bicycle
lanes, landscaped strips between roadway and sidewalk, and
on -street parking, where desirable.
We intend to provide safe pedestrian crossings, traffic
calming measures on intersecting streets where necessary
to prevent excessive cut -through traffic, and restrictions
on truck traffic through residential neighborhoods. When
appropriate, we intend to offer "good -will" buy-out of
homes to allow residents to relocate and others to buy on
the street with full knowledge of the conditions.
4. We intend to acquire right-of-way in each project as neces-
sary to preserve the corridor needed for expansion to 5
lanes. We do not intend to expand these roadway sections
to 5 lanes within the next 20 years.
5. We agree to designate a new Boise River crossing corridor
in the vicinity of the Five Mile Road section line. We
intend to acquire protective right-of-way only if the
corridor is threatened by development. We agree to pro-
tect possible extensions to all three West Valley Bench
arterials - Cloverdale, Five Mile, and Maple Grove - with
the understanding that:
A. We intend that the local traffic in this area of the
city be balanced on these three parallel arterials;
B. We intend that Eagle Road, Eagle By -Pass, and new
State Highway 55 be completed and designated as the
"West Boise By -Pass" for all non -regional traffic and
for all through truck traffic;
C. And, we intend that the Five Mile interchange with
I-84 be completed before this river crossing is built.
If Five Mile is carrying, or is projected to carry, a
disproportionate amount of the north/south traffic in the
area when the river crossing is designed, Five Mile will
DFC 07 '95 12:45 POR 745 7A -;R RAf;F. R3
ACRD Commission Recommendations
. Bench Valley Transportation Study
December 7, 1995
Page 3
not be extended north of Chinden to connect to the new
river crossing.
6. We intend to preserve the 30th Street extension and the
Adams Street extension only as development occurs.
7. We intend to apply the "Proposed Mitigation Strategy for
Street Widening/Extensions within Residential Areas" to
the Bench -Valley projects.
8. We strongly urge ITD to designate the Five Mile inter-
change as a priority project, to designate and build Eagle
Road as an expressway and to complete the other ITD
projects as listed by staff.
DEC 07 195 10:46 208 345 7650 PRGE.04
/�Ceilrecf. �2 (y-�S
ALLIED C*NSTRUCTION, I*.��`��
P.O. BOX 4245, BOtse, IDAHO 83711-4245 PH: (208) 33&5911 FAX: (208) 338-1160
NOTICE OF ROAD CLOSURE
To: Local Residents, Emergency Agencies, School District, and Utilities
From: Mick Fairchild
Subject: Linder Road Bridge #224 Proj 25470
Daze: December 15, 1995
Starl4n& Dec 25. 1995 and lasting ; 2 weeks Linder Rd.,
south of Franklin Rd, will be closed to all trate for bridge replacement
over Ten Mile Creek.
A temporary road has been established through Waltman Lane. (See map below)
The temporary road will connect Waltman Ln to Loon St. It has been designed to
support all vehicle traffic. Detour signs will be posted to control traffic flow during this
period. If you have ahy questions please call the above number and ask for Mick.
This plan has been ,established through the cooperation of the Ada County Highway
District, Landover Estates, and Skyline Development. Thank -you for your cooperation!
Please drive safely and obey all detour signs.' The temporary road will be one
lane for approa 100' - please be careful and obey yield siensr
I
una a ut
v
tr
LP
CPintail Dr
A �
Gr St
a St
C
-�
'S r
.1
Ln
Waltman Ln
10
Madman
W. Gander or
Wsl
Verhans or
RECEI VEG
perry Rd
DEC 1 8 199
l o\prulaalaolmdldm p14
MERID;AN
CITY ENGINEE7.
Fwyr 9+ 1 FV4- ln:w A.nn.